I am sick and tired of hearing about “underage drinking.” I am tired of the media and University authorities referring to underage drinking as though it were a serious problem.

It’s not.

I am tired of seeing signs that say, “Buying alcohol for minors could cost you.” I am tired of hearing about parties being broken up because a few 19-year-olds were present. I am tired of new, tougher tailgating restrictions and keg laws. And I am tired of getting requests for beer runs from the 18-year-old who lives above me.

Underage drinking is NOT a problem. It IS a crime, committed on a daily basis by scores of N.C. State students, but that doesn’t make it a problem. For a problem to be a problem, it must impact some person’s life in a negative way. Underage drinking does no harm to anyone, except in rare cases.

In fact, to show how harmless underage drinking is, let me walk you through a typical, albeit strictly hypothetical, underage drinking scenario. Little Johnny comes to me and says, “Hey, Jeff, can you get me some beer?” “Sure thing,” I reply, and I head down to Kangaroo and buy Johnny and his friends a couple cases of Budweiser. Then I give Johnny his change and go back to my apartment, and Johnny and his friends spend the night drinking, laughing and having a great time.

By getting beer for Johnny, I have done a noble and friend-worthy act: I have materially improved his life and made him happy.

We must keep in mind, however, that one of Johnny’s friends might drink too much, try to drive home, and kill himself. And indeed, this is the main reason why the drinking age is currently fixed at 21. According to MADD online, in the 1970s, several states changed their drinking age from 21 to 18, and these states immediately experienced a sharp increase in road deaths among persons aged 18 to 20. When the drinking age was changed back to 21, highway deaths fell back to their original figures.

We forbid 18-year-olds from drinking for the simple reason that if they don’t drink, they are less likely to go out on the highways and kill themselves.

I’m not going to disagree with this point; it’s completely correct. However, it rests entirely on dangers of drinking and driving. If some particular 18-year-old resolves NOT to drink and drive (nor ride in a car with anyone doing same), he has completely protected himself from the dangers of the lowered drinking age.

God knows drinking and driving is a terrible thing; but God also knows that drinking, in itself, is NOT a terrible thing, and that, on the contrary, it can be a source of great pleasure to man. I’ve had some of the most fun times of my life while drunk, and I bet you, reader, can say the same.

Here is another problem with a drinking age of 21. Alcohol is like a new language: it is much easier to handle if you become familiar with it while you are young. In England, France, and Germany, beer is readily available to a 15-year-old; and as such, that 15-year-old learns to respect beer, and treat it as an everyday commodity. To an American youth, on the other hand, beer always has the charm of rarity, and the appeal of the forbidden fruit; so when Johnny American gets his hands on some beer, he binges.

Beer, ladies and gentlemen, is a drink to be respected. Beer should not be slugged at the fastest rate possible with the specific intent of getting drunk; it should, on the contrary, be drunk slowly and sociably. Perhaps if we acquainted our children with these simple facts, rather than just impressing on them the message “Drinking is bad!” they would be more inclined to drink responsibly when they grow older.

It comes down to this: MADD estimates that in the years 1975-2002, the lives of more than 21,000 late-teenagers were saved by the fixing of the drinking age at 21. That is roughly 800 lives a year.

Perhaps if we funneled the money we put into deterring underage drinking into deterring drunk driving to an even stronger degree, we could reduce this 800 to an even lower figure. (By the way, MADD gives no evidence that a drinking age of 18 resulted in more traffic fatalities in any other group than 18- to 20-year-olds.)

And even if 800 American late-teenagers do die as a result of lowering the drinking age, there are 12 million persons aged 18-20 in the United States, so this is equivalent to a loss of .007 percent, or seven in a hundred thousand. Is it worth letting this .007 percent kill themselves through their own foolishness, so that the remaining 99.9993 percent can get drunk and enjoy themselves? I am afraid that I must say yes.

E-mail Jeff at [email protected]