Effects of minimum drinking age laws: review and analyses of the literature from 1960 to 2000
by Alexander C. Wagenaar , Traci L. Toomey THE MINIMUM legal drinking age (MLDA) is the most well-studied alcohol control policy in the United States (Wagenaar and Toomey, 2000). The intention of this policy is to lower alcohol use and its associated problems among youth. Following Prohibition, most states established an age21 MLDA. During the early 1970s, a trend toward lowering the MLDA to age 18, 19 or 20 began in the United States, providing many natural experiments. As a result of research evidence indicating that traffic crashes among youth increased following lowering of the legal age, a citizens' effort began urging states to raise the MLDA back to age 21. In 1984, the federal government enacted the Uniform Drinking Age Act, which provided for the withholding of federal highway funds from states that failed to increase their MLDA (King and Dudar, 1987). By 1988, all states had established an age-21 MLDA. The increase in MLDA across multiple states again provided researchers with many natural experiments to assess effects of these policy changes on alcohol consumption and related problems among youth. Despite this long history, the debate over the MLDA continues. Part of this debate is whether the age-21 MLDA is really effective in reducing alcohol-related problems. This debate is particularly relevant to college campuses because the majority of students on many campuses are under age 21. Some college administrators argue that the age-21 law has caused more problems on college campuses, not less (Lonnstrom, 1985). To determine the overall effect of the age-21 MLDA on youth, including college-age students, the existing research literature should be critically reviewed. The purpose of this review is to summarize all studies available in the peer-reviewed published literature over the past four decades that evaluated the effects of public policies establishing a legal minimum age for purchase and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages. Most studies assessed effects of the MLDA on consumption and alcohol-related problems among all those under age 21--college students and those not in college. Some MLDA studies specifically assessed effects of MLDA changes on college students alone. Given the current discussions on college campuses, we provide a review of the college studies in addition to a summary of the overall MLDA literature. A second objective of this article is to describe key issues in public debates regarding MLDA policies. Method We obtained all identified published studies on the drinking age from 1960 to 1999, a total of 132 documents. Comprehensive searches were conducted of four databases to identify studies of interest: ETOH (1960-1999 [National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism's alcohol and alcohol problems science database]), MEDLINE (1966-1999), Current Contents (1994-1999) and Social Science Abstracts (1983-1999). The entire record for each document was included in the search; thus, any record with any search term in the title, keywords, subject headings, descriptors or abstract fields was identified. Search terms used for each database were as follows (where * is the truncation indicator to include all forms of the root word): * ETOH: (minimum age OR drinking age OR purchase age OR legal age OR MDA OR MLDA) OR ([teen* OR adolescen* OR young OR college* OR youth* OR student* OR underage* OR minor*] AND [sale* OR enforce* OR deterrence* OR avail* OR access* OR crackdown OR ID OR identification OR compliance]) * MEDLINE and Current Contents: (minimum age OR drinking age OR purchase age OR legal age OR MLDA) OR ([teen* OR adolescen* OR young OR college* OR youth OR student* OR underage* OR minor*] AND [sale* OR enforce* OR deterrence* OR avail* OR access* OR crackdown OR ID OR identification OR compliance]) * Social Science Abstracts: (minimum age OR drinking age OR purchase age OR legal age OR MDA OR MLDA) In addition, two previous literature reviews were used to identify relevant studies (Wagenaar, 1983a, 1993). We obtained and reviewed the original document for each study and coded eight key variables for each study. These variables include the jurisdiction studied (i.e., state or province), specific outcome measures analyzed (e.g., self-reported drinking, car crash fatalities) and whether the study was specific to college student populations. In addition, three key indicators of methodological quality were coded for each study. The first is sampling design, distinguishing lower quality nonprobability sampling versus higher quality probability sampling or census data. The second quality indicator is the research or study design, with lower quality studies consisting of cross-sectional (one time-point) observations only versus higher quality studies that used pre-post (one observation before a policy change and one after), longitudinal (more than 2 but fewer than 20 repeated observations) or time-series (20 or more repeated observations over time) designs. The third quality indicator is whether some form of comparison group was used; studies with no comparison groups are of low quality. Finally, we coded whether the findings were statistically significant. If the results were significant, we coded the direction of the relationship between legal age for drinking and a specific outcome measure. Effects of drinking age on alcohol consumption We located 48 published studies that assessed the effects of changes in the legal minimum drinking age on indicators of alcohol consumption (Table 1). In the 48 studies, a total of 78 alcohol consumption outcome measures were analyzed (e.g., sales figures, self-reported drinking). Of the 78 analyses, 27 (35%) found a statistically significant inverse relationship between the legal drinking age and alcohol consumption; that is, as the legal age was lowered, drinking increased, and as the legal age was raised, drinking decreased. An additional 8 analyses that found an inverse relationship did not report significance levels. Of the 78 analyses, only 5 found a positive relationship between the legal drinking age and consumption. In short, 45% of all analyses found that a higher legal drinking age is associated with reduced alcohol consumption. Of the 78 analyses of alcohol consumption, 21 were the weaker cross-sectional designs, and 57 were pre-post, longitudinal or time-series designs. Of the 21 cross-sectional analyses, 8 (38%) found a significant inverse relationship between legal drinking age and alcohol consumption, whereas only 3 found a significant positive relationship. An additional 4 analyses found an inverse relationship, and 1 found a positive relationship; however, significance levels were not reported. Of the 57 longitudinal analyses (i.e., which we define as any analyses that included repeated measures over time), 19 (33%) found a significant inverse relationship; only 1 longitudinal study found a significant positive relationship. An additional 4 longitudinal analyses found an inverse relationship but did not report significance levels. Of the 78 analyses of alcohol consumption, 55 (71%) included a comparison group of some kind. For 3 analyses, it was not clear whether a comparison group was used (not avail.). Of the 55 analyses including comparison groups, 23 (42%) found a significant inverse relationship; only 4 found a significant positive relationship. An additional 3 analyses found an inverse relationship, and 1 analysis found a positive relationship but no significance levels were reported. Of the 20 analyses that did not include comparison groups, 4 found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and alcohol consumption, and none found a positive relationship. An additional 4 analyses without comparison groups found an inverse relationship but did not report significance levels. Of the 78 analyses of alcohol consumption, 58 (74%) included probability samples or a complete census of the relevant population, and 11 analyses clearly did not use a probability sample or census. For an additional 9 analyses, it was unclear whether a probability sample or census was used. Of the 58 with a probability sample or census, 20 (34%) found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and alcohol consumption; only 1 study found a significant positive relationship. An additional 8 studies found an inverse relationship but did not report significance levels, and 26 analyses found no significant relationship. Of the 11 analyses without a probability sample or census, 2 found a significant inverse relationship, and 3 found a significant positive relationship. One additional study found a positive relationship but did not report significance. Of the 9 analyses for which it was unclear whether a probability sample or census was used, 5 found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and alcohol consumption; none found a significant positive relationship. Finally, of the 78 analyses of alcohol consumption, only 24 were specific to college student populations. Of the 24 college-specific analyses, 3 (13%) found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and alcohol consumption, 3 found a significant positive relationship, and 15 found no significant relationship. One additional study found an inverse relationship with no report on significance levels. Of the 54 analyses that were not college specific, 24 (44%) found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and alcohol consumption. Only 1 found a significant positive relationship. An additional 7 analyses found an inverse relationship, and 1 found a positive relationship but did not report significance levels. In conclusion, the preponderance of evidence suggests that higher legal drinking ages reduce alcohol consumption. Of all analyses that reported significant effects, 87% found higher drinking ages associated with lower alcohol consumption. Only 13% found the opposite. The evidence is not entirely consistent: Almost half (46%) of the analyses found no association between the legal age and indicators of alcohol consumption. However, focusing on the 33 of the 78 studies of high methodological quality (i.e., those that include a longitudinal design, comparison groups and probability sampling or use of a census) reveals that 11 (33%) of the 33 higher quality studies found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and alcohol consumption. Only 1 (3%) found a significant positive relationship. Only 3 of these studies of higher quality were college specific, and results were not significant in all 3 studies. Effects of drinking age on driving after drinking and traffic crashes We located 57 published studies that assessed the effects of changes in the legal minimum drinking age on indicators of driving after drinking and traffic crashes (Table 2). In the 57 studies, a total of 102 crash outcome measures were analyzed (e.g., fatal crashes, drink-driving crashes, self-reported driving after drinking). Of the 102 analyses, 52 (51%) found a statistically significant inverse relationship between the legal drinking age and crashes; that is, as the legal age was lowered, the number of crashes increased, and as the legal age was raised, the number of crashes decreased. (From here on, we use the term crashes to include all traffic-related outcome measures.) An additional 12 analyses that found an inverse relationship did not report significance levels. Of the 102 analyses, only 2 found a positive relationship between the legal drinking age and traffic crashes. In short, more than half of all analyses found that a higher legal drinking age is associated with decreased rates of traffic crashes. Of the 102 analyses of traffic crashes, 14 were the weaker cross-sectional designs, and 88 were longitudinal designs. Of the 14 cross-sectional analyses, 5 (36%) found a significant inverse relationship between legal drinking age and crashes, whereas only 1 found a significant positive relationship. Of the 88 longitudinal analyses, 47 (53%) found a significant inverse relationship; none found a significant positive relationship. An additional 12 found an inverse relationship, and 1 found a positive relationship but did not report significance levels. Of the 102 analyses of traffic crashes, 95 (93%) included a comparison group of some kind (for 2 analyses it was not clear whether a comparison group was used). Of the 95 analyses including comparison groups, 50 (53%) found a significant inverse relationship; only 1 found a significant positive relationship. An additional 11 analyses found an inverse relationship but no significance levels were reported. Of the 5 analyses that did not include comparison groups, 1 found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and traffic crashes. One additional analysis without comparison groups found an inverse relationship, and 1 found a positive relationship but did not report significance levels. Of the 102 analyses of traffic crashes, 94 (92%) included probability samples or a complete census of the relevant population, and 3 analyses clearly did not use a probability sample or census. For an additional 5 analyses it was unclear whether a probability sample or census was used. Of the 94 with a probability sample or census, 49 (52%) found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and traffic crashes; only 1 study found a significant positive relationship. An additional 11 studies found an inverse relationship, and 1 study found a positive relationship but did not report significance levels; 34 analyses found no significant relationship. Of the 3 analyses without a probability sample or census, 2 found a significant inverse relationship, and none found a significant positive relationship. Of the 5 analyses for which it was unclear whether a probability sample or census was used, 1 found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and traffic crashes; none found a significant positive relationship. Finally, of the 102 analyses of traffic crashes, only 6 were specific to college student populations. Of the 6 college-specific analyses, 2 (33%) found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and traffic crashes, 1 found a positive relationship but significance was not reported, and 3 found no significant relationship. Of the 96 analyses that were not college specific, 50 (52%) found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and traffic crashes; only 1 found a significant positive relationship. An additional 12 analyses found an inverse relationship but did not report significance levels. In conclusion, the preponderance of evidence indicates that higher legal drinking ages reduce rates of traffic crashes. Of all analyses that reported significant effects, 98% found higher drinking ages associated with lower rates of traffic crashes. Only 2% found the opposite. The evidence, however, is not entirely consistent: 35% of the analyses found no association between the legal age and indicators of traffic crashes. However, focusing on the 79 studies of higher methodological quality (i.e., those that include a longitudinal design, comparison groups and probability sampling or use of a census) reveals that 46 (58%) of these 79 higher quality studies found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and traffic crashes; none found a significant positive relationship. None of these studies of higher quality were college specific. Effects of drinking age on other health and social problem outcomes We identified 24 published studies that assessed the effects of changes in the legal minimum drinking age on indicators of other health and social problem outcomes (other than traffic crashes), such as suicide, homicide or vandalism (Table 3). In the 24 studies, 61 outcome measures were analyzed. Of the 61 analyses, 10 (16%) found a statistically significant inverse relationship between the legal drinking age and other outcomes; that is, as the legal age was lowered, the number of problems increased, and as the legal age was raised, the number of problems decreased. Of the 61 analyses, 4 found a positive relationship between the legal drinking age and other outcomes; an additional 2 analyses that found an inverse relationship and 1 that found a positive relationship did not report significance levels. Of the 61 analyses of other health and social problems, 16 were the weaker cross-sectional designs, and 45 were longitudinal designs. Of the 16 cross-sectional analyses, 1 (6%) found a significant inverse relationship between legal drinking age and other problems; none found a significant positive relationship. Of the 45 longitudinal analyses, 9 (20%) found a significant inverse relationship; 3 found a significant positive relationship. Of the 61 analyses of other health and social problems, 36 (59%) included a comparison group of some kind (for 4 analyses it was not clear whether a comparison group was used). Of the 36 analyses including comparison groups, 9 (25%) found a significant inverse relationship; none found a significant positive relationship. One additional analysis found a positive relationship but no significance levels were reported. Of the 25 analyses that did not include comparison groups, 1 found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and other problems, and 3 found a positive relationship. Of the 61 analyses of other problems, 47 (77%) included probability samples or a complete census of the relevant population, 12 analyses clearly did not use a probability sample or census, and for an additional 2 analyses it was unclear whether a probability sample or census was used. Of the 47 with a probability sample or census, 9 (19%) found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and other problems; only 2 studies found a significant positive relationship. An additional 2 studies found an inverse relationship but did not report significance levels, and 33 analyses found no significant relationship. Of the 12 analyses without a probability sample or census, 1 found a significant inverse relationship, and 1 found a significant positive relationship. Of the 2 analyses for which it was unclear whether a probability sample or census was used, neither found significant inverse or positive relationships between the legal age and other problems. Finally, of the 61 analyses of other health and social problems, 34 were specific to college student populations. Of the 34 college-specific analyses, 2 (6%) found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and other health and social problems, and 3 found a significant positive relationship. Two additional studies found an inverse relationship with no report on significance levels. Of the 27 analyses that were not college specific, 8 (30%) found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and other problems; none found a significant positive relationship. One additional analysis found a positive relationship but did not report significance levels. In conclusion, although there is clearly some evidence that higher legal drinking ages reduce rates of other health and social problems, results are not as consistent as they are for traffic crash outcome indicators. Of all analyses that reported significant effects, 75% found higher drinking ages associated with lower rates of problems. Only 25% found the opposite. The evidence, however, is not entirely consistent: 72% of the analyses found no association between the legal age and indicators of other problems. However, focusing on the 23 studies of higher methodological quality (i.e., those that include a longitudinal design, comparison groups and probability sampling or use of a census) reveals that 8 (35%) of the 23 higher quality studies found a significant inverse relationship between the legal age and other problems; none found a significant positive relationship. Two of those studies of higher quality were college specific; however, results of both were not significant. Given the diverse types of outcomes included in this section, we also stratified the analyses of the higher methodological studies into four groups that were more homogeneous. Of the 16 analyses of nontraffic injuries (fatal and nonfatal), 4 found a significant inverse relationship between the legal drinking age and injuries; none found a positive relationship. Of the 10 analyses of "other crime" (e.g., vandalism, disorderly conduct), 3 found a significant inverse relationship between the legal drinking age and crime; none found a positive relationship. Only 1 study that analyzed the relationship between social, academic and employment problems was of higher methodological quality, and it did not find any statistically significant results. Similarly, only 3 studies that analyzed "other problems" (e.g., alcoholism, cirrhosis, general alcohol-related problems) were of higher quality, and none found significant results. Mediating Factors In addition to studies specifically evaluating the effects of minimum drinking age policies, there is a growing scientific literature on several closely related factors that can be deemed to mediate the relationship between drinking age law and outcomes of interest. Such factors include self-reported ease of access to alcohol and sources of alcohol, purchase success rates by underage-appearing buyers at bars and liquor stores, use of false age-identification documents, patterns of enforcement of the drinking age, effects of enforcement "crackdowns" and use of home delivery as a source of alcohol for youth. We identified 34 published articles on these factors; findings are summarized in Table 4. Results show that more than half to more than three-quarters of teens surveyed report that alcohol is easy to obtain. Moreover, explicit tests of the propensity of alcohol retailers to sell to underage youth in purchase-attempt studies found 44-97% of outlets tested sold to underage youth with no request for age identification. Such studies show that the beneficial effects of the age-21 policy to date in terms of reduced drinking and reduced traffic crashes among youth have largely been achieved with minimal implementation of the law. Most studies reveal that use of false age identification documents is only a modest problem. Estimates range from 5% to 21% of teens report using false age identification to obtain alcohol. One study was an outlier, finding 46% of undergraduate sociology students on one campus report use of false age identification (Durkin et al., 1996). Most studies on use of false age identification to date have not specifically focused on college students. It is possible that the accessibility and use of false identification documents is higher in college environments, but we do not know whether this is the case based on currently available data. The limited degree to which age-21 policies have been implemented is also shown in several enforcement studies. Such studies have consistently found very low levels of enforcement of the age-21 policy. Enforcement actions against those selling or providing alcohol to minors are particularly rare (Wagenaar and Wolfson, 1994). Studies of the effects of increased enforcement show it to be a highly effective means to reduce alcohol sales to minors. Increased enforcement, specifically compliance checks on retail alcohol outlets, typically cuts rates of sales to minors by at least half (Grube, 1997; Lewis et al., 1996; Preusser et al., 1994). Finally, a recent study reports that 10% of high school seniors and 7% of 18- to 20-year olds use the home delivery services of alcohol retailers to obtain alcoholic beverages (Fletcher et al., 2000). In summary, research on mediating factors between the establishment of a legal age for purchase and consumption of alcohol and actual effects on teen drinking and alcohol-related problems indicates clear means of further increasing the effectiveness of this policy. Such means include, most notably, increased rates of enforcement to prevent alcohol sales to minors. Other means to improve implementation of the age-21 policy, such as efforts to reduce use of false age identification and tighter restrictions on home delivery of alcohol, may also help enhance effectiveness of this law. Conclusion Compared with a wide range of other programs and efforts to reduce drinking among teenagers, increasing the legal age for purchase and consumption of alcohol to 21 appears to have been the most successful effort to date (compare studies summarized in Table I with studies cited in reviews of other prevention efforts such as Moskowitz [1989] and Gorman and Speer [1996]). The magnitude of effects of the age-21 policy may appear small, particularly in studies using weak research designs and having low levels of statistical power. However, even modest effects applied to the entire population of youth result in very large societal benefits. For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, using an average estimated reduction in traffic fatalities due to the legal drinking age of 13%, calculates that the age-21 policy prevented 846 deaths in 1997 and prevented a total of 17,359 deaths since 1975 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1998). A large proportion of studies of the MLDA found a statistically significant, inverse relationship between the MLDA and alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems (48% of the higher quality studies). Only a small number of studies found a statistically significant, positive relationship between the MLDA and various outcomes (1% of the higher quality studies). A large number of studies found no statistically significant relationship. In addition to differences in quality of research design and analyses, several other factors may account for variability in results across studies, including size of sample and extent of change in policy. The power to detect a statistically significant effect is directly influenced by the size of the sample. In some states, the MLDA was raised only 1 year, from age 20 to age 21; in other states it was raised from age 18 to 21. Studies of policy changes that affect smaller segments of the population may be less likely to detect effects simply because of reduced statistical power when analyzing fewer data. Given potential design and analysis limitations in any single study, the large proportion of MLDA studies that found a significant inverse relationship with various outcomes gives strong support for the effectiveness of the MLDA. It is difficult to estimate accurately the effects of the drinking age specifically on college students. Unfortunately, most studies focusing on college students have been based on weaker cross-sectional designs or limited nonprobability samples. Only 9% of the college-specific studies (6 of 64) used a higher quality research design. Of these higher quality studies, none found a statistically significant inverse relationship between the MLDA and consumption or alcohol-related problems. In addition, of these 6 analyses, 4 included a sample of students at only one university. Although it is possible that the age-21 policy has been less effective on college campuses than among the general youth population, existing research clearly does not suggest that the age-21 MLDA has increased problems among college students. However, more studies that use robust research designs would be needed to assess accurately the effect of the MLDA specifically on college campuses. In addition, studies of potential mediating factors on campuses are also needed. For example, how well are MLDA laws enforced on college campuses? How easily can underage students obtain alcohol on and around campus? If one assumes that the MLDA is less effective on college campuses, perhaps it is due to lax enforcement and particularly easy access to alcohol by underage youth in such settings. Finally, despite progress in recent decades, most youth continue to have access to alcohol, most drink at least occasionally, and a substantial fraction regularly become intoxicated. The social costs from injuries, deaths and damage associated with underage drinking remain high. The benefits of the legal drinking age of 21 have occurred with little or no active enforcement in most areas. Simply by increasing enforcement levels and deterring adults from selling or providing alcohol to minors, even more injuries and deaths related to alcohol use among youth are likely to be prevented each year. Policy Issues Related to the Minimum Legal Drinking Age Despite an abundance of research demonstrating the effectiveness of the age-21 MLDA in reducing youth drinking and alcohol-related problems, three decades after states first began lowering minimum drinking ages, and two decades after states were in the midst of raising their legal drinking ages, a few states are again considering lowering their legal age limits for drinking. Many issues and arguments heard decades ago are again occasionally heard (Fell, 1985; Toomey et al., 1996). One difference this time around is that we have the benefit of hundreds of research studies summarized in the body of this article. Here we summarize 13 similar issues that are still often raised in policy debates by those opposed to a legal drinking age of 21 and provide up-to-date responses that may be useful to college administrators, public health practitioners and others. Issue 1 Issue. "Establishing a legal drinking age of 21 is unconstitutional age discrimination." Response. This question has been treated in detail in two court cases. The first case challenged, in federal court, the constitutionality of Michigan's increase in the drinking age, one of the early states to raise the legal age back to 21 (Guy, 1978). The court ruled, on the basis of scientific evidence that linked lower drinking ages to increased traffic crash involvement among youth, that the drinking-age discrimination was reasonably related to the state objective of reducing highway crashes. Thus the higher drinking age withstood the constitutional challenge on three key legal issues: (1) drinking alcohol is not a "fundamental" right guaranteed by the Constitution, (2) age is not inherently a "suspect" criteria for discrimination (in contrast to race or ethnicity, for example) and (3) using the drinking age to prevent highway crashes has a "rational basis" in available scientific evidence. The court mentioned additional reasons that a higher drinking age is not unconstitutional. The higher drinking age does not cause a permanent disability, but is only a temporary postponement of a specific behavior for the young person's own protection. Furthermore, states have broad powers to regulate the distribution and use of beverage alcohol under the Twenty-first Amendment, which ended Prohibition. Therefore, the drinking age, like other alcohol-control regulations, has a "strong presumption of validity," according to the court. More recently, the state of Louisiana's age-21 MLDA was challenged in court on the premise that it violated the state's constitutional law regarding age discrimination. Louisiana's State Supreme Court concluded, however, that "statutes establishing the minimum drinking age at a level higher than the age of majority are not arbitrary because they substantially further the appropriate governmental purpose of improving highway safety, and thus are constitutional" (Manuel vs State of Louisiana, 1996). In other words, because the age-21 MLDA was based on empirical evidence that the law saved lives, the court decided that it was not an arbitrary law and thus did not violate Louisiana's constitution. Issue 2 Issue. "The federal government is exerting too much power over the states. The federal law encouraging states to set the legal drinking age at 21, by withholding highway funds from states that do not do so, is just one example of this." Response. Citizens groups in a number of states began the initial movement to raise the drinking age to 21. Numerous statewide and national surveys show overwhelming public support for the drinking age of 21, both in the late 1970s and early 1980s when states were raising the age (Wagenaar, 1993), and today. The most recent national survey shows 84% of the U.S. population age 18 and over oppose lowering the age from 21 to 19 (Wagenaar et al., 2000). As several states increased the drinking age to 21, significant reductions in multiple types of injuries (including deaths related to car crashes) were observed (Jones et al., 1992; Wagenaar, 1993). However, as some states raised their drinking age while neighboring states did not, some young people drove across state lines to get alcohol, increasing the chance of traffic crashes. Recognizing that having a uniform drinking age achieves safety, the federal government strongly encouraged, but did not mandate, the remaining states to increase their drinking ages to age 21. Issue 3 Issue. "Europeans teens are allowed to drink from an early age, yet those countries don't have the alcohol-related problems we do. What we need are fewer restrictions, not more." Response. The idea that Europeans do not have alcohol-related problems is a myth. European youth may be at less risk of traffic crashes because youth drive less frequently in Europe than in the United States. Compared with the United States, Europeans have higher legal driving ages, more expensive automobiles and greater access to public transportation. Looking beyond traffic crashes, however, European countries have similar or higher rates of other alcohol-related problems compared with the United States. For example, in 1990, France and Italy had higher per capita alcohol consumption and higher rates of cirrhosis deaths than did the United States. Per capita consumption in France and Italy was 12.7 and 8.7 liters of alcohol, respectively, compared with 7.5 in the United States. Cirrhosis death rates in France and Italy were 26.8 and 17.0 per 100,000, respectively, whereas the U.S. rate was 11.6 (Edwards et al., 1994). European countries are now looking to the United States for research and experience regarding the age-21 policy. Europeans are initiating the debate on the most appropriate age for legal access to alcohol. Issue 4 Issue. "If I'm old enough to go to war, I should be old enough to drink." Response. Many rights have different ages of initiation. A person can obtain a hunting license at age 12, driver's license at age 16, vote and serve in the military at 18, serve in the U.S. House of Representatives at age 25 and in the U.S. Senate at age 30 and run for President at age 35. Other rights we regulate include the sale and use of tobacco and legal consent for sexual intercourse and marriage. The minimum age of initiation is based on the specific behavior involved and must take into account the dangers and benefits of that behavior at a given age (Fell, 1985). The age-21 policy for alcohol takes into account the fact that underage drinking is related to numerous serious problems, including injuries and deaths resulting from car crashes, suicide, homicide, assault, drowning and recreational injuries. In fact, the leading cause of death among teens is car crashes (National Center for Health Statistics, 1994), and alcohol is involved in approximately one-third of these deaths (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1998). Issue 5 Issue. "Nineteen- and twenty-year-olds are drinking anyway. If we legalize it, at least they'll be drinking in a controlled supervised settings, such as a bar or nightclub, rather than in cars or at unsupervised parties." Response. Data show bars and nightclubs are not safe, controlled locations. Studies have repeatedly shown a majority of alcohol outlets regularly break the law, for example, by selling alcohol to minors (Forster et al., 1994, 1995; Preusser and Williams, 1992) or selling to intoxicated patrons (Toomey et al., 1999). When the legal age is lower than 21, teens purchase the majority of their alcohol at liquor stores because it is cheaper than getting it at bars. They then consume this alcohol in homes, cars or parks. These areas are very difficult to control (Fell, 1985). There is also some "trickle-down" effect in that when youth get alcohol they often give it to even younger teens (Jones-Webb et al., 1997a). When the legal age is 21, 19-and 20-year olds can often obtain alcohol from their friends. When the drinking age was 18 and 19, 17- and even 16year olds were often able to get alcohol from their friends. If the drinking age is lower, more alcohol will be available to younger high school students and perhaps even middle school students. There will always be some people who violate laws, but this does not mean we should condone the illegal behavior by modifying the law. The age-21 policy has resulted in a reduction in the amount of alcohol consumed and a substantial decrease in the number of car crashes involving underage drinkers. These results have occurred despite the fact that the law is often not strictly enforced (Wagenaar and Wolfson, 1994, 1995). Issue 6 Issue. "Lower rates of alcohol-related crashes among 19to 20-year olds aren't related to the age-21 policy, but rather they're related to increased drinking-driving education efforts, tougher enforcement and tougher drunk-driving penalties." Response. After the age-21 MLDA was implemented, alcohol-involved highway crashes declined immediately (i.e., starting the next month) among the 18- to 20-year-old population. Careful research has shown declines are not due to enforcement of and tougher penalties for driving while intoxicated, but are directly a result of the legal drinking age. Studies have also shown that education alone is not effective at reducing youth drinking (Clayton et al., 1996; Ellickson et al., 1993). To achieve long-term reductions in youth drinking problems, we have to change the environment by making alcohol less accessible to teens. Issue 7 Issue. "Making it illegal to drink until 21 just increases the desire for the `forbidden fruit.' Then, when teens turn 21, they'll drink even more." Response. Actually, the opposite is true. Early legal access to alcohol is associated with higher rates of drinking as an adult. When the drinking age is 21, those under 21 drink less and continue to drink less through their early twenties. The lower rates of drinking and the reductions in injury and death before age 21 are not compensated for after reaching 21 with rates higher than they would have been (O'Malley and Wagenaar, 1991). Issue 8 Issue. "Who will pay for enforcement of these laws? The age-21 law is too expensive." Response. We already pay large portions of our tax dollars for problems resulting from alcohol. For example, in Minnesota, cities use approximately one-third of their police budgets to deal with alcohol-related problems (Cities Bulletin, 1989); in the United States, we pay more than $10 billion annually just for the costs associated with drunk driving (Kenkel, 1993a). Moreover, drinkers clearly do not pay their own way. They end up generating costs (in health care costs, legal fees and lost wages) of more than a dollar for every drink sold--costs we all pay in increased taxes, higher health and auto insurance premiums and higher costs for goods and services (Miller and Blincoe, 19941). The higher drinking age saves money by resulting in fewer alcohol-related health problems, fewer alcohol-related injuries and less vandalism. Issue 9 Issue. "We have other more important problems to deal with. The troth is, underage drinking is just not a big problem." Response. Underage drinking is a serious problem. In 1998, 52% of high school seniors in the United States drank alcohol in the last month, and more than 30% were intoxicated at least once in the last 2 weeks (Johnston et al., 1998). And these are the lower numbers under the age-21 policy. Teens would be drinking even more if the legal age were lowered. A recent national survey indicates that 96% of the public remains concerned about teen drinking (Wagenaar et al., 2000). The age-21 law clearly does not eliminate youth drinking, but it is one important component of a multifaceted effort to minimize youth drinking problems. Issue 10 Issue. "Here come the Prohibitionists." Response. Those supporting the age-21 policy are not Prohibitionists. They are not interested in outlawing all alcohol consumption for adults and are not interested in putting the alcohol industry out of business. They are interested in protecting youth and the safety of all citizens in our communities by supporting implementation and enforcement of the law that states that it is illegal to sell alcohol to those under the age of 21. They are interested in protecting property and reducing the costs spent on health care and crime. These are goals shared by most of the public, and research shows that if we can reduce youth access to alcohol, we can help achieve these goals. Issue 11 Issue. "We need to punish those teens who are drinking and creating problems, not enact policies that will affect the whole community." Response. This problem requires shared responsibility. It is adults who create the environments within communities that provide youth with easy access to alcohol. Adults own and operate the businesses that sell alcohol to underage youth. Adults permit advertising and marketing of alcohol in ways that appeal to teens. Thus it is not appropriate to blame just the teens for drinking. Surely, teens have a responsibility not to attempt to purchase or consume alcohol. But arresting after the fact and labeling as criminals teens who drink is not the most effective approach. A modest civil penalty for the teenager caught with alcohol is appropriate. More effective in the long term are efforts to reduce the supply of alcohol to teens to prevent youth drinking and the resulting tragedies before they happen. This requires active enforcement of statutes and regulations on those who sell or provide alcohol to teens, with appropriate penalties for violations. Issue 12 Issue. "We drank when we were young and we grew out of it. It's just a phase that all teens go through." Response. Unfortunately, many teens will not "grow out of it." Studies indicate that youth who start drinking before they are 21 are more likely to drink heavier later in life, whereas those who do not drink until they are 21 tend to drink less as adults (Grant and Dawson, 1997). Teens who drink are also more likely to try other illegal drugs and to become victims of crime (Kandel et al., 1992). If we accept that teen drinking is just a normal phase that teens go through, youth will continue to experience car crashes, other injuries, early unprotected sex and other common problems associated with drinking. Issue 13 Issue. "If teens can't get alcohol, they'll just switch to other, perhaps even more dangerous, drugs." Response. Research shows that the opposite is tree; teens who drink and/or smoke are more likely also to use other drugs (Fell, 1985; Kandel et al., 1992). If we can keep youth from using alcohol and tobacco, we can actually reduce the chance that they will try other illegal drugs. Moreover, when the drinking age was raised to 21, and teen drinking declined, there was no evidence of a compensatory increase in other drug use (O'Malley and Wagenaar, 1991). | |
TABLE 1. Effects of legal minimum drinking age policies on consumption
Quality
Probability
Study Jurisdiction sample
STUDIES ON LOWERING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Smart and Schmidt, Toronto:
1975 *Grades 7-13 *Yes
*Jr and sr high *Census (86%)
administrators
*Several colleges: *No
First-year students
Ontario Census
Bellows, 1980 NE Not avail.
Smart and Finley, Canada: 10 provinces Census
1976
Barsby and 25 states Census
Marshall, 1977
Smart, 1977 25 states Census
Douglas and MI Census
Millar, 1979
McFadden and MA:
Wechsler, 1979 *HS students in 5 Unclear
communities
*34 New England Unclear
colleges
Wagenaar, 1982a MI Census
Wagenaar, 1982b ME, NH Census
Hoadley et al., 1984 48 states Census
McCornac and 50 states and DC Census
Filante, 1984
STUDIES ON RAISINGMINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Vingilis and Smart, Ontario:
1981 *Grades 7-13 *Yes
*16-19 year olds *Census
in 1 city
*H.S. vice-principals *Census (81%)
Wagenaar, 1982a MI Census
Wagenaar, 1982b ME Census
Hingson et al., 1983 MA: 16-19 year olds Yes
Hoadley et al., 1984 48 states Census
Smith et al., 1984 MA: 16-17 year olds Yes
Bessmer, 1985 Undergraduates Not avail.
Lonnstrom, 1985 NY: Administrators Census (90%)
at 4-year colleges
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociology Yes
1986 classes at 1
university
Williams and Lillis, NY: 16-20 year olds Yes
1986 in 57 counties
Lillis et al., 1987 NY: 16-20 year olds Yes
in 57 counties
Wilkinson, 1987 50 states and DC Census
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in No
1988 health/sociology/
P.E. classes at 56
universities
Lotterhos et al., NC: Undergrads in Yes
1988 health classes at 1
university
Williams and Lillis, NY: 16-20 year olds Yes
1988 in 57 counties
Arndt, 1989 FL: 7th, 9th and 12th Not avail.
graders in 5
counties
George et al., 1989 NY: Intro. psychol. No
students
Gonzalez, 1989 FL: Students in Yes
undergraduate
courses at 9
universities
Perkins and NY: 1 university Census
Berkowitz, 1989 (86-90%)
Davis and Reynolds, NY: Undergraduates Yes
1990 at 1 university
Gonzalez, 1990a FL: Students in Yes
undergraduate
courses at 1
university
Gonzalez, 1990b FL: Students on No
spring break
O'Malley and Nationwide: H.S. Yes
Wagenaar, 1991 seniors
(cohort followed)
Gordon and Minor, NC: Students in No
1992 undergraduate
psych, courses at
1 university
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociol. Yes
1992 classes at 1
university
Johnson et al., 1992 Canada: All provinces Unclear
Yu and Shacket, NY: 10 counties Yes
1998
STUDIES THAT COMPARE STATES WITH HIGH AND
LOW/MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Rooney and 5 states: Seniors No
Schwartz, 1977 from 27 high
schools
Colon, 1980 50 states and DC Not avail.
Maisto and Rachal, 29 states: High Yes
1980 schools
Schweitzer et al., 35 states Unclear
1983
Ornstein, 1984 50 states and DC Census
Coate and Gross- Nationwide: 16-21 Yes
man, 1987 year olds
Coate and Gross- Nationwide: 16-21 Yes
man, 1988 year olds
Mooney et al., 1992 LA and NC: Students No
in social science
courses at 2
universities
Laixuthai and Nationwide: H.S. Yes
Chaloupka, 1993 seniors
Mooney and LA and NC:
Gramling, 1993 Students in social Yes
science courses at
2 universities
Laixuthai, 1994 Nationwide: H.S. Yes
seniors
Grossman et al., Nationwide: 16-21 Yes
1995 year olds and H.S.
seniors
Dee, 1999 Nationwide: H.S. Yes
seniors in 44
states
Quality
Study Jurisdiction Design
STUDIES ON LOWERING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Smart and Schmidt, Toronto:
1975 *Grades 7-13 *Pre-post
*Jr and sr high *Cross-sectional
administrators
*Several colleges: *Cross-sectional
First-year stu-
dents
Ontario Pre-post
Bellows, 1980 NE Time-series
Smart and Finley, Canada: 10 provinces Pre-post
1976
Barsby and 25 states Pre-post
Marshall, 1977
Smart, 1977 25 states Longitudinal
Douglas and MI Time-series
Millar, 1979
McFadden and MA:
Wechsler, 1979 *HS students in 5 Longitudinal
communities
*34 New England Cross-sectional
colleges
Wagenaar, 1982a MI Time-series
Wagenaar, 1982b ME, NH Time-series
Hoadley et al., 1984 48 states Longitudinal
McCornac and 50 states and DC Longitudinal
Filante, 1984
STUDIES ON RAISINGMINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Vingilis and Smart, Ontario:
1981 *Grades 7-13 *Pre-post
*16-19 year olds *Time-series
in 1 city
*H.S. vice-principals *Cross-sectional
Wagenaar, 1982a MI Time-series
Wagenaar, 1982b ME Time-series
Hingson et al., 1983 MA: 16-19 year olds Longitudinal
Hoadley et al., 1984 48 states Longitudinal
Smith et al., 1984 MA: 16-17 year olds Longitudinal
Bessmer, 1985 Undergraduates Pre-post
Lonnstrom, 1985 NY: Administrators Cross-sectional
at 4-year colleges
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociology Longitudinal
1986 classes at 1
university
Williams and Lillis, NY: 16-20 year olds Pre-post
1986 in 57 counties
Lillis et al., 1987 NY: 16-20 year olds Pre-post
in 57 counties
Wilkinson, 1987 50 states and DC Longitudinal
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in Longitudinal
1988 health/sociology/
P.E. classes at 56
universities
Lotterhos et al., NC: Undergrads in Cross-sectional
1988 health classes at 1
university
Williams and Lillis, NY: 16-20 year olds Longitudinal
1988 in 57 counties
Arndt, 1989 FL: 7th, 9th and 12th Longitudinal
graders in 5
counties
George et al., 1989 NY: Intro. psychol. Longitudinal
students
Gonzalez, 1989 FL: Students in Longitudinal
undergraduate
courses at 9
universities
Perkins and NY: 1 university Pre-post
Berkowitz, 1989
Davis and Reynolds, NY: Undergraduates Pre-post
1990 at 1 university
Gonzalez, 1990a FL: Students in Longitudinal
undergraduate
courses at 1
university
Gonzalez, 1990b FL: Students on Longitudinal
spring break
O'Malley and Nationwide: H.S. Longitudinal
Wagenaar, 1991 seniors
(cohort followed)
Gordon and Minor, NC: Students in Repeated cross-
1992 undergraduate sectional
psych, courses at
1 university
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociol. Longitudinal
1992 classes at 1
university
Johnson et al., 1992 Canada: All provinces Time-series
Yu and Shacket, NY: 10 counties Longitudinal
1998
STUDIES THAT COMPARE STATES WITH HIGH AND
LOW/MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Rooney and 5 states: Seniors Cross-sectional
Schwartz, 1977 from 27 high
schools
Colon, 1980 50 states and DC Cross-sectional
Maisto and Rachal, 29 states: High Cross-sectional
1980 schools
Schweitzer et al., 35 states Cross-sectional
1983
Ornstein, 1984 50 states and DC Longitudinal
Coate and Gross- Nationwide: 16-21 Repeated cross-
man, 1987 year olds sectional
Coate and Gross- Nationwide: 16-21 Cross-sectional
man, 1988 year olds
Mooney et al., 1992 LA and NC: Students Cross-sectional
in social science
courses at 2
universities
Laixuthai and Nationwide: H.S. Repeated cross-
Chaloupka, 1993 seniors sectional
Mooney and LA and NC:
Gramling, 1993 Students in social Cross-sectional
science courses at
2 universities
Laixuthai, 1994 Nationwide: H.S. Repeated cross-
seniors sectional
Grossman et al., Nationwide: 16-21 Cross-sectional
1995 year olds and H.S.
seniors
Dee, 1999 Nationwide: H.S. Longitudinal
seniors in 44
states
Quality
Comp. College
Study Jurisdiction group specific
STUDIES ON LOWERING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Smart and Schmidt, Toronto:
1975 *Grades 7-13 No
*Jr and sr high No
administrators
*Several colleges: No X
First-year students
Ontario No
Bellows, 1980 NE Not avail.
Smart and Finley, Canada: 10 provinces Yes
1976
Barsby and 25 states Yes
Marshall, 1977
Smart, 1977 25 states Yes
Douglas and MI No
Millar, 1979
McFadden and MA:
Wechsler, 1979 *HS students in 5 No
communities
*34 New England Yes X
colleges
Wagenaar, 1982a MI No
Wagenaar, 1982b ME, NH Yes
Hoadley et al., 1984 48 states Yes
McCornac and 50 states and DC Yes
Filante, 1984
STUDIES ON RAISINGMINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Vingilis and Smart, Ontario:
1981 *Grades 7-13 Yes
*16-19 year olds No
in 1 city
*H.S. vice-principals No
Wagenaar, 1982a MI No
Wagenaar, 1982b ME Yes
Hingson et al., 1983 MA: 16-19 year olds Yes
Hoadley et al., 1984 48 states Yes
Smith et al., 1984 MA: 16-17 year olds Yes
Bessmer, 1985 Undergraduates Not avail. X
Lonnstrom, 1985 NY: Administrators Not avail. X
at 4-year colleges
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociology No X
1986 classes at 1 X
university
Williams and Lillis, NY: 16-20 year olds Yes
1986 in 57 counties
Lillis et al., 1987 NY: 16-20 year olds Yes
in 57 counties
Wilkinson, 1987 50 states and DC Yes
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in No X
1988 health/sociology/
P.E. classes at 56
universities
Lotterhos et al., NC: Undergrads in No X
1988 health classes at 1
university
Williams and Lillis, NY: 16-20 year olds Yes
1988 in 57 counties
Arndt, 1989 FL: 7th, 9th and 12th Yes
graders in 5
counties
George et al., 1989 NY: Intro. psychol. Yes X
students
Gonzalez, 1989 FL: Students in Yes X
undergraduate
courses at 9
universities
Perkins and NY: 1 university Yes X
Berkowitz, 1989
Davis and Reynolds, NY: Undergraduates No X
1990 at 1 university
Gonzalez, 1990a FL: Students in Yes X
undergraduate
courses at 1
university
Gonzalez, 1990b FL: Students on No X
spring break
O'Malley and Nationwide: H.S. Yes
Wagenaar, 1991 seniors
(cohort followed)
Gordon and Minor, NC: Students in Yes X
1992 undergraduate
psych, courses at
1 university
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociol. No X
1992 classes at 1
university
Johnson et al., 1992 Canada: All provinces Yes
Yu and Shacket, NY: 10 counties Yes
1998
STUDIES THAT COMPARE STATES WITH HIGH AND
LOW/MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Rooney and 5 states: Seniors Yes
Schwartz, 1977 from 27 high
schools
Colon, 1980 50 states and DC Yes
Maisto and Rachal, 29 states: High Yes
1980 schools
Schweitzer et al., 35 states Yes
1983
Ornstein, 1984 50 states and DC Yes
Coate and Gross- Nationwide: 16-21 Yes
man, 1987 year olds
Coate and Gross- Nationwide: 16-21 Yes
man, 1988 year olds
Mooney et al., 1992 LA and NC: Students Yes X
in social science
courses at 2
universities
Laixuthai and Nationwide: H.S. Yes
Chaloupka, 1993 seniors
Mooney and LA and NC:
Gramling, 1993 Students in social Yes X
science courses at
2 universities
Laixuthai, 1994 Nationwide: H.S. Yes
seniors
Grossman et al., Nationwide: 16-21 Yes
1995 year olds and H.S.
seniors
Dee, 1999 Nationwide: H.S. Yes
seniors in 44
states
Study Jurisdiction Outcome measure
STUDIES ON LOWERING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Smart and Schmidt, Toronto:
1975 *Grades 7-13 *Self-reported propor-
tion of drinkers
*Jr and sr high *Students' consumption
administrators (perceived)
*Several colleges: *Self-reported con-
First-year students sumption
Ontario *Alcohol sales: off-
safe
*Alcohol sales: on-safe
Bellows, 1980 NE *Consumption (source
not specified)
Smart and Finley, Canada: 10 provinces *Beer sales
1976
Barsby and 25 states *Spirits sales
Marshall, 1977 (relative to legal
age population)
Smart, 1977 25 states *Alcohol sales (beer)
Douglas and MI *Alcohol sales (draft
Millar, 1979 beer)
McFadden and MA:
Wechsler, 1979 *HS students in 5 *Self-reported con-
communities sumption
*34 New England *Self-reported fre-
colleges quency of consumption
Wagenaar, 1982a MI *Beer and wine sales
(draft beer-temp.)
Wagenaar, 1982b ME, NH *Alcohol sales: ME
*Beer and wine sales
(draft beer-temp.)
Hoadley et al., 1984 48 states *Spirits sales
McCornac and 50 states and DC *Spirits sales
Filante, 1984
STUDIES ON RAISINGMINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Vingilis and Smart, Ontario:
1981 *Grades 7-13 *Self-reported con-
sumption
*16-19 year olds *Consumption/posses-
in 1 city sion/supply offenses
*H.S. vice-principals *Students' consumption
(perceived)
Wagenaar, 1982a MI *Beer and wine sales
(packaged beer)
Wagenaar, 1982b ME *Alcohol sales (beer)
Hingson et al., 1983 MA: 16-19 year olds *Consumption/possession
offenses
Self-reported:
*Consumption
*Shift to illicit drug
use
Hoadley et al., 1984 48 states *Spirits sales
Smith et al., 1984 MA: 16-17 year olds Self-reported:
*Consumption
*Shift to marijuana use
*Drinking locations
(shift from public to
private)
Bessmer, 1985 Undergraduates *Self-reported con-
sumption
Lonnstrom, 1985 NY: Administrators *Self-reported problem
at 4-year colleges drinking
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociology *Self-reported con-
1986 classes at 1 sumption
university *Self-reported drinking
locations (shift from
public to private)
Williams and Lillis, NY: 16-20 year olds *Self-reported con-
1986 in 57 counties sumption
Lillis et al., 1987 NY: 16-20 year olds *Self-reported beer
in 57 counties purchases
Wilkinson, 1987 50 states and DC *Consumption (source
not specified)
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in *Self-reported propor-
1988 health/sociology/ tion of drinkers
P.E. classes at 56
universities
Lotterhos et al., NC: Undergrads in *Students intending to
1988 health classes at 1 increase or not
university change consumption
levels (4 mos before
raising MDA)
Williams and Lillis, NY: 16-20 year olds *Self-reported alcohol
1988 in 57 counties purchasing
*Self-reported con-
sumption
Arndt, 1989 FL: 7th, 9th and 12th Self-reported:
graders in 5 *Consumption (12th
counties graders)
*Percentage of users
(7th and 12th gra-
ders)
George et al., 1989 NY: Intro. psychol. Self-reported:
students *Drinking locations
(shift from public
to private [incl.
autos])
*Frequency of consump-
tion
*Quantity of consump-
tion
Gonzalez, 1989 FL: Students in *Self-reported consump-
undergraduate tion
courses at 9
universities
Perkins and NY: 1 university *Self-reported consump-
Berkowitz, 1989 tion
Davis and Reynolds, NY: Undergraduates Self-reported (all
1990 at 1 university ages):
*Consumption
*Drinking locations
(shift from public
to private)
Gonzalez, 1990a FL: Students in *Self-reported consump-
undergraduate tion
courses at 1
university
Gonzalez, 1990b FL: Students on *Self-reported consump-
spring break tion
O'Malley and Nationwide: H.S. Self reported:
Wagenaar, 1991 seniors *Consumption
(cohort followed) *Duration/degree of
intoxication
*Shift to marijuana
*Drinking locations
Gordon and Minor, NC: Students in *Self-reported
1992 undergraduate consumption
psych, courses at
1 university
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociol. Self-reported:
1992 classes at 1 *Consumption
university *Drinking locations
(shift from public
to private)
Johnson et al., 1992 Canada: All provinces *Consumption (beer and
wine) (source not
specified)
Yu and Shacket, NY: 10 counties *Self-reported pur-
1998 chase rates
*Self-reported consump-
tion
STUDIES THAT COMPARE STATES WITH HIGH AND
LOW/MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Rooney and 5 states: Seniors *Self-reported consump-
Schwartz, 1977 from 27 high tion
schools
Colon, 1980 50 states and DC *Consumption (source
not specified)
Maisto and Rachal, 29 states: High Self-reported:
1980 schools *Consumption
*Access to alcohol
Schweitzer et al., 35 states *Beer and spirits con-
1983 sumption (source not
specified)
Ornstein, 1984 50 states and DC *Beer consumption
*Spirits consumption
Coate and Gross- Nationwide: 16-21 *Self-reported con-
man, 1987 year olds sumption (all ages)
Coate and Gross- Nationwide: 16-21 *Self-reported con-
man, 1988 year olds sumption (beer)
Mooney et al., 1992 LA and NC: Students Self-reported (18-22
in social science year olds):
courses at 2 *Consumption in con-
universities trolled locations
*Consumption in uncon-
trolled locations
*Overall consumption
Laixuthai and Nationwide: H.S. *Self-reported con-
Chaloupka, 1993 seniors sumption
Mooney and LA and NC:
Gramling, 1993 Students in social *Self-reported con-
science courses at sumption
2 universities
Laixuthai, 1994 Nationwide: H.S. *Self-reported con-
seniors sumption
Grossman et al., Nationwide: 16-21 *Self-reported con-
1995 year olds and H.S. sumption
seniors
Dee, 1999 Nationwide: H.S. *Self-reported con-
seniors in 44 sumption
states
Results
Dir. of
Study Jurisdiction relation.
STUDIES ON LOWERING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Smart and Schmidt, Toronto:
1975 *Grades 7-13 [down arrow]
*Jr and sr high [down arrow]
administrators
*Several colleges:
First-year students
Ontario
[down arrow]
Bellows, 1980 NE
Smart and Finley, Canada: 10 provinces
1976
Barsby and 25 states
Marshall, 1977
Smart, 1977 25 states [down arrow]
Douglas and MI [down arrow]
Millar, 1979
McFadden and MA:
Wechsler, 1979 *HS students in 5
communities
*34 New England [down arrow]
colleges
Wagenaar, 1982a MI [down arrow]
Wagenaar, 1982b ME, NH
[down arrow]
Hoadley et al., 1984 48 states
McCornac and 50 states and DC
Filante, 1984
STUDIES ON RAISINGMINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Vingilis and Smart, Ontario:
1981 *Grades 7-13
*16-19 year olds
in 1 city
*H.S. vice-principals [down arrow]
Wagenaar, 1982a MI [down arrow]
Wagenaar, 1982b ME [down arrow]
Hingson et al., 1983 MA: 16-19 year olds [up arrow]
Hoadley et al., 1984 48 states
Smith et al., 1984 MA: 16-17 year olds
Bessmer, 1985 Undergraduates
Lonnstrom, 1985 NY: Administrators [down arrow]
at 4-year colleges
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociology
1986 classes at 1
university
Williams and Lillis, NY: 16-20 year olds [down arrow]
1986 in 57 counties
Lillis et al., 1987 NY: 16-20 year olds [down arrow]
in 57 counties
Wilkinson, 1987 50 states and DC [down arrow]
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in [down arrow]
1988 health/sociology/
P.E. classes at 56
universities
Lotterhos et al., NC: Undergrads in 82%
1988 health classes at 1
university
Williams and Lillis, NY: 16-20 year olds [down arrow]
1988 in 57 counties [down arrow]
Arndt, 1989 FL: 7th, 9th and 12th
graders in 5 [down arrow]
counties [down arrow]
George et al., 1989 NY: Intro. psychol.
students [down arrow]
Gonzalez, 1989 FL: Students in
undergraduate
courses at 9
universities
Perkins and NY: 1 university
Berkowitz, 1989
Davis and Reynolds, NY: Undergraduates
1990 at 1 university
Gonzalez, 1990a FL: Students in
undergraduate
courses at 1
university
Gonzalez, 1990b FL: Students on
spring break
O'Malley and Nationwide: H.S.
Wagenaar, 1991 seniors [down arrow]
(cohort followed)
Gordon and Minor, NC: Students in [up arrow]
1992 undergraduate
psych, courses at
1 university
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociol.
1992 classes at 1
university
Johnson et al., 1992 Canada: All provinces [down arrow]
Yu and Shacket, NY: 10 counties [down arrow]
1998 [down arrow]
STUDIES THAT COMPARE STATES WITH HIGH AND
LOW/MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Rooney and 5 states: Seniors [up arrow]
Schwartz, 1977 from 27 high
schools
Colon, 1980 50 states and DC
Maisto and Rachal, 29 states: High
1980 schools [down arrow]
[down arrow]
Schweitzer et al., 35 states [down arrow]
1983
Ornstein, 1984 50 states and DC [down arrow]
Coate and Gross- Nationwide: 16-21 [down arrow]
man, 1987 year olds
Coate and Gross- Nationwide: 16-21 [down arrow]
man, 1988 year olds
Mooney et al., 1992 LA and NC: Students
in social science
courses at 2 [up arrow]
universities [up arrow]
Laixuthai and Nationwide: H.S. [down arrow]
Chaloupka, 1993 seniors
Mooney and LA and NC:
Gramling, 1993 Students in social
science courses at
2 universities
Laixuthai, 1994 Nationwide: H.S. [down arrow]
seniors
Grossman et al., Nationwide: 16-21 [down arrow]
1995 year olds and H.S.
seniors
Dee, 1999 Nationwide: H.S. [down arrow]
seniors in 44
states
Results
Statistically
Study Jurisdiction significant
STUDIES ON LOWERING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Smart and Schmidt, Toronto:
1975 *Grades 7-13 Not reported
*Jr and sr high Not reported
administrators
*Several colleges: No
First-year students
Ontario No
Not reported
Bellows, 1980 NE No
Smart and Finley, Canada: 10 provinces No
1976
Barsby and 25 states No
Marshall, 1977
Smart, 1977 25 states Yes
Douglas and MI Yes
Millar, 1979
McFadden and MA:
Wechsler, 1979 *HS students in 5 No
communities
*34 New England Yes
colleges
Wagenaar, 1982a MI Yes
Wagenaar, 1982b ME, NH No
Yes
Hoadley et al., 1984 48 states No
McCornac and 50 states and DC No
Filante, 1984
STUDIES ON RAISINGMINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Vingilis and Smart, Ontario:
1981 *Grades 7-13 No
*16-19 year olds No
in 1 city
*H.S. vice-principals Not reported
Wagenaar, 1982a MI Yes
Wagenaar, 1982b ME Yes
Hingson et al., 1983 MA: 16-19 year olds Yes
No
No
Hoadley et al., 1984 48 states No
Smith et al., 1984 MA: 16-17 year olds
No
No
No
Bessmer, 1985 Undergraduates No
Lonnstrom, 1985 NY: Administrators Not reported
at 4-year colleges
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociology No
1986 classes at 1 No
university
Williams and Lillis, NY: 16-20 year olds Yes
1986 in 57 counties
Lillis et al., 1987 NY: 16-20 year olds Yes
in 57 counties
Wilkinson, 1987 50 states and DC Yes
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in Yes
1988 health/sociology/
P.E. classes at 56
universities
Lotterhos et al., NC: Undergrads in N/A
1988 health classes at 1
university
Williams and Lillis, NY: 16-20 year olds Yes
1988 in 57 counties Yes
Arndt, 1989 FL: 7th, 9th and 12th
graders in 5 Yes
counties Yes
George et al., 1989 NY: Intro. psychol.
students No
Yes
No
Gonzalez, 1989 FL: Students in No
undergraduate
courses at 9
universities
Perkins and NY: 1 university No
Berkowitz, 1989
Davis and Reynolds, NY: Undergraduates
1990 at 1 university No
Not reported
Gonzalez, 1990a FL: Students in No
undergraduate
courses at 1
university
Gonzalez, 1990b FL: Students on No
spring break
O'Malley and Nationwide: H.S.
Wagenaar, 1991 seniors Yes
(cohort followed) No
No
No
Gordon and Minor, NC: Students in Yes
1992 undergraduate
psych, courses at
1 university
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociol.
1992 classes at 1 No
university No
Johnson et al., 1992 Canada: All provinces Yes
Yu and Shacket, NY: 10 counties Not reported
1998 Not reported
STUDIES THAT COMPARE STATES WITH HIGH AND
LOW/MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Rooney and 5 states: Seniors Not reported
Schwartz, 1977 from 27 high
schools
Colon, 1980 50 states and DC No
Maisto and Rachal, 29 states: High
1980 schools Yes
Yes
Schweitzer et al., 35 states Yes
1983
Ornstein, 1984 50 states and DC Yes
No
Coate and Gross- Nationwide: 16-21 Yes
man, 1987 year olds No
Coate and Gross- Nationwide: 16-21 Yes
man, 1988 year olds
Mooney et al., 1992 LA and NC: Students
in social science No
courses at 2 Yes
universities Yes
Laixuthai and Nationwide: H.S. Yes
Chaloupka, 1993 seniors
Mooney and LA and NC:
Gramling, 1993 Students in social No
science courses at
2 universities
Laixuthai, 1994 Nationwide: H.S. Not reported
seniors
Grossman et al., Nationwide: 16-21 Yes
1995 year olds and H.S.
seniors
Dee, 1999 Nationwide: H.S. Yes
seniors in 44
states
Notes: Comp. group = comparison group. Dir. of relation. = direction of
relationship. Outcome measure and Results pertain specifically to the
age group affected by law unless otherwise specified. [down arrow]
Inverse relationship between drinking age and outcome (i.e., drinking
age higher, outcome measure lower). [up arrow] Positive relationship
between drinking age and outcome (i.e., drinking age higher, outcome
measure higher). Census (X%) = full census attempted but X%
participated. Not avail. = dissertation abstracts reviewed only.
TABLE 2. Effects of legal minimum drinking age policies on traffic
crashes
Quality
Probability
Study Jurisdiction sample
STUDIES ON LOWERING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Williams et al., MI, WI, Ontario Census
1975
Naor and Nashold, WI Census
1975
Whitehead et al., London, Ontario Census
1975
Bellows, 1980 NE Not avail.
Bako et al., 1976 Alberta Census
Ferreira and MA Census
Sicherman, 1976
Douglass and MI Yes
Millar, 1979
Brown and AL Census
Maghsoodloo,
1981
Cook and Tauchen, 48 states Census
1984
Smith and Burvill, Australia: 3 Census
1986 states
STUDIES ON RAISING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Wagenaar, 1981 MI Yes
Vingilis and Smart, Ontario Census
1981
Williams et al., 9 states Census
1983
Hingson et al., MA: 16-19 year Census
1983 olds
Yes
Wagenaar, 1983b ME Census
Smith et al., 1984 MA: 16-17 year Census
old drivers
MA: 16-17 year Yes
olds
Thiel, 1985 TX Census
Hoskin et al., 1986 10 states Census
Males, 1986 14 states Census
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Soc. clas- Yes
1986 ses at 1
university
MacKinnon and MI, MA, IL Census
Woodward, 1986
Wagenaar, 1986 MI Census
Wagenaar and TX Census
Maybee, 1986
Coate and Nationwide Census
Grossman, 1987
DuMouchel et al., 26 states Census
1987
Lillis et al., 1987 NY Census
NY: 16-20 year Yes
olds
Saffer and 48 states Census
Grossman, 1987a,b
Weinstein, 1987 48 states Census
Wilkinson, 1987 50 states and DC Census
Decker et al., 1988 TN Census
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in No
1988 health/sociology/
P.E. classes at
56 universities
Williford, 1988 NY Not avail.
Asch and Levy, 47 states Census
1990
Davis and Reynolds, NY: Undergraduates Yes
1990 at 1 university
Legge, 1990 NY Census
O'Malley and 13 states Census
Wagenaar, 1991
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociol. Yes
1992 asses at 1
university
Jones et al., 1992 50 states and DC Census
Chaloupka et al., 48 states Census
1993
Durant and Legge, MI Census
1993
Joksch and Jones, 31 states Census
1993
Park, 1994 Multiple states Not avail.
Figlio, 1995 WI Census
Yu, 1995 NY: Drinking- Yes
driving offenders
Klepp et al., 1996b MN: 7th graders in Census (94%)
4 school districts
(8 years later)
Ruhm, 1996 48 states Census
Chung, 1997 Not avail. Not avail.
Yu and Shacket, NY: 16-24 year Yes
1998 olds in 10
counties
STUDIES THAT COMPARE STATES WITH HIGH AND
LOW MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Maisto and Rachal, 29 states: High Yes
1980 schools
Colon and Cutter, 50 states and DC Census
1983
Colon, 1984 50 states and DC Census
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in No
1986 health/sociology/
P.E. classes at
72 colleges
Asch and Levy, 50 states Census
1987
Loeb, 1987 46 states and Census
DC: All ages
Kenkel, 1993b Nationwide Yes
Laixuthai, 1994 Nationwide Yes
H.S. seniors
Dee, 1999 48 states Census
Quality
Comp.
Study Jurisdiction Design group
STUDIES ON LOWERING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Williams et al., MI, WI, Ontario Longitudinal Yes
1975
Naor and Nashold, WI Longitudinal Yes
1975
Whitehead et al., London, Ontario Longitudinal Yes
1975
Bellows, 1980 NE Time-series Yes
Bako et al., 1976 Alberta Longitudinal Yes
Ferreira and MA Time-series Yes
Sicherman, 1976
Douglass and MI Time-series Yes
Millar, 1979
Brown and AL Longitudinal Yes
Maghsoodloo,
1981
Cook and Tauchen, 48 states Longitudinal Yes
1984
Smith and Burvill, Australia: 3 Pre-post Yes
1986 states
STUDIES ON RAISING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Wagenaar, 1981 MI Time-series Yes
Vingilis and Smart, Ontario Time-series Yes
1981
Williams et al., 9 states Pre-post Yes
1983
Hingson et al., MA: 16-19 year Pre-post Yes
1983 olds
Longitudinal Yes
Wagenaar, 1983b ME Time-series Yes
Smith et al., 1984 MA: 16-17 year Longitudinal Yes
old drivers
MA: 16-17 year Longitudinal Yes
olds
Thiel, 1985 TX Pre-post Yes
Hoskin et al., 1986 10 states Pre-post Yes
Males, 1986 14 states Longitudinal Yes
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Soc. clas- Longitudinal No
1986 ses at 1
university
MacKinnon and MI, MA, IL Time-series Yes
Woodward, 1986
Wagenaar, 1986 MI Time-series Yes
Wagenaar and TX Time-series Yes
Maybee, 1986
Coate and Nationwide Longitudinal Yes
Grossman, 1987
DuMouchel et al., 26 states Longitudinal Yes
1987
Lillis et al., 1987 NY Pre-post Yes
NY: 16-20 year Pre-post Yes
olds
Saffer and 48 states Longitudinal Yes
Grossman, 1987a,b
Weinstein, 1987 48 states Longitudinal Yes
Wilkinson, 1987 50 states and DC Longitudinal Yes
Decker et al., 1988 TN Time-series Yes
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in Longitudinal No
1988 health/sociology/
P.E. classes at
56 universities
Williford, 1988 NY Pre-post Yes
Asch and Levy, 47 states Longitudinal Yes
1990
Davis and Reynolds, NY: Undergraduates Pre-post No
1990 at 1 university*
Legge, 1990 NY Time-series Yes
O'Malley and 13 states Time-series Yes
Wagenaar, 1991
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociol. Longitudinal No
1992 asses at 1
university
Jones et al., 1992 50 states and DC Longitudinal Yes
Chaloupka et al., 48 states Longitudinal Yes
1993
Durant and Legge, MI Time-series Yes
1993
Joksch and Jones, 31 states Longitudinal Yes
1993
Park, 1994 Multiple states Cross-sectional Not
avail.
Figlio, 1995 WI Time-series Yes
Yu, 1995 NY: Drinking- Longitudinal Yes
driving offenders
Klepp et al., 1996b MN: 7th graders in Repeated cross- Yes
4 school districts sectional
(8 years later)
Ruhm, 1996 48 states Longitudinal Yes
Chung, 1997 Not avail. Time-series Not
avail.
Yu and Shacket, NY: 16-24 year Longitudinal No
1998 olds in 10
counties
STUDIES THAT COMPARE STATES WITH HIGH AND LOW MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Maisto and Rachal, 29 states: High Cross-sectional Yes
1980 schools
Colon and Cutter, 50 states and DC Cross-sectional Yes
1983
Colon, 1984 50 states and DC Cross-sectional Yes
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in Cross-sectional Yes
1986 health/sociology/
P.E. classes at
72 colleges
Asch and Levy, 50 states Cross-sectional Yes
1987
Loeb, 1987 46 states and Cross-sectional Yes
DC: All ages
Kenkel, 1993b Nationwide Cross-sectional Yes
Laixuthai, 1994 Nationwide Repeated cross- Yes
H.S. seniors sectional
Dee, 1999 48 states Longitudinal Yes
College
Study Jurisdiction specific
STUDIES ON LOWERING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Williams et al., MI, WI, Ontario
1975
Naor and Nashold, WI
1975
Whitehead et al., London, Ontario
1975
Bellows, 1980 NE
Bako et al., 1976 Alberta
Ferreira and MA
Sicherman, 1976
Douglass and MI
Millar, 1979
Brown and AL
Maghsoodloo,
1981
Cook and Tauchen, 48 states
1984
Smith and Burvill, Australia: 3
1986 states
STUDIES ON RAISING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Wagenaar, 1981 MI
Vingilis and Smart, Ontario
1981
Williams et al., 9 states
1983
Hingson et al., MA: 16-19 year
1983 olds
Wagenaar, 1983b ME
Smith et al., 1984 MA: 16-17 year
old drivers
MA: 16-17 year
olds
Thiel, 1985 TX
Hoskin et al., 1986 10 states
Males, 1986 14 states
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Soc. clas- X
1986 ses at 1
university
MacKinnon and MI, MA, IL
Woodward, 1986
Wagenaar, 1986 MI
Wagenaar and TX
Maybee, 1986
Coate and Nationwide
Grossman, 1987
DuMouchel et al., 26 states
1987
Lillis et al., 1987 NY
NY: 16-20 year
olds
Saffer and 48 states
Grossman, 1987a,b
Weinstein, 1987 48 states
Wilkinson, 1987 50 states and DC
Decker et al., 1988 TN
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in X
1988 health/sociology/
P.E. classes at
56 universities
Williford, 1988 NY
Asch and Levy, 47 states
1990
Davis and Reynolds, NY: Undergraduates X
1990 at 1 university
Legge, 1990 NY
O'Malley and 13 states
Wagenaar, 1991
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociol. X
1992 asses at 1
university
Jones et al., 1992 50 states and DC
Chaloupka et al., 48 states
1993
Durant and Legge, MI
1993
Joksch and Jones, 31 states
1993
Park, 1994 Multiple states
Figlio, 1995 WI
Yu, 1995 NY: Drinking-
driving offenders
Klepp et al., 1996b MN: 7th graders in
4 school districts
(8 years later)
Ruhm, 1996 48 states
Chung, 1997 Not avail.
Yu and Shacket, NY: 16-24 year
1998 olds in 10
counties
STUDIES THAT COMPARE STATES WITH HIGH AND
LOW MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Maisto and Rachal, 29 states: High
1980 schools
Colon and Cutter, 50 states and DC
1983
Colon, 1984 50 states and DC
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in X
1986 health/sociology/
P.E. classes at
72 colleges
Asch and Levy, 50 states
1987
Loeb, 1987 46 states and
DC: All ages
Kenkel, 1993b Nationwide
Laixuthai, 1994 Nationwide
H.S. seniors
Dee, 1999 48 states
Outcome measure
Study Jurisdiction
STUDIES ON LOWERING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Williams et al., MI, WI, Ontario Drivers involved in:
1975 *All types of fatal crashes
*SV fatal crashes
*Nighttime fatal crashes
Naor and Nashold, WI *Fatalities among drivers
1975 w/BAC > .05
Whitehead et al., London, Ontario Male drivers:
1975 *Alcohol-related crashes
*Nighttime crashes
*Total crashes
Bellows, 1980 NE *Alcohol-related fatal
crashes
*Non-alcohol-related fatal
crashes (ages not speci-
fied)
Bako et al., 1976 Alberta *Drivers with BAC > .08
responsible for fatal
crashes (ages 15-19)
Ferreira and MA *Alcohol-related fatali-
Sicherman, 1976 ties (all ages)
*Driver fatalities
*Fatal crashes (drivers
18-20)
Douglass and MI Fatal and nonfatal:
Millar, 1979 *SVN crashes: male drivers
*Total crashes (drivers
18-20)
*HBD crashes (drivers
18-20)
Brown and AL *Alcohol-related SV
Maghsoodloo, crashes
1981
Cook and Tauchen, 48 states *Fatalities
1984
Smith and Burvill, Australia: 3 *Injuries (males)
1986 states *Fatalities
*DUI offenses (males)
STUDIES ON RAISING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Wagenaar, 1981 MI *HBD crashes
*SVN male driver crashes
Vingilis and Smart, Ontario *Drinking-driving convic-
1981 tions
*Driver fatalities:
alcohol-related
*Driver fatalities: total
Williams et al., 9 states Drivers involved in:
1983 *Nighttime fatal crashes
*SVN fatal crashes
*All types of fatal crashes
Hingson et al., MA: 16-19 year *SVN fatal crashes
1983 olds *Total fatal crashes
*Drinking-driving arrests
Self-reported:
*Nonfatal crashes
*Frequency of drinking-
driving
*Proportion reporting
drinking-driving
Wagenaar, 1983b ME Drivers involved in:
*Alcohol-related property
damage crashes
*Injury and fatal crashes
Smith et al., 1984 MA: 16-17 year *SVN fatal crashes
old drivers *Total fatal crashes
MA: 16-17 year *Self-reported drinking-
olds driving
*Self-reported crashes
Thiel, 1985 TX *Alcohol-related injury/
fatality crashes
*Total injury/fatality
crashes
Hoskin et al., 1986 10 states *SVN driver fatalities
Males, 1986 14 states *Nighttime fatal crashes
*All fatal crashes
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Soc. clas- *Self-reported drinking-
1986 ses at 1 driving
university
MacKinnon and MI, MA, IL *Driver fatalities (MI, IL)
Woodward, 1986
Wagenaar, 1986 MI *SVN injury crashes
*HBD injury crashes
Wagenaar and TX *SVN crashes (drivers age
Maybee, 1986 18)
Coate and Nationwide *Fatalities
Grossman, 1987
DuMouchel et al., 26 states *Nighttime driver fatal
1987 crashes
Lillis et al., 1987 NY *Alcohol-related fatal
crashes
*Alcohol-related injury
crashes
*DWI arrests
NY: 16-20 year *Self-reported drinking-
olds driving
Saffer and 48 states *Fatalities
Grossman, 1987a,b
Weinstein, 1987 48 states *Crash fatalities
Wilkinson, 1987 50 states and DC *Fatalities (ages > 15)
Decker et al., 1988 TN *SVN driver fatalities
*Mean BAC levels of fatally
injured drivers
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in *Self-reported drinking-
1988 health/sociology/ driving (all ages)
P.E. classes at
56 universities
Williford, 1988 NY *Self-reported drinking-
driving
Asch and Levy, 47 states *SV driver fatalities
1990 *SVN driver fatalities
Davis and Reynolds, NY: Undergraduates Self-reported (all ages):
1990 at 1 university *Drinking-driving
Legge, 1990 NY *SVN fatal crashes: male
drivers
*All fatal crashes
O'Malley and 13 states *SVN fatal crashes among
Wagenaar, 1991 drivers < 21 (corres-
ponded w/decrease in
self-reported consump-
tion)
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociol. *Self-reported drinking-
1992 asses at 1 driving
university
Jones et al., 1992 50 states and DC *Driver fatalities
*Pedestrian fatalities
Chaloupka et al., 48 states *All fatalities
1993 *Nighttime driver fatali-
ties
*Fatalities among drivers
with BAC > .05
Durant and Legge, MI *SV fatalities (drivers
1993 <21)
*All fatalities (drivers
<21)
Joksch and Jones, 31 states *Driver fatalities (BAC > 0)
1993
Park, 1994 Multiple states *Drunk-driving (source not
specified)
Figlio, 1995 WI *Alcohol-related crashes
(teens)
Yu, 1995 NY: Drinking- *Drinking-driving convic-
driving offenders tions
Klepp et al., 1996b MN: 7th graders in *Self-reported drinking-
4 school distri- driving
cts (8 years
later)
Ruhm, 1996 48 states *Nighttime fatalities (all
ages)
*Fatalities
Chung, 1997 Not avail. *Interstate and noninter-
state drunk-driving
fatalities
Yu and Shacket, NY: 16-24 year *Self-reported drinking-
1998 olds in 10 driving rates
counties
STUDIES THAT COMPARE STATES WITH HIGH AND LOW MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Maisto and Rachal, 29 states: High *Self-reported drinking-
1980 schools driving
Colon and Cutter, 50 states and DC *Fatalities (all ages)
1983 *Fatal crashes (all ages)
Colon, 1984 50 states and DC *SV fatalities
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in *Self-reported drinking
1986 health/sociology/ while driving
P.E. classes at *Self-reported driving
72 colleges after drinking
Asch and Levy, 50 states *All fatalities
1987 *SV fatalities
*SVN fatalities
Loeb, 1987 46 states and *Fatalities (all ages)
DC: All ages
Kenkel, 1993b Nationwide *Self-reported drinking-
driving
Laixuthai, 1994 Nationwide *Self-reported nonfatal
H.S. seniors crashes
Dee, 1999 48 states *Total fatalities
*Driver fatalities
*Nighttime fatalities
Results
Dir. Of
relation.
Study Jurisdiction
STUDIES ON LOWERING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Williams et al., MI, WI, Ontario
[down arrow]
[down arrow]
Naor and Nashold, WI
1975
Whitehead et al., London, Ontario
1975 [down arrow]
[down arrow]
[down arrow]
Bellows, 1980 NE
Bako et al., 1976 Alberta [down arrow]
Ferreira and MA [down arrow]
Sicherman, 1976 [down arrow]
[down arrow]
Douglass and MI
Millar, 1979 [down arrow]
[down arrow]
[down arrow]
Brown and AL [down arrow]
Maghsoodloo,
1981
Cook and Tauchen, 48 states [down arrow]
1984
Smith and Burvill, Australia: 3 [down arrow]
1986 states
[down arrow]
STUDIES ON RAISING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Wagenaar, 1981 MI [down arrow]
[down arrow]
Vingilis and Smart, Ontario
1981
Williams et al., 9 states
1983 [down arrow]
[down arrow]
Hingson et al., MA: 16-19 year [down arrow]
1983 olds
[down arrow]
Wagenaar, 1983b ME
[down arrow]
Smith et al., 1984 MA: 16-17 year
old drivers
MA: 16-17 year [down arrow]
olds [down arrow]
Thiel, 1985 TX
[down arrow]
Hoskin et al., 1986 10 states [down arrow]
Males, 1986 14 states
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Soc. clas-
1986 ses at 1
university
MacKinnon and MI, MA, IL [down arrow]
Woodward, 1986
Wagenaar, 1986 MI [down arrow]
[down arrow]
Wagenaar and TX [down arrow]
Maybee, 1986
Coate and Nationwide [down arrow]
Grossman, 1987
DuMouchel et al., 26 states [down arrow]
1987
Lillis et al., 1987 NY [down arrow]
[down arrow]
[down arrow]
NY: 16-20 year [down arrow]
olds
Saffer and 48 states [down arrow]
Grossman, 1987a,b
Weinstein, 1987 48 states [down arrow]
Wilkinson, 1987 50 states and DC [down arrow]
Decker et al., 1988 TN [down arrow]
[down arrow]
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in [down arrow]
1988 health/sociology/
P.E. classes at
56 universities
Williford, 1988 NY [down arrow]
Asch and Levy, 47 states [down arrow]
1990
Davis and Reynolds, NY: Undergraduates
1990 at 1 university [up arrow]
Legge, 1990 NY
O'Malley and 13 states [down arrow]
Wagenaar, 1991
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociol.
1992 asses at 1
university
Jones et al., 1992 50 states and DC
Chaloupka et al., 48 states [down arrow]
1993 [down arrow]
[down arrow]
Durant and Legge, MI [down arrow]
1993 [down arrow]
Joksch and Jones, 31 states [down arrow]
1993
Park, 1994 Multiple states [down arrow]
Figlio, 1995 WI [down arrow]
Yu, 1995 NY: Drinking- [down arrow]
driving offenders
Klepp et al., 1996b MN: 7th graders in [down arrow]
4 school districts
(8 years later)
Ruhm, 1996 48 states
[down arrow]
Chung, 1997 Not avail.
Yu and Shacket, NY: 16-24 year [down arrow]
1998 olds in 10
counties
STUDIES THAT COMPARE STATES WITH HIGH AND
LOW MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Maisto and Rachal, 29 states: High [down arrow]
1980 schools
Colon and Cutter, 50 states and DC
1983
Colon, 1984 50 states and DC [up arrow]
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in [down arrow]
1986 health/sociology/
P.E. classes at
72 colleges
Asch and Levy, 50 states
1987
Loeb, 1987 46 states and
DC: All ages
Kenkel, 1993b Nationwide [down arrow]
Laixuthai, 1994 Nationwide
H.S. seniors
Dee, 1999 48 states [down arrow]
[down arrow]
[down arrow]
Results
Statistically
significant
Study Jurisdiction
STUDIES ON LOWERING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Williams et al., MI, WI, Ontario
1975 No
Yes
Yes
Naor and Nashold, WI No
1975
Whitehead et al., London, Ontario
1975 Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Bellows, 1980 NE No
No
Bako et al., 1976 Alberta Not reported
Ferreira and MA Yes
Sicherman, 1976 Yes
Yes
Douglass and MI
Millar, 1979 Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Brown and AL Yes
Maghsoodloo,
1981
Cook and Tauchen, 48 states Yes
1984
Smith and Burvill, Australia: 3 Yes
1986 states No
Yes
STUDIES ON RAISING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Wagenaar, 1981 MI Yes
Yes
Vingilis and Smart, Ontario No
1981 No
No
Williams et al., 9 states
1983 Yes
Yes
No
Hingson et al., MA: 16-19 year Yes
1983 olds No
No
No
Yes
No
Wagenaar, 1983b ME
Yes
No
Smith et al., 1984 MA: 16-17 year No
old drivers No
MA: 16-17 year Yes
olds Yes
Thiel, 1985 TX No
Yes
Hoskin et al., 1986 10 states Yes
Males, 1986 14 states No
No
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Soc. clas- No
1986 ses at 1
university
MacKinnon and MI, MA, IL Yes
Woodward, 1986
Wagenaar, 1986 MI Yes
Yes
Wagenaar and TX Yes
Maybee, 1986
Coate and Nationwide Yes
Grossman, 1987
DuMouchel et al., 26 states Yes
1987
Lillis et al., 1987 NY Yes
Yes
Yes
NY: 16-20 year Yes
olds
Saffer and 48 states Yes
Grossman, 1987a,b
Weinstein, 1987 48 states Not reported
Wilkinson, 1987 50 states and DC Not reported
Decker et al., 1988 TN Yes
Yes
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in Yes
1988 health/sociology/
P.E. classes at
56 universities
Williford, 1988 NY Not reported
Asch and Levy, 47 states Yes
1990 No
Davis and Reynolds, NY: Undergraduates
1990 at 1 university Not reported
Legge, 1990 NY No
No
O'Malley and 13 states Yes
Wagenaar, 1991
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. sociol. No
1992 asses at 1
university
Jones et al., 1992 50 states and DC No
No
Chaloupka et al., 48 states Yes
1993 Yes
Yes
Durant and Legge, MI Yes
1993 Yes
Joksch and Jones, 31 states Yes
1993
Park, 1994 Multiple states Yes
Figlio, 1995 WI Yes
Yu, 1995 NY: Drinking- Not reported
driving offenders
Klepp et al., 1996b MN: 7th graders in Yes
4 school districts
(8 years later)
Ruhm, 1996 48 states No
Yes
Chung, 1997 Not avail. No
Yu and Shacket, NY: 16-24 year Not reported
1998 olds in 10
counties
STUDIES THAT COMPARE STATES WITH HIGH AND
LOW MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Maisto and Rachal, 29 states: High Yes
1980 schools
Colon and Cutter, 50 states and DC No
1983 No
Colon, 1984 50 states and DC Yes
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in Yes
1986 health/sociology/ No
P.E. classes at
72 colleges
Asch and Levy, 50 states No
1987 No
No
Loeb, 1987 46 states and No
DC: All ages
Kenkel, 1993b Nationwide Yes
Laixuthai, 1994 Nationwide No
H.S. seniors
Dee, 1999 48 states Yes
Yes
Yes
Notes: Comp. group = comparison group. Dir. of relation. = direction of
relationship. SV = single vehicle. SVN = single vehicle nighttime.
HBD = had been drinking. Outcome measure and Results pertain
specifically to the age group affected by law unless otherwise
specified. [down arrow] Inverse relationship between drinking age and
outcome (i.e., drinking age higher, outcome measure lower). [up arrow]
Positive relationship between drinking age and outcome (i.e., drinking
age higher, outcome measure higher). Census (X%) = full census
attempted but X% participated. Not avail. = dissertation abstracts
reviewed only.
TABLE 3. Effects of legal minimum drinking age policies on other health
and social problem outcomes
Quality
Probability
Study Jurisdiction sample Design
STUDIES ON LOWERING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Smith, 1986 Australia: 2 Census Pre-post
states
Smith and Burvill, Australia: 3 Census Pre-post
1986 states
Howland et al., 48 states Census Time-series
1998
Birckmayer and 48 states Census Time-series
Hemenway, 1999
STUDIES ON RAISING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Bessmer, 1985 Undergraduates Not avail. Pre-post
Hingson et al., MA Census Pre-post
1985
Lonnstrom, 1985 NY: Administrators Census Cross-sectional
at 4-year (90%)
colleges
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. Yes Longitudinal
1986 sociology
classes at 1
university
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in No Longitudinal
1988 health/sociology/
P.E classes at
56 universities
Gonzalez, 1989 FL: Students in Yes Longitudinal
undergraduate
courses at 9
colleges
Perkins and NY: 1 university Census Pre-post
Berkowitz, 1989 (86-90%)
Davis and NY: Undergraduates Yes Pre-post
Reynolds, 1990 at 1 university
Gonzalez, 1990a FL: Students in Yes Longitudinal
undergraduate
courses at 1
university
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Sociology Yes Longitudinal
1992 classes at 1
university
Jones et al., 1992 50 states and DC Census Longitudinal
Joksch and Jones, 31 states Census Longitudinal
1993
Parker, 1995 50 states and DC Census Time-series
Howland et al., 48 states Census Time-series
1998
Yu, 1998 NY: 16-24 year Yes Longitudinal
olds in 10
counties
Birckmayer and 48 states Census Time-series
Hemenway, 1999
STUDIES THAT COMPARE STATES WITH HIGH AND LOW MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Rooney and 5 states: Seniors No Cross-sectional
Schwartz, 1977 from 27 high
schools
Colon, 1980 50 states and DC Not avail. Cross-sectional
Maisto and Rachal, 29 states: High Yes Cross-sectional
1980 schools
Schweitzer et al., 35 states Census Cross-sectional
1983
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in No Cross-sectional
1986 health/sociology/
P.E. classes at
72 colleges
Breed et al., 1990 50 college Yes Cross-sectional
newspapers
Quality
Comp. College
Study Jurisdiction group specific
STUDIES ON LOWERING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Smith, 1986 Australia: 2 Yes
states
Smith and Burvill, Australia: 3 Yes
1986 states
Howland et al., 48 states Yes
1998
Birckmayer and 48 states Yes
Hemenway, 1999
STUDIES ON RAISING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Bessmer, 1985 Undergraduates Not avail. X
Hingson et al., MA Yes
1985
Lonnstrom, 1985 NY: Administrators Not avail. X
at 4-year
colleges
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. No X
1986 sociology
classes at 1
university
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in No X
1988 health/sociology/
P.E classes at
56 universities
Gonzalez, 1989 FL: Students in Yes X
undergraduate
courses at 9
colleges
Perkins and NY: 1 university Yes X
Berkowitz, 1989
Davis and NY: Undergraduates No X
Reynolds, 1990 at 1 university
Gonzalez, 1990a FL: Students in Yes X
undergraduate
courses at 1
university
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Sociology No X
1992 classes at 1
university
Jones et al., 1992 50 states and DC Yes
Joksch and Jones, 31 states Yes
1993
Parker, 1995 50 states and DC Yes
Howland et al., 48 states Yes
1998
Yu, 1998 NY: 16-24 year Yes
olds in 10
counties
Birckmayer and 48 states Yes
Hemenway, 1999
STUDIES THAT COMPARE STATES WITH HIGH AND LOW MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Rooney and 5 states: Seniors Yes
Schwartz, 1977 from 27 high
schools
Colon, 1980 50 states and DC Yes
Maisto and Rachal, 29 states: High Yes
1980 schools
Schweitzer et al., 35 states Yes
1983
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in Yes X
1986 health/sociology/
P.E. classes at
72 colleges
Breed et al., 1990 50 college Yes X
newspapers
Study Jurisdiction Outcome measure
STUDIES ON LOWERING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Smith, 1986 Australia: 2 *Nontraffic emergency
states hospital admissions
Smith and Burvill, Australia: 3 *Juvenile crime (male)
1986 states
Howland et al., 48 states *Drownings
1998
Birckmayer and 48 states *Suicides
Hemenway, 1999
STUDIES ON RAISING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Bessmer, 1985 Undergraduates *Self-reported
drinking-related problems
Hingson et al., MA *Nontraffic accidental
1985 fatalities
*Suicide fatalities
*Homicides
Lonnstrom, 1985 NY: Administrators Perception of students'
at 4-year alcohol-related problems:
colleges *Vandalism
*Academic problems
*Social life
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. Self-reported alcohol-related
1986 sociology problems:
classes at 1 *Social problems
university *Legal problems
*Damaging property
*Fighting
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in Self-reported alcohol-related
1988 health/sociology/ problems (all ages):
P.E classes at *Academic problems
56 universities *Damaging property
*Fighting
*Job problems
*Social problems
*Legal problems
Gonzalez, 1989 FL: Students in *Self-reported negative
undergraduate drinking consequences
courses at 9
colleges
Perkins and NY: 1 university *Self-reported negative
Berkowitz, 1989 drinking consequences
Davis and NY: Undergraduates Self-reported alcohol-related
Reynolds, 1990 at 1 university problems (all ages):
*Academic problems
*Damaging property
*Fighting
*Legal problems
*Injuries
*Social problems
Gonzalez, 1990a FL: Students in *Alcohol-related negative
undergraduate consequences
courses at 1
university
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Sociology Self-reported alcohol-related
1992 classes at 1 problems:
university *Academic problems
*Damaging property
*Fighting
*Social problems
*Legal problems
Jones et al., 1992 50 states and DC *Pedestrian fatalities
*Other injury (excl. m.v.)
fatalities
*Suicide fatalities
*Homicides
Joksch and Jones, 31 states *Homicides
1993 *Aggravated assaults
*Other assaults
*Disorderly conduct
*Vandalism
Parker, 1995 50 states and DC *Acquaintance homicides
(21-24 yr olds)
Howland et al., 48 states *Drownings
1998
Yu, 1998 NY: 16-24 year *Perceived parental approval
olds in 10 of underage drinking
counties
Birckmayer and 48 states *Suicides
Hemenway, 1999
STUDIES THAT COMPARE STATES WITH HIGH AND LOW MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Rooney and 5 states: Seniors *Self-reported
Schwartz, 1977 from 27 high drinking-related problems
schools
Colon, 1980 50 states and DC *Alcoholism (source not
specified)
Maisto and Rachal, 29 states: High Self-reported alcohol-related
1980 schools problems:
*Academic problems
*Social problems
*Legal problems
Schweitzer et al., 35 states *Alcoholism (cirrhosis
1983 deaths)
*Alcohol-related mortality
(source not specified)
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in Self-reported alcohol-related
1986 health/sociology/ problems:
P.E. classes at *Academic problems
72 colleges *Damaging property
*Fighting
*Job problems
*Social problems
Breed et al., 1990 50 college *Amount of alcohol
newspapers advertising
Results
Dir. of Statistically
Study Jurisdiction relation. significant
STUDIES ON LOWERING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Smith, 1986 Australia: 2 [down arrow] Yes
states
Smith and Burvill, Australia: 3 [down arrow] Yes
1986 states
Howland et al., 48 states No
1998
Birckmayer and 48 states [down arrow] Yes
Hemenway, 1999
STUDIES ON RAISING MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Bessmer, 1985 Undergraduates No
Hingson et al., MA No
1985 No
No
Lonnstrom, 1985 NY: Administrators [down arrow] Not reported
at 4-year [down arrow] Not reported
colleges No
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Intro. No
1986 sociology No
classes at 1 No
university No
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in No
1988 health/sociology/ No
P.E classes at [up arrow] Yes
56 universities No
No
No
Gonzalez, 1989 FL: Students in No
undergraduate
courses at 9
colleges
Perkins and NY: 1 university No
Berkowitz, 1989
Davis and NY: Undergraduates No
Reynolds, 1990 at 1 university No
[down arrow] Yes
No
[up arrow] Yes
[up arrow] Yes
Gonzalez, 1990a FL: Students in No
undergraduate
courses at 1
university
Hughes and Dodder, OK: Sociology No
1992 classes at 1 No
university No
No
No
Jones et al., 1992 50 states and DC No
No
[down arrow] Yes
No
Joksch and Jones, 31 states No
1993 No
No
[down arrow] Yes
[down arrow] Yes
Parker, 1995 50 states and DC [down arrow] Yes
Howland et al., 48 states No
1998
Yu, 1998 NY: 16-24 year Remained
olds in 10 low
counties
Birckmayer and 48 states [down arrow] Yes
Hemenway, 1999
STUDIES THAT COMPARE STATES WITH HIGH AND LOW MINIMUM DRINKING AGE
Rooney and 5 states: Seniors [up arrow] Not reported
Schwartz, 1977 from 27 high
schools
Colon, 1980 50 states and DC No
Maisto and Rachal, 29 states: High No
1980 schools No
No
Schweitzer et al., 35 states No
1983
Engs and Hanson, U.S.: Students in [down arrow] Yes
1986 health/sociology/ No
P.E. classes at No
72 colleges No
No
Breed et al., 1990 50 college No
newspapers
Notes: Comp. group = comparison group. Dir. of relation. = direction of
relationship. Outcome measure and Results pertain specifically to the
age group affected by law unless otherwise specified. [down arrow]
Inverse relationship between drinking age and outcome (i.e., drinking
age higher, outcome measure lower). [up arrow] Positive relationship
between drinking age and outcome (i.e., drinking age higher, outcome
measure higher). Census (X%) = full census attempted but X%
participated. Not avail. = dissertation abstracts reviewed only.
TABLE 4. Studies of mediating factors related to minimum drinking age
Quality
Probability
Study Jurisdiction sample Design
McFadden and MA: H.S. students ? Cross-sectional
Wechsler, 1979
Hingson et al., MA: 16-19 year olds Yes Cross-sectional
1985
Smart and Adlaf, Ontario: Grades 7-13 Yes Cross-sectional
1987
Goldsmith, 1988 MD: 1 county No Cross-sectional
Lotterhos et NC: Undergraduates Yes Cross-sectional
al., 1988 in health classes
at 1 university
Rubington, 1990 1 university: RAs in No Cross-sectional
2 dorms
Preusser and NY (3 counties) and Yes Cross-sectional
Williams, 1992 DC: Licensed
outlets
McCall, 1993 Psych. students at 1 No Cross-sectional
college and store
clerks
Wagenaar et al., MN and WI: 18 and No Cross-sectional
1993 19 year old college
students in 15
communities
O'Leary et al., NJ: Licensed est. in Yes Cross-sectional
1994 16 cities
Schofield et Australia: Licensed ? Cross-sectional
al., 1994 est. in 2 cities in
S. Wales
Forster et al., MN: Off-sale Census Cross-sectional
1994 licensed est. in
28 communities
Preusser et al., CO: Licensed est. in Yes Longitudinal
1994 Denver
Wagenaar and 50 states Census Cross-sectional
Wolfson, 1994
Forster et al., MN and WI: Cross-sectional
1995 Licensed est. in 24
communities:
*Off-sale *Census
*On-sale *Yes
Vaucher et al., Switzerland: Licensed Yes Cross-sectional
1995 est. in 1 canton
Wagenaar and KY, MI, MT and OR No Cross-sectional
Wolfson, 1995
Wolfson et al., KY, MI, MT and OR: No Cross-sectional
1995 Law enforcement
officials at 15
agencies
Durkin et al., 1 university: No Cross-sectional
1996 Undergraduate
sociology courses
Klepp et al., Norway: 7th graders Yes Repeated cross-
1996 in 1 county (cohort sectional
followed)
Lewis et al., KS: 100 stores in No Pre-post
1996 Wichita
Smart et al., Ontario: Grades 7-13 Yes Cross-sectional
1996
Wagenaar et al., MN and WI: 15 Cross-sectional
1996 communities
*18-20 year olds *Yes
*9th and 12th *Census
graders (89-93%)
Wolfson et al., MN: Licensed Census Cross-sectional
1996a off-sale est. in 28 (93%)
communities
Wolfson et al., MN and WI: Cross-sectional
1996b Licensed est. in
15 communities
*Off-sale *Census
*On-sale *Yes
Casswell and New Zealand: 1 city ? Longitudinal
Zhang, 1997 (cohort followed
ages 15-21)
Grube, 1997 CA and SC: Off-sale Yes Pre-post
outlets
Jones-Webb et MN and WI: H.S. No Cross-sectional
al., 1997a students in 2
communities
Jones-Webb et MN and WI: H.S. Census Cross-sectional
al., 1997b seniors in 15 (93%)
communities
McCall, 1997 NY: Bartenders in No Cross-sectional
4 cities
Mayer et al., MN and WI: 9th and Census Cross-sectional
1998 12th graders in 15 (89-93%)
communities
Schwartz et al., NY, VA, FL and No Cross-sectional
1998 GA: 16-19 year
olds
McCall, 1999 Undergraduates No Cross-sectional
Fletcher et al., MN and WI: Cross-sectional
2000 15 communities
*18-20 year olds *Yes
*12th graders *Census
(83.5%)
*Off-sale outlets *Census
(96%)
College
Study Jurisdiction specific
McFadden and MA: H.S. students
Wechsler, 1979
Hingson et al., MA: 16-19 year olds
1985
Smart and Adlaf, Ontario: Grades 7-13
1987
Goldsmith, 1988 MD: 1 county X
Lotterhos et NC: Undergraduates X
al., 1988 in health classes
at 1 university
Rubington, 1990 1 university: RAs in X
2 dorms
Preusser and NY (3 counties) and
Williams, 1992 DC: Licensed
outlets
McCall, 1993 Psych. students at 1 X
college and store
clerks
Wagenaar et al., MN and WI: 18 and X
1993 19 year old college
students in 15
communities
O'Leary et al., NJ: Licensed est. in
1994 16 cities
Schofield et Australia: Licensed
al., 1994 est. in 2 cities in
S. Wales
Forster et al., MN: Off-sale
1994 licensed est. in
28 communities
Preusser et al., CO: Licensed est. in
1994 Denver
Wagenaar and 50 states
Wolfson, 1994
Forster et al., MN and WI:
1995 Licensed est. in 24
communities:
*Off-sale
*On-sale
Vaucher et al., Switzerland: Licensed
1995 est. in 1 canton
Wagenaar and KY, MI, MT and OR
Wolfson, 1995
Wolfson et al., KY, MI, MT and OR:
1995 Law enforcement
officials at 15
agencies
Durkin et al., 1 university: X
1996 Undergraduate
sociology courses
Klepp et al., Norway: 7th graders
1996 in 1 county (cohort
followed)
Lewis et al., KS: 100 stores in
1996 Wichita
Smart et al., Ontario: Grades 7-13
1996
Wagenaar et al., MN and WI: 15
1996 communities
*18-20 year olds
*9th and 12th
graders
Wolfson et al., MN: Licensed
1996a off-sale est. in 28
communities
Wolfson et al., MN and WI:
1996b Licensed est. in
15 communities
*Off-sale
*On-sale
Casswell and New Zealand: 1 city
Zhang, 1997 (cohort followed
ages 15-21)
Grube, 1997 CA and SC: Off-sale
outlets
Jones-Webb et MN and WI: H.S.
al., 1997a students in 2
communities
Jones-Webb et MN and WI: H.S.
al., 1997b seniors in 15
communities
McCall, 1997 NY: Bartenders in
4 cities
Mayer et al., MN and WI: 9th and
1998 12th graders in 15
communities
Schwartz et al., NY, VA, FL and X
1998 GA: 16-19 year
olds
McCall, 1999 Undergraduates X
Fletcher et al., MN and WI:
2000 15 communities
*18-20 year olds
*12th graders
*Off-sale outlets
Study Jurisdiction Results
McFadden and MA: H.S. students *80% reported easy access
Wechsler, 1979 to alcohol
*Most common source of
alcohol was friends/
relatives or other buyers
Hingson et al., MA: 16-19 year olds *40% reported purchase
1985 attempts
*1/3 reported that there
was no request for ID
*Enforcement efforts varied
widely
Smart and Adlaf, Ontario: Grades 7-13 *4.6% used unauthorized age
1987 of majority cards
*Positive relationship
between alcohol use and
unauthorized use of age
of majority cards
Goldsmith, 1988 MD: 1 county *Most common source of
alcohol for underage H.S.
students was older
persons; for underage
college students most
common source was
self-purchase
*8% of underage college
students and 10% of
underage H.S. students
reported use of false ID
Lotterhos et NC: Undergraduates *21% of students reported
al., 1988 in health classes use of false ID
at 1 university
Rubington, 1990 1 university: RAs in *Low levels of enforcement
2 dorms of drinking rules
Preusser and NY (3 counties) and *44-97% of underage
Williams, 1992 DC: Licensed purchase attempts were
outlets successful
McCall, 1993 Psych. students at 1 *Age estimates of underage
college and store persons were influenced
clerks by prior stimuli
Wagenaar et al., MN and WI: 18 and *Most common source of
1993 19 year old college alcohol during high
students in 15 school was parties, older
communities siblings and friends
O'Leary et al., NJ: Licensed est. in *59% of purchase attempts
1994 16 cities by minors were successful
Schofield et Australia: Licensed *76% of purchase attempts
al., 1994 est. in 2 cities in by pseudo-underage
S. Wales required no proof of age
Forster et al., MN: Off-sale *47% of purchase attempts
1994 licensed est. in by pseudo-underage were
28 communities successful
Preusser et al., CO: Licensed est. in *Successful purchase rates
1994 Denver by underage reduced from
59% to 28% following
enforcement intervention
Wagenaar and 50 states *Low rates of arrests and
Wolfson, 1994 penalties for violations
of MDA
*Rates varied widely among
states
Forster et al., MN and WI:
1995 Licensed est. in 24
communities:
*Off-sale *50% of purchase attempts
*On-sale by pseudo-underage at
on-sale and 52% at
off-sale were successful
Vaucher et al., Switzerland: Licensed *81% of underage boys were
1995 est. in 1 canton served alcohol
*17% of owners/managers
knew correct MDA
Wagenaar and KY, MI, MT and OR *Low rates of arrests and
Wolfson, 1995 enforcement for MDA
violations, especially
against outlets
Wolfson et al., KY, MI, MT and OR: *Law enforcement officials
1995 Law enforcement perceived a lack of
officials at 15 support from community to
agencies enforce MDA
Durkin et al., 1 university: *46% of students reported
1996 Undergraduate use of false ID
sociology courses *Positive relationship
between use of false ID
and frequency of
consumption
Klepp et al., Norway: 7th graders *Older friends or home were
1996 in 1 county (cohort most common sources of
followed) alcohol for youth
*Perceived access to
alcohol at 13 was
predictive of frequency
of alcohol use at 15
Lewis et al., KS: 100 stores in *Sales to minors reduced
1996 Wichita from 83% to 33% following
enforcement intervention
(NS)
Smart et al., Ontario: Grades 7-13 *66% reported easy access
1996 to alcohol
*Most common sources were
home or older buyers
Wagenaar et al., MN and WI: 15
1996 communities
*18-20 year olds *Adults > 21 were most
common sources of alcohol
*9th and 12th *Majority reported easy
graders access to alcohol
Wolfson et al., MN: Licensed *46% of purchase attempts
1996a off-sale est. in 28 by pseudo-underage were
communities successful
*Bars less likely than
other types of outlets to
sell to pseudo-underage
Wolfson et al., MN and WI:
1996b Licensed est. in
15 communities
*Off-sale * < 50% had policies to
reduce underage sales
*On-sale *Off-sale reported more
aggressive age
identification policies
Casswell and New Zealand: 1 city *Ease of access to alcohol
Zhang, 1997 (cohort followed at 15 positively
ages 15-21) associated with quantity
of consumption and
alcohol-related problems
at 18
Grube, 1997 CA and SC: Off-sale *Sales to pseudo-underage
outlets were significantly
reduced following
increased enforcement
efforts
Jones-Webb et MN and WI: H.S. *Friends, siblings and
al., 1997a students in 2 co-workers > 21 were most
communities common sources of alcohol
Jones-Webb et MN and WI: H.S. *Perceived alcohol
al., 1997b seniors in 15 availability was
communities positively related to
consumption but not to
drinking consequences
among males
McCall, 1997 NY: Bartenders in *Increased attractiveness
4 cities associated with less
likelihood of request for
proof of age
Mayer et al., MN and WI: 9th and *Most common setting for
1998 12th graders in 15 drinking was someone
communities else's home
*Friends most common
drinking partners
Schwartz et al., NY, VA, FL and *7-14% reported using false
1998 GA: 16-19 year identification (14% of
olds college students)
*39% reported purchase
attempts (44% of college
students)
McCall, 1999 Undergraduates *Increased attractiveness
of customer and positive
mood of server associated
with less likelihood
of request for proof of
age
Fletcher et al., MN and WI:
2000 15 communities
*18-20 year olds *7% reported using home
delivery
*12th graders *10% reported using home
delivery
*Off-sale outlets *17% reported making home
deliveries
Notes: Census (X%) = full census attempted but X% participated.
? = information not clear from article.
| | References ARNDT, S.K. Adolescent Alcohol Consumption and a Changing Legal Drinking Age. Dissertation Abstracts Int. 50 (4-B): 1308, 1989. ASCH, P. AND LEVY, D.T. Does the minimum drinking age affect traffic fatalities? J. Policy Anal. Manage. 6:180-192, 1987. ASCH, P. AND LEVY, D.T. Young driver fatalities: The roles of drinking age and drinking experience. So. Econ. J. 57:512-520, 1990. BAKO, G., MACKENZIE, W. AND SMITH, E.S. Effect of legislated lowering of the drinking age on fatal highway accidents among young drivers in Alberta, 1970-1972. Can. J. Publ. Hlth 67: 161-163, 1976. BARSBY, S.L. AND MARSHALL, G.L. Short-term consumption effects of a lower minimum alcohol-purchasing age. J. Stud. Alcohol 38: 1665-1679, 1977. BELLOWS, D.C. The Effects of Lowering the Drinking Age in Nebraska: A Quasi-Experimental Time-Series Analysis, Ph.D. dissertation, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1980. BESSMER, M.A. Relationship of Self-Reported Problems and Drinking Among College Students. Dissertation Abstracts Int. 45 (9-B): 3061, 1985. BIRCKMAYER, J. AND HEMENWAY, D. Minimum-age drinking laws and youth suicide, 1970-1990. Amer. J. Publ. Hlth 89: 1365-1368, 1999. BREED, W., WALLACK, C. AND GRUBE, J.W. Alcohol advertising in college newspapers: A 7-year follow-up. J. Amer. Coll. Hlth 38: 255-262, 1990. BROWN, D.B. AND MAGHSOODLOO, S. Study of alcohol involvement in young driver accidents with the lowering of the legal age of drinking in Alabama. Accid. Anal. Prev. 13: 319-322, 1981. CASSWELL, S. AND ZHANG, J.F. Access to alcohol from licensed premises during adolescence: A longitudinal study. Addiction 92: 737-745, 1997. CHALOUPKA, F.J., SAFFER, H. AND GROSSMAN, M. Alcohol-control policies and motor-vehicle fatalities. J. Legal Stud. 22: 161-186, 1993. CHUNG, H.B. Drunk Driving and Social Control Policies: Econometric Analysis of Policy Effectiveness. Dissertation Abstracts Int. 57 (12A): 5291, 1997. CITIES BULLETIN (newsletter). St. Paul, MN: League of Minnesota Cities, Vol. 30, November 9, 1989. CLAYTON, R.R., CATTARELLLO, A.M. AND JOHNSTON, B.M. The effectiveness of drug abuse resistance education (Project DARE): 5-year follow-up results. Prev. Med. 25: 307-318, 1996. COATE, D. AND GROSSMAN, M. Change in alcoholic beverage prices and legal drinking ages: Effects on youth alcohol use and motor vehicle mortality. Alcohol Hlth Res. World 12: 22-25, 1987. COATE, D. AND GROSSMAN, M. Effects of alcoholic beverage prices and legal drinking ages on youth alcohol use. J. Law Econ. 31: 145-171, 1988. COLON, I. Alcohol Control Policies and Their Relation to Alcohol Consumption and Alcoholism, Ph.D. dissertation, Waltham, MA: F. Heller Graduate School, Brandeis University, 1980. COLON, I. Alcohol beverage purchase age and single-vehicle highway fatalities. J. Safety Res. 15: 159-162, 1984. COLON, I. AND CUTTER, H.S. Relationship of beer consumption and state alcohol and motor vehicle policies to fatal accidents. J. Safety Res. 14: 83-89, 1983. COOK, P.J. AND TAUCHEN, G. The effect of minimum drinking age legislation on youthful auto fatalities, 1970-1977. J. Legal Stud. 13: 169-190, 1984. Davis, J.E. AND REYNOLDS, N.C. Alcohol use among college students: Responses to raising the purchase age. J. Amer. Coll. Hlth 38: 263-269, 1990. DECKER, M.D., GRAITCER, P.L. AND SCHAFFNER, W. Reduction in motor vehicle fatalities associated with an increase in the minimum drinking age. JAMA 260: 3604-3610, 1988. DEE, T.S. State alcohol policies, teen drinking and traffic fatalities. J. Publ. Econ. 72: 289-315, 1999. DOUGLAS, R.L. AND MILLAR, C.W. Alcohol availability and alcohol-related casualties in Michigan 1968-1976. In: GALANTER, M. (Ed.) Currents in Alcoholism, Vol. 6: Treatment and Rehabilitation and Epidemiology, New York: Grune & Stratton, 1979, pp. 303-317. Du MOUCHEL, W., WILLIAMS, A.F. AND ZADOR, P. Raising the alcohol purchase age: Its effects on fatal motor vehicle crashes in twenty-six states. J. Legal Stud. 16: 249-266, 1987. DURANT, R.F. AND LEGGE, J.S. Policy design, social regulation, and theory building: Lessons from the traffic safety policy arena. Polit. Res. Q. 46: 641-656, 1993. DURKIN, K.F., WOLFE, T.W. AND PHILLIPS, D.W., 3RD. College students' use of fraudulent identification to obtain alcohol: An exploratory analysis. J. Alcohol Drug Educ. 41: 92-104, 1996. EDWARDS, G., ANDERSON, P., BABOR, T.F., CASSWELL, S., FERRENCE, R., GIESBRECHT, N., GODFREY, C., HOLDER, H.D., HEMMENS, P., MAKELA., K., MIDANIK, L.T., NORSTROM, T., OSTERBERG, E., ROMELSJO, A., ROOM, R., SIMPURA, J. AND SKOG, O.-J. Alcohol Policy and the Public Good, New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1994. ELLICKSON, P.L., BELL, R.M. AND HARRISON, E.R. Changing adolescent propensities to use drugs: Results from project ALERT. Hlth Educ. Q. 20: 227-242, 1993. ENGS, R.C. AND HANSON, D.J. Age-specific alcohol prohibition and college students' drinking problems. Psychol. Rep. 59 (2, Pt 2): 979-984, 1986. ENGS, R.C. AND HANSON, D.J. University students' drinking patterns and problems: Examining the effects of raising the purchase age. Publ. Hlth Rep. 103: 667-673, 1988. FELL, J.C. Drinking age 21: Facts, myths and fictions. Amer. Assoc. Auto. Med. Q. 7: 21-26, 1985. FERREIRA, J. AND SICHERMAN, A. Impact of Massachusetts' reduced drinking age on auto accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 8: 229-239, 1976. FIOLIO, D.N. The effect of drinking age laws and alcohol-related crashes: Time-series evidence from Wisconsin. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 14: 555-566, 1995. FLETCHER, L.A., TOOMEY, T.L., WAGENAAR, A.C., SHORT, B. AND WILLENBRING, M.L Alcohol home delivery services: A source of alcohol for underage drinkers. J. Stud. Alcohol 61: 81-84, 2000. FORSTER, J.L., MCGOVERN, P.G., WAGENAAR, A.C., WOLFSON, M., PERRY, C.L. AND ANSTINE, P.S. The ability of young people to purchase alcohol without age identification in northeastern Minnesota, USA. Addiction 89: 699-705, 1994. FORSTER, J.L., MURRAY, D.M., WOLFSON, M. AND WAGENAAR, A.C. Commercial availability of alcohol to young people: Results of alcohol purchase attempts. Prev. Med. 24: 342-347, 1995. GEORGE, W.H., CROWE, L.C., ABWENDER, D. AND SKINNER, J.B. Effects of raising the drinking age to 21 years in New York State on self-reported consumption by college students. J. Appl. Social Psychol. 19 (8, Pt 1): 623-635, 1989. GOLDSMITH, H. Illicit alcohol procurement by underage persons: Prevention implications and strategies for melioration. J. Offend. Counsel. Serv. Rehab. 13: 133-162, 1988. GONZALEZ, G.M. Effects of raising the drinking age among college students in Florida. Coll. Student J. 23: 67-75, 1989. GONZALEZ, G.M. Effects of raising the drinking age and related campus initiatives on student alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems. J. Coll. Student Devel. 31: 181-183, 1990a. GONZALEZ, G.M. Effects of drinking age on reduced consumption of alcohol reported by college students: 1981-1986. J. Drug Issues 20: 67-73, 1990b. GORDON, R.A. AND MINOR, S.W. Attitudes toward a change in the legal drinking age: Reactance versus compliance. J. Coll. Student Devel. 33: 171-176, 1992. GORMAN, D.M. AND SPEER, P.W. Preventing alcohol abuse and alcohol-related problems through community intervention: A review of evaluation studies. Psychol. Hlth 11: 95-131, 1996. GRANT, B.F. AND DAWSON, D.A. Age at onset of alcohol use and its association with DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: Results from the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey. J. Subst. Abuse 9: 103-110, 1997. GROSSMAN, M., CHALOUPKA, F.J., SAFFER, H. AND LAIXUTHAI, A. Effects of alcohol price policy on youth: A summary of economic research. In: BOYD, G.M., HOWARD, J. AND ZUCKER, R.A. (Eds.) Alcohol Problems Among Adolescents: Current Directions in Prevention Research, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995, pp. 225-242. GRUBE, J.W. Preventing sales of alcohol to minors: Results from a community trial. Addiction 92 (Suppl. 2): S251-S260, 1997. GUY, R. Opinion. Ref. Civil No. 8-73015 and Civil No. 8-73159. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, Detroit, MI, December 22, 1978. HINGSON, R., MERRIGAN, D. AND HEEREN, T. Effects of Massachusetts raising its legal drinking age from 18 to 20 on deaths from teenage homicide, suicide, and nontraffic accidents. Pediat. Clin. No. Amer. 32: 221-232, 1985. HINGSON, R.W., SCOTCH, N., MANGIONE, T., MEYERS, A., GLANTZ, L., HEEREN, T., LIN, N., MUCATEL, M. AND PIERCE, G. Impact of legislation raising the legal drinking age in Massachusetts from 18 to 20. Amer. J. Publ. Hlth 73: 163-170, 1983. HOADLEY, J.F., FUCHS, B.C. AND HOLDER, H.D. Effect of alcohol beverage restrictions on consumption: A 25-year longitudinal analysis. Amer. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse 10: 375-401, 1984. HOSKIN, A.F., YALUNG-MATHEWS, D. AND CARRARO, B.A. Effect of raising the legal minimum drinking age on fatal crashes in 10 states. J. Safety Res. 17: 117-121, 1986. HOWLAND, J., BIRCKMAYER, J., HEMENWAY, D. AND COTE, J. Did changes in minimum age drinking laws affect adolescent drowning (1970-90)? Injury Prev. 4: 288-291, 1998. HUGHES, S.P. AND DODDER, R.A. Raising the legal minimum drinking age: Short-term effects with college student samples. J. Drug Issues 16: 609-620, 1986. HUGHES, S.P. AND DODDER, R.A. Changing the legal minimum drinking age: Results of a longitudinal study. J. Stud. Alcohol 53: 568-575, 1992. JOHNSON, J.A., OKSANEN, E.H., VEALL, M.R. AND FRETZ, D. Short-run and long-run elasticities for Canadian consumption of alcoholic beverages: An error-correction mechanism/cointegration approach. Rev. Econ. Stat. 74: 64-74, 1992. JORNSTON, L.D., O'MALLEY, P.M. AND BACHMAN, J.G. National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1997. Vol. 1 (NIH Publication No. 98-4345) and Vol. 2 (NIH Publication No. 98-4346), Washington: Government Printing Office, 1998. JOKSCH, H.C. AND JONES, R.K. Changes in the drinking age and crime. J. Cram. Justice 21: 209-221, 1993. JONES, N.M., PIEPER, C.F. AND ROBERTSON, L.S. Effect of legal drinking age on fatal injuries of adolescents and young adults. Amer. J. Publ. Hlth 82: 112-115, 1992. JONES-WEBB, R., TOOMEY, T., MINER, K., WAGENAAR, A.C., WOLFSON, M. AND POON, R. Why and in what context adolescents obtain alcohol from adults: A pilot study. Subst. Use Misuse 32:219-228, 1997a. JONES-WEBB, R., TOOMEY, T.L., SHORT, B., MURRAY, D.M., WAGENAAR, A. AND WOLFSON, M. Relationships among alcohol availability, drinking location, alcohol consumption, and drinking problems in adolescents. Subst. Use Misuse 32: 1261-1285, 1997b. KANDEL, D.B., YAMAGUCHI, K. AND CHEW, K. Stages of progression in drug involvement from adolescence to adulthood: Further evidence for the gateway theory. J. Stud. Alcohol 53: 447-457, 1992. KENKEL, D.S. Do drunk drivers pay their way? A note on optimal penalties for drunk driving. J. Hlth Econ. 12: 136-149, 1993a. KENKEL, D.S. Drinking, driving, and deterrence: The effectiveness and social costs of alternative policies. J. Law Econ. 36: 877-913, 1993b. KING, R.F. AND DUDAR, D. M. The politics of denial: The use of funding penalties as an implementation device for social policy. Policy Sci. 20: 307-337, 1987. KLEPP, K.I., AAS, H.N. AND WAAIILBERG, R.B. Perceived access to alcohol among lower secondary school students. A longitudinal study (Norwegian). Tidsskr. Nor. Laegeforen. 116:3132-3135, 1996a. KLEPP, K.I., SCHMID, L.A. AND MURRAY, D.M. Effects of the increased minimum drinking age law on drinking and driving behavior among adolescents. Addict. Res. 4: 237-244, 1996b. LAIXUTHAI, A. Youth, Alcohol Use and Abuse: An Examination of Public Policy and Laws on Alcohol, Marijuana, and Drunk Driving, Ph.D. dissertation, Chicago, IL: Health Sciences Center, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1994. LAIXUTHAI, A. AND CHALOUPKA, F.J. Youth alcohol use and public policy. Contemp. Policy Issues 11: 70-81, 1993. LEGGE, J.S., JR. Reforming highway safety in New York State: An evaluation of alternative policy interventions. Social Sci. Q. 71: 373-382, 1990. LEWIS, R.K., PAINE-ANDREWS, A., FAWCETT, S.B., FRANCISCO, V.T., RICHTER, K.P., COPPLE, B. AND COPPLE, J.P. Evaluating the effects of a community coalition's efforts to reduce illegal sales of alcohol and tobacco products to minors. J. Commun. Hlth 21: 429-436, 1996. LILLIS, R.P., WILLIAMS, T.P. AND WILLIFORD, W.R. Impact of the 19-year-old drinking age in New York. In: HOLDER, H.D. (Ed.) Advances in Substance Abuse: Behavioral and Biological Research, Supplement 1: Control Issues in Alcohol Abuse Prevention: Strategies for States and Communities, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1987, pp. 133-146. LOEB, P.D. The determination of automobile fatalities. J. Transport. Econ. Policy 21: 279-287, 1987. LONNSTROM, D.A. Impact of Changes in the New York State Minimum Drinking Age Law upon the College Campus. Dissertation Abstracts Int. 45 (8-A): 2670, 1985. LOTTERHOS, J.F., GLOVER, M.D., HOLBERT, D. AND BARNES, R.C. Intentionality of college students regarding North Carolina's 21-year drinking age law. Int. J. Addict. 23: 629-647, 1988. MCCALL, M. Accuracy in detecting potential underage drinkers: The role of contextual effects in proofing. J. Appl. Social Psychol. 23: 875-890, 1993. MCCALL, M. The effects of physical attractiveness on gaining access to alcohol: When social policy meets social decision making. Addiction 92: 597-600, 1997. MCCALL, M. Physical attractiveness, mood, and the decision to card for the purchase of alcohol: Evidence for a mood-management hypothesis. J. Appl. Social Psychol. 29:1172-1190, 1999. MCCORNAC, D.C. AND F1LANTE, R.W. Demand for distilled spirits: An empirical investigation. J. Stud. Alcohol 45:176-178, 1984. MCFADDEN, M. AND WECHSLER, H. Minimum drinking age laws and teenage drinking. Psychiat. Opin. 16 (3): 26-28, 1979. MACKINNON, D.P. AND WOODWARD, J.A. The impact of raising the minimum drinking age on driver fatalities. Int. J. Addict. 21: 1331-1338, 1986. MAISTO, S.A. AND RACHAL, J.V. Indications of the relationship among adolescent drinking practices, related behavior, and drinking-age laws. In: WECHSLER, H. (Ed.) Minimum-Drinking-Age Laws: An Evaluation, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1980, pp. 155-176. MALES, M.A. Minimum purchase age for alcohol and young-driver fatal crashes: A long-term view. J. Legal Stud. 15:181-211, 1986. MANUEL VS STATE OF LOUISIANA, 692 So. 2d 320 (La. 1996). MAYER, R.R., FORSTER, J.L., MURRAY, D.M. AND WAGENAAR, A.C. Social settings and situations of underage drinking. J. Stud. Alcohol 59: 207215, 1998. MILLER, T.R. AND BLINCOE, L.J. Incidence and cost of alcohol-involved crashes in the United States. Accid. Anal. Prev. 26: 583-591, 1994. MOONEY, L.A. AND GRAMLINO, R. The differential effects of the minimum drinking age law. Sociol. Inquiry 63: 330-338, 1993. MOONEY, L.A., GRAMLING, R. AND FORSYTH, C. Legal drinking age and alcohol consumption. Deviant Behav. 13:59-71, 1992. MOSKOWITZ, J.M. The primary prevention of alcohol problems: A critical review of the research literature. J. Stud. Alcohol 50: 54-88, 1989. NAOR, E.M. AND NASHOLD, R.D. Teenage driver fatalities following reduction in the legal drinking age. J. Safety Res. 7: 74-79, 1975. NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS. Health, United States, 1993, DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 94-1232, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1994. NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION. Traffic Safety Facts 1997: Alcohol, Report No. DOT HS 808 806, Washington: Department of Transportation, 1998. O'LEARY, D., GORMAN, D.M. AND SPEER, P.W. The sale of alcoholic beverages to minors. Publ. Hlth Rep. 109: 816-818, 1994. O'MALLEY, P.M. AND WAGENAAR, A.C. Effects of minimum drinking age laws on alcohol use, related behaviors, and traffic crash involvement among American youth: 1976-1987. J. Stud. Alcohol 52: 478-491, 1991. ORNSTEIN, S.I. A survey of findings on the economic and regulatory determinants of the demand for alcoholic beverages. Subst. Alcohol Actions/Misuse 5: 39-44, 1984. PARK, J. Solving the Problem of Alcohol-Impaired Driving: An Evaluation of Alcohol-Related Legal Policies in the States. Dissertation Abstracts Int. 54 (9-A): 3589, 1994. PARKER, R.N. Alcohol and Homicide: A Deadly Combination of Two American Traditions, Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press, 1995. PERKINS, H.W. AND BERKOWITZ, A.D. Stability and contradiction in college students' drinking following a drinking-age law change. J. Alcohol Drug Educ. 35 (1): 60-77, 1989. PREUSSER, D.F. AND WILLIAMS, A.F. Sales of alcohol to underage purchasers in three New York counties and Washington, D.C.J. Publ. Hlth Policy 13: 306-317, 1992. PREUSSER, D.F., WILLIAMS, A.F. AND WEINSTEIN, H.B. Policing underage alcohol sales. J. Safety Res. 25: 127-133, 1994. ROONEY, J.F. AND SCHWARTZ, S.M. The effect of minimum drinking age laws upon adolescent alcohol use and problems. Contemp. Drug Probl. 6: 569-583, 1977. RUBINGTON, E. Drinking in the dorms: A study of the etiquette of RA-resident relations. J. Drug Issues 20:451-461, 1990. RUHM, C.J. Alcohol policies and highway vehicle fatalities. J. Hlth Econ. 15: 435-454, 1996. SAFFER, H. AND GROSSMAN, M. Beer taxes, the legal drinking age, and youth motor vehicle fatalities. J. Legal Stud. 16:351-374, 1987a. SAFFER, H. AND GROSSMAN, M. Drinking age laws and highway mortality rates: Cause and effect. Econ. Inquiry 25: 403-417, 1987b. SCROFIELD, M.J., WEEKS, C. AND SANSON-FISHER, R. Alcohol sales to minors: A surrogate study. Prev. Med. 23:827-831, 1994. SCHWARTZ, R.H., FARROW, J.A., BANKS, B. AND GIESEL, A.E. Use of false ID cards and other deceptive methods to purchase alcoholic beverages during high school. J. Addict. Dis. 17 (3): 25-33, 1998. SCHWEITZER, S.O., INTRILIGATOR, M.D. AND SALEHI, H. Alcoholism: An econometric model of its causes, its effects and its control. In: GRANT, M., PLANT, M. AND WILLIAMS, A. (Eds.) Economics and Alcohol: Consumption and Controls, New York: Gardner Press, 1983, pp. 107-127. SMART, R.G. Changes in alcoholic beverage sales after reductions in the legal drinking age. Amer. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse 4: 101-108, 1977. SMART, R.G. AND ADLAF, E.M. Age of majority cards and drinking among young people. J. Alcohol Drug Educ. 32 (3): 60-64, 1987. SMART, R.G., ADLAF, E.M. AND WALSH, G.W. Procurement of alcohol and underage drinking among adolescents in Ontario. J. Stud. Alcohol 57: 419-424, 1996. SMART, R.G. AND FINLEY, J. Changes in drinking age and per capita beer consumption in ten Canadian provinces. Addict. Dis. 2: 393-402, 1976. SMART, R.G. AND SCHMIDT, W. Drinking and problems from drinking after a reduction in the minimum drinking age. Brit. J. Addict. 70: 347-358, 1975. SMITH, D.I. Effect on non-traffic accident hospital admissions of lowering the drinking age in two Australian states. Contemp. Drug Probl. 13: 621-639, 1986. SMITH, D.I. AND BURVILL, P.W. Effect on traffic safety of lowering the drinking age in three Australian states. J. Drug Issues 16: 183-198, 1986. SMITH, R.A., HINGSON, R.W., MORELOCK, S., HEEREN,T., MUCATEL, M., MANGIONE, T. AND SCOTCH, N. Legislation raising the legal drinking age in Massachusetts from 18 to 20: Effect on 16 and 17 year-olds. J. Stud. Alcohol 45: 534-539, 1984. THIEL, R.R. The Impact of the Raised Drinking Age in Texas on Alcohol-Related Traffic Accidents and Fatalities. Dissertation Abstracts Int. 46 (5-A): 1419, 1985. TOOMEY, T.L., ROSENFELD, C. AND WAGENAAR, A.C. The minimum legal drinking age: History, effectiveness and ongoing debate. Alcohol Hlth Res. World 20: 213-218, 1996. TOOMEY, T.L., WAOENAAR, A.C., KILIAN, G., FITCH, O., ROTHSTEIN, C. AND FLETCHER, L. Alcohol sales to pseudo-intoxicated bar patrons. Publ. Hlth Rep. 114: 337-342, 1999. VAUCHER, S., REHM, J., BENVENUTI, J. AND MULLER, R. Young teenagers and access to alcohol in a Swiss canton: Evidence from observational testing and from a telephone survey. Addiction 90: 1619-1625, 1995. VINGILIS, E. AND SMART, R.G. Effects of raising the legal drinking age in Ontario. Brit. J. Addict. 76: 415-424, 1981. WAGENAAR, A.C. The Minimum Legal Drinking Age: A Time-Series Impact Evaluation. Dissertation Abstracts Int. 41 (8B): 2984, 1981. WAGENAAR, A.C. Aggregate beer and wine consumption: Effects of changes in the minimum legal drinking age and a mandatory beverage container deposit law in Michigan. J. Stud. Alcohol 43: 469-487, 1982a. WAGENAAR, A.C. Public policy effects on alcohol consumption in Maine and New Hampshire: 1970-1980. Contemp. Drug Probl. 11: 3-20, 1982b. WAGENAAR, A.C. Alcohol, Young Drivers, and Traffic Accidents: Effects of Minimum-Age Laws, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1983a. WAGENAAR, A.C. Raising the legal drinking age in Maine: Impact on traffic accidents among young drivers. Int. J. Addict. 18: 365-377, 1983b. WAGENAAR, A.C. Preventing highway crashes by raising the legal minimum age for drinking: The Michigan experience 6 years later. J. Safety Res. 17: 101-109, 1986. WAGENAAR, A.C. Minimum drinking age and alcohol availability to youth: Issues and research needs. In: HILTON, M.E. AND BLOSS, G. (Eds.) Economics and the Prevention of Alcohol-Related Problems. NIAAA Research Monograph No. 25, NIH Publication No. 93-3513, Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, 1993, pp. 175-200. WAGENAAR, A.C., FINNEGAN, J.R., WOLFSON, M., ANSTINE, P.S., WILLIAMS, C.L. AND PERRY, C.L. Where and how adolescents obtain alcoholic beverages. Publ. Hlth Rep. 108: 459-464, 1993. WAGENAAR, A.C., HARWOOD, E.H., TOOMEY, T.L., DENK, C.E. AND ZANDER, K.M. Public opinion on alcohol policies in the United States: Results from a national survey. J. Publ. Hlth Policy 21: 303-327, 2000. WAGENAAR, A.C. AND MAYBEE, R.G. The legal minimum drinking age in Texas: Effects of an increase from 18 to 19. J. Safety Res. 17: 165-178, 1986. WAGENAAR, A.C. AND TOOMEY, T.L. Alcohol policy: Gaps between legislative action and current research. Contemp. Drug Probl. 27: 681-733, 2000. WAGENAAR, A.C., TOOMEY, T.L., MURRAY, D.M., SHORT, B.J., WOLFSON, g. AND JONES-WEBB, R. Sources of alcohol for underage drinkers. J. Stud. Alcohol 57: 325-333, 1996. WAGENAAR, A.C. AND WOLFSON, M. Enforcement of the legal minimum drinking age in the United States. J. Publ. Hlth Policy 15: 37-53, 1994. WAGENAAR, A.C. AND WOLFSON, M. Deterring sales and provision of alcohol to minors: A study of enforcement in 295 counties in four states. Publ. Hlth Rep. 110: 419-427, 1995. WEINSTEIN, B.G. Costs and benefits of establishing a national purchasing age of 21. In: HOLDER, H.D. (Ed.) Advances in Substance Abuse: Behavioral and Biological Research, Supplement 1: Control Issues in Alcohol Abuse Prevention: Strategies for States and Communities, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1987, pp. 105-118. WHITEHEAD, P.C., CRAIG, J., LANGFORD, N., MACARTHUR, C., STANTON, B. AND FERRENCE, R.G. Collision behavior of young drivers: Impact of the change in the age of majority. J. Stud. Alcohol 36: 1208-1223, 1975. WILKINSON, J.T. Reducing drunken driving: Which policies are most effective? So. Econ. J. 54: 322-334, 1987. WILLIAMS, A.F., RICH, R.F., ZADOR, P.L. AND ROBERTSON, L.S. The legal minimum drinking age and fatal motor vehicle crashes. J. Legal Stud. 4: 219-239, 1975. WILLIAMS, A.F., ZADOR, P.L., HARRIS, S.S. AND KARPF, R.S. The effect of raising the legal minimum drinking age on involvement in fatal crashes. J. Legal Stud. 12: 169-179, 1983. WILLIAMS, T.P. AND LILUS, R.P. Changes in alcohol consumption by 18-year-olds following an increase in New York State's purchase age to 19. J. Stud. Alcohol 47: 290-296, 1986. WILLIAMS, T.P. AND LILLIS, R.P. Long-term changes in reported alcohol purchasing and consumption following an increase in New York State's purchase age to 19. Brit. J. Addict. 83: 209-217, 1988. WILLIFORD, W.R. Effect of the Nineteen Alcohol Purchase Age on an Eighteen-Year-Old High-Risk Behavior Group. Dissertation Abstracts Int. 48 (A): 2746, 1988. WOLFSON, M., TOOMEY, T.L., FORSTER, J.L., WAGENAAR, A.C., MCGOVERN, P.G. AND PERRY, C.L. Characteristics, policies and practices of alcohol outlets and sales to underage persons. J. Stud. Alcohol 57: 670-674, 1996a. WOLFSON, M., TOOMEY, T.L., MURRAY, D.M., FORSTER, J.L., SHORT, B.J. AND WAGENAAR, A.C. Alcohol outlet policies and practices concerning sales to underage people. Addiction 91: 589-602, 1996b. WOLFSON, M., WAGENAAR, A.C. AND HORNSETH, G.W. Law officers' views on enforcement of the minimum drinking age: A four-state study. Publ. Hlth Rep. 110: 428-438, 1995. Yu, J. Alcohol purchase age laws and the serial beginning drinker in New York. Int. J. Addict. 30: 1289-1301, 1995. Yu, J. Perceived parental/peer attitudes and alcohol-related behaviors: An analysis of the impact of the drinking age law. Subst. Use Misuse 33: 2687-2702, 1998. Yu, J. AND SHACKET, R.W. Long-term change in underage drinking and impaired driving after the establishment of drinking age laws in New York State. Alcsm Clin. Exp. Res. 22: 1443-1449, 1998. ALEXANDER C. WAGENAAR, PH.D., ([dagger]) AND TRACI L. TOOMEY, PH.D. Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, 1300 South Second Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454-1015 ([dagger]) Alexander C. |
|