Financial Penalties of Violating the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984?

[paleocon121171]

I know that if a state chose to lower the purchasing age for alcohol (below 21), it would lose 10% of its federal highway funding. In other words, instead of the federal government paying 90% of the costs affiliated with constructing and maintaining both 2- and 3-Digit Interstates, it would only pay 80%. The economic threat from the Reagan administration to the individual states was apparently so severe that the last state to raise its alcohol purchasing age to 21 was in October 1988---less than 4 years after the passage of the law lobbied for by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

For the average state in America, is 10% of the interstate expressway costs significant enough to outweigh the potential revenue from allowing "minors" under 21 to buy alcohol? Would the monetary difference be easily made up (and then some) if a state with only 1 or 2 interstate highways lowered their alcohol purchasing age below 21? I'd say that Illinois could not make it up given the many 2-Digit parent interstates, 3-Digit bypasses, and 3-Digit spur highways in and around Chicago, but perhaps North Dakota could, for example.

[brad2971]

The last state to increase the age of purchase to 21 (South Dakota) only did so after losing a US Supreme Court case stating that, yes indeed, the feds have every right to attach requirements for spending that only secondarily involves transportation.

And no, there isn't a state in the Union that will lower the age of purchase because of a mere loss of 10% of ALL federal funding of transportation (this includes mass transit and non-Interstate freeways/highways as well). The extra tax revenue isn't close to being worth the extra hassle.

[hbelkins]

Don't know about other states, but in Kentucky, the General Fund and Road Fund are two separate entities that don't co-mingle funds. Revenues from alcohol taxes would go into the General Fund, not the Road Fund.

[kkt]

It's a reasonable question.  It might be worth it especially for some small state with very populous neighbors to lower their drinking age so that every minor for 200 miles around goes there to buy booze.  Say, Nevada or Delaware.

Is it just the 90% for Interstate construction and maintenance, or does it chop the National Highway System funding too?

[Alps]

Don't know about other states, but in Kentucky, the General Fund and Road Fund are two separate entities that don't co-mingle funds. Revenues from alcohol taxes would go into the General Fund, not the Road Fund.

Couldn't the state law establishing the new drinking age also move alcohol taxes into the Road Fund? In this scenario, there would be a fixed payback from the Road Fund to the General Fund based on a formula to mimic what the balance would be if the laws stayed as they currently are, and all of the excess revenue would go into roads. I think only a few states would have enough of a population/purchaser-to-roads ratio to pull this off.

[KEK Inc.]

It's interesting how Washington is treating the financial penalties of not having a monopoly on liquor (passed June 2012).  I'm not sure if Washington has overlapping funds with MIP/transportation.  I don't think they do.

Fortunately, in Seattle, they don't care unless you drive.  I've talked to a cop in a public Seattle park with a beer in my hand, and people say I look younger than my age (which is still underaged.  haha).

[realjd]

Is there an exception for PR or are they choosing to take the hit on federal transport funding?

[english si]

And no, there isn't a state in the Union that will lower the age of purchase because of a mere loss of 10% of ALL federal funding of transportation (this includes mass transit and non-Interstate freeways/highways as well). The extra tax revenue isn't close to being worth the extra hassle.

The extra tax revenue isn't what such a move would be about. It would be about health, liberty and not wasting police time.

[nexus73]

Let kids get drunk earlier.  They'll get the "stupid" out that much sooner!  Delaying adulthood just pushes problems forward.  Most of us who grew up in a freer time survived the experience.  That's why we're all here on this forum today I guess...LOL!

Rick

[agentsteel53]

drinking among teens needs to be normalized, instead of the current "see no evil" attitude by adults.

the other day I was spending the night in an RV park, and a few stalls down from us was a set of German tourists... father and son (age 15-16 or so?) were poring over the map, drinking beers together as though it were the most ordinary thing in the world.

I'll bet that kid won't be found praying over a toilet, or passed out under a tree, at age 19.

[Pete from Boston]

It's a reasonable question.  It might be worth it especially for some small state with very populous neighbors to lower their drinking age so that every minor for 200 miles around goes there to buy booze.  Say, Nevada or Delaware.

Is it just the 90% for Interstate construction and maintenance, or does it chop the National Highway System funding too?

New Hampshire is the state you're looking for.

In any case, the only folks ever interested in this, besides possibly those able to financially benefit, are those under 21.  No one stays under 21 for long, and those under 21 can't muster the political pressure to ever raise this seriously.

There is tremendous political will behind keeping the drinking age high.  No serious candidate wants to be on the other side of this issue, and no politician wants their name brought up when the first kid crashes who got legally drunk.

Interesting intellectual exercise, but otherwise firmly in the realm of fantasy.

[kkt]

drinking among teens needs to be normalized, instead of the current "see no evil" attitude by adults.

the other day I was spending the night in an RV park, and a few stalls down from us was a set of German tourists... father and son (age 15-16 or so?) were poring over the map, drinking beers together as though it were the most ordinary thing in the world.

I'll bet that kid won't be found praying over a toilet, or passed out under a tree, at age 19.

In practice, I think very few law enforcement officers are interested in busting kids in their late teens or their parents who are enjoying a moderate amount of beer or wine together in private.

[agentsteel53]

In practice, I think very few law enforcement officers are interested in busting kids in their late teens or their parents who are enjoying a moderate amount of beer or wine together in private.

indeed.  but so few parents are reasonable about this, that their kids are instead gonna sneak around and thus drink dangerously because they've got no experience with moderation.

[J N Winkler]

Is it just the 90% for Interstate construction and maintenance, or does it chop the National Highway System funding too?

It is the total federal highway funding apportionment, not just Interstate Construction funds (which were in any case largely irrelevant by 1984 as most states had finished the vast majority of their Interstate mileage).

In practice, I think very few law enforcement officers are interested in busting kids in their late teens or their parents who are enjoying a moderate amount of beer or wine together in private.

In many states there is actually a specific exemption in law for moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages by children at home under the responsible supervision of their parents.  And the 1984 federal law only requires states to pass laws banning purchase and public possession of alcoholic beverages by those under age 21.  The states that passed absolute bans on consumption of alcohol by people in that age group (Kansas was among them) did so at their entire option.

To get back to the OP's question, I don't see how it makes financial sense for most states to try to defy the national minimum drinking age.  Here is a specimen calculation:

*  About two-thirds of a state's population (give or take) will drive and will do the average annual mileage in a vehicle with the average fuel consumption; these assumptions give a total federal tax take (which in practice is almost the same as the state's federal highway apportionment, given the federal minimum recovery provisions) on a per capita basis of (2/3) * (12,000 miles/year) / (25 MPG) * $0.184 = $58.88.

*  In round figures, a state's annual cash penalty per capita for allowing public possession and purchase of alcohol by those aged under 21 is $6

*  Average annual per capita consumption of alcohol by Americans age 14 and over is 2.31 gallons

*  Assuming that allowing under-21s to purchase and publicly possess alcohol expands the proportion of the population that can do so by, say, 5% (the actual percentage will vary depending on a state's demographics), then the spirits tax that is required to ensure that increased sales to the under-21 group makes up the loss of federal funding is ($6 / 0.05) / ($2.31 * 2) = $25.97/gallon.  Very few states (e.g., OR and VA) have spirits taxes even approaching this amount and Washington is the only state with an effective marginal rate that exceeds it ($26.46/gallon).

So, in short, if a state chose to get rid of the 21 minimum in favor of an Europeanized "responsible drinking" policy similar to that instituted in the Scandinavian countries (we have no hope whatsoever of combining healthy alcohol consumption with low marginal tax rates on alcohol like France and Italy do, because the cultural norms that surround drinking in this country simply won't support it), then alcohol taxes would have to go way, way up in order to replace the lost federal highway funding.  There may be sound public policy reasons for this (e.g. reductions in alcohol-related fatalities and hospital admissions), but given the considerable power of the drinks lobby and the strong prevalence of anti-tax ideology in red-state legislatures, sticking with the 21 minimum and all the hypocrisy about underage drinking that it brings in its wake is the path of least resistance.

[TEG24601]

Wait, there is still money in the Federal funds for Freeways.  I thought that all was lost in the 80s and 90s for social programs.  If there were funds, it would be likely that the infrastructure would not be in as bad of a state as it is now.  Either way, I doubt that 10% of the federal funds going to states is really that signifigant, and there are a few states that really should consider it, as the drinking age of 21 is dumb in numerous ways.

[formulanone]

Didn't Louisiana threaten to lower their drinking age to 18 some time in the 1990s?

In practice, I think very few law enforcement officers are interested in busting kids in their late teens or their parents who are enjoying a moderate amount of beer or wine together in private.

indeed.  but so few parents are reasonable about this, that their kids are instead gonna sneak around and thus drink dangerously because they've got no experience with moderation.

Bah, had a few sips from the time I was eight, a few sips for religious reasons, never even thought to get wasted (derp, lost count at a party; was smart enough to sleep it off) until I was 23.

I've personally never understood the "let's get wasted every week" thing, since having to pee every ten minutes and getting abnormally red in the face isn't my idea of fun.

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

Didn't Louisiana threaten to lower their drinking age to 18 some time in the 1990s?

See: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/23/us/louisiana-stands-alone-on-drinking-at-18.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm and http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/03/us/louisiana-court-upholds-drinking-age-of-21.html

For a number of years the law was such that 18-20 year olds could not purchase alcohol on their own, but bars could legally sell to them. The legislature changed the law in 1995 to eliminate the loophole; the state supreme court overturned it on age discrimination grounds, but it was eventually upheld on appeal after the attorney general and a few dozen legislators publicly asked the court to reconsider (and slight shifts of the court's composition helped in the meantime).

[Zmapper]

Could a state keep their highway funds if they set a near-meaningless fine, perhaps one dollar, payable on the spot with no points or criminal record for purchasing or consuming alcohol between 18 and 21?

[J N Winkler]

Could a state keep their highway funds if they set a near-meaningless fine, perhaps one dollar, payable on the spot with no points or criminal record for purchasing or consuming alcohol between 18 and 21?

23 USC § 158 suggests so, but I am not sure that is a complete statement of the legal position.

[paleocon121171]

Is there an exception for PR or are they choosing to take the hit on federal transport funding?

No. Puerto Rico has chosen to keep their alcohol purchasing age at 18, and they are suffering the financial penalty from the federal government.

[paleocon121171]

Could a state keep their highway funds if they set a near-meaningless fine, perhaps one dollar, payable on the spot with no points or criminal record for purchasing or consuming alcohol between 18 and 21?

I'm sure that alcohol purchases by minors could be decriminalized to the point that it's rarely enforced or the fine is extremely small. Honestly, I'm surprised that many states haven't looked for loopholes in the law. It's a pretty general piece of legislation.

[hbelkins]

I've personally never understood the "let's get wasted every week" thing, since having to pee every ten minutes and getting abnormally red in the face isn't my idea of fun.

Peeing is cool.

[agentsteel53]

18-20 year olds could not purchase alcohol on their own, but bars could legally sell to them

huh?

the buy is legal, but the sell is illegal?  that's like saying "it's illegal for me to shake your hand, but it's okay for you to shake my hand".

[formulanone]

Peeing is cool.

Maybe.

[kphoger]

18-20 year olds could not purchase alcohol on their own, but bars could legally sell to them

huh?

the buy is legal, but the sell is illegal?  that's like saying "it's illegal for me to shake your hand, but it's okay for you to shake my hand".

Or:   hitchhiking from the grass next to a highway is legal, but stopping on a highway to pick up a hitchhiker is illegal.  (just had to think of a traffic-related one)