JA

COURT DECISION ANSWERS QUESTIONS ON DRINKING AGE

Michigan's legal drinking age is now 21, but it was not until 4 hours before the new law was to take effect that young imbibers knew for sure the voter-approved Constitutional amendment would take effect.

In a 52-page ruling handed down from the U.S. District Court in Detroit, Judge Ralph Guy ruled that the State did indeed have the power to establish Michigan's legal drinking age at 21, while granting certain other rights and privileges of majority at age 18. Guy's ruling defined majority or

Judge Ralph Guy

minority as a status, rather than a fixed or vested right.

"Majority is the age at which the disabilities of infancy are removed. These disabilities are in fact personal privileges (which) protect them from acts of their own improvidence, as well as the acts of others. The result of removing these disabilities does not create any new rights."

In his arguments before the Court, Michigan Assistant Attorney General George Weller pointed out that there are numerous instances where the courts have recognized the differential treatment of citizens, based on their age.

For example:

One may qualify for a driver's license at 16. • Making wills, signing contracts and voting is okay at 18.

• Payments for Aid to Dependent Children may be ordered to continue until age 21.

To qualify for the State Legislature, one must be at least 21.

-31

Can the legal drinking age go to 21, if other adult rights are given to 18 year olds? The Federal Dis trict Court in Detroit has ruled that not only is there rational and proper basis for raising the legal drink ing age to 21, it could even be boosted to age 25 if lawmakers or voters want to go one step further in combating drunk driving problems. Freedom of religion, the rights of parents and equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are other issues addressed in the landmark court decision of J. C.'s Rock Saloon u William G. Milliken (Governor of Michigan), Civil Action No. 8-73015 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, Detroit-Judge Ralph B. Guy, Jr.

• Social Security payments for children can continue until age 22.

• To serve in the U.S. Congress, one must be 25.

• In order to run for Governor, or the U.S. Senate, one must be at least 30.

• And, no one can run for President of the U.S. before age 35.

The constitutionality of the 21 year old drinking law had been challenged by several youth-oriented bars and a statewide organization known as the Michigan Committee for the Age of Responsibility (MICAR), which is financed largely through donations from liquor hcensees.

The plaintiffs argued that, under the "Equal Protection" provision of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the state had no power to make the legal drinking age different from the age of majority (18).

STATES CAN "DISCRIMINATE" ON THE BASIS OF AGE, IF THEY HAVE "RATIONAL" REASON

Judge Guy disagreed with the reasoning of the plaintiffs, noting:

"The Fourteenth Amendment permits the states a wide scope of discretion in enacting laws which affect some groups of citizens differently than others."

No, the state could not discriminate on the basis of sex, wealth, race or national origin, but there were numerous cases in which states have been allowed to give differential treatment to various classes of citizens, based on age, providing there was a "rational" reason.

The key question before the Court was whether Proposal D, which amended Michigan's Constitution to raise the drinking age to 21, was a "rational"

act.

Plaintiffs argued that the sole basis for raising the drinking age was traffic safety, and they contended that this was not a rational basis, since older drivers, age 21-24, had driving records similar to 18-20 year old drivers, when it came to alcohol. related accidents.

REASONS OTHER THAN TRAFFIC

SAFETY FOR RAISING THE

DRINKING AGE

Even though "Saving Lives" was the theme of the Coalition for 21 effort in promoting Proposal D, the Court did not accept this as the only reason advanced for raising the drinking age.

"EVERY LIFE IS PRECIOUS"

SAVING 54 LIVES

A YEAR IS OUR GOAL

SUPPORT THE DRIVE TO RAISE MICHIGAN'S LEGAL DRINKING AGE TO 21 VOTE YES ON PROPOSAL D NOVEMBER 7TH

In testimony presented to the Court, Weller and Dr. Louis Zako, Chairman of the Michigan State Medical Society Council, which backed the Coalition for 21 petition drive, listed other “rational" reasons for raising the legal drinking age to 21.

1. The effect of alcohol is accentuated in young people because they weigh less.

Blood is about 90% water. Alcohol is diluted by the blood stream when it is absorbed, then diluted further by the fluid in and around the cells of the body tissue.

-32

This is one reason that the effect of alcohol is greater on a person of lesser weight. He or she has less blood and other fluids.

2. The body makeup of individuals in their late teens is such that there is a ratio of muscle tissue to fat in the body not found in older adults. This results in a more rapid metabolism of alcohol and alcohol having a greater affect on young people in this age group. 3. This period in young persons' lives is one of emotional and psychological instability and in these transition years, alcohol has a serious effect, more pronounced than on older adults.

4. To develop a means other than the use of a drug for handling the pressures of society.

The ages of 18-20 are ones of release; from home to attend college, to go to work, or to go out on one's own.

The pressures of society can cause a young person who is feeling the pressure to seek a means of release. With alcoholic beverages freely and legally available, the young person can too easily turn to alcohol to escape, rather than develop the personal resources that will better serve him or her in later years.

Making first access to alcoholic beverages at 21 will help develop these inner re

sources.

(A 1977 Gallup Poll showed that 26% of the young people saw escape from the pressures of society to be the second reason so many young people were using alcohol and other drugs.)

5. To reduce peer pressure.

In an age level of conformity, it is difficult to
resist peer pressure to conform.
(A 1977 Gallup Poll showed that 29% of the
young people saw peer pressure to be the
reason so many young people were using
alcohol and other drugs.)

6. Young persons need more time in which to develop behavior controls.

Control over behavior develops over years of experience. What is acceptable or not acceptable in behavior is learned through experience.

Over the years, controls over unaccept. able behavior become stronger and less susceptible to release. Young persons are therefore more likely to exhibit unacceptable behavior under the release of alcohol. 7. Adding three years to the age for access to alcoholic beverages will reduce the possibility

of alcoholic problems later in life.

TRAFFIC SAFETY ALONE WAS
SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY
"RATIONALITY" TEST

Although Judge Guy agreed that the proponents of raising the legal drinking age to 21 had reasons other than traffic safety for their move, he said that the traffic safety issue, and that alone, was sufficient to satisfy the "rationality" test.

Eight pages of Judge Guy's opinion were devoted to a discussion of the research and statistical data provided by Dr. Richard Douglass of the University of Michigan's Highway Safety Research Institute.

Dr. Richard Douglass

Douglass' study of traffic crashes involved analysis of more than 6 million accident reports from 7 states. His research was sophisticated, with rigid controls for population growth, seasonal factors, linear trends, and incomplete or inaccurate report. ing by law enforcement agencies. The conclusion which Douglass reached was that lowering the drinking age in Michigan, and that alone, was responsible for an increase conservatively estimated to be between 9.99% and 25.66% in fatal accidents among 18-20 year old drivers in the first 12 to 18 months of Michigan's 18 year old drinking law.

Additional data were presented by Douglass, indicating that there were an estimated 4,800 alcohol-related crashes among the affected group during the first 48 months of the lowered drinking age.

Dr. Douglass testified that most of the criticism he had received on his study was that his figures were "too conservative."

Judge Guy noted:

"The methodology and controls used by Dr. Douglass were not only precise and exacting, but plaintiff's expert witnesses indicated that they felt they could not criticize in any way the methodology."

Among the plaintiffs' "expert witnesses" were Dr. Margaret Clay, a researcher from the University of Michigan, Martin Lee, a statistician from the Michigan Secretary of State's office and Kenneth

-33

Eaton, Administrator of the Michigan Office of Substance Abuse Services.

Missing among the "expert witnesses" for the plaintiffs was Richard Zylman, a former employee of Rutgers University who has been critical of Douglass' study and others which have indicated that drinking-age laws could result in a higher number of alcohol-caused accidents among younger drivers.

Zylman did appear in Michigan two months earlier, at a rally on the front steps of the State Capitol, to tell a cheering group of college students that drinking age laws had no effect on drunk driving accidents. For this appearance, Zylman was paid $400 by the Michigan Committee for the Age of Responsibility (MICAR), the same group which filed suit in Judge Guy's court to block implementation of the new drinking-age law.

However, when it came to assembling "expert witnesses" for their court case, MICAR chose to bypass Zylman, who has been reluctant to either debate Douglass, or to appear in a situation where he could be cross-examined about the validity of his criticism.

Judge Guy ruled that raising the drinking age to 21, based on the increase in drunk driving fatal accidents among 18-20 year old drivers was indeed a "rational" act, and perfectly within the rights of the people of Michigan, when he concluded;

"The court is thus left with an impressive and unrefuted body of statistics, data which graphically demonstrates the permanent and significant increase in alcohol-related traffic accidents and fatalities affecting the 18-20 year old group after the Michigan drinking age was lowered to age 18."

In essence, the plaintiffs' argument was that the classification of 18-20 year old drivers is unfair because after the drinking age was lowered to 18 from 21, the traffic accidents and fatality records of those in the former age group (18-20) merely rose to the level of their older adult counterparts, the 21-24 year old drivers.

18-20 YEAR OLD DRIVERS NO WORSE THAN 21-24 YEAR OLD DRIVERS

In other words, the plaintiffs argued that there was no rational reason to discriminate against 18-20 year old drivers, merely because their driving records were now no worse than those of other older drivers.

Judge Guy noted that there were several "expert witnesses" who testified on both sides of the case. But, Guy observed, this was not a battle of the experts in any traditional sense.

All of the experts were in substantial agreement. It was only in their conslusions that the

-34

parties asked the Court to draw from their testimony that they were in dispute.

Both sides agreed that:

• Alcohol-related traffic crashes among 1820 year olds increased dramatically after Michigan's legal age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1972.

• Following the lowered drinking age, the experience of 18-20 year olds with alcoholrelated traffic crashes was roughly equal to that of 21-24 year olds.

The plaintiffs, however, avoided asking their "expert witnesses" (with one exception) whether the driving experience of 18-20 year olds was better than 21-24 year olds before the drinking age was lowered, or whether a return to 21 might lessen the fatality rate for those in the 18-20 age group.

To the one "expert witness" that this ques tion was posed, Dr. Margaret Clay, a member of the Advisory Commission for the Office of Substance Abuse Services, the reply given was that she did not believe that the raised drinking age would make any difference because "The kids will drink anyway."

Judge Guy noted that Dr. Clay's statement was nothing more than her personal opinion, since she had no empirical support for her conclusion

While agreeing that the records of 18-20 year old drivers are now no worse than the traffic records of drivers in the 21-24 age bracket, Judge Guy said this did not invalidate the action taken against the 18-20 year olds in raising the drinking age. Guy said:

"This data supports the finding of a rational basis for a classification comprised of 18, 19 and 20 year olds. It is true that if the electorate or the legislature wanted to further impact on the area of drinking-related traffic accidents and fatalities, that they could also justify from a statistical standpoint prohibiting those in the 21-24 age group from drinking. That they have chosen not to do so, however, does not mean that the classification as drawn violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution."

There were several other questions answered by Judge Guy's ruling which are noteworthy: 1. Plaintiffs argued that raising the drinking age to 21 was an infringement on religious freedom, since it would prohibit the use of sacramental wine in religious ceremonies.

Not so, ruled Judge Guy, since the amendment dealt with "beverage alcohol," automatically excluding alcohol which was used

in religious ceremonies, or alcohol used for medicinal purposes.

2. Plaintiffs argued that drinking alcohol was not a privilege, rather it was a basic Constitutional right.

According to Judge Guy, the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution denies to any individual the claim that the right to drink alcohol is a fundamental right.

3. Plaintiffs contended that the new law violated the Constitutional rights of liquor licensees by depriving them of part of their business in

come.

It has long been held uniformly that there is no inherent right for a citizen to engage in the business of selling alcoholic beverages, said Judge Guy.

4. Plaintiffs held that the new law violated the basic rights of parents who wanted to serve their underage children alcohol as a part of the cultural tradition.

On one hand, the Judge ruled this argument "proved too much," since the logical conclusion, if one agreed with that reasoning, would be that there could be no legal drinking at all.

On the other hand, Judge Guy ruled that, since there is no Constitutional guarantee to access to alcohol, and since there is no fundamental right to drink, parents have no legal right to serve alcohol to their underage children.

Drinking inside the home can have a considerable effect on events outside the home, due to the opportunity for minors to drink and drive, said Guy.

At times, even the rights of parents must yield to state regulation, concluded Guy. Judge Guy admitted that his decision was not an easy one to make. It is a difficult area to deal with, involving the balancing of important state interests.

On the one hand, there is a legitimate concern for the safety, life and limb of the residents of the state. Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death of 18-20 year olds, Guy said.

On the other hand, there is the desire of a group substantial in number to have what they perceive to be all of the prerogatives of adulthood.

By adopting the Constitutional amendment rais ing the drinking age, the electorate came down on the side of protecting life and limb, and Guy agreed that their action was Constitutional, rational and proper.

The question now remaining is... Will the new drinking age reverse the trend of increased alcohol-caused traffic crashes among younger drivers? Only time will tell...