Via Hot Air, apparently the state of Minnesota is considering lowering the drinking age.  This is nothing new in the United States.  For years, many states have considered doing it.  Most are not really serious about it,  because they realize if they lower the drinking age, the federal government will slice off some highway funds.

However, one legislator has an odd reason for putting forward the idea: to help the economy.  That’s right.  A Minnesota Republican, Tom Hackbarth, says that with the ailing economy, the extra money could help the industry:

Tom Hackbarth, a Republican from District 48A said, “I think that bars and restaurants are having a difficult time right now with the smoking ban that went into place. I think with economic times the way they are, I’ve never opposed the drinking age being 18.”

He says the proposal could help the tavern industry.  However, Mothers Against Drunk Driving opposes this idea.

Not to be completely cynical, but one thing people sometimes turn to when feeling bad for themselves is drinking.  So I wonder how much the industry needs help.  Ed Morrissey doesn’t buy it either, though for a different reason:

I’ve heard a lot of arguments against the prohibition on under-21 adults, but never an economic one.  Is this Minnesota’s own stimulus plan?  In fact, the economics of the argument are usually considered a wash, since one of the points made against the ban is that teens buy alcohol on their own anyway.

As Morrissey notes, promoters for maintaining a higher age typically cite safety issues as a reason for doing so.  However, as he also points out, cracking down on drunk driving behavior has increased in recent years.  As has the cracking down of retailers who sell to under-21s.  I’ve never been able to go into any bar or package store in the U.S. without being carded since I look about 15 or so.  I’m 22.

However, then Ed cites an article by an Irish health site about a campaign to try and get Irish youth to delay their drinking, because of problems with underage drinking in that country (which is legally 18 in public with none in private):

The Irish are less convinced of their own wisdom these days:

Over 80% of adults believe that it is easy for people under the age of 18 to access alcohol in pubs and off-licenses, new research from the HSE indicates.

The preliminary results of the research indicate that the vast majority of adults – 91% – agree that underage drinking is a problem in Ireland today, while 50% feel there is nothing they can do to stop young people from consuming alcohol. …

The campaign hopes to increase awareness among adults about the extent of underage drinking, the ease of access which young people have to alcohol and the benefits in delaying the age at which they start drinking.

“We now have a problem which impacts negatively on so many areas of society, from increases in sexually transmitted infections, public order offences and young adult suicide”, commented Dr Joe Barry of the HSE’s population health directorate.

I’m not sure using the circumstances of underage drinking in Ireland is really an argument to keep in 21 in the United States.  I’ve hung out with Europeans at online forums for years.  And if there’s one thing about drinking in Europe I’ve come to learn, it’s their attitude toward it.  They’re much more laid back about it there.  Well, when you don’t care as much about stopping underage drinking as it is, you’re going to have a problem.

Let me put it this way.  Like I said above, I’ve been carded every time I’ve entered a bar or gone to buy drinks while at home.  But when I went to Greece two years ago, I didn’t get carded once.  Not a one.  Of course, I just found out while researching Ireland’s drinking age that Greece has none (though they do have a purchase age of 17), which explains a lot.  But I think my point is even more emphasized in saying that.  Europe’s attitude is so laid back in some places that some countries don’t even try regulating it.  Even where they officially do, sometimes unofficially they do not.

So I’m scratching my head at that citation.  It’s like comparing apples and oranges.  With the attitude the U.S. has developed toward enforcing the law on drinking age, that should actually make the argument stronger toward reversing the age.  Nobody who’s 15 is going to be allowed into a bar.  Nobody’s who’s 17 is going to be purchasing from a package store.  The only issue left is actual underage and binge drinking at high school and college parties, but that’s a problem already.

And given that it is, I’m grasping at straws trying to find a reason why the 21 law is still in place.  Keep the crack-down attitude for under-18s, I say, and lower the age for the rest.