Alcohol can make good moments even better — champagne toasts, a cold beer at a baseball game, eggnog by the Christmas tree. Many doctors also claim a moderate amount of alcohol, defined as between one and five drinks per week, actually has health benefits. Like all good things, moderation is the key. The problem lies in curbing the abuse of alcohol so as to limit the number of lives lost in alcohol-related incidents each year. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Transportation reported that 31.7 percent of all traffic fatalities were alcohol-related. That is almost one-third of all car crash deaths.
For years, it has been thought that the key to curbing alcohol abuse was to raise the legal drinking age, thus spurring the 1984 decision to change the age from 18 to 21. The evidence to support this decision, however, goes both ways. Proponents of age 21, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, cite studies indicating that the number of alcohol-related car accidents has gone down since 1984. Opponents, however, cite studies indicating that increased car safety — air bags and seatbelts, for example — are the cause of the decrease in alcohol-related car fatalities, not the higher drinking age. In fact, a Congressional Quarterly study indicates the number of alcohol-related deaths among college students is on the rise, from 1,575 in 1998 to 1,717 in 2001. In addition, the number of alcohol-related deaths on college campuses has increased at a faster rate than the total number of college students.
Perhaps, then, we are looking to the wrong solution. Maybe the answer is not to be found with a magical age at which all people are suddenly mature enough to consume alcohol. According to an article by Madison Park on CNN.com titled “Study: Paying more for alcohol saves lives,” a new study in the American Journal of Public Health suggests the problem with alcohol is its price, pointing out that an increase in the alcohol tax has been shown to lead to a decrease in alcohol-related deaths. The study examined 28 years of data from Alaska, using comparisons to other states in order to control for nationwide trends, and, according to Park, found, “when Alaska raised its alcohol tax in 1983, deaths caused by or related to alcohol dropped 29 percent. A 2002 tax increase was followed by an 11 percent reduction.”
An increased alcohol tax extends beyond decreasing violence and death, and would provide a much-needed source of revenue for state costs such as police and emergency services, education and road maintenance. These are just a few of the countless areas that receive inadequate funding in most cash-strapped states. As the study points out, approximately half of the states in the U.S. have not raised their alcohol tax in the last 20 years. These tax rates are outdated and not keeping up with inflation.
A higher state alcohol tax would create a win-win situation — an increase in state revenues and a decrease in alcohol-related deaths. Opponents of an increased alcohol tax might argue that raising the tax punishes responsible drinkers who do not need to curb their habits. Yet, I wonder, when it comes to saving lives, including those of innocent victims of alcohol-related incidents, how much is too much?
Neily Todd is a senior in the College of Arts and Science. She can be reached at neily.p.todd@vanderbilt.edu.
