Did the 18 Drinking Age Promote High School Dropout? Implications for Current Policy

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Objective: Disagreement exists over whether permissive minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) laws affected underage adolescents (e.g., those age 17 years with the MLDA of 18). We used MLDA changes during the 1970s and 1980s as a natural experiment to investigate how underage exposure to permissive MLDA affected high school dropout. Method: MLDA exposure was added to two data sets: (a) the 5% public use microdata samples of the 1990 and 2000 censuses (n = 3,671,075), and (b) a combined data set based on the 1991-1992 National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiological Survey (NLAES) and the 2001-2002 National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC; n = 16,331). We used logistic regression to model different thresholds of MLDA on high school dropout. We also estimated models conditioned on demographic variables and familial risk of developing alcohol problems. Results: Only the MLDA of 18 predicted high school dropout. Exposure was associated with 4% and 13% higher odds of high school dropout for the census and NLAES/NESARC samples, respectively. We noted greater impact on women (5%-18%), Blacks (5%-19%), and Hispanics (6%). Self-report of parental alcohol problems was associated with 40% higher odds, which equals a 4.14-point increase in dropout rate for that population. Conclusions: The MLDA of 18 likely had a large impact on high school dropout rates, suggesting that the presence of legal-aged peers in a high school setting increased access to alcohol for younger students. Our results also suggest that policy can promote less dangerous drinking behavior even when familial risk of alcohol use disorders is high. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 76, 680-689, 2015)

The Impact of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age on Alcohol‐Related Chronic Disease Mortality

“…MLDA policy data were coded as described in our previous studies (Norberg et al., ; Plunk et al., , ). We examined a period during which some states both increased and decreased their MLDAs, while others maintained a 21 MLDA throughout.…”

“…Motivated by this theory, recent work from our group has suggested that higher MLDAs do appear to have long‐term benefit. Birth cohorts who were legally restricted from drinking prior to age 21 are less likely to drop out of high school, have alcohol use disorder (AUD), and engage in binge drinking behaviors in later adulthood (Norberg et al., ; Plunk et al., , ). A protective cohort effect of higher MLDA on risk of death by suicide and homicide among adult women has also been suggested (Grucza et al., ).…”

“…First, MLDA exposure is determined by a person's year of birth and state of residence between the ages of 18 to 21, but it is not possible to directly observe this from mortality data. Instead, we must rely on subject's state of residence at time of observation as a proxy (Krauss et al., ; Norberg et al., ; Plunk et al., , ). To determine whether this is a reasonable way to estimate policy exposure, we conduct a separate set of analyses on “likely nonmovers.” This subset of the study sample resided in their birth state at time of observation and are much less likely to have ever migrated between states.…”

“…To determine whether this is a reasonable way to estimate policy exposure, we conduct a separate set of analyses on “likely nonmovers.” This subset of the study sample resided in their birth state at time of observation and are much less likely to have ever migrated between states. Second, some studies have suggested that college campuses may be insulated from the effects of drinking age policy; that is, that the mix of legal and nonlegal drinkers on school campuses provides ready access to alcohol, making youth‐access policies like the MLDA less effective (Grucza et al., ; Johnston et al., ; Plunk et al., ; Wagenaar and Toomey, ). To ensure that we are capturing this potential campus insulation effect, we examine whether the potential impact of MLDA on chronic disease mortality is stronger among those who did not attend college.…”

Examining the Intended and Unintended Impacts of Raising a Minimum Legal Drinking Age on Primary and Secondary Societal Harm and Violence from a Contextual Policy Perspective: A Scoping Review

“…Twenty-six studies were found which reported information (26 units of information) on the impacts of an increase in the MLDA on secondary societal harm and violence with the bridging variable (i.e., with a consideration of drinking patterns in methodology or analyses) [ 35 , 36 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 49 , 55 , 62 , 64 , 67 , 69 , 80 , 82 , 100 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 ]. Twenty-four studies were conducted in the United States, one in Canada and one in Belgium.…”