Chiefs' debate

Mark Beckner is the Boulder, Colorado chief of police. We are not only in neighboring states and in cities with large universities, we also have rather similar careers. He's been a Boulder police officer since 1978--four years after I joined the Lincoln Police Department. He's been Boulder's chief since 1998--four years after Mike Johanns appointed me Lincoln's police chief.

Chief Beckner has sent a series of emails to his officers and to fellow police chiefs advocating a national discussion on lowering the legal drinking age. I received a forwarded copy from one of my sergeants early yesterday morning, and another directly from Chief Beckner yesterday afternoon. These messages appear to be in the wake of a soon-to-be-broadcast 60 Minutes episode, for which he was interviewed. While 60 Minutes has not come looking for my view, 48 Hours did, back in 2002.

A quick Google search on my name will reveal that I've been something of the police poster child for the idea that binge drinking by young people really can be reduced by relatively straightforward collaborative practices involving law enforcement agencies and other community stakeholders. Enforcement is part, but not the only (nor by any means the most important) part of the effort. I've been on the circuit to such places as Atlanta, Dallas, London, The University of Delaware, the Problem-Oriented Policing Conference in Madison, Louisiana State University, Virginia Tech, and several other places on this topic. I've had to turn down many other invitations, because I have a job to do here that takes precedence.

I'm not absolutely convinced I am right. Chief Beckner's opinion is held by many. Sometimes, I am lured by it. Maybe, the argument goes, the taboo on alcohol until age 21 actually makes people under the age of 21 more likely to binge drink, not less. Although I am skeptical, I'm willing to consider the possibility. I'm also quite bothered by the fact that soldiers who have served in combat can not legally drink in their own hometown. But Chief Beckner, I believe, is mistaken in his conclusion that reasonable efforts to reduce underage and high-risk drinking are futile. We stand as the outstanding, well-researched, and well-documented example that things really can change, and that it doesn't necessarily have to end in the annual riot on the Hill. Lincoln has experienced something quite different.

Chief Beckner and I are both members of a small group of chiefs that exchange information and meet annually. He is hosting the Benchmark City Chiefs meeting this year, and yesterday he proposed adding this issue to the agenda. I think it's a great idea. The more people discuss this, the better. Information and debate on this topic is valuable.

The consequences of error are potentially great. Regardless of how Mark or I feel about the drinking age, it is indisputable that alcohol-related traffic fatalities among young people have fallen like a rock since the drinking age was raised to 21 nationwide. Mark could be right--this decline might be unrelated to the higher legal drinking age. On the other hand, he could be wrong. Alcohol-related fatalities have fallen more for those under 21 during the past 20 years than for those over 21.

I've always been one for testing the hypothesis, as readers of The Chief's Corner are well aware. Changing a nationwide policy that correlates with a huge decline in alcohol-related fatalities among young people is not something we should enter into based on any one's opinion, but rather upon solid evidence. Let's put it to the test: Colorado vs. Nebraska. The Buffs can go to a drinking age of 18 in Boulder, the Huskers can stay at 21 in Lincoln, and we can see what the difference in alcohol-related fatalities is after a few years. It's not a perfect experiment, but it's a pretty good naturally-occurring quasi-experiment: a time series with similar control and experimental groups.

Getting it right is incredibly important. Lives are at stake.