There has emerged a curious double standard in the public discourse regarding the policies aimed at protecting lives in this country. While there have been vocal critics have recently attacking the government’s decision to remove the demerit points system, arguing it will embolden reckless driving and jeopardize road safety, many of these same voices have criticized the government’s move to raise the legal drinking age to 21 and the marijuana use age to 25, dismissing these measures as overly restrictive. And none of them seem to recognize the hypocrisy at play while advocating for safety in one instance, and undermining it in another.
It has not been overstated that the demerit points system, introduced to penalize traffic violations and deter reckless driving, has been flawed from its inception. Yet, critics of its removal argue that without this deterrent, drivers may flout traffic laws, leading to more accidents and fatalities. This is in spite of the fact that statistics produced by ArriveAlive reveal that in 2024, road traffic accidents claimed 122 lives, with speeding and driving under the influence (DUI) as leading causes. The fear is that scrapping demerit points could exacerbate this grim statistic, and would suggest that this number is at an acceptable low, when the reality is that this is well within the range limit for road fatalities since at least 2000, and represents a steady and annual increase from the 2020 pandemic.
But what’s interesting is that the same logic of prevention is curiously absent when some of these critics address the government’s decision to raise the legal drinking age to 21 and the marijuana use age to 25. These measures aim to curb substance-related harm, including drunk and impaired driving, which contributes significantly to road fatalities. Critics have called these age hikes draconian or unnecessary, arguing they infringe on personal freedoms, but these stances ignore the fact that restricting access to alcohol and marijuana for younger age groups has proven effective in reducing substance-related accidents, particularly among inexperienced drivers.
For evidence of this, one needs only look at the contrasting experiences of Great Britain and the United States for historical context of both the laws that were enacted and the direct consequences they brought. In Great Britain, the legal drinking age was lowered to 19 in 1987, allowing broader access to alcohol for younger adults. While this aligned with personal freedom arguments, it coincided with a rise in alcohol related road fatalities, as a 1990 study by the UK’s Transport Research Laboratory found that drivers aged between 19 and 24 were disproportionately involved in alcohol-related crashes, contributing to a 12% increase in such incidents between 1987 and 1990. Britain would later tighten enforcement, but the lower drinking age continued to pose serious challenges.
In contrast, the United States raised its national drinking age to 21 in 1984 through the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, following which the 1999 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported a 16% reduction in alcohol-related traffic fatalities among drivers under 21 within a decade of the law’s implementation. By 2000, the NHTSA estimated that the higher drinking age had saved over 20,000 lives. The policy worked because it delayed access to alcohol for younger, less experienced drivers, who are statistically more prone to risky behavior.
Trinidad and Tobago’s decision to raise the drinking age to 21 and the marijuana use age to 25 follows a similar logic. It was found that young adults, particularly those under the age of 25, are still developing impulse control and decision-making skills, as neuroscience research confirms. Combining this with alcohol or marijuana increases the likelihood of impaired driving, endangering not just the driver but everyone on the road.
In 2023, the Ministry of Health reported that 30% of road traffic accidents in Trinidad and Tobago involved drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs, with those aged 18–25 overrepresented. As such, raising the age limits is a direct response to this reality, aiming to protect lives in the same way the demerit points system was intended to.
An individual’s choice to consume either alcohol of marijuana doesn’t just affect them personally, but it endangers pedestrians, passengers, and other drivers. So if we are serious about reducing the carnage on our roads, we must support policies that address all contributing factors, not just the ones that suit our biases.
The decision by Kamla Persad Bissessar to reconsider the age for the consumption of these products is meant to protect both the lives of those doing the consuming and the world around them. We cannot afford to cherry-pick our safety priorities, and so, if we truly value the lives of our citizens, and especially our young people, we must demand accountability on the roads and restrictions on substances that impair them. And anything less is hypocrisy that puts us all at risk.
Best regards,
Ravi Balgobin Maharaj