Drinking Age Should Not Be Lowered To 18

It has been a rising issue within the past century to have the drinking age set at 21, but many people are more in favor of having the age set at 18. For instance, “’Raising the drinking age to 21 was passed with the very best of intentions, but it’s had the very worst of outcomes,’ stated by David J. Hanson, an alcohol policy expert” (Johnson). Many people believe that having the drinking age set at 21 was a smart idea, but it has caused many more deaths and injuries over the years. Most of these fatalities are cause from people who are underage and choose to consume alcohol. Again, “Libertarian groups and some conservative economic foundations, seeing the age limits as having been extorted by Washington, have long championed lowering the drinking age” (Johnson). These groups see that keeping the drinking age set at 21 is dangerous as it causes more problems to the Untied States. If the drinking age was lowered, or set at 18, there would not be such unforgiving outcomes, like deaths and lifelong injuries, which are usually caused from people who are under the age of 21 drinking alcohol. Although there are numerous groups that are fighting to keep the age

Stating that drinking at a younger age causes more health hazards proves that having the drinking age higher would be safer for oneself and the community as a whole. In addition, younger adults could easily become exposed to alcoholism. It is stated by the National Highway Institute in a study done on alcohol abuse among teens that “the overall risk for alcoholism decreases 14 percent with each year of age that drinking is postponed” (Boulard 52). The drinking age should not be lowered because the higher the drinking age, the less risk there is for alcoholism. Not only does drinking cause health related problems, but it also produces risks of injury or death. It has been proven that “youth alcohol use contributes to higher incidences of drunk driving, traffic accidents, unwanted pregnancies, and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)…” (“Update: Alcohol Issues” 1-2). Not only is underage drinking illegal, but drinking and driving is as well. Therefore, maintaining the drinking age would prevent the number of accidents and deaths. However, some believe that drinking wine is good for the heart. This is only true for drinking in moderation. If one drinks more than a couple of glasses, this does not go into effect, and the number of bad health related consequences outnumbers the good. Studies have shown that “The lower death rate among moderate drinkers is due to the reduction in heart disease, specifically atherosclerosis or

According to Drew K. Saylor, he writes that studies from a meta-analytic review showed that "Raising the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) is associated with a 16% median decrease in alcohol-related crash outcomes while lowering the MLDA result in a 10% median increase in such crash outcomes" (332). The essence of this argument is that having the law of the drinking age to be 21 has a positive effect in the country because there is a decrease in car crashes. This is why the author Drew K. Saylor also agrees when he writes "A solution to this problem is not a simple as lowering the drinking age and asking young people to choose responsibility" (332). Saylor's point is to make the people understand that lowering the drinking age won't fix much because accidents will still happen, but with more frequency. Since in the past, the argument was deciding whether to raise or no to raise the drinking age to be 21 because of the danger youths had to live through if something happened to them. Drew K. Saylor argues that the drinking age has led to create a change in the people who are 18-20 years old because college students now a days tend to consume more alcohol than any others. When this happens among college students, it’s called binge drinking. According to Drew K. Saylor, a professor from the University of Virginia with a BA degree, he states that “Binge drinking is the consumption of an excessive amount of alcohol in a short period of time”

They even say there are less drinking and driving fatalities in many other countries that have the drinking age at eighteen (“Drinking Age”). It shows that the percentages of fatalities that occur have nothing to do with the MLDA (“Drinking Age”). The MLDA is having no effect because teens are are still consuming alcohol illegally. The drinking age of 21 promotes teens to get fake identification so they can get alcohol. Lowering the drinking age would decrease the number of false identifications. Especially since there is a lot of terrorism and fake identifications right now we need to get rid of that stuff (“Drinking Age”). I believe that there are a lot kids that like alcohol at the age of 18. They should have that right to have a drink and enjoy it.

Lowering the drinking age will result in life and death consequences. By keeping the drinking age at 21, the rate of fatalities for drinking and driving decrease drastically. During the short period during the late 1980’s when the drinking age was lowered to 18, the number of fatal car crashes involving young adults who were under the influence dropped from 61% to 31% (Wil Fulton). By bringing the age down to 18-years-old, alcohol would be more accessible to the lower age group. For example, an 18 year old, who is still in high school, is more likely to sell alcohol to a 16 year old than a 21 year old, who is away at college. In recent studies, researchers found that 77% of the population are opposed to lowering the drinking age to 18 (Brandon Griggs). MADD is supported by influential government companies such as the American Medical Association, National Transportation Safety Board, National Safety Council, International Association Chiefs of Police, Governor's Highway Safety Association, Surgeon General of the United States, and U.S. Transportation Secretary to name a few (John H. Barnhill, PHD). Overall, young teenagers lack the proper wisdom collected to make right judgments about alcohol. The 3 years between the age 18 and 21 are filled with change and responsibilities, making one more suitable to make appropriate

In recent discussions of the drinking age limit, people have always said that the drinking age limit should be lowered. Some may argue that alcohol is not bad and that it can actually be beneficially. Many people would want the drinking age limit to be lowered so that it is legal for young adults to drink. If the drinking age limit were to be lowered there would be a drastic difference in society. In my perspective I will argue that the drinking age limit should not be lowered.

According to Alexis Aguirre in The University Star, “Keeping the minimum legal drinking age at 21 will not dissuade young people who want to indulge in reckless alcohol intake. If anything, the age limit encourages binge drinking. Lowering the drinking age could make it easier to regulate consumption among younger adults as well as encourage healthy drinking habits” (Aguirre). Sure enough, if the drinking age were lowered to 18 it would avoid the illegal, abused intake of alcohol by 18 year olds. According to the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, “Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking” (U.S Department of Health and Human Services). A way of avoiding such tragedies is lowering the drinking age to 18, teaching younger

Most people would concur that alcohol should not be given to teenagers. Despite the fact that we concede to this essential truth, underage drinking is still a noteworthy issue in our nation. Since adolescents need development and information with regards to liquor, they put themselves, as well as others in incredible danger when they decide to consume. Regardless of the risk, there are individuals out there who believe that the drinking age should be lowered.

On the flip side, if the age restriction were lower, young adults will not view alcohol as a forbidden fruit, so they will feel less encouraged to drink for the sake of rebelling or exploring. In addition, they will have the comfort of knowing they can drink again in the near future, so they will be less likely to drink large quantities at once. Not only will the intent of drinking change, but also it would be more acceptable for educational programs to teach high school upperclassmen a thorough understanding of what it means and how to drink responsibly. Proponents for the current age minimum counter this by saying that the lower age minimum would increase drinking among young adults and result in more drinking-related violence and accidents; they do not believe lowering the age restriction will help increase responsible drinking. In response, when looking at similar countries such as Europe which have lower drinking age minimums, there are fewer issues with alcohol-related traffic accidents and violence, showing that a less strict

Sub point B: Drinking under the influence is perhaps the most detrimental subject when it comes to lowering the drinking age. Many are scared that these 18 year olds will take the streets and cause horrific accidents but According to www.chooseresponsiblity.org last accessed May 18th ,2014 "... twice as many 21-year-olds died in alcohol-related auto accidents as 18 year-olds.”

My experiences in high school and college have taught me that restricting young people from drinking does not stop them from consuming alcohol. However, is this a good reason to lower the drinking age? People’s actions should conform to the law, as the purpose of laws is to maintain order in society. If the community could eliminate or alter laws simply by consistently breaking them, then legislation would become obsolete. Although the “21 law” does not completely prevent underage drinking, it has helped to reduce the number of incidents of underage drinking. Research studies conducted between 1960 and 1999 have been reviewed by University of Minnesota epidemiologists Alexander Wagenaar and Traci Toomey. Their conclusion is that the law has “reduced both youth alcohol use and alcohol-related traffic crashes” (DeJong 3). Furthermore, in 1999, New Zealand lowered its legal drinking age from 20 to 18. The result was a “big increase in traffic crashes and injuries among 15- to 19-year-olds” (DeJong 3).

Reviewing these statists one may be able to analaze and see that even drivers between 21 to 24 were high at risk. What would make a person want to lower the drinking age to 18. Young adults at eighteen are new drivers and less expierenced then the 21 + drivers and logically would produce more fatal crashes.

The United States’ minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) of twenty one is almost a perfect example of a policy with unrealistic expectations and serious unintended consequences. The current policy that the United States has in effect criminalizes youth who consume alcohol at less than twenty one years of age. Young adults are going to drink under twenty one, so why shouldn’t the United States lower the MLDA to eighteen? Following Prohibition in 1933, many states made their MLDA twenty one. During the 1960’s and 1970’s, many states lowered it to eighteen to match the drafting age (Alcohol Policy MD). President Reagan passed The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 which required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public

Another reason to keep the drinking age at 21 is that drinking slows the reaction time and also makes it to where the drinker has less control of his or her body. For example a male who becomes drunk is more likely to rape young women. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services “It is estimated that 90% of college rapes involve the use of alcohol by the assailant, the victim, or both. About 97,000 college students are victims of sexual assault or date rape related to alcohol use each year. Alcohol use is involved in 95% of all violent crime on college campuses” (“Underage Drinking Is a Serious Problem”). According to Carla T. Main, “approximately 100,000 incidents annually” are reported of “males sexually [assaulting] their

In the United States. Every state has the right to set its own legal drinking age. However, according to George Will in an article he wrote in the Washington Post about the legal drinking age, “drinking age paradox” “lowering the drinking age will cost the state ten percent of its federal highway funds and cause a significant uproar from contractors and construction unions.” It is therefore in the best interest of every citizen as well as the state not to lower the legal drinking age, to prevent States funding from the negative affected if the legal drinking age is lowered (The Chilgren 's Hospital of Philadelphia, 2015).