Essay Against Lowering The Drinking Age

In the 1980s, the United States raised the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) to 21, from 18, in an attempt to protect the nation 's youth. This placed the USA among the few countries whose drinking age is above 18. These countries include most of Canada, the Republic of Korea, Nicaragua, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Egypt, Indonesia, Micronesia, and Palau (Jernigan). Around the world, drinking ages vary; for example, in Slovenia, Italy, Portugal, Malta and Greece, you can drink before you turn 18, and in parts of India, you cannot legally obtain alcohol until age 25 (Jernigan; Mukherjee). This leads to an important question on whether our democracy should lower the MLDA. The facts on underage drinking, international data on lower drinking ages, current enforcement of underage drinking laws, as well as proposed implications of programs coupled with a lower drinking age provides provoking data pointing towards the ethical lowering of the drinking age. The democracy of the United States of America should lower the MLDA, but also adopt a mandatory alcohol education class, and a graduated licensing system.

In over 100 countries across the world, the act of legally possessing and consuming alcohol is permissible below the age of 21, most often within the age range of 18-20. Nevertheless, there are many additional countries such as Spain and Haiti, which enforce a minimum age of 16 years among citizens. With the ratification of the controversial 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, the United States federal government now requires each state to conform to the drinking age restriction of 21, or otherwise endure a penalty, encompassing a 10% reduction of federal highway transportation funds, attributed to the state in violation. Unfortunately, despite the conviction that a higher minimum drinking age prevents destructive, irrational actions conducted as a product of holding an underdeveloped brain, this federal ruling not only increases the seductive temptation of underage drinking, but additionally and equally promotes organized crime within the United States-a toxic societal conflict which would effectively be negated by a reduction of the minimum federal drinking age.

Throughout history, the United States has taken on several policies regarding the minimum legal drinking age that vary in age as well as in state and federal enforcement of the limit. To this day, there is quite a bit of controversy surrounding the subject because advocates of higher, lower, and limitless age regulations all provide decent arguments towards their suggested policies. Regardless of the policy, they all have the same aim: reduce alcohol addiction, binge drinking, drunk driving, and other alcohol related public health risks. The current minimum legal drinking age has made improvements in the number of alcohol related health problems. Times are changing, and advocates for a lower drinking age are on the rise, but with open

Is it worth it to let teens to ruin their whole future by allowing them to start drinking at a younger age? Annually about 5,000 youth under age 21 die from motor vehicle, other unintentional injuries, and homicides and suicides that involve underage drinking.(“Underage Drinking”) It is a current debate on whether or not the minimum drinking age should be lowered to the age of 18 from 21. Though, the reasons why the drinking age should be 21, clearly triumph the reasons for the opposing side of minimum legal drinking age 18. When a young boy named Brian started drinking as a teenager, it resulted into increasing issues into adulthood. According to Brian, he started to drink with friends in middle school. As his drinking led on, his grades became progressively worse and he became less involved with school activities. When his drinking continued into adulthood, Brian notes that he became depressed and wanted to die. ("I Started Drinking as a Teenager"). Underage drinking is a widespread offense that results in serious or fatal physical, neurological, and legal consequences, the minimum drinking age of 21 years old is an effective way to keep these consequences from occurring and lets young adults have a safe and successful future.

Writer Dedel Kelley said, “The proportion of underage youth who drink has not changed significantly over the past decade in the United States. Indeed, if anything, they are starting to drink at a younger age, and their drinking patterns are becoming more extreme.” Keeping the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) at twenty-one or lowering it to the age of eighteen has been a continuous issue in the United States. People, mostly adolescent teenagers, say it should be lowered because if one is able to vote at the age of eighteen, they should also be allowed to drink. Sure, when a seventeen-year-old turns eighteen they are considered an adult, but age does not define maturity; just because they would be classified as an adult does not mean they can be responsible and handle alcoholic beverages like a parent, for example. The legal drinking age should remain at twenty-one and should not be lowered to the age of eighteen because people who are eighteen years old and younger are still juvenile. If the legal drinking age were to be lowered to eighteen, teenagers put society at risk because most will go behind the wheel while under the influence of alcohol; they are not only putting society at risk but also themselves because they could start an early binge drinking habit and affect their health.

Many teenage deaths in the United States are caused in some way by the influence of alcohol; however, many people still believe that the legal drinking age should be reduced to eighteen. This issue has been going on for years, but the law has not been changed since the change to twenty-one in 1980. States have become stricter about preventing under-age drinking, but teenagers have no problem getting alcohol. There are many arguments in favor of changing the drinking age back to eighteen. The facts show that drinking alcohol is too large of a responsibility for an eighteen-year-old to handle. In 1980 the government raised the drinking age to twenty-one

Vivian Jones, the author of “Underage Drinking,” questions the drinking age limit, and wants to decrease the age limit for consuming alcohol from twenty-one years old to eighteen. Firstly, the author defines underage drinking as a danger to young adults and teenagers that are developing. Secondly, Jones states that raising the age limit for drinking is a controversial topic in society. Thirdly, Jones acknowledges that drinking underage is banned and as a result the young adolescents are more allured to drink alcohol and rebel. The author also states that more younger Americans are drinking in excess with comparison to the UK. The author writes that raising the drinking age will not stop the violence and crime, it would only help slightly. Also, Jones conveys that underage drinking is a major issue in today’s society. I disagree with the author, the drinking age should be twenty-one because it would first reduce crime, it would prevent death, and finally it would decrease medical problems.

Without a doubt, the United States has been facing serious national problems with underage drinking. Depending on personal ideologies, some people might not agree that the current minimum drinking age of twenty-one is based on scientific facts rather then ideology of prohibitionism. For example, since 1975 over seventeen thousand lives have been saved since the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) was changed to age twenty-one (Balkin 167). This shows that even over a short amount of time, a higher MLDA helps decrease the risk of teen suicides, accidents and overdose deaths. However, this widely debated topic has inevitably brought attention to the plethora of supporting and opposing viewpoints. The minimum legal drinking age of twenty-one

They have also asked Congress “to support an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21 year-old drinking age” through the Amethyst Initiative. I question how giving eighteen year old persons the ability to drink legally will reduce binge drinking. If young people are told that it is okay to drink at age 18, they will. A surprising number of young people already drink illegally at age 18, and that number will only increase if 18 becomes the new minimum legal drinking age. Studies have shown that younger people get drunk twice as fast and have a more difficult time knowing when to stop. This is a core problem with underage drinking. Research shows that when the minimum legal drinking age is 21, opposed to lower ages in the past, young people do drink less. A lower minimum legal drinking age results in more young drinkers, not less. Amethyst Initiative and Choose Responsibility have the right goal - to reduce binge drinking - but the wrong approach. The approach should be stronger enforcement and firm parental rules. Teens must understand that the age limit of 21 is there for their safety, not to keep them having a good time.

For countless young adults after high school the next stepping stone is college, however, students are not only learning from the classes they attend, but also from the parties. Consequently, they are being introduced to alcohol and plenty of it; learning how to shotgun a beer or attempt a keg stand is all the rage. Suddenly, people are viewing college binge drinking as a right of passage for even their youngest students. Thus, demands the questioning of lowering the drinking age to counteract college binge drinking. “The reality is that at age 18 in this country, one is a legal adult. Young people view 21 as utterly arbitrary—which it is. And because the explanation given them is so condescending—that they lack maturity and judgment,

In the year 1984, President Ronald Reagan enacted a law that increased the minimum drinking Age all U.S states to 21 years. As a result, it is believed that the mortality rates due to road accidents reduced from 5,000 in the 80’s to 2, 000 in 2005 (Dean-Mooney). However, the issue of binge drinking remains unsolved with learning institutions having to deal with it every semester. In response to this, 134 college presidents formed the Amethyst Initiative, which is, a proposal allowing persons aged between 18 and 20 to consume alcoholic drinks Conversely, the Mothers against Drunk Driving (MADD), which pushed for the enactment of the law in 1984 believes that the Amethyst Initiative is misplaced. The push for a lower drinking age is a battle between the parental community and the student fraternity. For the drinking age too be lowered the Amethyst Initiative must compile concrete research and facts to support its findings. Nonetheless, historical data shows that increase in the minimum legal drinking age results in a decrease in the amount of deaths. As argued by Barry, Stellefson and Woosley, “the MLDA clearly reduces alcohol consumption and its associated harms” (8). In light of this, one can argue that the minimum drinking age should remain at 21 as lowering it may cause fatal consequences.

Ever since the Prohibition ended, drinking has been a prominent part of American culture. With the rise of the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA), from eighteen to twenty one in the nineteen eighties, came a sharp increase in the amount of underage drinkers and outraged Americans. Still, thirty years later, underage drinking is a huge controversy amongst not only everyday people, but also important political and educational figures. By being a legal citizen at the age of 18, the drinking age should be lowered to match the standard of responsibility that is given to individuals at this time in their lives. There are many benefits that come with lowering the drinking age to 18 such as creating a more clear and concise knowledge of the law, lower binge drinking rates, and creating a positive impact on the social and economic aspects of the country.

Death, abuse, illness, illegalities, and suffrage are all things that associate with activities some may consider a part of everyday life. In the United States, a 2015 study reported that 84.6 percent of adults have imbibed at some time in their life (“Alcohol”). This means thousands of people drink alcohol every day, yet the threat liquor has against people is vastly underestimated. Alcohol is a drug, people can get addicted, and it can lead to mental and physical drawbacks. To help regulate these hazards, the minimal drinking age is 21 in the United States. Although, some activists say that the drinking age should lower to 18. Their claim is that fewer crimes would be afflicted with underage drinking, and that since 18 is the age of adulthood,

Making alcohol illegal for people under 21 only makes it more probable that teens will drink recklessly. The struggles to decrease the aggressive effects of drinking for teens by making the drinking age 21 have failed. It has been unsuccessful and only causes more complications. People between the ages 18 and 21 are considered second-class citizens because of their age. These adults are accountable for their own actions; they are legally adults in almost every other manifestation. This decision should not be stood for.

Although McCardell and the Chicago Tribune seem to be at irreconcilable odds on the matter, both appear to share a common value: the safety of individuals. For instance, McCardell argues that statistics do not really prove why the legal drinking age of 21 results in greater safety for everyone, and he worries about the repercussions that the drinking age has had on the safety of college students. Meanwhile, the Chicago Tribune uses statistics to express its belief that the drinking age of 21 is safer than that of a lower drinking age, and that lowering the drinking age will only cause more harm to individuals, not result in their safety. Both essays are primarily concerned with which drinking age will lead to the optimal safety of the individual. Perhaps this common ground can lead to a compromise within the debate concerning the legal drinking age.