Pros And Cons Of The Legal Drinking Age

In 1984 Ronald Reagan proposed a new law that declared that the legal drinking age must raised up to 21 instead of the age of 18. The law was forced upon the states by threatening them by stating that the government will reduce their highway funding until the states passed the law. Of course all the states eventually change their legal drinking age to 21. Some critics believe that this law’s results have been very successful, however the law possesses many insecurities, but certain programs can be arranged to help educate teenagers on alcohol.

The issue of underage drinking has become a major problem, especially on college campuses. But, underage drinking is not purely the root of all accidents related to alcohol. The real problem lies within the unsafe underage drinking habits amongst youth. There are ways that these alcohol-related accidents can be avoided. Several organizations have been created that are targeting a change in the legal drinking age laws. One key way to lower the risk of unsafe drinking is to lower the minimum legal drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen.

There are several controversies in the world today, but one that really catches my attention is on the topic of whether or not the drinking age in the United States should be lowered from 21 to 18. Many people have debated about this topic for several years, and there are several different opinions on this topic. Some people think it is dangerous to lower the drinking age; some people support it. Some children think it is stupid to lower the drinking age; some children support it. However, I strongly believe that the legal drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 18 for several reasons, such as 18 year olds are allowed to do several other adult activities, other countries have the legal age at 21, and people who are under the age of 18 are still going to drink alcohol whether it is illegal or not.

Everyone in today’s society knows that the minimum legal drinking age in the U.S. is 21. But nobody really knows why. In the year 1984, President Reagan informed the states that if they didn’t change their drinking age to 21, they would lose 10% of their federal funding for their highways(Why is the Drinking Age 21?). In fear of losing their funding, all the states changed their MLDA (minimum legal drinking age) to 21, instead of 18. Some people were outraged that the age had been raised, and believed that if they were 18+ whenever the law was changed, they should still be able to purchase alcohol. However, the states disagreed. There are many different opinions on the MLDA. Many people believe that it should be lowered back down to 18, while some people believe even 21 is almost too young. But what are these people’s arguments?

A lower drinking age law would save even more lives and also stop minors from drinking under the limit. Having it higher will result in more traffic injuries and fatalities among youth. A lower drinking age is effective in preventing alcohol-related deaths and injuries among youth. Young people are particularly vulnerable to the effects of heavy drinking age. According to John McCardell, founder of Choose Responsibility, the legal drinking age does not eliminate consumption among young people. Instead, it only drives underage drinking underground, creating a dangerous culture of irresponsible and extreme drinking. Although the legal purchase age is 21 years of age, a majority of college students under this age consume alcohol but in an irresponsible manner. This is because drinking by these youth is seen as an enticing "forbidden fruit," a "badge of rebellion against authority" and a symbol of "adulthood."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. “For example, 22% of all students under 21 compared to 18% over 21 years of age are heavy drinkers.” “Among drinkers only, 32% of underage compared to 24% of legal age are heavy drinkers.”

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

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”

The minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) has propelled national debates on the subject, primarily promoted by university students, who argument that implementing the MLDA at 21 encourages

Supporters of lowering the MLDA compared America to other countries that have a minimum drinking age of 18. Supporters of lowering the MLDA say that in countries where the drinking age 18 young people drink smarter. John McCardell points out some interesting statistic he states” in southern European countries ratios of all drinking occasions to intoxication occasions were quite low roughly one in ten while in the United States, almost half of all

By lowering the MLDA, we are putting the lives of our young people at risk. Many studies have been done on the safety of a MLDA of 18 and several of those were about alcohol-related injuries and fatalities. Since the Uniform Drinking Age Act was passed in 1984, significantly fewer alcohol-related traffic accidents have occurred (Saylor 330). Traffic accidents are one of the leading causes of death in our country, so it can also be claimed that reducing traffic accidents will decrease the number of deaths from accidents. In fact, a 2010 article by Wechsler and Toben published in the American Journal of Public Health discovered a 58% drop in car crashes after the MLDA was changed from 18 to 21 (988). Fifty-eight percent is not a coincidence and never will be. Changing the MLDA to 21 has been so successful in reducing traffic accidents that the National Highway Safety Department stepped in to support the higher drinking age. A conservative estimate claims over 800 lives have been saved each year since the drinking age was

The MLDA also comes into play with why the drinking age should be lowered. Enforcing an MLDA of 21 is expensive and inefficient. Setting the MLDA at 21 is unconstitutional because it is discrimination against the particular age group of 18- 20 year olds. IT would be more effective to spend money on educating youth about alcohol than to spend it on enforcement of drinking laws for 18- 20 year olds. The pie chart below shows the proportion of 83 countries MLDAs from ages 14 to 21.

The Minimum Legal Drinking Age(MLDA) in the United States needs to be lowered from 21 to 18. The MLDA being so high simply facilitates unsupervised binge-drinking among minors. Lowering the MLDA will allow those aged 18-21 to drink in a safer environment leading to a reduction in underage alcohol-related accidents.

A decent sized amount of students in college are under 21 and they still drink so it would not make any sense to lower the legal drinking age because then the student would not fear the consequences of drinking and do whatever they want. If these numbers are so high right now just imagine how high they will get if we allow more people to consume alcohol at an early age.Yoruk explains how the dangers of lowering the drinking age can do to young adults by stating, “...on risky sexual behaviors, which can result in unintended outcomes such as a sexually transmitted disease (STD) or pregnancy…”(Yoruk). Right now the minimum drinking age is 21 and all this risky sexual activity is happening and if we were to lower the legal drinking then we will basically be opening the door to more risky sexual behavior and have more STD’s being passed around and unwanted pregnancies. There has been a problem on college campuses in the united states of people having sex and one person being too drunk to be able to give consent, and then that turns into a rape case. For example, drinking can change the person who you usually are when sober as explained by Yoruk, “Alcohol consumption may

This era of teen indulgences has become an issue across the country. The problem is the bizarre and reckless drinking habits of the young adults in America. Focusing on college campuses, this is where many mishaps with alcohol takes place. When some young adults in the age range of eighteen to twenty-one think of the word "college," the word "party" also comes to mind. Partying in college is like a general tradition which is being depicted in many movies; although, they usually end with incidents regarding an irresponsible, intoxicated teen. With all of these real life and terrifying events, some U.S. states want to lower the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) anyhow. Missouri, South Dakota, Vermont, and Minnesota would still like their MLDA lowered. As reported from the Guardian Unlimited, there are bills in Missouri, South Dakota, Minnesota and Vermont that would lower the drinking age for the general public; Kentucky, Wisconsin and South Carolina have introduced bills that would make alcohol available to those under-twenty-one that are serving in the military. Although, there are several organizations that support the Country’s decision on the MLDA of twenty-one. These organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), and the Gallup Organization try to develop smart ways to empower the movement of lowering the risk of unsafe drinking. All we simply have to do is keep the legal drinking age, for all states, at twenty-one.

Simultaneously, accidents involving automobiles without a doubt are devastating. How would one feel if a loved one was killed in a collision due to an intoxicated driver? Wouldn’t the individual want to do something about it? The death of the Candy Lightner’s daughter lead to her development of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act. This act gave full federal highway funds only to states that set the minimum age to purchase or consume alcohol at twenty-one years (Sanghavi). Once all states raised their MLDA to twenty-one years, drunk-driving accidents and deaths decreased. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the reduction in traffic fatalities due to the legal drinking age of twenty-one prevented 846 deaths in 1997 and prevented a total of 17,359 deaths since 1975 (Balkin 168). This single statistic shows that automobile accidents have substantially decreased in response to the authorization of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. In addition, the average teenager earns their drivers license at the age of seventeen. This being said, allowing a young driver with only one years experience (excluding a learners permit) to legally consume alcohol would surely be an irresponsible decision. Most people know