Yes

10 of 17

by Kenneth Boser II

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

The national drinking age should be lowered to eighteen years of age. Why? Because everything else happens at eighteen; you can vote at age 18, you can serve in the military at age 18, you can get credit starting at eighteen, you go to college and starting paying your own way for things at age eighteen, but you can't go to a store, a bar, or an eating establishment to have a beer, a glass of wine, or some spirits. Hmmm.... is there some kind of logic for it?

Yes, there is. Rooted in the politics of Prohibition era (1919-1933), we thought that in 1984, there were too many drunk people walking around, so we decided to raise the age of drinking three years to twenty-one from eighteen. It was supposed to quell the drinking by teenagers in the hopes of lowering the amount of drunk people. The thought process was that by delaying their legal purchase of alcohol, that would squelch the desire to "binge drink" or to prevent drunkeness and alcoholism from permeating society. The fallacy was what they believed happened - didn't really happen. Instead of curtailing sales, there were people, especially at college campuses, that bought liquor for those under the age of twenty-one.

Another issue is that of government intrusion. Having passed the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution which allowed the voting age to be lowered from twenty-one to eighteen years of age, why is drinking singled out? What then is to stop the government from raising it further to say twenty-five, thirty-five, sixty-five, or one hundred years of age? That the states each passed laws forbidding consumption of alcohol by people under the age of twenty-one is but an abridgement of freedoms in lieu of coerced responsiblity.

Now, there are three sides of the "Yes, it should be lowered to eighteen," argument. The first is the "Oh, they're going to drink their beer anyway while at college, so what's going to stop them?" - A flimsy argument, and one that gives up on the hope of the coming generation, as in "What's the use?" The second argument is that of prevention based on religious grounds - something that actually is ludicrous, since wine was something the regions in Israel and surrounding nations in ancient times regularly produced and reaped, and drank. But it is rooted in the fear of what drinking could do. The third argument is to have faith in the generation that what they have learned from good parenting, from good friends, from good influences on their life will lead them to a moderation of sorts, but not elimination.

Give the power back to the new voters..... let them drink and celebrate!

Learn more about this author, Kenneth Boser II.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.