My Helium | Join | Log in Where Knowledge Rules

Politics, News & Issues:

US Politics

Debate_icon

RSS RSS Feed

Get a Widget for this title

Should the national drinking age be lowered to 18?

 

Title endorsed in part by:

Results so far:

Yes
54% 402 votes Total: 749 votes
No
46% 347 votes
Yes

The problem is undeniably a serious one. Alcohol abuse, especially amongst young people who are supposed to be succeeding at school and college, can be utterly destructive of a person's life, and this is the main thinking behind the drinking age of 21. This aim in itself is a good one; nobody would advocate the active encouragement of the youth of today to abuse alcohol.

However, it seems to me to be very much arguable that the drinking age of 21 has little going for it, and is instead an insulting paternalist restriction on the liberty of young people between the age of 18 and 21. Worse, I would argue that far from promoting its aim of reducing alcohol abuse amongst young people, it is actually damaging to this aim. As such I believe there is an overwhelmingly strong argument for a reduction of the drinking age in the US to 18.

First then, what are the advantages of leaving the drinking age at 21? The main argument for this it would seem is that people who are 21 are seen to be responsible in a way that 18 year olds are not; this makes drinking something that is restricted to adults who should be less likely to abuse it, and furthermore young people going through college will not fail their exams because of drinking problems.

Making the drinking age 21 makes it undeniably harder for people younger than this to obtain alcohol. Already though a problem has arisen here: one of the main arguments for not reducing the drinking age to 18 is that 18 years olds abuse the alcohol and therefore should not be given access to it. But first, they DO have access to it, otherwise they could not abuse it, and second, it is not clear that it is not actually the law itself that is contributing to the mystique and coolness of alcohol consumption, that in fact is inducing the 18 year olds to be irresponsible. By making alcohol only legally available to adults, you make it far more desirable to those who want to be mature - namely, the 18 year olds.

Immediately this suggests that the current system may not be working all that well. Before I examine this claim further, let me draw attention to the clearer argument that actually 18 year olds (and 19 and 20 year olds) are not nearly as immature as the drinking age would suggest. We already accept that 18 year olds deserve most of the responsibilities of an adult (and here I wheel out the well-used but nevertheless relevant cliches) that an 18 year old in the US is able to vote, die for his or her country, can enter into legal contracts, and can marry. But they cannot drink. They cannot even legally sip champagne at their own wedding.

This renders the argument that 18 year olds are too immature to drink ridiculous and very much demeaning to America's youth, for nobody denies that they are ready to take on adult responsibilities at this age, and yet they are nevertheless treated like children when it comes to drinking. Because they are treated like children, they act like children.

Offensive as this attitude is, it does not necessarily mean that a drinking age of 18 would be a better solution to the problem. What if it makes things worse? The experience of many other countries, particularly those in continental Europe, and a considerable amount of research, goes a long way to refuting this view.

The first advantage of showing respect to 18 year olds by lowering the drinking age is that they will show respect back, learning moderation because alcohol is no longer a mysterious enjoyment that is restricted only to adults. This kind of attitude, leading to an early education in the dangers and benefits of alcohol consumption, can clearly be seen in the cultures of European countries such as France and Germany.

There will undeniably still be a lot of drunkenness, but without the additional element of this being an adult enjoyment, the "cool factor" will be greatly reduced and so will the lack of knowledge about what alcohol does to you, and therefore serious drinking problems will also be reduced.

Research by Doctors Ruth Engs and David J. Hanson backs this theory up. Their study (which can be found here: http://www2.potsdam. edu/hansondj/YouthIs sues/1046348726.html ), took data from 3,375 students at 56 different colleges across the country, and found that after the increase in the minimum drinking age, consumption of alcohol amongst underage college students actually went up.

An interesting comparison can be drawn here with prohibition, where exactly the same problem occurred. Other studies that compare drinking problems before and after the change, find that the number of cases of drinking problems is pretty much the same whether the drinking age is 21 or 18. That is, those who want to abuse alcohol will find a way to do it anyway. A fake ID is not hard to come by.

Perhaps most telling of all is data that shows that although average alcohol consumption is going down amongst young people and the population in general, more young people tend to drink abusively when they do consume. This appears to be an illustration of the effect of a lack of education and feeling of mystique that the high drinking age causes - it may limit overall consumption, but what consumption there is, is far worse than having greater average consumption that is more moderate.

It is important to remember too that alcohol is not entirely bad, and consuming alcohol does not instantly and inevitably lead to alcohol related problems. Moderate drinking, far from being dangerous and undesirable, has been shown to be associated with improved health and greater longevity than either abstention or heavy drinking.

Quite apart from its potential health benefits, it is enjoyable to consume alcohol, and since we have already accepted that 18 year olds are not inherently too immature to enjoy this privilege, it seems to me to be pretty clear that when we ask whether or not to lower the drinking age, the answer must be a resounding, 'yes'.

There can be no sufficient justification for the lack of respect that the high drinking age shows to those between the ages of 18 and 21, and since it seems extremely likely that such a high limit is counterproductive, I think it is high time that the national drinking age be lowered to 18 years.

Learn more about this author, Algernon Moncrieff.
Contact this writer Click here to send this author comments or questions.

No

The national drinking age absolutely should 'not' be lowered to 18! According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 35% of teen deaths are from motor vehicle accidents. Nearly 13,000 people were killing in 2007 from alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Look at these numbers with the national drinking age set at 21 and just imagine the statistics if the age were lowered.

Adults act like idiots when they are drunk. Adults have alcohol abuse problems. If alcohol affects adults the way it does, how can anyone think that a teenager is responsible enough to handle alcohol? I know there are people who are going to argue that they should have a designated driver and they can drink at home and they can be responsible but age matures most people.

Why not give it another three years and not suffer the consequences of the mistakes that these teenagers are likely to make. Don't they make enough mistakes without adding alcohol to the mix?

No one is blind to the fact that teenagers drink these days. Most everyone knows of a teenager who has been handed alcohol by either a parent or older friend or cousin. I get that. But why should the government support this type of irresponsible behaivor? Why should parents condone the behaivor when they've also watched as other parents lost their high school student to a horrible traffic accident?

In 1996, four teenagers in Alabama were driving drunk on Halloween night. They had their entire lives ahead of them. They were all attractive, fun, outgoing people. The alcohol impaired the driver's reflexes and judgement. He took a sharp curve too fast and hit a culvert. The car burst into flames. The driver and one of the passengers died on the scene. The other two passengers were brother and sister. The brother covered his sister as much as he could to prevent her from being burned as badly as she otherwise would have been. They were both transported to the burn center at a nearby hospital. They lived but are scarred for life. Not only the physical scars that plastic surgery couldn't erase but also the emotional and mental scars from that horrible night that they lost their friends and could have died themselves.

There are thousands of stories around the United States similar to this one. Drive around your town and look at those wooden crosses beside the highway and ask yourself what the liklihood is, that the person that died there in a vehicle crash was hit by a drunk driver. Ask yourself that question and then ask yourself if you would want your own teenager drinking and making the mistake of driving a vehicle drunk. Your child, only 18 years old and still 'your' baby, could end up either dead or in prison for life for killing another person driving on the road.

Why would we increase the risk of our teenagers making a mistake that could cost them or someone else their life? We lose loved ones in life and we have to move on. It is part of life that people grow old and die. However, lives shouldn't be cut short because someone went out to a party, got drunk and didn't want to call for someone to pick them up, so they drove drunk and didn't make it home.

Learn more about this author, Monica Garrett.
Contact this writer Click here to send this author comments or questions.

What is Helium? | Buy Web Content | Contact Us | Privacy | User agreement | DMCA | User Tools | Help | Community | Helium’s Official Blog | Link to Helium

Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA