Politics, News & Issues >
Government & Policies
Get a Widget for this title
RSS Feed
Should the national drinking age be lowered to 18?
Should the national drinking age be lowered to 18?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 54% | 377 votes | Total: 704 votes | |
| No | 46% | 327 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesOf course the national drinking age should be lowered to 18. There is no good reason why it was raised to 21 in the first place. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to enforce the minimum age of 21 for drinking and publicly possessing alcohol. Congress ensured states' compliance with the Federal Aid Highway Act, which mandated a 10% decrease in annual federal highway apportionment for any state not in compliance with underage drinking laws. By 1986 all states were in compliance. After all, it's all about the money.
Alcohol-related vehicular fatalities are not limited to teenagers only. On the contrary, it is a fact that anyone under the influence of drugs or alcohol is subject to impaired logic, reasoning, and physical control, which can lead to an accident. Most instances of teen fatalities and automobile collisions are due to outside factors such as the teen's inexperience, use of cellular devices, speed, lack of safety restraints, and weather conditions. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2002 only 6.4% of American drivers were teens. If every single teen driver had an alcohol-related vehicular fatality, it still wouldn't even be close to the number of overall alcohol-related vehicular fatalities. Clearly it's the alcohol and not the age that is the problem.
More practically speaking, a minimum drinking age of 21 is simply ridiculous. In the United States of America a person is considered to be an adult when they are age 18. They can vote. They can join the military. Indeed the most common argument to the minimum drinking age laws is "if I am old enough to die for my country, why am I not old enough to drink"? Surely there are young adults between the ages of 18 and 20 who are able to make reasonable and rational decisions, even when it comes to alcohol consumption and use. Surely the people we train to be stronger than the average citizen, who we equip to be the defenders and protectors of our nation can have a drink without having to be concerned about legal consequences. Surely the people who, as we clearly saw in the 2008 elections, are responsible for electing the leadership of this nation can be trusted to handle their alcohol consumption wisely. Just as they are expected to earn a living, pay taxes, and facelegal consequences for crimes as is each other American adult. It is in fact discriminatory for a minor to carry the additional charge of underage drinking when facing punishment for alcohol-related crimes. An alcohol-related fatality is no more worse at the hands of an 19-year-old than at the hands of a 42-year-old.
Education is one of the leading issues in the United States right now. Intelligent and otherwise law-abiding college studentslose scholarships and are removed from campuses daily due unfair alcohol restrictions. Many of these students end up costing the government (meaning you the taxpayer) millions of dollars in prosecution fees and imprisonment. Perhaps the money that is saved on the criminalization of these youths can instead be invested in their education.
It is recognized that the minimum drinking age requirement is illogical. Most states only comply with the bare minimum requirements of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 in that they ban "minors" from the purchase and public consumption of alcohol. Many states still allow private or supervised consumption of alcohol, and no state bans alcohol consumption for religious practices. The states are merely complying because they don't want to lose their federal funding. The federal government should reward states for creating programs that actually deter alcohol-related crimes, as opposed to penalizing them for not adhering to a law that is actually more costly if you consider the price of crime and punishment.
American adults between the ages of 18 and 21 are being unfairly treated as second-class citizens, expected to shoulder the burden of responsibility without option for a simple and common privilege. The zeitgeist in the world and especially America right now centers around the idea of change, and there is no time like the present to abolish this outdated and unsubstantiated law.
Learn more about this author, Lynelle Herndon.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The prevailing logic used to "sell" the idea of lowering the drinking age to 18 is that 18-year olds are allowed to vote and serve in the armed forces. Well perhaps the question that really needs to be asked is should 18-year olds be allowed to vote and serve in the military?
The national voting age was 21 until changed by Constitutional Amendment (26th Amendment) in 1971. The drinking age was lowered in virtually every state about this same time by applying the logic mentioned above.
Within a short march of years of the change to a drinking age of 18, the instance of alcohol-related traffic deaths and injuries among 18-20 year olds increased markedly. More importantly, alcohol use and abuse on high school campuses became much more pronounced. Now the older students (usually seniors) could buy beer and wine for their younger classmates. This was much less of a problem before the law changed as few 21 year olds hang out with 17 year olds, but a lot of 18-year olds do.
MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) was the organization which can be given the credit for instituting the campaign to roll back the drinking age to 21. President Reagan signed this in to law in 1984.
Since this has happened, there are few except perhaps 18-20 year olds who can find a negative to this change.
There is no guarantee within the Constitution for an age at which one can serve in the military. Given that young people often make poor decisions in general, what harm would it do to raise the permitted age of military service to 21? It might force those who choose the military only for a job to live in the real world for a few years without any help from Uncle Sam.
Military service is an honorable profession and not an easy one; so this statement is in no way intended to denigrate the United States Armed Forces. The problem is that many young men and women who don't apply themselves in school see military service as an "easy out". The entrance requirements are not especially difficult unless the potential soldier, sailor or airman seeks a specialized skill such as electronic warfare. Then the demands are much higher. The net result is that our military is a very polarized force consisting of many intelligent, patriotic Americans but also quite a number of those who are not.
It would do our society a lot of good as a whole to raise the age of military service, the voting age, and the drinking age to 21. Science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that our minds are much more mature and logical at 21 than at 18. We're only hurting our entire society by living under the illusion that 18 is the age at which all adult rights be granted.
Learn more about this author, Cameron Foster.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Government & Policies
- Was President Bush right to grant control of records to a president's family?
- Is it okay for politicians to accept dinners, vacations and other "gifts" from lobbyists and supporters?
- Should American farmers continue to receive government subsidies?
- Should the Freedom of Information Act cover Congressional records?
- Should earmarks be used to fund projects conducted by major corporations?
- Should Congress be allowed to pass bills that neither the public nor their representatives/senators have had a chance to read?
