Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Politics > Government & Policies
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 | 57% | 966 votes | Total: 1704 votes | |
| No | 43% | 738 votes |
Yes
by Anthony Megna
Created on: July 05, 2009 Last Updated: September 03, 2011
If one is old enough to die for our country, one is old enough to drink ! It might be true that the maturity level of an 18 year old isn't up to par sometimes, but if one is mature enough to protect our country, then drinking responsibly should be legal. But not all adults are mature either, so where does one draw the line?
Just because someone turns 21 years of age, does that make them mature? Of course not, as the age limit is nothing but a guideline. However, if one is mature for their age, then handling alcohol responsibly is just another obstacle to be overcome.
In some European countries, kids grow up drinking wine or beer at a very young age. France and Germany come to mind, but there are many other countries where these liquids are part of everyday life. Most of these families don't think twice about serving wine to the family. Because not such a big deal is paid to the overindulgence of these drinks, it is an everyday part of life. And because it is part of life, the overindulgence is not as common.
The drinking age has been argued about for years. It seems when the automobile enters the picture, that is where the trouble begins. It's true that there is a higher rate of death for younger drivers than for older ones. Alcohol is to blame for most of these deaths, but other drugs are to blame as well. Also, just because the drinking age is higher doesn't mean that kids aren't going to drink. In fact, the challenge is to get the keg of beer or bottle of wine because it's illegal to have. There is something more thrilling when one is not supposed to possess it.
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 signifies that revenue will be withheld from states that allow alcohol to be purchased by anyone under the age of 21. It's going to take a lot of hard work and campaigning to change this law. The fact of the matter is that this law works, so why change it? It was passed primarily for safety reasons, and the traffic fatalities went down dramatically when this law was passed.
So what's the bottom line? The fact is that drinking and driving don't mix. That's why that law was passed. And it has worked. Even though I agree that one is an adult at the age of 18, the fact is that there were too many so-called "adults" that ruined it for the the responsible ones. If one is desperate to drink, or do drugs for that matter, they will find a way no matter what the law is. But the fact is the highways are much better for all of us now that there are fewer drunk drivers on the roads. And no matter which way you swing it, the drinking age has always been tied to the driving of automobiles....
Learn more about this author, Anthony Megna.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Brandon Zubek
Created on: July 05, 2009 Last Updated: July 07, 2009
Alcohol is a drug. Alcohol is a depressant. Alcohol destroys lives.
Since 1984, the national drinking age has been 21, despite a few short-lived exceptions. This is for a reason. Alcohol is a dangerous toxin that affects young people more than it does older people. People under the age of 21 (i.e. 'young drinkers') have a smaller quantity of water in their bodies, meaning that alcohol takes its toll faster and more severely in these younger people.
Due to the 'special' effects those between 18 and 21 receive due to alcohol, many end up doing something they regret. An Australian study found that young drinkers were more likely than young abstainers to develop high levels of psychological distress. That same study also found young drinkers between 18 and 21 were the most likely group to receive short or long term harm from their drinking compared to drinkers in other age groups. Additionally, another Australian anti-drinking campaign conjectured that one in two young drinkers who become intoxicated will do something they regret, and one in four hospitalisations of people under 21 occurs because of alcohol.
Moving away from the statistics point of view, there is also a human biological argument to be found here as well. The human body is constantly developing under the age of 21, and contrary to popular belief, the brain continues to mature until around the age of 20. It takes less time for alcohol to damage a young drinker's brain than it does to damage an older drinker's brain.
Alcohol affects two parts of the human brain; the frontal lobe and the hippocampus. These parts of the brain are responsible for memory and human emotion, meaning that their destruction can result in memory loss, addiction, learning difficulties, depression and speech impairment. These effects are not short term; drinking between the ages of 18 and 21 can stay with you for life.
It is said that we should lower the drinking age to 18 because of personal liberty. However, those who argue this forget about the massive burden to our society young drinking is. The 'personal liberty' argument is the same idea that supporters of the legalisation of marijuana use, but this is quickly rebuffed by rattling off statistics that show marijuana's effect on society. Sure, Americans should have liberty to do what they choose. However, when this liberty infringes on others' rights to mind their own business, this liberty needs to be restricted.
What drinking age lowering supporters neglect to say when arguing the liberty idea is the fact that ordinary citizens also have the personal liberty not to be harassed by intoxicated persons and those under the influence of alcohol. They also have the right to personal liberty when it comes to driving; they have a right to feel safe on the roads, not being constantly on the watch for drunk drivers (which statistics from other countries show, the majority of which are between the ages of 18 and 21).
There is also a growing argument as to the ineffectiveness of the underage drinking laws. However, whilst many 'underage' drinkers will still consume alcohol even while a drinking age of 21 is in place, a higher drinking age will still deter some percentage of underage drinkers. Even this slight reduction would be enough to save thousands of lives and prevent thousands more from being wrecked by the scourge of excessive alcohol consumption.
I urge all readers to think about the points I have raised in this article - the statistics to support the continuation of the 21 drinking age, the human biological argument as to the dangers of underage drinking and the futility of the opposing argument. Together, we can save many older teens from the dangers of alcoholic beverages.
Extra reading and references
http://www.dassa.sa. gov.au/site/page.cfm ?u=88 http://druginfo.adf. org.au/druginfo/fact _sheets/prevention_o f_alcoholrelated_/wh y_its_dumb_to_drink_ when_you.html
Learn more about this author, Brandon Zubek.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.