Analysis: To Lower or Not to Lower?

The “legal drinking age” of 21 has come to be a hot topic in our country as many people are making an effort to lower the age to 18. In the early 1970s (during the time of the Vietnam War), 29 states lowered their drinking age to 18 since that was the age to enlist in the war. But when traffic fatalities associated with alcohol began to increase, many states raised the age back to 21.

Now you might be wondering why I put “legal drinking age” in quotations; this is because there is not actually a “legal drinking age” in the United States. In theory, the states are free to set the age limit at whatever age they deem appropriate. However, in 1984, Congress found a way to make sure that every state would set their drinking age to 21. Congress told the states that if they set their age to less than 21, that they would not receive 10 percent of highway funds.

By intimidating the states, Congress got their way with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. The legal drinking age was set at 21, which is the highest drinking age in the world.

As the years have passed since 1984, a number of debates have come into the public scene. There are two broad sides: one side has concluded that raising the drinking age has provided more alcohol-related problems, while the other side believes that the opposite holds true. Groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving,
support the current drinking age, while Libertarian groups are in support of a lower drinking age. Whichever side you are on, we can all agree on one conclusion: underage drinking is definitely a problem in our country.

There have been many arguments against lowering the drinking age, but just how valid are these arguments? The most common argument is that a lower age means more alcohol-related traffic fatalities, many of which include young drivers.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
has estimated that by increasing the drinking age, 13 percent of alcohol-related accidents involving individuals of age 18 to 20-years-old, has decreased since 1975.

The validity of this statistic has been questioned by proponents of a lower drinking age. This is because the NHTSA provided no evidence of how they came to their conclusion. There seemed to be no relationship presented between the lower number of accidents and the higher drinking age. There has also been the point brought up that alcohol-related traffic fatalities was already declining before 1984.

Other less common arguments against lowering the drinking age are that the younger population lacks the mental development to make decisions on alcohol, underage drinking leads to health problems later in life, teen drinking is usually in the form of binge drinking, and that the alcohol will be passed down to even younger adults.

Research suggests that the human brain is not fully developed until the person reaches their early 20s. Therefore, young individuals do not have the mental development to make wise decisions about alcohol.

Serious health problems have arisen with underage drinking, such as a dependence on the substance later in life. A research study in Pennsylvania found that introducing alcohol to children earlier in life might increase their likelihood to binge drink in college.

Teens partake in binge drinking as opposed to social drinking because they consume it only to get “wasted.” Binge drinking is considered as “any intoxicated drinking that leads to certain harmful or destructive behaviors."
Also, many opponents of lowering the drinking age propose that a lower drinking age will lead to an easier access for teens that are even younger than 18. As with the issue of traffic fatalities, counterarguments have come about in response to the above arguments.

The biggest effort to lower the drinking age has probably been the Amethyst Initiative. This initiative hopes to begin a public discussion and a political review of the legal age of 21. The attempt is being made by more than 100 college presidents and chancellors because they have witnessed firsthand the negative consequences of binge drinking and alcohol-related deaths across college campuses. Amethyst argues that increasing the drinking age has not stopped college students from drinking, but instead has pushed it out of controllable public spaces. Students are finding ways to drink privately, which leads to excess consumption.

The initiative also points out that at the age of 18, individuals can take on many responsibilities, including those of the military. Their question is this: If you can take a life at the age of 18, why can you not have a drink? The group of Mothers Against Drunk Driving seem to have the most controversy with this because they know that the current legal age of 21 is most likely not being enforced on these college campuses.

Proponents of lowering the drinking age conclude that it will make drinking alcohol more of a social activity rather than an activity that gives a thrill to teens because they are breaking the law. Alcohol for teens is seen as the “forbidden fruit.”

Furthermore, if teens know that they are breaking the law, they are less likely to call for help if a peer needs medical assistance due to alcohol consumption. A regulated environment with appropriate supervision would come into play with a lower drinking age. Also, the fact that enforcing the Minimum Legal Drinking Age is expensive raises the proposition that it would be more effective to educate the youth on safe drinking at a younger age.

Both sides of the debate present a number of arguments, but which arguments are the most valid?