Drinking Age -- Lowered?

Amy Hennerberg

Ms. Melone

English 1301

1 October 2006

21

A lot of people have come to accept the fact that a person must be at least 21 years old before their first legal drink of alcohol. But not a lot of people fully endorse this policy. Some believe the drinking age should be 18.

The Daily Herald reports in an interview with Peter Coors that the drinking age should be lowered so that "kids learn to be responsible about drinking at a younger age Ð'... kids are drinking now anyway. All we've done is criminalize them."(The Daily Herald)

This is true. Yet others, such as the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), believe "alcohol-related car crashes among drivers aged 16 to 20 declined by 61% from 1982 to 1998", adding up to about 23,000 lives. This is probably because of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, set the national drinking age at 21. This law punished any state that did not comply. This law was originally passed because of the reaction of the general public in 1971 when the 26th amendment was ratified, making it legal for an 18-year-old to vote for their leaders.

"Blood borders" existed between states with different minimum drinking ages. In New Jersey before 1983, when the drinking age was 21, young people living in Pennsylvania with a high drinking age of 21 would cross the border. They would go drinking, then drive back home. Obviously, having different drinking ages in different states doesn't solve any problems, it just creates them. To make anything like this work, the drinking age must stay consistent and be enforced equally and evenly throughout the nation.

Statistically speaking, "drunk-driving incidents among those aged 18 to 20 have declined significantly since the National Minimum Drinking Age Act passed in 1984" (facts.com). Some people believe that the minimum legal purchase age, or MLPA, should be kept at 21, because minors are not mature enough to consume alcohol. The Center for Science in the Public Interest believe that "State motor vehicle fatality data Ð'... [shows] that lowering the MLPA for beer from 21 to 18 during the 1970s resulted in an 11% increase in fatalities among this age group." (CSPI)

"If the drinking age were to be lowered, the younger teens would probably want to imitate the older teens that are cooler, and try to drink and drive." This is may be true, but not in all cases. About 60 percent of Americans over eighteen drink at least occasionally (Royce). So if the drinking age were lowered to 18, the supposed Ð''crime' rate would go down. Most 18-year-olds are mature enough to have some alcohol in moderation. What if the age a person could get a driver's license was changed to 18, and the drinking age to 16? This would cause less drinking-related accidents where the driver was illegally drunk. Teens would already have two years of controlled, responsible drinking under their belt to know not to drink and drive. "Safe houses" should be established in each group of friends where a parent takes responsibility for their kids, and provides a safe, protected place for kids to drink, and spend the night afterwards. This way, no teen ever has to drive just to "be home by one AM." Eight million teens consume some form of alcohol every week, and a half million to just Ð''get drunk.' (Hall)

"There would be more fatal accidents in the 18-20 year old age bracket if the drinking age was lowered." If the drinking age was lowered, the fatalities that would have normally occurred in the 21-25 year-old bracket would move to the 18-20 year-old bracket. Just because that percentage would go up, doesn't mean it has never been there. It is no less and no more deaths.

"There will be more kids running around drunk!" This is not necessarily true. If the law stated people 18-21 could only drink in a responsible, controlled environment, drinking would become less dangerous. If this were to happen,