Should The Drinking Age Be Lowered?

In the United States of America, one who is eighteen years old is considered an adult in the eyes of the law. Any person over the age of eighteen can legally vote in elections, gamble in Native American-owned casinos, purchase and use tobacco products, get a tattoo, enlist in the military, sign business and residential contracts, or even be tried as an adult in court. One thing not found on the seemingly endless list of rights gained by Americans at eighteen, however, is the ability to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages. That is a right that comes to those age twenty-one and older. To some people, myself included, setting the minimum drinking age an entire three years after a person is considered an adult is seen as contradictory, even condescending, and believe it should be lowered to eighteen. To others, it is seen as responsible, safe, practical, and has no reason to be changed. No matter where a person stands on the issue, there are valid points to be made

The United States is one of the only western nations on the planet in which the drinking age is over 18. For many teenagers in America, the appeal of drinking rests more in thrill in the procuring of the alcohol, as it does to the consumption of it, due to the fact that they cannot properly and legally exposed to alcohol until they reach age 21. In countries where the drinking age is 18 (or even lower), the consumption of alcohol is introduced as a social, family-oriented activity early on in the lives of children, thereby drastically decreasing the risk of irresponsible drinking in the future. Because most adolescents are not taught that, in moderation, drinking can be healthy and safe, they resort to binge drinking when they get their hands on alcohol. It is a more intelligent option to teach the youth of our country how to drink responsibly from an early age and hold them accountable for their actions, much like in driving, than to preach abstaining from alcohol and throwing only the negative effects at them. In the 1980s, the United States increased the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) from eighteen to twenty-one in the hopes to lower traffic fatalities. However, studies have proven that the amount of traffic fatalities in the U.S. in the '80s decreased less than that of countries in Europe whose MLDAs are under twenty-one. By prohibiting teenagers from consuming alcohol in such establishments as bars, pubs, clubs, and restaurants, the government is basically forcing teens to resort to unsupervised drinking in places like house parties, woods, and fraternity houses, places where alcohol-related accidents and injuries are more likely to occur than the former. When these accidents happen, teenagers are either too afraid to call authorities and to seek help out of fear of the legal consequences, or have no access to treatment or assistance. Lowering the drinking age would allow teenagers to drink in supervised, regulated environments. One of the major issues with keeping the legal drinking age at twenty-one is that it sends the wrong message of alcohol consumption representing maturity. This yearning to appear more mature to family and peers leads teenagers to want to drink alcohol far more than it would if it was eighteen, alas the misconception of maturity stemming from alcohol consumption would be virtually nonexistent through the lowering of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age. In the year 1919, Congress passed the Eighteenth Amendment, an amendment banning the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol throughout the country. It was eventually repealed in response to its failure, proving that the strict regulation of drinking is fundamentally unenforceable, counterproductive, and actually leads to a vast increase in criminal and underground activities. In an economy like the one the United States currently has, lowering the MLDA to eighteen would be a cost-effective action to take. More money each year is spent on educating youth about alcohol than on enforcing drinking laws for people ages eighteen to twenty. All in all, enforcing the MLDA of twenty-one is costly and inefficient. While the Minimum Legal Drinking Age Act is an amendment featured on the U.S. Constitution, it contradicts the document in which it lies because it discriminates a particular age group, in this case being that of eighteen to twenty year-olds. From this side of the argument, the lowering of the drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen is a smart and just move.

While the argument for the lowering of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age from twenty-one to eighteen is one that is both well-supported and reasonable. However, the argument for why it shan't be changed is equally as valid. On of the key issues addressed in the debate of lowering the drink age has to do with drinking and driving. It was proven that in states such as