Essay: Should the United States lower its legal drinking age?

Underage drinking is starting to become a widespread occurrence in the United States more than any other country in the world. The legal drinking age has always been a topic that creates controversy when brought up because many people disagree with the idea of becoming an adult at age 18 but having to wait until age 21 to consume alcohol. At age 18 in America we gain rights to vote, ability to marry, and can legally be tried as an adult in the judicial system, but whether we like it or not the human brain is still not fully developed at that point. In the United States, Americans should not be able to consume alcohol at age 18 because, although it is technically the age of adulthood, it would be detrimental to our youth and society as a whole. There has been extensive research conducted on the teenage use of alcohol, and each conclusion supports the fact that it is not okay. When taking into account all of the logic that supports the lowering of the legal drinking age, one must ask, “Why hasn’t it already been lowered?”, “How was the age of 21 selected?”, and “What led to the establishment of a drinking age?”
The history of the drinking age dates back to the early 1900’s with the temperance movement; this movement focused on the abstention from alcohol because many religions believed it to be a sin. Due to the large volume of Americans who took part in this movement, the idea of a national ban on alcohol slowly started to become a reality. During the year 1920, the 18th Amendment was passed, which banned the selling and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Of course, as history has shown us, the ratification of this amendment was a drastic failure and had the opposite effect it had intended on the country. Organized crime seized the opportunity to sell alcohol on the black market, and as a result, criminal enterprises in the United States began to rise. This went on for about ten years until, in 1933, the tangible political action was taken on repealing the 18th Amendment. The 21st Amendment was ratified and immediately put an end to prohibition as a whole. Consequently, it was left up to the states to decide a minimum drinking age for citizens residing there. The common age that was chosen was 21 due to the assumption that you become an adult at that age. For some time, this age was accepted until 1971 when the 26th Amendment was passed, which lowered the minimum voting age from 21 to 18. As a result, the majority of US states lowered their drinking age to 18 because the logic is stating if you’re old enough to vote and fight for your country, you should be old enough to drink.
The widespread lowering of the national drinking age to 18 apparently was accompanied by an increase in motor deaths by teens under the influence. Our nation was still ignorant of the growing effect of alcohol on teenagers, and there were no scientific studies on this topic that had any real substance. It wasn’t until groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) started protesting the minimum drinking age when studies began to be conducted. This led to the passing of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984. This act stated that the drinking age should be 21, but legally, it couldn’t enforce it. Instead, it incentivized states to change the age to 21 because if they didn’t, they would lose 10% of their highway funding. In 1987, this act was challenged by the state of South Dakota in the Supreme Court Case South Dakota v. Dole. The state argued that Congress was wrongly influencing states to raise their minimum drinking age to 21. South Dakota lost this case 7-2 because Congress was within their realm of power by controlling its spending.  Within ten years, all states changed their minimum drinking age to 21.
The minimum drinking age should not be lowered to the age of 18, and there are many facts to support this. One primary reason that supports this is the fact that it negatively impacts the growth of the human brain. Studies conducted by Susan F. Taphert, Ph.D., Lisa Caldwell, and Christina Burke, M.A. that were published by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism show that consuming alcohol at a young age can adversely affect “memory function, attention, visuospatial skills, and executive functioning”. This indicates that a constant barrage of alcohol to an underdeveloped mind will hurt basic memory functions in both the short term and the long term. Also, Ruth Sanchez-Way, the director of the Center of Substance Abuse Prevention, states, “Alcoholism is a brain disease, and the earlier people start drinking, the worse the effects on the brain,” she said. “Besides, research has shown that the earlier people start drinking, the more likely they are to develop alcohol problems later in life”(Sanchez-Way). The medical statistics prove that brain development is affected by alcohol. The intake of alcohol, especially in excessive amounts, before the body’s systems, have finished forming can stunt healthy growth, causing permanent deficits. Alcohol in the hands of young adults is increasingly more dangerous depending on the environment, but the consequences of consuming alcohol at 18 go beyond just effects on the brain’s development and lead to behavioral issues as well. John Hopkins conducted a study on underage drinking which determined the underage consumption of alcohol increases the risk of sexual assault or risky sexual behavior, is associated with academic failure, and can lead to illicit drug use. It is clear by the evidence provided above that the human brain is not capable of handling alcohol at the age of 18 and the current National Minimum Drinking Age Act has the best interests of preserving and protecting human life in the future.
The minimum legal drinking age should remain at 21 because it has been proven to decrease fatal car crashes where a driver was under the influence. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), it was estimated that the minimum drinking age of 21 “decreased the number of fatal traffic accidents for 18- to 20-year-olds by 13% and saved approximately 27,052 lives from 1975-2008” (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). In the United States, you receive a driver’s license at age 16 and if we were to lower the drinking age that would allow drivers with two years’ experience the ability to impair their driving skills with the consumption of alcohol. When under the influence of alcohol, the known effects are a loss of balance or coordination, slowing down one’s reactions, and can even impair vision and hearing. Regardless if you are 40 years old or 18 years old, the alcohol having these types of effects on one’s body do not make it safe anyone to drive under the influence. These facts alone should persuade anyone that it isn’t safe for 18-year-old to legally drink sooner rather than three years later.
Another factor to take into consideration with driving under the influence would be the accessibility of alcohol if the age were to drop to 18 years old. According to US News, “72 percent of adults think that lowering the drinking age would make alcohol more accessible to kids, and nearly half believe that it would increase binge drinking among teens” (Dean-Mooney). A method called shoulder tapping has become an increasingly popular way for minors to obtain alcohol even today. This method can be explained as a teenager asking a random adult to purchase alcohol for them. Shoulder tapping would become even more attractive if 18-year-olds were to buy alcohol because of the often incentive of receiving extra money on top of the price of the booze. In consequence, the alcohol would be distributed to those, not of age and kids will be developing drinking habits at a younger age, and ultimately would be facing a bigger penalty if they were to get caught by law enforcement. Often, people do not understand the consequences of a DUI, Minor in Consumption, or any other resulting type conviction from an alcohol related event until they experience it. The effect these actions may have an impact one’s life in such ways like appearing on a college application, losing the right to any financial aid, or losing potential job opportunities.
Many critics contend that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 for a reason such as the age of 18 entails receiving the right to vote, be prosecuted as an adult, get married, and most importantly, the risk of life for your country in the military. If someone is trusted with all of this at the age of 18, then why shouldn’t they be allowed to have a beer. The medical statistics go beyond the reasonable doubt proving that alcohol consumption in teenage years interferes with the development of essential brain functions. The minimum age of initiation is based on the specific behavior involved and must take into account the dangers and benefits of that behavior at a given age (Fell). The argument goes deeper to the aspect that explains being able to drink at an earlier age will subject teenagers to regulated and supervised drinking environments, instead of inside a fraternity house. Proponents of this argument believe that because young adults won’t fear the consequences of the law that in turn they will act more responsible and these drinking environments will be more regulated and safer. The controlled environments are hoped to solve the problem of teens binge drinking, and any other unsafe behavior that may occur at these unsupervised parties. According to USA Today, 100 college presidents from the best-known universities were asked about the current drinking age and believe it is time for the lawmakers of our country to consider lowering the drinking age. The former president of Middlebury College in Vermont, John McCardell, started this movement by recruiting other university’s presidents, he stated his reasoning as “It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory” (USA Today). One can say that lowering the age to 18 can potentially solve this problem such as regulate these college environments but the ones in favor don’t see the other opportunities of unsafe places becoming available once the age is lowered. 18-year-olds are given the freedom to go to bars, nightclubs, or any other place where binge drinking occurs which statistically are more unsafe than unsupervised parties at fraternity houses. Alexander Wagenarr from Alcohol Clinical Research explains, “76% of bars have sold alcohol to obviously intoxicated patrons” (Wagenarr). James C. Fell, a frequent and trusted Public Health researcher, states “Neighborhoods with higher densities of bars, nightclubs, and other alcohol-selling locations suffer more frequent assaults and other violent crimes” (Fell). Ultimately the lowering of the current drinking age exposes more young adults to statistically more dangerous environments where lack of responsibility occurs as well as an increase in crime.
Also, many proponents of lowering the current drinking age stress the facts that other countries that have MLDA at 18 have fewer car accidents. Although this is not the case in the United States, studies conducted in Europe point to the opposite being true. According to Barry M. Sweedler in his article “The Worldwide Decline in Drinking and Driving: Has It Continued?, he discusses how European countries with drinking ages of 18 experience less fatal car crashes overall. But one factor to take into consideration is the amount of driving done in Europe in comparison to the United States, “compared with the United States, Europeans have higher legal driving ages, more expensive automobiles and greater access to public transportation” (Wagenarr). All of these factors play a role into those statistics and make sense why the numbers are lower in Europe. Regardless of statistics, we know based on the medical information, teens under the influence of alcohol are subject to more risk of being impaired than someone who has been drinking for a longer period. In conclusion, lowering the drinking age to 18, allows more teens to get behind the wheel of a car increasing the percentage of potential harm.
Overall, the United States should not lower its legal drinking age to 18 because it has proven to be detrimental to teenagers through history and reliable studies. I am asking that the court should not consider lowering the minimum drinking age in the near future because I sense that will accompany the movement to legalize recreational marijuana.