The Advantage of The United States Allowing Its Youth to Access Alcohol by Reducing The Legal Minimum Age

Legal Drinking Age

Alcohol is nothing new to our world. It is a popular drug that alters our state of consciousness by impairing judgement and motor control. With this, alcohol has short-term positive effects, such as feelings of euphoria, but it does have negative effects, such as making poor choices while intoxicated. The dangerous effects of alcohol are undeniable even with the current legal drinking age set at 21. Ever since the Prohibition, our country has tried to prevent alcohol consumption by youth and reduce fatal traffic accidents. This is what led to changing the drinking age to 21. Many studies have shown that the legal drinking age has had little success in reducing drinking by minors and traffic accidents. Lowering it is more effective to reach these goals. The United States should lower its legal drinking age from 21 to 18 years old. 18 year olds should have all rights of an adult, including the right to drink. Lowering the drinking age will allow people to moderate their alcohol intake and be more educated on alcohol use. We should also use other countries as an example to lower our drinking age. Finally, lowering the drinking age will make binge drinking less likely to occur.

The Prohibition was enforced in 1919 as the eighteenth amendment of the United States (“Eighteenth Amendment”). It limited availability and punished those who violated the law. The drinking age was set at 18 years in the late 1970s and early 80s until it was changed to 21 in 1984. Like the Prohibition, these efforts have not been enough to keep people from drinking; alcohol assumption has remained prevalent (Fennell). The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 is still enforced today but has little success in keeping the underage population from drinking. Since it has failed to work, we should revise the drinking age. Based on this knowledge, I propose changing the legal drinking age to 18 to reduce the issues it has created in our society.

First of all, 18 year olds should have the right to drink alongside the other rights given at 18. These rights include being able to join the military, move out of parents’ homes, and buy tobacco. If someone can make these life-changing decisions at the age of 18, it seems impractical and unfair to keep drinking illegal for them. After all, being able to serve in the military is a huge responsibility. It is perhaps a bigger one than choosing to drink since doing so involves actively putting your life on the line. According to Wechsler and Nelson, back in the 1970s when the legal drinking age was 18, “eligible males aged 18 to 25 years [were drafted] into compulsory military service during the Vietnam War.” Their understanding was that if men were old enough to serve in the military, they should be able to drink as well (989). This was before the US raised the legal drinking age to 21, but the point still stands today. It seems unreasonable, perhaps a little ridiculous, to allow 18 year olds to fight for their country but not buy alcohol.

Many believe that we cannot compare these rights, since they exist in different respects. While choosing to fight in the war is an act of bravery and sacrifice, choosing to drink alcohol is about having fun and letting loose. Although soldiers are not allowed to drink while serving, many choose to do it anyway. According to Carla T. Main, fifteen percent of people in the military partake in binge drinking while in the United States and twenty-five percent outside of the US (39). This is to let off steam and perhaps forget traumatic events. Being drunk can impact them by keeping them from thinking clearly about their actions. This is what alcohol is capable of in every situation. I acknowledge that binge drinking can be dangerous. However, not every drinking incident will lead to getting wasted. I believe that drinking in the military involves similar sacrifices as joining the military. You are making a choice that puts your life at risk in one way or another. Referring back to Main, not everyone is drinking heavily, and those caught deal with the consequences of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Main 38). Consequences come with every choice we make, and people must be aware of that when they choose to serve. In that sense, drinking alcohol and joining the military require responsibility over your actions. If you cannot drink in a responsible way, you should not be allowed to serve in the first place.

Joining the military is not the only right given to 18-year-olds. They are also given the right to move out of their parents’ homes, especially when moving away to college. All states allow for emancipation of minors, and most states have their age of majority set at 18 (“Emancipation of Minors”). This means that most people can move out of their homes by the time they turn 18. Other privileges come along with moving out of parents’ houses, depending on the individual’s situation. One responsibility includes paying rent. By moving out, people are subject to having to pay rent. This can be monthly or annually depending on whether the apartment is on or off campus. Paying for rent is a huge responsibility, but it teaches discipline and punctuality. Paying rent is not easy and apartments are not always affordable for young adults with low-paying jobs. According to the New York Times, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan is about $3,500 a month (Toy). This is the price of an apartment in a metropolitan area, so prices vary on a large range. Still, paying to live outside of their parents’ houses is a lot to ask of young adults. Moving out teaches people how to be independent and self-sufficient. This is something most 18 year olds face in their lies, yet drinking alcohol is something they have to wait to do legally.

In opposition, 18-year-olds are not always capable of handling their financial troubles alone. When they are still learning to pay rent, many rely on their parents for financial help. The Week finds that 62 percent of people between the ages of 19 and 22 depend on their parents financially (“Parents who pay”). Some may also rely on their parents for emotional support, since starting a new stage in life can be stressful. This argues that people who cannot be completely independent with financial responsibility should not be allowed to drink. Dealing with financial matters in any case is a lot for young adults to take on, but I do not believe it is impossible. There is no shame in asking for help from parents, either. According to data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, 90% of young adults in the study moved out by age 27 (Dey & Pierret). This shows that while it is difficult, many people are able to move out as young adults and stay moved out. We cannot guarantee that 18-year-olds will successfully handle changes in their lives. Still, it is clear that many can with a little support. In the same sense, people can drink with support. If 18 year olds can handle this stressful time, they can handle making the choice to drink.

Another right that comes with turning 18 is the right to buy cigarettes. Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that the average pack of cigarettes in the United States costs over seven dollars with tax (“Economics Infographics”). The average price of alcohol is about the same. Seven dollars is a small price to pay for the risks it brings to a person. The common risks of smoking cigarettes for a lengthened period of time include cancer, chronic diseases, and even death. Smoking overtime decreases life spans in those ways, causing over 480,000 deaths a year. Although there is not an average life span for a smoker, since people do quit, the risk of death from smoking has increased in the past fifty years in the US (“Health Effects”). With these presented risks, it is a wonder how cigarettes are legal for 18 year olds to buy while alcohol is not. Even with the dangerous risks associated with alcohol, we cannot deny that tobacco, a legal substance, presents danger as well. 18 year olds have the rights to join the military, move out of their parents’ homes, and smoke tobacco. These all possess a threat to a person’s wellbeing just as alcohol does, and yet alcohol alone is off-limits.

People are able to better control their alcohol intake when it is legal for them to drink. By lowering the drinking age to 18, people will be more likely to drink in moderation. There are already exceptions to the drinking age in individual states. It is currently legal in 31 states that make for parents to give children alcohol, as long it is happening on their property (Hingson 47). This allows parents to monitor their children as they drink in a safe environment. This is one way to prevent binge drinking, since parents can control how much alcohol their child is getting. In this way people are able to feel more comfortable drinking knowing they are allowed to do so. In a study by Turrisi et al., an intervention group with 347 parents provided each a handbook. They combined this with a motivational intervention, which caused lower levels of drinking in college students, including high-risk drinking (Hingson 47). This shows that parent initiatives is beneficial as an intervention. It is important to have a parent aware of their child’s drinking. It allows them to feel more comfortable with the wellbeing of their child, knowing that their child is not in harm’s way. With this power parents can teach the importance of moderation and keep their children from drinking more than they can handle.

Education will allow for better control. There are consequences to drinking, and it is necessary for people to acknowledge that risks are do exist. When people educate themselves on the effects drinking, they can control their drinking. This also allows people to predict worst case scenarios, such as drinking under the influence, and make plans to avoid putting themselves and/or others in danger. People are less likely to drink and drive with the right interventions. Zero-tolerance laws make it illegal for anyone under 21 to drink and drive. These laws have caused fatal traffic accidents to decline for people under 21. (Hingson 49). This is due to knowing that any rise in their blood concentration level will get them in trouble with the law if they get pulled over. This is different for those above 21, since they can still drive with a higher blood concentration level as long as it is not causing reckless driving. A study also suggests that, with a lower drinking age, 18 years olds should have licenses that get revoked if their drinking becomes dangerous (Hingson 47). These are just a couple of ways that education impacts how likely people will drink and drive – perhaps even decrease the likelihood of it happening. Along with education, policies are set in place. With the current legal drinking age, states have alcohol control policies to reduce underage drinking (Wechsler & Nelson 988). These enforced policies should continue if we lower the legal drinking age. All in all, education is the best approach to prevent underage drinking, regardless of the drinking age.

Some argue that education is not enough to stop people from drinking while driving. Even after learning the dangers of doing so, people will still do it, or at least those who can legally drink . This knowledge is based on zero-tolerance laws. Zero-tolerance laws, as I mentioned, make it completely illegal for minors to drink while drunk. People above 21 might be more likely to drink and drive, since it is legal for them to an extent. This could have truth to it, since these laws do not apply to those above 21. This is still just an assumption, though. There is evidence that the people who are more likely to drink and drive are those who have just turned 21 – not the people below and above that age. A study by Fromme, Wetherill, and Neal showed that “rates of drinking and driving before and after turning 21 were also significantly different with a greater prevalence of driving after drinking after the 21st birthday” (24). According to their findings, drinking and driving is most common right after someone turns 21, due to the excitement of finally being of age. Drinking and driving is, therefore, due to carelessness when factors, such as 21st birthday parties, are considered. Education might not be enough to stop it, but changing the drinking age and keeping zero-tolerance laws might reduce it.

One way to see if lower drinking ages is effective is to look at how other countries handle it. Carpenter lists seven states that have proposed lowering the state drinking age, though none have adopted it yet (133). It is important to view other countries’ policies before considering changing our own. New Zealand and their rates of fatal traffic accidents show that a lower drinking age is doable. This cannot guarantee that the United States will have the same results, but it is worth evaluating to see if a lower drinking age is the right approach for us. New Zealand currently has a drinking age of 18, which has been set since 1999. Kypri et al. did a study to see whether lowering the drinking age in New Zealand increased traffic accidents. They state that alcohol consumption after enforcing the new drinking age decreased “by about 20% from its late 1970s levels” (127). The decline could be due to other factors, such as economic changes. Regardless of that possibility, this evidence shows that lowering the drinking age showed signs of success. The study also found that “increasing the minimum purchasing age to 20 or 21 targets the segment of the population with the greatest consumption of alcohol and the highest prevalence of hazardous drinking” (Kypri et al. 130). With this, they find that the targeted age group, where drinking was more common, is the 20 to 21 age group. Lowering it made the age group less likely to drink as much as they had before. Overall, the current drinking age in New Zealand is successful in terms of fatal traffic accidents and their correlation with the drinking age. I believe it would be a good example to follow.

It is arguable that New Zealand is a good example of a lower drinking age. Their drinking age of 18 has negative effects on society, such as the rising death rates among teens. According to the New Zealand Herald, high death rates for youths are blamed on their drinking age. Suicide rates, especially, have increased exponentially (Johnson). It is true that the lower drinking age and suicide do correlate in some way, but it is not always a cause-effect situation. There is no denying that suicide remains an issue in New Zealand today, but we cannot solely blame the drinking age for what other factors might have caused. The suicide rate in New Zealand is 29% (Johnson), while the US suicide rate is 13% (“Suicide”). It is clear that New Zealand’s is higher, but again, the drinking age is not the only factor that has caused the rates to increase.

Along with New Zealand, Canada is another country that has a lower drinking age. Unlike New Zealand’s location in Oceania, Canada sits right above us on the map, much closer to the United States. According to the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, it is legal to drink at age 19 everywhere in Canada, excluding Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec where the drinking age is set at 18 (“Legal Drinking Age”). The minimal drinking age in Canada is 18 or 19 – both lower than the United States. Unlike New Zealand’s death rates, Canada’s are not as significant. For one thing, their suicide rate is 15% (“Suicide Statistics”). The United State suicide rate is only 2% lower. Their suicide rate shows that it is possible for countries with lower drinking ages to have lower suicide rates. Even with suicides and hospitalizations, Canada’s healthcare system is able to better take care of patients (Voas 1601). This helps keep the mortality rate low – or at least lower than it would be without the healthcare system. Canada is definitely a country that utilizes the drinking age well, even if they struggle with the issues that arise from it, like the rest of us do.

Finally, I wish to discuss binge drinking and how lowering the drinking age will help avoid it. Drinking among youth is seen as a risk behavior. Many minors drink to rebel against the rules of society rather than having the actual desire to drink. Heavy drinking is also known as binge drinking. It involves having five or more drinks within a short period of time, also depending on the person’s gender and weight (Carpenter 134). This is enough to create unsafe conditions for intoxicated people, such as drinking and driving. Minors tend to drink when alcohol is available to them, which makes it easy to forget that it is illegal for them to drink. People do not always like rules, especially when they seem unreasonable at the time. This can be applied to underage drinking. Jessor and Jessor have used The Problem Behavior Theory to find that “traditional risk behaviors such as substance use and delinquency, or those behaviors that are not sanctioned by society, tend to cluster together” (Pasch 14). This shows that substance use does not directly link to delinquency, but it does show positive correlation. Pasch implies that risk behaviors are, more or less, considered unacceptable to society’s rules. This suggests that the reason why people drink when it is illegal to do has to do with behavioral factors – the natural ability for teenagers to rebel against society’s rules for a sense of empowerment.

The reason why binge drinking is common among the youth is due to their way of drinking. Binge drinking in teens because of the limited availability of alcohol at a certain. Unlike 21 year olds, who are more likely to drink less in more sessions, minors tend to drink large quantities in less sessions. Plainly said, if minors run out of alcohol, running to the store to grab more is not an immediate option. Binge drinking is common with teens, specifically those enrolled in college. In a study with 2,142 college students, the underage students drank more than those of legal age (Fromme et al. 21). The reason for this has to do with the need to pre-party. Pre-partying involves drinking a lot at once in case there is no alcohol at a party. Minors, especially 18 year olds, are more likely to pre-party, meaning that they will drink before going out in public. This is due to them not having easy access to alcohol in public, such as in stores and bars. Of course, this does not mean that they are not able to get it.

Those of legal age are able to have access to alcohol in public. According to the 2007 Monitoring the Future survey, “92.2% of 12th graders, 82.6% of 10th graders, and 62% of 8th graders” found alcohol to be easy to get (Lipperman-Kreda et al. 249). Minors will typically get alcohol from another person, a parent or a friend, whether it is with or without permission. This makes it easy to drink in heavy quantities, since the alcohol is only available for a short period of time. This is why it is the underage population that most significantly partakes in binge drinking. Reducing the drinking age will make binge drinking less likely to occur, since minors will not have to wait so long to drink legally. In the previous study, past 30-day alcohol use was also measured. Results showed that “16, 33, and 44% of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders” used alcohol, while almost half of those percentages had five drinks or more in the past two weeks (Lipperman-Kreda et al. 249). It is clear that a large percentage of the youth partake in binge drinking, despite the discrepancies within age groups. With a drinking age of 18, binge drinking will be less prevalent in underage drinkers.

Alcohol has left its mark on the world in positive and negative ways. There is no question of whether we can get rid of it entirely; we can only decide how to control it. The best way to reduce incidents involved with binge drinking, such as drinking and driving, is to lower the drinking level. Not only that, but policies should also go along with it. The drinking age was set at 21, despite the Prohibition’s failure to put a stop to alcohol use. I believe we should return to the drinking age of 18 to decrease underage drinking as well as drinking and driving. I have discussed why we should do so. First, 18 year olds should be able to drink, since they have other rights. Lowering the drinking age will pave the way for moderation and education on alcohol use. New Zealand and Canada are prime examples of countries that are sufficient with a lower drinking age. Lastly, I talked about how lowering the drinking age decreases the likelihood of binge drinking. For these reasons I believe the US drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 18.