Why the Drinking Age Should Remain 21?

Twenty-One Is Here To Stay Most Americans would agree that underage drinking is a national health issue which must be addressed. Too many young adults perish every year from drunk-driving accidents, alcohol poisoning and other alcohol related incidents. The estimated social cost of underage drinking in America is fifty-three billion dollars a year (McCardell 1). According to a survey completed by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “Fifty percent of teens between twelve and sixteen have consumed alcohol in the last thirty days” (Jacinto 1). Something must be done to correct this problem and protect the young adults of our nation. The drinking age was ultimately raised to twenty-one nationwide with the passing of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (McCardell 1). While it does not mandate a national drinking age limit of twenty-one years of age, it does, however, limit national funding for highways in states which choose to recognize a drinking age that is below twenty-one years of age (McCardell). This limit is one of the highest in the world as most European nations choose to set their drinking limit at eighteen years of age (Jacinto 1). In 1978, the US District court found that drinking is not a “fundamental right” and that the current drinking age has a “rational basis” backed by scientific research (ProCon.org 1). While many rights such as the right to vote and serve in the military begin at eighteen, there are also several other rights which do not begin until the age of twenty-one such as the right to gamble, purchase a handgun, and adopt a child (ProCon.org 1). Those that believe in lowering the drinking age often preach that our current message of “abstinence” is clearly not working (McCardell 1). Some seventy-five percent of twelfth graders, sixty-six percent of tenth graders and forty percent of eighth graders have consumed alcohol (McCardell 1). According to a Gallup survey, fifty-four percent of teenagers say they have no problem procuring alcohol. (Jacinto 1). Alcohol is consumed more often than either tobacco or illegal drugs by teenagers, according to the Institute of Medicine (McCardell 1). They believe that by lowering the drinking age we can take the “thrill” away from drinking for those who are currently drinking underage. One of the biggest groups supporting this solution to the problem is the Amethyst Initiative. It was formed by one hundred and thirty college and university presidents who believe that the current drinking age has created a culture of binge drinking on college campuses (McCardell 1). It has forced college students, who are going to drink regardless of the drinking age limit, to move into underground and off-campus locations that are outside the supervision of parents and the school (McCardell 1). They believe that lowering the drinking age will bring these young adults back into the public eye and ultimately make drinking less “attractive” (McCardell 1). While some Americans believe that lowering the drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen will help to solve this problem, I disagree with this line of thinking. Lowering the drinking age is not a good solution to the problem of underage drinking. To do so, would only serve to make alcohol more accessible to teenagers in our high schools. Many studies have been done on the adolescent brain to confirm that those under twenty-one are not emotionally or physically mature enough to handle the effects of alcohol (Jacinto 1). Lastly, The age limit of twenty-one has been scientifically proven to have saved lives. Seventy-two percent of Americans are in agreement that lowering the drinking age will only contribute to the accessibility of alcohol for teenagers according to a Nationwide Insurance poll (Mooney 1). Currently teenagers cannot walk into an establishment which sells alcohol and purchase what they want. They often resort to the “shoulder-tap” method in which they ask a stranger outside of the store to purchase the alcohol for them (Jacinto 1). This at least limits them to limited amount of alcohol that this one person is capable of purchasing at one time for them. Many high school seniors turn eighteen before they graduate. If each of them is able to purchase alcohol legally then there will surely be far more alcohol available for their friends which may not have reached the same age. Ultimately this will simply shift the problem of underage drinking further onto high school educators and away from college educators (Mooney 1). Would we then expect parents to teach their children drink responsibly during their adolescent years? Children who believe they have their parents approval to drink are more likely to drink more often when not under their parent’s supervision (MADD.org 1). We could then expect the bars and other establishments which sell alcohol to help curb binge drinking by our young adults. This too is incorrect thinking as bars have their bottom-line to think of first, not the safety of our youth. Some seventy-six percent of bars have sold to overly-intoxicated customers (ProCon.org 1). Allowing the law to do its part to limit the accessibility of alcohol for those underage has helped to ensure that we maintain less of an issue with underage drunkenness, injuries, rape and school related issues due to alcohol than most European countries (MADD.org 1). Another reason for maintaining the current drinking age limit is that teenagers simply are not mature enough to handle the effects of alcohol. The brain of an adolescent is still developing in key areas used for learning, memory, complex thinking, planning, inhibition, and emotional regulation which magnifies the harmful effects of alcohol in these areas (Mooney 1). Research has proven that teenagers are more likely to binge drink than adults and typically get drunk twice as fast (MADD.org 1). Those who start drinking at early ages are more susceptible to developing alcoholism and other alcohol-related diseases later in life (Mooney 1). And the harmful effects are not just limited to physical effects as teenagers who drink are at higher risk for developing psychological problems such as depression, violent behavior, and suicidal thoughts (Mooney 1). The medical research proves that the current drinking limit protects both the physical and emotional health of our youth. Teenagers already have a lot to adjust to at this age as many are entering a new phase of independence in their lives. Many are adjusting to to managing work schedules, maintaining a budget, and/or focusing on their education. They do not need the added stress of pressure to go out to bars or the financial waste that it can create for them. Students who drink do not typically perform as well academically as students who do not drink (Mooney 1). Those young adults who make the choice not drink until they are twenty-one will typically not drink as much as they become adults (ProCon.org 1). On the other hand, those who begin drinking at an earlier age are also far more likely to begin using other illicit drugs, making alcohol the true “gateway” drug (ProCon.org 1). Over the years there have been many research studies completed about this topic and almost all have come back to one common belief, the current drinking age limit has saved many lives both on and off the road (Mooney 1). The European School Study Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs has shown that this age limit has saved more than twenty-five thousand lives (ProCon.org 1). Another study by the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration found that the current drinking limit saved an estimated 27,052 lives between 1978 and 2005 by lowering the number of auto accidents by thirteen percent among teenagers (ProCon.org 1). Yet another study by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism found that is had decreased the number of alcohol-related auto accidents by sixteen percent (MADD.org 1). Even the number of drunk weekend drivers has gone down from 5.4% in 1986 to 2.2% in 2007 (ProCon.org 1). Since 1984, the overall percentage of underage drinkers in the U.S. has decreased and the US is lower than most European countries in percentage of teenagers who make the choice to consume alcohol (ProCon.org 1). There is overwhelming support for maintaining the status quo of twenty-one to drink in America as some seventy-seven percent of Americans oppose lowering the drinking age according to a Gallup poll in 2007 (ProCon.org 1). We do not need to endanger our youth by lowering the drinking age and making alcohol easily accessible to them. Instead we need to maintain our current age limit and better enforce the current laws. This would me increasing penalties and closing loopholes in our judicial system which allow young adults to feel as if they can drink without any real criminal consequences. It must also mean stricter penalties for establishments which choose to sell alcohol to the adolescents of America. But ultimately education alone is not enough to curb risky behavior in young adults, which makes the drinking limit of twenty-one essential in ensuring the safety of our youth (MADD 1).

Works Cited
Dean-Mooney, Laura. "A Lower Age Would Be Unsafe." US News and World Report. N.p., 8 Sept. 2008. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.
Jacinto, Leela. "Should Drinking Age Stay at 21?." ABC News. N.p., 1 June 2001. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.
"MADD - Why 21." MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Web. 28 Mar. 2011.
McCardell, John. "The Status Quo Has Bombed." US News and World Report. N.p., 8 Sept. 2008. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.
ProCon.org. "Drinking Age ProCon.org." DrinkingAge.ProCon.org. ProCon.org, 2 Apr. 2012. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.

Cited: Dean-Mooney, Laura. "A Lower Age Would Be Unsafe." US News and World Report. N.p., 8 Sept. 2008. Web. 14 Apr. 2012. Jacinto, Leela. "Should Drinking Age Stay at 21?." ABC News. N.p., 1 June 2001. Web. 14 Apr. 2012. "MADD - Why 21." MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Web. 28 Mar. 2011. McCardell, John. "The Status Quo Has Bombed." US News and World Report. N.p., 8 Sept. 2008. Web. 14 Apr. 2012. ProCon.org. "Drinking Age ProCon.org." DrinkingAge.ProCon.org. ProCon.org, 2 Apr. 2012. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.