Reducing the Legal Drinking Age in America

Lowering Drinking Age in the United States

The drinking age in the United States has been 21 years old since 1984 because it was enacted in law. However, in the past few years, there have been numerous calls to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18 years. These calls have generated significant controversy and concern throughout the country since the issue can be approached from two general paradigms that shape people's perspectives. First, there are concerns why 18-year-olds are considered mature enough to make decisions like joining the armed forces and driving but are regarded as inadequately mature to consume alcohol. Secondly, the other paradigm postulates that allowing individuals to start drinking at 18 years will not ensure they drink responsibly, which enhances the risk of injury or death not only to the individuals themselves but others also.

Evaluation of the Paradigms

The first paradigm seems to provide better arguments regarding lowering the legal drinking age in the United States to 18 years. The irony in the 21 years age limit for alcohol consumption is that people are considered mature when they attain 18 years and are free to make independent decisions as adults except with regards to consuming alcohol. This begs the question why 18-year-olds are considered mature enough to make significant decisions like serving on a jury, voting, and joining the army but immature to make decisions regarding drinking. Moreover, recent statistics have indicated that the limit encourages extreme drinking since minors get around the restriction in inner cities and campuses to engage in alcohol consumption (Streeter, 2009). The limit seemingly encourages extreme drinking through creating an appetite for alcohol consumption, which makes minors to get around the law. Therefore, the law has relatively failed in lessening drinking among minors and its associated negative or devastating effects on the alcohol abuser and others.

While lowering the legal drinking age to 18 years is seemingly unsuitable since it does not encourage drinking responsibly and lessening alcohol-related deaths, the arguments used to support the second paradigm are relatively weak. If individuals are considered mature at 18 years, then they should be allowed to make independent decisions regarding alcohol consumption once they attain this age. In essence, the 21 years age limit has not really helped in dealing with drinking among minors.

Proposed Third Alternative

Despite the differences in arguments, the first and second paradigms regarding the legal drinking age are characterized by some shortcomings. Even though the first paradigm has seemingly resulted in fewer alcohol-related deaths, it has increased extreme drinking. On the contrary, the second paradigm would help lessen extreme drinking but in turn contributes to increased alcohol-related deaths. In essence, the first paradigm seemingly protects the interests of those who produce alcohol since it encourages drinking without consideration of the negative effects it could generate to the individual and the society. In contrast, the second paradigm protects the interests of those could be injured by an alcohol abuser with regards to alcohol-related deaths. Moreover, the judicial system has failed to enforce the limit effectively to help deal with alcohol consumption among minors.