Young Is Too Young? Lowering

¶ … young is too young?

Lowering the drinking age to the age of eighteen in America

The era of Prohibition was a dramatic demonstration that an excessively moralistic attitude towards alcohol is not effective in reducing consumption -- and over-consumption -- of the beverage. In fact, Prohibition had the opposite effect upon the nation. Before Prohibition, many Americans had a glass of wine with dinner. But when alcohol was illegal, even law-abiding citizens were driven to speakeasies to enjoy a drink -- or two. Moonshine liquor and bathtub gin, far more potent than commercially-purchased beverages, increased the amount of alcohol drinkers consumed in a single serving. Prohibition was repealed, and regarded as a dismal failure for everyone but the Mafia, who profited off of illegal trafficking in the outlawed substance.

Yet a similarly moralistic stance is adopted today, regarding teen alcohol use. "Seventy-eight percent of Americans oppose lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18" (Alias 2009). Still, almost every adult and teen concedes that drinking amongst adolescents under 21 is rampant. The under-21 law is made a mockery of through rampant, flagrant disobedience. The most recent comprehensive study of teen drinking habits, the federal National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2005, found that "85% of 20-year-old Americans reported that they had used alcohol. Two out of five said they had binged -- that is, consumed five or more drinks at one time -- within the previous month" (Johnson 2007, p.1).

Rather than having an artificially high drinking age that encourages disrespect for current regulations, including laws prohibiting drug use as well as underage drinking, a happy medium must be attained, so teens will be more willing to drink responsibly. Having an artificially high drinking age that is higher than the age when individuals can vote, join the military, drive, and even buy cigarettes sends the wrong message to young citizens. For almost every other privilege in the United States an individual is legally considered an adult at the age of 18. The fact that an adult over the age of 18 is considered responsible enough for his or her own actions to suffer being tried as an adult instead of going to a juvenile detention center seems to imply the law holds the individual responsible for all of his or her own decisions. Thus "it is absurd for one to be permitted these civil liberties but denied the right to consume alcohol. Many oppose lowering the legal drinking age because they fear that it will endanger the lives of young adults," even while those same 18-year-olds can go to war "forcing them to be put in grave circumstances and potentially to kill another human being," in a situation which certainly demands higher-level morality and good judgment (Alias 2009)

Of course, one rather obvious objection to lowering the drinking age is that given so many underage teens drink irresponsibly, they should hardly be rewarded with the privilege of drinking legally. Yet David J. Hanson, an alcohol policy expert at the State University of New York-Potsdam notes that "just like during national Prohibition, the law has pushed and forced underage drinking and youthful drinking underground, where we have no control over it" (Johnson 2007, p.1). Teens are more apt to drink hard liquor, argues Hanson, in unsupervised circumstances, such as in the basement of their parent's home, or in a fraternity house, rather than a bar. This contributes to an atmosphere where it is acceptable to drink antisocially large amounts of alcohol, in the form of hard liquor, in a manner where drinking to get drunk is encouraged (such as slurping down Jell-O shots rather than savoring a cocktail or beer).

Besides the negative social impact upon teen life that is counterproductive to the current law's original, well-meaning intention, there is also a legal question of state's rights. Technically, there is no uniform drinking age, but for all intents and purposes, the federal drinking age is 21, because in the mid-1980s after Congress was pressured by anti-substance abuse organizations such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), Congress threatened to withhold 10% of federal highway funds from the states that did not increase their drinking age to 21. "By 1988, 49 states had complied" with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, and "after years of court fights, Louisiana joined the crowd in 1995" (Johnson 2007, p.1).

Despite the astronomically high number of teens who have tried, used, and abused alcohol since 1988, MADD insists that the policies have been effective. The most frequently-cited statistic is one conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) "which estimated that from 1975 to 2003, higher drinking ages saved 22,798 lives on America's roadways" although it is unclear how these figures were determined (Johnson 2007, p.1). Traffic fatalities for teens were already declining in 1984, even before the age limit increase was fully enacted. Furthermore, there is even an argument that by increasing the drinking age, drinking and driving becomes more prevalent -- teens are more apt to drive somewhere else to drink in private and take the risk of driving home. They are also not observed by a bartender who might spot their overconsumption and insist they find a ride home.

Opponents of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 are not dissolute teens and die-hard libertarians. Even some college presidents and adults who are frustrated with the ineffectiveness of the regulations have come out in favor of allowing states to lower the drinking age to 18. Some states already allow teens under the age of 21 to drink in the presence of a consenting family member; on private property in the presence of an adult; or for educational purposes (such as students at culinary schools) and religious purposes (such as taking the sacrament during the Catholic mass, or drinking wine at a Seder). The precedent already exists, in other words, for some exceptions to the 'not under 21 rule' (Hanson 2009).

One of the most outspoken organizations for lowering the drinking age comes from a surprising source: the former president of Middlebury College. He has founded an organization called 'Choose Responsibility.' Choose Responsibility advocates transitioning adolescents into a mature attitude towards drinking through education. Its phases of responsibility are similar to that of acquiring a provisional driving license in many states. Choose Responsibility believes federal legislation should not penalize states that lower their drinking ages provided that the states maintain low levels of alcohol-related traffic fatalities and institute 40-hour educational programs taught by certified substance abuse educators "trained specifically to cover the legal, ethical, health and safety issues" of drinking and who are "skilled in dealing with young adults" (Hanson 2009). After passing rigorous a final exam the over 18, under age 21 graduate would "receive a license, entitling the recipient to all the privileges and responsibilities of adult alcohol purchase, possession, and consumption of alcohol" (Hanson 2009).

The United States has one of the highest drinking age limits of all nations, exceeded only by strict Muslim nations that prohibit the consumption of alcohol altogether. Belgium, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Austria have the lowest drinking ages at 16, while Germany has a legal drinking age of 16 for beer and wine, and a higher minimum age of 18 for hard liquor or spirits. "Other countries allow minors to drink at home under adult supervision, but not out in public: Great Britain, for example, allows children as young as five to drink at home, although they [minors] cannot purchase alcohol until they are 18" (Smith 2010). China, Armenia, Lithuania, Cambodia, the Ukraine, and Thailand have no drinking ages at all. Of course, it is difficult to find support for and against a specific drinking policy in the United States from looking at other nations, given that many cultural factors can impact the way in which alcohol is used and abused. However, "a 2003 study showed that in many countries with lower minimum drinking ages, 15- and 16-year-olds are less likely to become intoxicated compared with teens in the U.S. (Roan 2008, p.3).