Remove the Drinking Age Limit Entirely

The Drinking Age

Is it fair that the legal drinking age in the U.S. is 21 when it is lower in other counties? There is much debate surrounding the legal drinking age in the United States. Some argue that it is unfair that the drinking age is 21 when it is lower in other countries. Others maintain that the drinking age should remain at 21 in order to protect the safety of young adults. There are a number of valid arguments on both sides of the issue. Proponents of a lower drinking age often point to European countries where young adults are legally allowed to drink at a younger age (Toomey). They argue that this allows young adults to learn how to drink responsibly in a controlled environment. However, opponents of a lower drinking age argue that alcohol consumption can interfere with brain development in young adults. They also point to higher rates of underage drinking and binge drinking on campuses as a concern that lower the drinking age would further exacerbate and already dangerous trend among young people to engage in heavy drinking (Saylor). Ultimately, there is no easy answer when it comes to the legal drinking age. Both sides of the issue have valid points, and it is up to each individual country to decide what is best for its citizens. However, if society is going to teach personal accountability and moderation, there should be no drinking age limit in the US and instead society should adopt the European approach to alcohol—which is to teach through social acceptance that consumption in moderation is the best practice.

Alcohol consumption has always been a controversial topic. Some people believe that it should be banned entirely, while others believe that it should be regulated more strictly. However, there is a growing movement in favor of eliminating the drinking age limit in the United States. Proponents of this change argue that culture needs to raise children who are responsible and accountable. The best way to do that is to give them the freedom to make choices on their own. By restricting their freedom of choice it causes pent up demand, and young adults do not learn how to do thinks like drink alcohol in moderation. They think they must binge drink since they can only get it on the sly and on certain occasions. But if it were legal for them to drink, there would be no compulsion to hide their actions or overindulge. Thus, it makes more sense to adopt the European approach to alcohol—which is to teach through social acceptance that consumption in moderation is the best practice. Indeed, Europe has a much lower rate of binge drinking and drunk driving than the United States, and this difference can be attributed to the fact that Europeans are taught how to drink responsibly from a young age (Toomey). While there are certainly drawbacks to this approach, it seems clear that teaching young people how to drink responsibly is a better solution than simply prohibiting them from drinking altogether.

The counter-argument, however, is that by opening the door for legal drinking for young adults under the age of 21 there will be even more deaths and abuse. It is widely accepted that alcohol consumption can lead to a number of adverse consequences, including liver damage, and death. In addition, alcohol abuse can lead to a number of social problems, such as violence, crime, and homelessness. There is also fear that the younger someone is when they start drinking alcohol, the more likely they are to develop an alcohol dependence later in life. For these reasons, a person would argue that lowering the legal drinking age would not solve the problem of alcohol abuse among young people; if anything, it would make the problem worse.

Yet, this counter-argument can be rebutted by pointing out that it is made from the standpoint of fear rather than from information, and that it is made in anxiety rather than in trust. People in America tend to distrust the customs and traditions of Europe since they left that land long ago to settle in the New World. But not everything in the Old World should be unacceptable. People in the Old World trust their young people more than is the case here in America, which was essentially settled by Puritans. America was so puritanical that it even banned alcohol completely—for everybody—in the 20th century. How did that work out? It ushered in the era of organized crime as bootlegging alcohol became the norm and accepted practice. In other words, no one was going to give up alcohol, and the fact that it was harder to get made people into binge drinkers—just how college age kids are today: they cannot get it under ordinary circumstances, so they binge it when they can (Saylor). To teach moderation there has to be more acceptance and tolerance in society. Yet in America there are far too many red lines and things forbidden. To teach young people to drink responsibly, they have to be given room to actually be able to drink responsibly—which means legally—not in hiding or at binge parties.