Arguments for and against lowering the U.S. drinking age

¶ … U.S. Drinking Age stay at 21 or be lowered to 18?

The 26th amendment, on July 1, 1971 was passed which dropped the least age to vote from twenty one to eighteen years old (Madison, 2006). Soon after the amendment was approved twenty nine states all over the nation began bringing down their drinking age from 21 to 18 years of age. This new freedom for young adults did not last long, by 1984 the Uniform Drinking Age Act was then passed. The Uniform Drinking Age Act was what forced all the states to put the drinking age back to twenty one years old. This was done by decreasing the federal transportation funding, for every state that did not have a minimum drinking age of 21 (Johnson, 2008). As a police officer living in Orlando, Florida, I object lowering the age.

A lot of the arguments to bring down the drinking age comprised of utilizing parents to start instructing their children to be more responsible when it came down to alcohol assumption. The theory was that if they lowered the age, then it would not be so attracted to teens. They used the fact that Europeans have fewer juvenile drinking issues because they did it that way (McNamara, 2010). However, there is no proof that can support the theory of allowing children to drink around their parents really works. "When teenagers feel they as though they have their parents' endorsement to drink, they just do it much more frequently especially when they are not around their kids. When parents have tangible, imposed guidelines in regards to alcohol, teenagers binge drink less." (Madison, 2006) History as shown evidence against drinking being much less attractive to teenagers, if the lawful age was decreases. "When states had brought down the legal drinking ages in the United States, the underage drinking issue turned out to be worse." As for the theory that Europeans have less drinking issues, this 'fact' is in reality, a myth.

"European nations have much more issues with these problems than America does, to the extent that binge drinking and drinking to drunkenness. Recent studies show that Europe has more youthful drunkenness, rape, injury, and school difficulties because of alcohol. Ever since alcohol has become more obtainable there, it in fact makes the kids in Europe actually drink more" (Johnson, 2008).

Likewise, the obtainability of alcohol to young drinkers is an issue. "With the smallest age at 21…it is less probable that students in high school have friends of legal drinking age." (Madison, 2006) Ever since the drinking age was moved to 21, "things have become more harder for young adolescents to get liquor and actually has subsidized to lower binge drinking amounts among teenager that are 18" (McNamara, 2010). Up till now if the age was moved to 18, it would be stress-free for teenagers to be able to get alcohol, for the reason that a lot of their peers would be of age that was legal.

Another point is that there are medical motives as to why the drinking age does not need to be lowered to 18. Experts have learned that the brain's anterior lobes really do function more of a part in the situation, perhaps a lot more that people realize. For example, it has been specified that bringing the drinking age down to 21 would be medically reckless for the reason that the brain's frontal lobes, vital for purposes for instance, planning, emotional rule, and organization, continue to mature through young adulthood and adolescence. Alcohol ingesting can delay with this growth, possibly causing chronic difficulties for instance greater susceptibility to compulsion, hazardous risk-taking behavior, lesser decision-making ability, and loss of memory, depression, suicide, and violence.

Drinking in college and on college precincts is a distinctive issue by itself. It is exciting that studies are displaying that binge drinking has been going down (getting five or more drinks on a provided time) among women and young men. Ever since the drinking age was set at 21, binge drinking has gone down, especially when it comes to males under the age of 20. Nevertheless, when the point is put on college students drinking, the quantity of binge drinking has really gone up. The degrees of binge drinking amongst college men has pretty much continued not changed, nonetheless for women it has increased. "The propensity for binge drinking to decay in society has not infiltrated our college campuses… And more, most teenagers have found it easy to get their hands on alcohol for the reason that at least some of their friends are 21 or older." Nevertheless the issue is not because of the age, it's the scenery. In college it is not hard for students find a place where there is alcohol for the reason that most of their friends are 21, and they do not have a parent to answer to in regards to drinking (Johnson, 2008).

Others would come to an agreement that in concerns to the opinions of lessening the drinking age and having parents more involved with their child at 18 would solve the problem. Their argument is that parents are the kid's first teacher and that by lowering the age, it would really benefit them. Their theory is that if you teach them at a very young age than by the time they get to 18, they should be able to handle alcohol. They would also argue against the college argument. They dispute the argument that binge drinking has been down ever since the drinking age has stayed at 21 is not true to them. There are many reports in the news that show the opposite because there have been numerous injuries due to binge drinking and all of them were under the age of 21 (Johnson, 2008).They contend that this argument does not really hold much weight because most college kids are secretly drinking anyway. They say that keeping the limit at the age of 21 will only cause kids to want to drink more because they know that they are adults at the age of 18. They argue that these kids understand the fact that they can defend and die for their country at 18 but cannot get a drink. Knowing this alone causes those up fewer than 21 to continue.

In conclusion, the proof to support keeping the drinking age at 21 is irresistible. Studies are showing that 'the higher drinking age has diminished the quantity of alcohol expended by teenagers, the amount of binge drinking incidents largely, the amount of deadly car crashes and other opposing alcohol connected consequences. Young people drinking on college campuses and driving while drunk are still issues that happen today, despite the laws and current drinking age. Then again as time goes on, there may be an altering trend in these actions.

Should U.S. Drinking Age stay at 21 or be Lowered to 18?

Some believe the legal drinking age should be lowered to about 18 or 19 and that teenagers should be allowed to drink at any place that they enter rather it bar or a club. In these circumstances accountable drinking could be taught through educational programs and role modeling. Sensible and mature drinking behavior would be anticipated. This point-of-view founded on extensive research as a Teacher working in Sacramento California where I have been involved in for over twenty years concerning college age youth and the history of drinking in the United States and other cultures.

Actually, college is the main reason why it needs to be lowered to 18 years of age. Even though the legal way to buy is 21 years of age, a lot of the college students that are under this age take in a lot of alcohol but it is done in a dangerous manner. This is for the reason drinking by these youth is seen as a tempting "forbidden fruit," a "badge of uprising those in charge" and a sign of "entering adulthood." As a country we looked into prohibition legislation more than once in the past for regulating reckless drinking issues. This happened during the time of the National Prohibition which occurred in the 1920s and state exclusion that occurred sometime in the 1850s. These regulations were as a final point repealed since they were unenforceable and for the reason that the repercussion towards them produced other social difficulties. Today we are doing it all over again and making the same mistakes that happened in the past. Prohibition was not effective then and prohibition for those under the age of 21 is not effective now.

Another reason is the increase of problems. Even though there has been a reduction in motor vehicle crashes and per capita consumption and, inappropriately, all through this same time frame there has been a significant rise in other issues that were related to irresponsible and heavy drinking that is among college age youth. A lot of these described behaviors displayed not much change until later when the law was for 21-year-old in 1987 (McNamara, 2010). For instance, from 1982 until 1987 approximately 48% of students specified "drinking and vomiting right after drinking." (Johnson, 2011) This rose up to something like over 50% after the change of law. Important intensification were also discovered for other type of variables: " after drinking cutting class " went up from 10% to nearly12%; "missing class for the reason that they had some kind of a hangover" went from 28% to 35%; " on account of drinking getting lower grades " rose from 6% to 8%; and "getting in fights after drinking" went up from 13% to 17% (McNamara, 2010). Every one of these behaviors is indications of drinking that is irresponsible. This rise in abusive drinking behavior is because of "secret drinking" where there is no adult supervision in apartments and student rooms were same age persons assemble and for the reason that there is a lack of awareness of responsible drinking conducts (Johnson, 2008).

Maturity is another reason why it needs to be lowered to 18-years of age. When you turn 18 you are old enough to die and fight for your country, vote, get married and purchase cigarettes. Nevertheless at your wedding person would not be able to take part in your own sparkling wine toast. Some adults believe teenagers are not mature enough or physically able to handle drinking until they are 21 (Johnson, 2011).When a person turns 18 they are judged mature enough to vote, serve on juries, hold public office, serve in the military perhaps die for their nation, sign contracts fly airplanes, and so on.

Based upon the fact that our present prohibition laws are not functioning properly, the need for other methods from the experience of other, and more earlier culture groups, where this type of issue need to be tried. Groups for instance, Greeks, Italians, Chinese and Jews, who do not have much drinking linked issues, incline to share some characteristics that are common. Alcohol is neither observed as a magic potent or poison, there is no social pressure or very little of it to drink, reckless behavior is never accepted, teenagers and young kids learn at home from other adults and their parents how to deal with alcohol in a manner that is responsible, there is societal agreement on what establishes responsible drinking (Johnson, 2008). For the reason that the 21-year-old drinking age rule is not functioning, and is counterproductive, it behooves people as a country to change the present prohibition law and to make sure responsible drinking techniques are taught and also made sure that they are enforced. The truth is that it is not reality. A person's mind and are improving all throughout life. A 21-year-old is different from a 15-year-old, just as a 40-year-old is different from a 35-year-old (Johnson, 2008). Youth Prohibition objectors have been ignoring the idea that maturity is a slow but uneven procedure that endures during the course of life and is not whole when a person turns 21. Furthermore, they disregard the confirmed medical fact that the adequate ingesting of alcohol is linked with better health and living longer than either abusing or abstaining from alcohol.