Should the U.S. Lower the Legal Drinking Age to 21?

Introduction: The U.S. Drinking Age Debate

Is it fair that the legal drinking age in the U.S. is 21 when it is lower in other countries? 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, arguing that lowering the drinking age would further exacerbate an already dangerous trend among young people toward 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 U.S.; instead, society should adopt the European approach to alcohol — which is to teach, through social acceptance, that consumption in moderation is the best practice.

The Case for a Lower Drinking Age

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, society creates pent-up demand, and young adults do not learn how to do things like drink alcohol in moderation. They feel compelled to binge drink since they can only obtain alcohol 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.

It therefore 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.

Conclusion: Freedom, Responsibility, and Moderation

The legal drinking age is currently set at 21. However, it should be lowered. One reason for this is that the current drinking age is ineffective and that it leads to more risky behavior among young adults. One can point to Europe, where the drinking age is 18, and show that these countries have fewer problems with underage drinking than the U.S. does. To teach young people how to drink responsibly, society has to allow them the opportunity to do so — and this means giving them the freedom to act.