Lowering the Drinking Age

Political parties in contemporary America incorporate a myriad of controversial social issues into their platform, often with the objective of dividing the American population and offering a distinct contrast between such parties. However, while lobbyists and advocacy groups exercise political pressure on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, gun control, et al, the Minimum Legal Drinking Age does not benefit from such consideration. While the minimum drinking age discriminates against and therefore invigorates an entire generation, the issue is secondary to others with more active political bases.

Though college students represent a potentially powerful demographic if properly organized, this cause has relied upon outside support from the Amethyst Initiative, a cohort of "college presidents from about 100 of the nation's best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth, and Ohio State [who] are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age to 18 from 21, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus" (NY Sun). This commission recognizes the necessity of lowering the drinking age, and the inevitability of young adults drinking. Therefore, the panel is suggesting to allow them to drink transparently, where they can be safeguarded, resolving the underground binge drinking that plagues American colleges.

The current law, despite being touted as the solution to addressing this rate, has not been proven effective in deterring the consumption of alcohol by minors. Instead, it makes alcohol taboo and inherently more appealing to younger generations, thus ultimately eroding respect for the law. The drinking age should be lowered because it is disproportionate to the age requirements for other activities such as hunting or driving. Furthermore it is the highest in the world and yet Americans suffer from a higher drunk-driving fatality rate than other European countries. Ultimately, the reasons for lowering the drinking age in the United States are plentiful and include concerns for the safe consumption of alcohol, the discriminatory and disproportionate nature of the law, and the logical and statistical fallacies of the law's effectiveness.

Perhaps the most paramount issue in American higher education today, is not of an academic nature, but rather is pertaining to the dangerous, yet prevalent practice known as "binge drinking". Binge drinking is defined by Jack Hitt, author of "The Battle of the Binge," as "regularly pounding down four or five stiff ones in a row in order to get blasted" (Hitt 422). This concern, though present on college campuses since the 1970's era of John Belushi's "Animal House," has becoming increasingly more prevalent and consequently hazardous to the health of college students. According to a Harvard study that Hitt references in his essay, "43 percent, nearly half, of all college students today binge drink," and that "what no one seems to have noticed is that the rise in binging has occurred at the very same time that the legal drinking age has been raised everywhere to 21" (Hitt 422).

Therefore binge drinking has become an endemic. Prior to the implementation of a standardized drinking age of twenty-one years old in 1984, college students were able to drink transparently and therefore did not as actively engage in binge drinking or underground parties. While proponents of maintaining the Minimum Legal Drinking Age may argue that eighteen year olds, for instance, are not biologically or psychologically mature enough to consume alcohol, there has not been any empirical evidence supporting such claims. The drinking age has had a profound impact on American society and culture today, and transformed alcohol into a perceived taboo and rite of initiation.

Whereas in American today there is a significant problem with binge drinking amongst college age students, European countries including Germany, France, and Italy do not experience this same crisis. This is not to say that binge drinking does not occur in such countries, but rather that it is not as prevalent as in the United States. These three countries have a common drinking age of sixteen years old, though this age is rarely enforced. Though this drinking age is considerably lower, it is not the sole mitigating factor of why European countries benefit from fewer alcohol-related problems. Rather, the drinking age allows for and is accompanied with embedded cultural values, for example, as Dr. David J. Hanson, Ph. D., a professor at the State University of New York Potsdam, explains that there are three common characteristics

Alcohol is seen as a rather neutral substance in and of itself. It's neither a poison nor a magic elixir. [...] People have two equally acceptable choices: abstain or drink in moderation. What's never acceptable is the abuse of alcohol by anyone of any age. Period. [...] People also learn about drinking in moderation from an early age in the safe and supportive environment of the home, and they do so by good parental example (Hanson).

Thus, while a lower drinking age may not necessarily result in an immediate decrease in alcohol-related problems, it is pivotal in the transformation of American culture and its abuse of alcohol. Hanson's argument sustains the notion that alcohol is perceived as taboo for young Americans thus it is more desirable and consequently has been precariously misused.

The key aspect of European culture with regard to alcohol is that it encourages and accepts early exposure to alcohol in moderation. By introducing young adults to alcohol in a controlled environment, it is therefore removing the curiosity and restrictions that are evident in American culture. A study conducted by the World Health Organization in 2003, "found that southern European teens, in particular, do seem to drink more responsibly than Americans. Italian and Greek teenagers drink more days per month than teens do here, but they tend to drink far less each time" (US News). European countries are most often cited as working examples of lowering the drinking age, aside from the United States, South Korea, and Japan, which all have minimum drinking ages of twenty-one, the rest of the world functions with a drinking age lower than the United States.

In this respect, "those who call for all adults to be able to drink are traditionalists; whereas those who insist on age 21 are radicals" (Hanson). Essentially, tradition fundamentally dictates entitlement to alcohol as adults. Despite the example of other countries, the United States government enacted the National Minimum Drinking Age in 1984 to combat an increase in drunk-drinking fatalities. The implementation of this drinking age was ineffective, as "[The United States'] rate of traffic fatalities in the 1980s decreased less than that of European countries whose legal drinking ages are lower than 21" (ProCon.org). Thus, while the United States prides itself on innovation and progress, its radical initiative was inadequate in addressing drinking problems.

The National Minimum Drinking Age of 1984, is a misnomer in that it is not a federal law that explicitly mandates a drinking age of twenty-one, but rather it manipulates states into adopting this minimum drinking age by withholding necessary federal highway funds until states do so. Thus, the measure did not enjoy the necessary popularity among the people, for it to be initiated transparently. It is speculated that exerting power over the state governments and "compelling" them to implement such legislation was deliberate, as any federal statute would likely be deemed unconstitutional due to its discriminatory nature. The National Minimum Drinking Age was passed at the insistence of influential lobbyists, namely Mothers Against Drunk Driving, an organization of mothers and women affected by alcohol-related fatalities. Though this organization's agenda is certainly one of a positive nature and one can certainly sympathize with their misfortune, the organization's success does not come from its role in the drinking age, but rather its educational efforts such as designated drivers and its influence in increasing drunk-driving prosecution.

Proponents of maintaining the Minimum Legal Drinking Age often argue its success by saying that today, there are "lower rates of alcohol-related crashes among 19-to 20-years olds," however, there are two potential explanations for such an occurrence. Firstly, though the use of statistics is frequently used to support initiatives, such data is not necessarily correlative. That is, there is not a determined cause and effect associated with those numbers, for example, one cannot directly associated "lower rates" to the implementation of a drinking age. Instead, these decreases can likely be attributed to designated driver programs, stronger drunk-driving prosecution, or other mitigating circumstance such as quality and driver control of the automobiles, among others. Secondly, statistics can be and often are skewed to support a biased, political agenda. This is common even among organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving. While the end goal that they strive for is innately valuable (decreasing alcohol-related fatalities), the organization is absolutely convinced that a standardized drinking age is the appropriate means of achieving it, even when logic and ethics suggest otherwise. For instance, in the quote cited, "lower rates of alcohol-related crashes among 19-to 20-years olds," there is not an indication of how this law has affected alcohol-related crashes among younger age groups. This use of semantics is deliberate, as the age groups immediately beneath and above nineteen to twenty years old have been abruptly affected. In essence, one may argue that "moving the MLDA [Minimum Legal Drinking Age] has simply shifted the risk of fatal accidents from teens to young adults. No matter what the MLDA is, anyone can suffer the adverse effects of alcohol if they do not drink responsibly" (ProCon.org). Furthermore, as Dr. John McCardell of the Amethyst Initiative states, "The issues surrounding alcohol and young people these days are very different. By far the greater loss life, for example, in alcohol-related incidents for those under 21, occurs off the highways" (McCardell). Thus, although the chief aim of the nationalized drinking age was to curb alcohol-related traffic accidents among college-aged students, it has merely amplified fatalities in nearby age brackets, and made other drunken incidents more prevalent.

In addition to the empirical evidence that refutes the notion that this second "prohibition" has succeeded in lessening alcohol-related incidents, the use of logic in comparing the significantly disproportionate drinking age to the age requirements for other "adult activities" is particularly effective. For instance, in states such as Nebraska, Texas, and Wisconsin, at the age of twelve, a child may be granted a hunting license, that is, a license to carry an armed weapon and the authority to be trusted with that weapon and killing an animal. At this age, the child is likely neither socially nor biologically mature and yet, because hunting is such a fundamental aspect of American history and culture, this is deemed permissible. As Dr. Hanson convincingly suggests in his essay:

The fact is that citizens are legally adults at the age of 18. They can marry, vote, adopt children, own and drive automobiles, have abortions, enter into legally binding contracts, operate businesses, purchase or even perform in pornography, give legal consent for sexual intercourse, fly airplanes, hold public office, serve on juries that convict others of murder, hunt wildlife with deadly weapons, be imprisoned, be executed, be an employer, sue and be sued in court, and otherwise conduct themselves as the adults they are. And, of course, they can serve in the United States armed services and give their lives defending their country. One of the very few things they can't legally do is consume an alcohol beverage. They can't even have a celebratory sip of champagne at their own weddings (Hanson).

Dr. Hanson speaks to the hypocrisy rampant in American social policy, while society places immense sacrifice and burden upon young adults these individuals are not deemed "mature" enough to consume alcohol. Many of these pressures are levied under the guise of civic duty, for example, military service, jury duty, and public office. Each of these roles necessitates tremendous maturity and engages in life or death matters. Those who enlist in the military upon graduating high school are consider patriots, yet these same individuals who endanger their safety and potentially their lives are not able to consume a beer alongside their colleagues or associates, despite making the same sacrifices. As one columnist in the Maine Today Journal writes, "Particularly galling to me is the disjuncture between military service and the drinking age. My concern is twofold. First, soldiering is obviously dangerous. Twenty-one percent of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq have been younger than 21 years old. Where is the hue and cry to raise the minimum enlistment age and save these wasted young lives?" (Maine Today) Such statistics are alarming, while every American soldier's death is a tragedy particularly disturbing is the significant percentage of young American casualties.

While the argument that American soldiers can serve and die in the military yet not be allowed to consume alcohol is often made, it should be noted that not only are American soldiers threatening their own livelihood, but that they are routinely expected to make life or death judgments and kill if necessary. These war-time encounters often have immeasurable psychological ramifications upon the soldier. Thus, while these young soldiers are expected to have the maturity to evaluate and endure such intense circumstances, supposedly they do not possess the maturity necessary to consume an alcoholic beverage. Such a distinction is a logical fallacy and is rife in American social policy.

The introduction of a pseudo-national drinking age has had adverse effects on American culture, as though it was intended to resolve issues concerning alcohol-related incidents, it has reinforced the abuse of alcohol and inadvertently intensified the problem. While organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving pride themselves in the passing of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age, what they have done has had a more profound impact - they have made it "uncool to drink and drive. The designated driver wasn't part of our vocabulary 25 years ago" (McCardell). Mothers Against Drunk Driving has in some respects, transformed American culture by using social pressure and drunk driving education to make people realize that drunk driving is selfish and reckless. The drinking age should be lowered for a myriad of compelling reasons, in which logic, ethics, and emotion support. Drinking alcohol is a privilege that all adults should be able to enjoy, provided it is not abused. In considering the ineffectiveness of the drinking age, the United States Federal Government should reevaluate drinking age legislation and facilitate greater dialogue regarding the issue.