In the United States, alcohol was first regulated with the passage of the 18th amendment which enacted prohibition nationally. This amendment was later repealed by the 21st amendment that left alcohol regulation up to the state. In the 80’s pressure to raise the minimum drinking age was brought forth by an organization called Mothers Against Drunk Driving, also known as MADD. Candy Lightner, whose daughter was killed by a drunk driver in 1980, founded the organization and promised herself that the death of her child would “count for something positive in the years ahead.” And sure enough, in 1984 the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21 with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act or NMDAA.
But how did MADD convince people to go for the 21-year-old drinking age? Much support was gained by Ms. Lightner’s 1983 movie about drunk driving and her daughter. William F. Buckley Jr., A conservative activist, implied a paradox between the youths rights movement, with the passage of the 26th amendment (forbidding states to raise their legal voting age above 18), and the sudden anti-youth rights movement. He said:
We all know that up until the counter-Woodstock anti-alcohol putsch of a generation ago, drinking was permitted in most states after age 18. What seemed to happen simultaneously was that our lawmakers resolved (a) to forbid drinking until age 21, and (b) to permit voting at age 18.
This is contradicting to allow the youth to gain rights in one respect but lose rights in another. Woodstock helped shape peoples opinion that the youth are not responsible enough to consume liquor even though it was just one event and was clearly a cry out for more youth rights.
Ms. Lightner left Mother Against Drunk Driving in 1984 and ever since, the group has be criticized for being neo-prohibitionist which is the belief that the influence of alcohol on modern society should be reduced, either by legislation restricting the sale and use of alcohol, or by changes to social norms. Even though MADD doesn’t claim to be neo-prohibitionist, Ms. Lightner stated, in regards to the organization she created, that “MADD has become far more neo-prohibitionist that I had ever wanted or envisioned… I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.” Yet by dealing with the issue of drunk driving an organization will inevitably have to deal with the issue of alcohol. The group has been successful in lowering the amount of drunk driving fatalities with its 20 by 2000 plan which aimed to lower the amount of drunk driving fatalities 20% by the year 2000, successfully done in 1997. MADD has also been successful in lowering the legal blood alcohol content from .1 to .08 in all states. However, the organization might not be as influential as some people might think.
According to the national highway traffic safety administration or, NHTSA, alcohol related deaths have been decreasing from 26,173 in 1982 to 16,885 in 2005. MADD takes credit for the decline in these figures. However, alcohol related deaths, defined by the NHTSA, are all deaths on U.S. highways involving drunk drivers, drunk victims, or both, not deaths caused by drunk drivers per say. This could be misleading and give more credit to MADD than they deserve. For example, in 2001 the NHTSA reported 17,448 alcohol-related deaths for that year. But in 2002, the Los Angeles Times then went on to say the NHTSA estimates for that year [2001] attributed only about 5,000 of those deaths to a drunk driver causing the death of a sober driver, passenger, or pedestrian, (Wikipedia). This is significantly less than 17-thousand. In 1999, the Government Accountability Office reviewed these figures cited by MADD and claimed that the statistics fall short of providing conclusive evidence that .08% BAC laws were, by themselves, responsible for reductions in alcohol-related fatalities. So MADD did not prove lowering the BAC law reduced alcohol-related fatalities.
Another argument in favor of the 21-year-old minimum age is that the human brain does not fully develop until after one turns 20. They claim alcohol slows down this brain development and harms specific areas of the brain related to judgment and memory. But this evidence is based on studies done to rats and severe abuses of alcohol rather than moderate alcohol users. Also, even though alcohol related fatalities have been decreasing, they have also been decreasing in Canada (by a similar proportion) who also has a MADD program and the legal age to purchase is 18 or 19 depending on the province. So age is not the issue in decreasing road fatalities due to drunken driving.
Opponents of the National Minimum Drinking Age include the New York State Conservative Party, but according to the New York Post they no long find it worthwhile to fight for the rights of the youth in lowering it. Others in favor of reducing the minimum drinking age include well respected socialist, David J. Hanson and, John McCardell Jr. who is president of Middlebury College in Vermont. Both these men question how effective MADD’s policy of complete abstinence from alcohol is. Hanson argues:
Such policies [National Minimum Drinking Age Act] possibly encourage underage and reckless drinking, since current public policy produces a supervision paradox where it can be difficult to assist and educate younger people in making responsible judgments about alcohol consumption; he compares the behavior of American youth to their European counterparts, who live in a society with "more liberal" consumption laws (Wikipedia).
Hanson and McCardell also believe that some young people drink just to show how they feel about a law they think is unjust, since 18-year-olds can drink legally in most countries and that it would be potentially safer for them to drink in legal, supervised situations. In addition, Hanson also stated on the issue, Research on the drinking age has not been able to verify a cause-and-effect relationship between the law and alcohol use or abuse. Hanson further notes, Many studies show no relationship between the two variables while others report that some alcohol-related fatalities have shifted from the 18-20 age group to the 21-24 age group.” So, according to Hanson, the problem isn’t getting better with the current law intact, it’s just moving the problem from group to another.
The United States has the world’s highest drinking age yet we abuse the substance constantly, especially in college students. McCardell said that the 21-year-old drinking age is a bad social policy and terrible law and that it has made the college drinking problem far worse. If our society didn’t shelter the drink from the youth below this 21-year-old age limit, college students wouldn’t be forced to drink privately where binge drinking occurs. “In most of Europe, especially in Great Britain, and also in Canada, alcohol plays an integral part of the university cultural experience for a majority of students (Wikipedia). In the United States all legal social drinking is in the 21 an older age group; And evidence shows that this has caused moderate public alcohol consumption to be replaced with private binge drinking, a far worse problem. This means that if the U.S. didn’t see alcohol as some forbidden beverage that can only be consumed when you 21, we would be better off because the dangers of binge drinking would not exist.
The National Minimum Drinking Age causes irresponsibly drinking. As Hanson put it, because it is not possible for young people to learn responsible drinking habits before striking out on their own, it takes years after passing the legal age to learn to drink responsibly. But if we introduce alcohol at an earlier age kids will grow up with it and not see it as something they would want to abuse or need to abuse. They will have more experience with liquor and with greater experience comes better understanding and the ability to make smarter decisions. Just how will we educate the youth about such a dangerous drug? By introducing alcohol at an earlier age, say fifteen, the adolescents can be monitored while experimenting at the same time. In Europe it is customary for adults to ease their children into drinking by first introducing the beverage at holidays so they can learn that alcohol should be consumed at celebrations and that it’s not okay to be abuse. I believe a similar system should be developed in the United States.
With the purchase of alcoholic beverages out of reach for minors it touches their curiosity for the substance and makes them want it more. We constantly see alcohol use connected with having a good time, partying, and hanging out with friends. This is the social norm. The youth want to be able to engage in these types of activities and to be accepted by their peers so they resort to methods of obtaining liquor by any means necessary. Not knowing the effects the substance has, they binge drink and end up not knowing how to deal with being drunk and persist in doing stupid things like driving a car, vandalizing, and stealing. Thus, I believe, having this expose to alcohol in ones life early on will turn them off to alcohol abuse and they will make better decisions while consuming alcohol.
Even though drinking has been decreasing amongst young people, Dr. Ruth Engs, Professor of Applied Health Sciences at Indiana University in Bloomington, stated, While fewer young people are drinking and their average consumption levels have been dropping, younger people tend to drink abusively when they do consume. This change occurred after the increase in the drinking age (Hanson). So increasing the age at which one may drink, promotes alcohol abuse for those that fall under the minimum age. If we eliminate the drinking age, there would be less alcohol abuse because there’s a difference between legally doing something and illegally doing it. When it’s legal to do something it turns you off to abuse because there’s no thrill in getting caught and it could seem pointless and juvenile. Much like a underage high school student sneaking out of class to smoke a cigarette in the bathroom he does it to be cool and for the thrill of possible suspension. You would never see a collage student do this.
Another reason why we should abolish the 21 year old age limit is because it’s simply not working. According to the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information, The average age when youth first try alcohol is 11 years for boys and 13 years for girls. The average age at which Americans begin drinking regularly is 15.9 years old. If adolescents are already drinking regularly at 16, then why not let them do it under supervision legally. If they’re going to experiment with it, someone needs to be there to tell them the do’s and don’ts before they make irrational decisions. According to the National Youths Rights Association, young people are continually consuming alcohol illegally which leads to abuse nearly three-quarters of eighth graders (71%) say that it is ‘fairly easy’ or ‘very easy’ to get alcohol. If even a solid majority of 13 year-olds have easy access to alcohol, then clearly a strict no-use Youth Prohibitionist method isn't working (NYRA). This statistic clearly shows that it’s easy for youths to obtain alcohol despite the drinking age.
Better enforcement of the minimum drinking age seems like a good idea, but it is a step in the wrong direction that we need to be going on the issue. According to the National Youths Rights Association"
“Communities nationwide have spent millions of dollars on police patrols, sophisticated driver's licenses and propaganda campaigns to prevent people under 21 from drinking alcoholic beverages. Yet 51 percent of high school seniors and 26 percent of eighth-graders admitted drinking within the past 30 days in a 1996 government survey (NYRA).
The said approach is clearly not working to prevent people under 21 from drinking. Instead of trying to regulate underage drinking, the U.S. should adopt a laid back alcohol policy. Also, the rates at which youths drink have remained astonishingly consistent in the past forty years. This is evidence against the current drinking age in the sense that it was supposed to decrease the number of youth drinkers.
Currently in the United States, people eighteen and over are allowed to get married, serve and die in our military, and vote, yet are denied the privilege to sip champagne at their own graduation. This is ridiculous. Our society supposedly considers an 18-year-old an adult, but we legally can not buy a beer. This is not fully an adult then, now is it? It’s like paying for a seat at a baseball game but not allowed to see the ninth inning. Something’s missing; it’s like losing a job that was offered to you just a moment ago. If a teen isn’t mature enough to consume booze, then who’s to say he’s old enough to vote or to move out or to do anything adults are allowed to? We need to abolish this segregation. Wouldn’t that make more sense than to segregate the legal alcohol consumers and the legal adults? It just doesn’t make sense to have this separation in a society where 18-20 year-old adults (as stated in by the voting age) can’t go into a club or bar and order a drink or two like the 21 and older legal alcohol consumers. And doesn't it makes more sense to change the alcohol age to 18 then to change everything that defines an individual as being an adult by raising it to 21?
The way a countries attitudes towards alcohol consumption is presented, shapes how its society will react and use the substance. Why have the taboo in the first place? In some societies (such as the UK, Scandinavia, US and Australia), alcohol is associated with violent and anti-social behavior, while in others (such as Mediterranean and some South American cultures) drinking behavior is largely peaceful and harmonious (SIRC). So in the UK, Scandinavia, US and Australia alcohol consumption can be seem as a negative taboo activity . While in Mediterranean areas and some South American countries alcohol consumption can be categorized as social and positive because it usually does not cause problems, people behavior appropriately.
Links can also be made about the behaviors of these countries and their consumption levels. Countries with much higher levels of consumption (such as France and Italy) score low on most indices of problem drinking (SIRC). In both these countries alcohol (mostly wine) is typically served with dinner, this laid back attitude of alcohol consumption promotes responsible and appropriate drinking.
Another common argument on the pro 21 drinking age side is that lowering the drinking age will increase motor vehicle accidents and the suicide rates. According to the American Journal of Public Health, when Australia lowered their drinking age from twenty to eighteen in 2000, Significantly more alcohol-involved crashes occurred among fifteen- to nineteen-year-olds than would have occurred had the purchase age not been reduced to eighteen years (Davie). They back their claim up with facts and a statistical analysis of a sample population in Australia declaring they increased 12% for eighteen-nineteen year olds and that number increased 14% for fifteen-seventeen year olds. This is a strong argument; however, this experiment fails to address the population over a long period of time when adults teach their children correct alcohol consumption and that abusing the substance has negative consequences and is socially infrequent behavior. Also, the problems of drunk driving can be reduced if stricter road laws are created. Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin of France, for example, recently ordered a road safety movement to install radars on highways to bring down the number of alcohol related deaths. A total of 560 are due by the end of the year 2006 -- police are running sobriety checkpoints. The campaign has cut the number of traffic deaths this year by a fifth, to 5,731, according to government figures. By enforcing the rules of the road we can cut back traffic related deaths which is directly linked to drunk driving.
Alcohol is directly and universally linked to celebrations. In the United States celebrations are used as an excuse to drink. In cultures where alcohol is consumed casually as an element of everyday life (Italy, Spain, and France) alcohol is consumed during celebrations but they are not used as an excuse to drink (SIRC).
In cultures with a tradition of casual, everyday drinking in addition to celebratory drinking, any shifts towards the more episodic celebratory drinking of ‘ambivalent’ cultures should be viewed with concern, as these patterns are associated with higher levels of alcohol-related problems (SIRC).
The United States is a clear cut example of this. We need to change the way our society views alcohol by having a more casual attitude towards the substance. Lowering the drinking age is a step in the right direction towards this goal. If we proceed to adapt these cultures customs and attitudes towards alcohol then alcohol abuse and related problems will decline in the long run.
Prohibition failed because it destroyed moderation and promoted excessive drinking behind the governments back. This is relevant today because the prohibition in the below twenty-one age group the same thing is happening. Violators will drink in excessive amounts when given the opportunity and will continue that trend until we do something to stop it, and the National Minimum Drinking Age Act is not the right way to access the problem because of its abusive tendencies in people younger than 21. Alcohol is a social norm in today’s society, has been for thousands of years, and there are no signs of it slowing down. If we don’t teach the youth good drinking habits they will continue to abuse and make bad decisions with alcohol into the future. Educating kids and giving them chances to experiment with alcohol in a controlled environment, while abolishing, or lowering, the legal drinking age is a step in the right direction to prevent thousands of lives from being lost year, after year, after year.
If you would like to start a decision feel free to leave a comment and see what people are saying on this issue. Also see my other blogs by click on the about me section of this page.
Sources
“National Youths Rights Association.” NYRA. Nov 12th, 2006
Hanson, Dr. “The drinking age should be lowered.” Nov 12th, 2006
“Fast Stats A to Z.” 2006. May 25, 2006
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm
Davie, Gabrielle S, Begg, Dorothy J., Kypri, Kypros, Langley, John D., Stephenson,
Shaun, Tippetts, Scott, Voas, Robert B. “Minimum Purchasing Age for Alcohol and Traffic Crash Injuries Among 15- to 19-Year-Olds in New Zealand.” American Public Health Association. Nov. 2005: 26-31
Nov 14th, 2006.http://web102.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+45C3AFFC%2DCD 53%2D490F%2DBE9D%2D103091E06698%40sessionmgr5+dbs+afh+cp+1+D5DA&_us=sel+False+frn+1+sl+%2D1+hd+False+hs+False+or+Date+fh+False+ss+SO+sm+ES+mdbs+afh+dstb+ES+mh+1+ri+KAAAGEAB00077199+B97C&_uso=%5F0&fn=1&rn=5http://web.lexisnexis.com/universe/document?_m=c1df489101022ef43bd975be2f1aed6d&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVlzzSkVA&_md5=21bfe6bcce73fdaf88c3632254d56286>.
“Alcohol and Teen Drinking” Focus Adolescent Services site. Nov. 16th 2006
“Social and Cultural Aspects of Drinking” Social Issues Resource Center (SIRC). Dec. 5th 2006
“Mothers Against Drunk Driving.” Wikipedia. 5th Dec. 2006
“National Minimum Drinking Age Act.” Wikipedia. 5th Dec. 2006 < http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act.>
