Do Not Read This
Well, if you were the person who skipped over this article (and are over the age of 40), kudos to you! If you blatantly ignored the title and are currently reading this, do not be alarmed. You have simply acted in a way that the majority of human brains react when being specifically told to not engage in a certain activity. And that is by precisely doing the complete opposite.
Maxwell Gruver, Louisiana State University. McCrae William, Lafayette College. Andrew Coffey, Florida State University. The names stated above only reflect three of the approximately 1,825 deaths that occur each year in the United States among college students between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four. And the cause of all 1,825 remains as being an alcohol-related unintentional injury. Let us take a second to remember the innocent, young adults who were looking forward to graduating from college, falling in love, raising a family- what we Americans commonly refer to as experiencing the “American Dream” prior to the day of our deaths.
As adolescents trying to examine our own identities, or who we are as people, and attempting to get through the challenges that come with being imprisoned in the highly stressful institution known as college, it is inevitable that we will make irrational choices more often than ones that our parents would define as intelligent. We thrive in environments where we know that we are breaking some established rule or regulation in society. The issue at hand in our country, however, is that policies established by the government are transforming activities that pertain to normal human behavior into taboos, and the societal implications are proving to be utterly horrendous.
If you were to speak to any college student, or even high school teenager, in the United States, he or she would be highly informed and aware of the “forbidden fruit” that is currently consuming the entertainment-industry and frats and sororities of our nation: alcohol. The United States is, one could say, original and a stand-out when it comes to its legal drinking age for people. Here, young adults are required to wait until the age of twenty-one to be able to legally enter a bar or restaurant and ask the barista for a beer or two. Now, does that mean young adults are patiently waiting until twenty-one to take their first sip?
Absolutely not, and I do not blame them for their eagerness to disregard the law. After all, at the age of eighteen, young adults have the right to vote, get married, serve on juries, and fight for our country. Yes, I can join the army and sacrifice my life for the freedom of our country without having the right to ask for simply a beer in return. But there are greater, more severe implications that come with underage drinking that have evolved as a result of a desire to negate the law, and they may as well scare every college-admitted high school senior.
Our Founding Fathers spent an insurmountable amount of time drafting the document that reflects who we are as a nation and the ideals that we have progressively embraced: the Constitution. To limit the opportunity for the federal government to strip essential liberties from the common people, the Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution. Essentially, it states that any federal powers that are not stated explicitly in the document belong to the states and people. The Constitution nowhere mentions any provisions regarding the use of alcohol throughout the nation, so one could naturally assume that each individual state has the right to determine the legal drinking age for their people. Unfortunately, that is not the case in our nation, raising awareness to the idea that the federal government may have the tendency to overreach into state affairs, with unintended consequences taking place afterward.
The government of the United States contains a long history of fending its way into the field of drinking. The Dartmouth Review-Journal recalls the unique history of alcohol in the United States, “We also mustn’t forget another important irregularity in the history of our country’s drinking laws: prohibition. From 1920, when the Eighteenth Amendment to the constitution was ratified, until 1933, when it was repealed by the ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment, ‘the manufacture, sale, or transportation’ of alcohol was illegal throughout the United States” (Hutensky). Clearly and evidently, the nation intelligently agreed to loosen its Prohibition laws, as otherwise, we would be subject to witnessing several protests and aggressive demonstrations in favor of legalizing alcohol (it is something the majority of the common people rely upon to get off some steam once in a while and an active part of our culture, after all). It is understandable that a government would attempt to curb the heinous effects of alcohol when consumed irresponsibly, however, it cannot take a substance that pertains to normal human behavior and attempt to turn it into a taboo.
The federal government, despite eradicating the provisions of its Prohibition Act, turned to another factor that would be able to limit the number of humans who engage in the practice of drinking alcohol: the minimum legal drinking age. The Federal Mandate to Raise the Drinking Age to twenty-one was signed into law on July 17, 1984. The federal government whipped out its blackmailing powers and essentially forced the states into raising the drinking age to twenty-one, as states that failed to comply would, as a result, lose over 10% of their highway funds. The story behind the decision of the United States government to obligate the states to raise the drinking age, however, continues to be one of tragedy. The legislation can be primarily attributed to the efforts of Candy Lightner and the MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) organization. Horrifically, Lightner lost her young daughter to a reckless drunk driver who was under the age of twenty-one. After its founding, MADD set out on a massive campaign to raise the drinking age to twenty-one on a state-by-state basis, and then on a national level. Inherently, when hearing the tear-jerking story of Lightner, one would naturally react by supporting the one reasonable solution to reducing drunk driving and drinking among teens in general: raise the legal drinking age above twenty-one. What is worse, however, is the fact that we are allowing the national government to contribute to the creation of a drinking culture that has the possibility of snatching our lives as we enter college.
The age of twenty-one itself is completely random and has no connection with the level of maturity and brain development of young adults. In the United States, keen and festive high school graduates yearn to reach the day on which they officially turn eighteen. Officially legal adults, they can vote for the leaders of our country, smoke, get married, serve on duties, and sign contracts. The list goes on and on from there. Most importantly, young men and women can serve for our military, and risk their own lives to ensure the freedom of the citizens here in the United States. However, those same adults do not have the right to purchase or consume alcohol legally due to not containing a “developed-enough” brain. According to the Dartmouth Review, the argument that eighteen years old do not contain a brain that has developed to the extent to be exposed to the effects of alcohol is insignificant. Huntensky recalls that “In truth, say MIT researchers, the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that affects decision making and that is mostly affected by alcohol, isn’t fully developed until age twenty-five. This means that current law allows four full years of legal alcohol consumption while the brain is still developing.” The age of twenty-one is utterly arbitrary and we have used the science behind brain development to falsely support the age.
In the majority of European countries, the legal drinking has been established to be eighteen or lower. After graduating from high school, young adults are given the right to determine whether or not they are mature enough to engage in the consumption of alcohol. Teens and young adults thrive on the idea that they have the opportunity to take part in forbidden activities in order to gain experience and simply “see what it is like.” In the United States, as a result of being curious and eager high school graduates, colleges have transformed into buildings of alcohol-filled fraternities and sororities. Here is where I will explain why the law may have in fact produced unintended consequences. Stepping onto campus on any Friday or Saturday night, it is natural to see excited college students engaging in highly dangerous activities that range from hazing, binge drinking, and other unsafe behavior. Due to not being able to legally purchase alcohol in public places at twenty-one, students are forced to rely on older students and the organizations they are a part of to purchase “the booze.” According to The Center For Science In The Public Interest, “44% of students attending 4-year colleges drink alcohol at the binge level or greater.” Fox News reports that 157 college-age individuals (ages eighteen to twenty-three) drank themselves to death from 1999 through 2005. What is more concerning, however, is the fact that a legal drinking age of twenty-one increases the number of innocent people who are hurt from alcohol-related injuries due to the fear of facing legal consequences if they were to attempt to seek medical attention. Students value their criminal and academic record over their safety, and “punishing students for underage drinking causes them to hide their participation rather than limit it, thus minimizing the ability of universities to monitor their safety.” Without the ability to enter supervised places such as bars and restaurants, students are compelled to drink in places where binge drinking can be regarded as inevitable.
Contrarily, in Europe, the curiosity among young adults in regards to drinking is significantly lower, as they are legally allowed to purchase drinks at the age of eighteen. A friend of mine who a high school in CT, Adam, (name changed due to privacy) travels to France during the summer nearly every year. In France, it is common for children under the age of sixteen to drink wine at the dinner table in front of their parents. Asking him about his drinking experiences in France, he noted that it is normal and culturally acceptable for him to be able to enter a bar and have a beer or a glass of wine. Getting drunk for Adam and his fellow friends in France is not the highest form of entertainment possible, and thus Adam does not have a devil sitting on his right shoulder consistently tempting him to try our “forbidden fruit.” Therefore, lowering the legal drinking age to eighteen would induce young adults to drink at supervised places such as bars, restaurants, and clubs, where there is a significantly lower chance of the binge drinking and unsafe behavior that tends to occur in fraternities and sororities in colleges.
Our governmental view against drinking has precipitated a hidden culture of drinking among college students, and the government currently refuses to address the issue. Students are continuing to want to experience the “high” that comes with unsafe behavior such as drinking, and we can reduce that eagerness by simply lowering the age to eighteen. While we cannot compare ourselves to European countries, where the main form of transportation walking, we cannot ignore the fact that they have established a drinking culture that consists of respect and responsibility.
Supporters of the legal drinking age being twenty-one argue that the higher drinking age has significantly reduced the number of drunk driving-related accidents. 100/102 analysis in a 2002 meta-study of the legal drinking age found higher drinking ages associated with lower rates of traffic accidents. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that the MLDA of twenty-one decreased the number of fatal traffic accidents by over 13% and has saved over 27,052 lives. In addition, the MDLA has reduced alcohol consumption, as the NHTSA found that the percent of nighttime drivers with a BAC of .08% or higher have declined from 5.4% (1986) to 2.2% in 2007. It is important to recognize that the legislation has led to a reduction in the number of drunk-driving accidents, however, traffic accidents and fatalities are most common among newly-legal drinkers, regardless of the MLDA: In 2009, the 21-to-24-year-old age group had the highest percentage (35%) of drivers in fatal crashes with a BAC of .08%. Humans continue to engage in accidents while being drunk, regardless of their age, and we must examine the other consequences that arise with drinking.
The drinking frenzy in our nation will continue to grow if the idea of a “forbidden fruit” is repeatedly enhanced. Ask any senior high school student, and they will tell you that they simply cannot wait for the “parties” that will take place in their upcoming college years. Students are entering college with one and only one sole purpose: to learn how to drink from a keg or take the greatest number of shots compared to their friends without passing out. Not only does this hinder the possibility of success in our nation, as college is supposed to be a time for valuable learning, gathering vital knowledge and wisdom, and garnering a sense of identity for one, but also portrays alcohol as the highest form of entertainment possible for a human. I am not saying that the United States federal government does not have a right to pass laws that will protect the citizens from certain unsafe behaviors. I am also not saying that reducing the drinking age back down to eighteen will cause the frat and sorority parties to disappear from existence.
No, I am simply saying our nation needs to understand the fact that allowing drinking at the age of eighteen will give high school students entering college the opportunity to learn how to handle alcohol in a responsible and non-threatening matter. Just like young adults are given the “birds and bees talk” by their parents to enforce and encourage safe sexual intercourse when the time comes for it, young adults should be able to have their first drink with their parents to see the way their body reacts to the substance in a safe, controlled environment at home.
I stated earlier that there are greater, more severe implications that come with underage drinking that have evolved as a result of a desire to negate the law, and they may as well scare every college-admitted high school senior. Why am I scared, you may ask? As a naive, female high school student who attempts to approach the world with an optimistic viewpoint, I am going to be blunt:
I do not want to be raped, sexually assaulted, or assaulted by another person who has been drinking and does not know how to control himself.
Each year, 696,000 students between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four are assaulted by another student who has been drinking.
Another 97,000 report experiencing alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape.
I also do not want to contribute to the statistic that states 1,825 students die from alcohol-related injuries each year.
I recognize that lowering the drinking age to eighteen would not most likely stop the infamous frat and sorority parties that take place on college campuses. Drinking is part of our culture and who we are as human beings, and sometimes even necessary to reduce our stress levels and simply enjoy ourselves. The statistics stated above reflect individuals who do not know how to drink properly.
If we give parents the option of teaching their adolescents how to drink responsibly to derive a greater level of enjoyment and pleasure from alcohol without exceeding their limits, maybe my mom and dad will not have to worry about their little girl being stripped of her innocence in the most brutal and inhumane way at an event that my presence is at some point inevitable: a college frat or sorority party.
Moms and dads around the country should not have to worry about losing their little boys and girls to the list that includes William, McCrae, and Andrew.
