Opinion: Drinking Age of 18 In The U.S.
“If an 18 year old kid can go to war, why can’t he buy a beer?” That is the age old argument used by those who believe the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) in the United States should be reduced to 18. If only the discussion were so simple. There are numerous angles one can attack to either support or defend this argument.
Those who defend the current legal drinking age of 21, cite health concerns, public safety, and protecting the youth of America as their largest issues of concern with reducing the drinking age.
Those who believe a drinking age of 18 would be beneficial provide reasoning such as the infectivity of the current MLDA to prevent underage drinking, potential economic boosts, and the fact that many MLDA 18 countries have safer roads than the U.S. Many would argue that the later is the correct viewpoint in this matter, myself included.
The majority of countries around the world have an MLDA of 18, and many Americans cannot see why the U.S. does not do the same. One of the first issues often brought up by those who want the drinking age reduced, is that an American officially becomes an adult at 18. This means that person receives essentially every other United States citizens right such as joining the military or getting married, but one still does not have legal permission to consume an alcoholic beverage.
Another common talking point in this argument is whether or not reducing the MLDA would affect the safety of U.S. roadways. There are relevant statistics for both sides on this aspect of the debate. Those who want a drinking age of 18 say that with 18–20 year olds drinking in safer environments, with no fear of being arrested, less would wind up driving impaired (Legal age 21).
Drinking age-reduced supporters would also mention that there are fewer issues with drunk driving in MLDA 18 countries such as Canada, where the rate of driving fatalities that include alcohol in ages 18–20 is significantly lower than the U.S. (U.S. Dept. of Disease Control). Many question whether the 18 year old brain is prepared for alcohol, to this they say that while the brain may not be ready, many teens are still choosing to drink and by giving them the legal right to do so would mean those who decide to drink would be safer.
Lastly, dropping the drinking age down to 18 would provide a boost to the U.S. economy, a fact often stated by pro 18 MLDA people. Lowering the legal age would give the government much more tax money, bars and clubs more business, and less money would be spent on public arrests for alcohol. Again, the argument here is that 18 year olds are legally adults who are not protected from the horrors of war or prison, so why should they be protected from the minor dangers of alcohol, something that brings people in our culture together.
Also, if an 18 year old wants to drink, they will find a way to do it. Why not make it legal so that the economy is improved and our roads and teens could potentially be safer as seen in many nations around the world.
If you are not buying this argument, take a look at the tragic story of former West Virginia Freshman Nolan Burch. As is the case with many fraternities, Burch’s frat was engaged in some form of binge drinking as one of the initiation requirements. Burch clearly had too much and was passed out, unresponsive. Because of the harsh underage drinking laws, the men in the frat were scared to call for help until it was too late and Burch had passed.
This touches on a much larger issue in this debate, which is that the fear of being caught makes drinking much more dangerous. It causes kids to not be helped when they’ve had too much, and some to drive drunk to avoid the wrath of their parents. If drinking in this age group was more accepted, the risk level would drop.
Some may say that accepting drinking, something that is proven to cause bodily harm is morally wrong, but there are multiple responses that refute the morality of the current drinking age. If students were taught more about the dangers of binge drinking, how to drink responsibly, and not to not drink and drive then the environment would be much safer. It is the same argument as sex, abstaining from the activity is obviously the safest option, but obviously many teens will do it anyways so we educate them on how to do it safely. Why is it so hard for the American public to have the same view on drinking? If we as a country could adopt this view, a drinking age of 18 would be the safe and morally correct choice.
If you don’t believe me, take it from the statistics. Canada has a significantly lower rate of drunk driving and their drinking age is 19. Even Germany which allows Beer and Wine drinking at age 16 has a lower rate. This may be a sign that the culture a nation has around drinking gives a good idea about how safe it may be.
