Let’s take a look at 4 scenarios...

There are 3 people in a family. Dad, mom and son John Doe. Here is a conversation between them:

Scenario 1

Mom : John now that you are out of high school, what do you plan on doing? College?
John : Actually I am thinking of joining the military.

(John is old enough to make a decision and enlist in the army)

Scenario 2

Dad : Hey John, you are 19 years old. Don’t you think its time you get an apartment or something?
John Doe : Yeah, I am looking.

(John is an adult and families have a conceived notion that once kids are over 18, they should move on with their own lives and get on their foot)

Scenario 3

John : Hey mom, dad. I have been seeing this girl for 4 years and I think I want to marry her.
Mom : You can’t marry now. You are only 19!
John Doe : I would hate to go against your wish but I am an adult and I have the right to marry if I want. Besides she is pregnant.

(John is an adult and yes he does have the right to marry and make that decision)

Scenario 4

Mom : John, I don’t appreciate you drinking before you are 21.
(Drunk) John Doe : Whatever mom. I am an adult and I am going to do whatever I want.

(John is a rebel and feels his adulthood is in stake by not having the opportunity to make his own decision on whether or not he should drink. Result : family tension, underground drinking, drinking problems. This leads to one problem after another and in worst case alcohol related death)

Well, that’s a great law! He is an adult enough to move out, marry against his parents will and yes enlist in the army. But he isn’t old enough to drink? You decide.

Binge Drinking Deaths Increased

       A new Associated Press study has revealed that 157 college-age people (aged 18 to 23) drank themselves to death between 1999 and 2005, and that the number of alcohol-poisoning deaths per year rose from 18 in 1999 to 35 in 2005. Interestingly, 83 of the people who died were under the legal drinking age of 21.
       Additional analysis revealed that college students are more likely to die from binge drinking-related alcohol poisoning than non-college students, and that freshmen are most at risk during their first semester at college. With the legal drinking age set at 21, people (especially underage drinkers) are dying from binge drinking, and the number of deaths is continuing to climb due to the common mentality of “if you’re under 21 and someone’s got alcohol, you’ve got to drink it, because you never know when somebody’s going to have it again.”

       Some colleges have begun to adopt programs to educate students about responsible drinking—an important first step that will hopefully have some good consequences in the future. Regardless, this new study really points out a vital question......

Is 21 working?

Questions that need answers:

Why are adults from 18 to 21 years of age treated as second-class citizens in this one respect, when in so many others they are expected and required to live up to society's responsibilities?

Why does so much of the discussion of underage drinking focus on college students? Do adults cease to exist if they don't go to college? Why do college students have more problems with alcohol excess (because studies show they do)?

Why are there no solid statistics on underage drinking? Why can't you find out how much of the total "underage drinking" is done by 18 to 20 year old adults? And why aren't booze industry groups doing their own surveys and polls on the issue?

Why is there virtually no effort to teach adults of any age to drink responsibly?

Don't be afraid to ask these questions. Don't be afraid to discuss this issue. And of course, don't be afraid to disagree with me, with MADD, or with the Supreme Court. I'm truly convinced that the 21 LDA is a mistake with potentially lethal consequences.

The 21 Legal Drinking Age is a MISTAKE!

       That's not just my opinion, either. A growing number of people across the country are questioning the wisdom of the 21 legal drinking age (LDA). Pete Coors made statements to that effect in his senatorial campaign in 2004, and was roundly denounced as being self-serving...rather than better-informed and concerned. Kenyon College president S. Georgia Nugent recently said that virtually all college presidents believe that raising the drinking age has increased the drinking problem on campus rather than decreased it.

That includes Dartmouth president James Wright. It also includes Middlebury College president emeritus James McCardell, who wrote in an editorial in the New York Times (Sept. 13, 2004) that "the 21-year-old drinking age is bad social policy and terrible law."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/13/opinion/13mccardell.html?_r=1

Fred Blevens, associate dean at Oklahoma University, was quoted in favor of lowering the drinking age in the Oklahoma Daily, saying, "The expectations we have for 18-year-olds are the same that we have for 21-year-olds." FIVE states have recently or currently have legislation under consideration to lower the LDA to 18. Police chiefs feel that the 21 LDA contributes to binge drinking and is unenforceable.

ARE YOU ADULT ENOUGH TO DEBATE THE DRINKING AGE?

Before you answer, consider the following:

At the age of 18, an American is an adult.

At the age of 18, an American man or woman can take a full-time job,

they can join a union,

they can take that union card and get a job brewing beer, making wine, or distilling liquor,

they can get married, or have consensual sex,

they can have children,

they can adopt children,

they can have an abortion,

they can buy contraceptives (or get them free in school)

they can buy a semi-automatic shotgun or scope-sighted rifle,

they can sell booze in a bar,

they can own a bar in some states (including, apparently, PA)

they can become an armed police officer in at least three states,

they can own a business and employ other adults,

they can get a passport,

they can go see any movie in a theater,

they can become volunteer firefighters and rescue squad members, be responsible for expensive equipment, save people's lives, and risk their own,

they can get a pilot’s license at 17, and at 18 they can become a flight instructor,

they can get a hunting license and legally carry a high-powered rifle,

they can (they must) pay taxes,

they can (and should) vote,

they can rent an apartment,

they can do all the stuff on the Internet that you're supposed to be 18 to do.

they can purchase and carry an 18" Bowie knife,

they can get a mortgage (okay, they can apply for a mortgage),

they can own and drive a car,

they can buy a pornographic movie,

they can act in a pornographic movie,

they can take codeine and morphine with a prescription,

they can sign a contract,

they can purchase and use dynamite in some states,

they can enter a seminary to become a priest or minister,

they can sue,

they can be sued,

they can work as a prostitute in Nevada,

they can play professionally in the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, or MLS for more money than you'll see in three lifetimes,

they can join the military and fight, kill, and die for our country (1/5 of all combat deaths so far in the Iraq war were adults...under 21),

they can serve on a jury and send murderers and terrorists to death row,

they can be sent to death row,

they can run for political office, with some exceptions.

 

But they can’t have a beer. And it's killing them.

Mother's Against Drunk Driving (MADD)

            In the 1980s a campaign was led by Mothers Against Drunk Driving to raise the legal drinking age to twenty-one. The main argument presented by MADD was that raising the legal age for alcohol purchase and consumption to twenty-one would greatly help reduce the number of alcohol related automobile accidents. The rate of alcohol involvement in car accidents fell gradually until about 1997, and has started to gradually rise once again. Obviously the age restriction for the purchase and consumption of alcohol is not preventing minors from consuming alcohol or driving while under the influence of alcohol.

            If other societies throughout the world with lower or no minimum drinking age are examined, substance abuse of alcohol is a much smaller problem. In other societies alcohol is viewed as a completely different substance than in the United States. Many other countries consume alcohol with meals, or drink socially. In the United States many people view alcohol as a substance to help them alleviate their stress and life troubles through becoming intoxicated, or use alcohol at parties to become inebriated finding it easier to interact with other people. Alcohol in the United States is used for the wrong purposes. In Europe for instance, many countries have a minimum age of sixteen for consumption and purchase of alcohol. Many European countries have no legal age for the consumption of alcohol in the home. Alcohol is introduced at a much younger age and responsible drinking habits are taught. In most other societies alcohol is consumed with a meal, or in moderation, versus the binge drinking that many Americans like to use alcohol for. Alcohol is encountered on a daily basis in almost any country. How the alcohol is viewed, and the purposes that it is used for play a major role in responsible drinking.

As proven in the above picture, a majority of problem drinkers fall between the ages of 21 and 45. This age group actually more than doubles the 16-20 age group. Where is the problem???

Don't serve teens? Or teach them responsible drinking habits?

       Many people who oppose lowering or completely abolishing the drinking age would argue that there are many teens that are not responsible enough to consume alcohol. I agree there are many teens that are not capable of making good decisions while they consume alcohol, but at the same time I feel like there are many teens that are. A main concern for people against lowering the drinking age is alcohol addiction but at the same time, nothing is being done to prevent it. In society no one tries to teach safe or responsible drinking habits to teenagers. In programs such as “Drug Abuse Resistance Education” and even health classes, the only approach made to alcohol is that alcohol is bad and people should stay away from it. As I was searching the internet I came across an interesting webstie called "Don't Serve Teens" and it gives advice to parents to keep their teenagers away from alcohol, not advice with teaching them responible drinking. Instead of abstinence always being the approach to alcohol consumption, responsible drinking habits need to be taught. If safer drinking habits were taught, the problems with substance abuse would greatly decrease and I feel like more people would feel a lot better about the drinking age being lowered. As a premature 20 year old, it is natural to want to do exactly the opposite when told that one is not allowed to do something; all going back to the "forbidden fruit effect." If you are underage, do you agree? And for those of you who are of age, what are your thoughts on this debate?

http://www.dontserveteens.gov/

The "Forbidden Fruit" Effect

If the drinking age was abolished, or even lowered to eighteen, the “forbidden fruit” effect would decrease and stop some of the rebellious drinking by minors. When someone is told specifically not to do something there is a normal desire to do what you are told not to. As a teenager most individuals want a certain degree of freedom from their parents. Along with this desire many teens start to rebel trying to send their parents the message that they can and will begin to make their own decisions. In a 1996 government survey fifty-one percent of high school seniors and twenty-six percent of eighth-grade students admitted to consuming alcohol within the past thirty days. By setting the drinking age to twenty-one underage drinkers take their activities underground in an attempt to avoid getting into trouble with the police or their parents.

When minors take activities such as consuming alcohol underground they often have no supervision and do not practice or know safe drinking habits. I have been to a few parties where the parents that owned the house were there and permitted drinking, but monitored the activities to help ensure a safe drinking environment. The amounts of alcohol were limited and car keys were taken away to prevent anyone from drinking and driving. I see the supervision of an experienced adult drinker while minors consume alcohol as a respectable act. If the parent were not there, many unsafe and possibly irresponsible decisions could be made. I will agree that allowing minors to consume alcohol is possibly not the smartest decision since it is illegal and could lead to jail time, but I admire the fact that when an adult knows that drinking will occur anyways, they attempt to create a safe environment for the minors. If there were no drinking age, or even a lower one, then this parent would be praised for teaching safe drinking habits. Do you agree?

The Drinking Age vs. The Military

            In the United States when an individual turns eighteen they are granted new rights by the government. Along with these new rights comes new responsibilities. At the age of eighteen an individual is given the ability to vote in elections. Why would an eighteen year old be permitted to vote in elections if they were not viewed responsible enough by the government to make important decisions? When someone turns eighteen they are also legally considered an adult, and are held responsible for their self and their actions. The United States government has the ability to hold a military draft for all citizens ages eighteen to twenty-six. Does it really seem fair that an eighteen year old could be sent to war against his or her own will but is not allowed to consume alcohol at that same age? Fighting for the freedom that your country possesses requires more responsibility than drinking alcohol.

            As a twenty year old citizen of the United States I feel that I should be allowed to consume alcohol if I would like to. I consider myself a responsible person that can make smart decisions about alcohol among other important choices in life. I have been many places where minors were consuming alcohol and have seen the decisions that they make. When younger drinkers are in the presence of older, more experienced drinkers, smarter decisions are normally made. The minimum drinking age does not stop the consumption of alcohol by individuals under the age of twenty-one. Looking back at the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s shows that the government decided to ban the purchase and consumption of alcohol all together, and this clearly did not work. When prohibition did not work the government took this into consideration and decided that this idea needed to be reformed. When a law is enacted for a certain purpose and fails to achieve the goal, it needs to be taken back to the drawing board and other approaches must be taken. So, what do you think?

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 set the drinking age to twenty-one, and has been in controversy ever since its inception. The main argument presented by supporters of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was that raising the drinking age would greatly reduce the number of alcohol related car accidents each year, especially in the age range of eighteen to twenty. Since the drinking age has been raised to twenty-one the rate of alcohol involvement in car accidents has fallen slightly at about four percent in this age group. The number of alcohol related car accidents has, however, risen about the same amount in the twenty-one to twenty-four year old age range. Clearly this new age limit has not been too effective. The national minimum drinking age in the United States needs to be lowered to at least eighteen because at the age of eighteen a citizen is legally considered responsible by the government; the minimum age of twenty-one is not preventing the consumption of alcohol by minors, and if societies with lower or no minimum drinking age are examined there are far fewer problems with alcohol abuse.