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.