Opposition of Lowering the Drinking Age

For over hundreds of years the United States has fought a long, vicious war on attempting to control alcohol consumption among citizens. The United States had lost the first battle when the Prohibition that restricted the manufacturing and sale of alcoholic beverages had failed and caused a backlash from the American people. From there on the United States has struggled with alcohol consumption and a fluctuating minimum legal drinking age. After a few struggles with finding an appropriate drinking age; the country settled with the minimum legal drinking age at 21. However, it appears that another storm is on the horizon; within the past three years authority figures have resurfaced a controversial debate on lowering the legal minimum drinking age. The minimum legal drinking age should not be lowered because it decreases alcohol related health problems, driving accidents, and fatalities in young adults.

In 1917, Congress approved the 18th Amendment that prohibited the manufacture, sale, transportation, and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the United States (McGrew). Before the 18th Amendment was ratified over half of the states were banning alcohol and by January 16, 1920 the entire country was dry (Prohibition). The leaders of prohibition, including the Anti-Saloon League and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, pressured the ban of alcoholic beverages because they were outraged by the drinking behavior of American and frustrated with Saloon owners who were bringing in gambling and prostitution into their establishments to create more business (Why Prohibition?). Enforcing the law on Prohibition was the most difficult task that the country faced. Crimes such as smuggling, bootlegging, and homemade alcohol concoctions increased. The enforcement of the prohibition soon proved to be impossible. On December 5, 1933 the prohibition ended (Prohibition).

After prohibition, the Federal Alcohol Control Administrations was established. The FACA was given power to grant and revoke alcoholic beverage industry permits, plant capacity and production, and prohibit false advertising of alcoholic beverages (McGrew). A minimum legal drinking age of 21 was also established at this time the legal drinking age remained at 21 until the 1970’s when 29 states lowered their drinking age to18, 19, and 20. Young adults were now being able to participate in voting, thus giving a reason why they should also be able to drink alcohol. After studies from the 1970’s showed significant evidence that after lowering the drinking age that there was a huge increase in alcohol related accident and fatalities, citizens urged that the legal drinking age be moved back up to 21. From 1976 and 1983, 16 states changed the drinking age to 21 (Minimum Legal). Finally in 1984, the Federal Union Drinking Age was signed into law. This law withholds 10 percent of Federal highway funds from any state that allows the purchase and possession of any alcohol beverage to an individual under the age of 21. All the states complied (Research Findings). Since 1984 the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) has stayed the same. In 2007 college presidents began speaking out and opening the debate on reducing the MLDA. College presidents, politicians, and supporters began organizations to support their claims.

In 2007 John M. McCardell Jr., former President of Middlebury College, founded a nonprofit organization called Choose Responsibility. This group was formed after McCardell was approached by the Robertson Foundation (A foundation that investigates consequence of the 21 year-old drinking age) to research and write a report on the 21 year-old drinking age. After the report received positive reviews McCardell received funds to start Choose Responsibility (About Choose Responsibility). Choose Responsibility believes that once the MLDA is lowered, individuals should be required to have alcohol education classes and a permit for drinking (Our Proposal Choose Responsibility).

In June 2008, McCardell was invited to speak at a meeting for the Annapolis Group, a group of 120 liberal colleges. While preparing for the presentation, McCardell contacted several long-time friends that were Annapolis Presidents and asked them about their thought on the 21 year-old drinking age. McCardell and his friends discovered they all had a common interest in reopening the debate to the public on lowering the drinking age. The group discussed the possibility of other college presidents supporting their opinions. They concluded that any college president agreeing with lowering the drinking can join their cause. Thus they created the Amethyst Initiative. To this day, 135 individuals have signed the Amethyst Initiative supporting lowering the drinking age (About Amethyst Initiative).

The Amethyst Initiative states that the twenty one is not working because “Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer.” And that “A culture of dangerous, clandestine “binge-drinking”-often conducted off- campus –has developed.”

Amongst college presidents, several state politicians are urging the lowering of the drinking age. Seven states including Kentucky, Missouri, Minnesota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Vermont are considering taking their own measures on the drinking age. Kentucky, Wisconsin, and South Carolina legislation introduced the idea of lowering the drinking age for military members only. While Vermont’s legislature is taking a task force to study the issue under consideration. Minnesota is considering a bill that would allow any individual 18 and older to purchase alcohol in bars and restaurants but not at liquor stores until they are 21 (Keen).

While several states and many college presidents are encouraging the lowering of the MLDA more than half of American citizens think otherwise. According to a 2007 Gallup Poll, “77 percent of Americans oppose of lowering the drinking age to 18.” (Keen). Amongst those opposed to the idea are large organizations such as Mother Against Drunk Driving (MADD), The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the American Medical Association (Parker). All three groups believe that the current MLDA has done exactly what it was established to do and should not be lowered.

“The 21 limit has been shown time and time again that it saves lives. I hope it doesn’t go anywhere,” says Jean Mulvey, the executive director of MADD (Henry). According to a 2008 report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the MLDA laws have saved more than 26,000 lives since 1975. They also stated that the current drinking age law saves around 900 lives in traffic fatalities per year (Henry). If the drinking age was reduced, the number of motor vehicle injuries and fatalities would increase. “Twenty-eight percent of 15-20 year old drivers who were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2005 had been drinking” (Impaired Driving SADD). Young drivers have very little experience as it while driving and cause a high number of accidents every year, adding the alcohol would be a highly dangerous mix.

Along with traffic safety, alcohol at a young age can cause severe health problems. During adolescence the body goes through many changes such as hormonal alterations and brain development. Exposing the brain to alcohol during this transition can interrupt the brains developmental process. The U.S. Government publication, Prevention Alert, confronted teen alcohol abuse and the negative side effects attached to it. The study stated that small doses of alcohol in teens can lead to learning impairments that could affect academic and occupational achievement. In one experiment between alcohol-dependent and nondependent teens from ages 15-16 showed that alcohol-dependent teens had a greater difficulty remembering works and simple geometric designs. Other studies showed that alcohol interacted with conditions such as depression and stress that contributed to suicide. Alcohol poisoning is a major health concern for drinkers. In 1995, 318 people from the ages of 15-24 died from alcohol poisoning (The Health Effects Teen Drug Abuse). Drinking alcohol at an early age can lead to alcohol dependence later in life. Over forty percent of youth who start drinking before age 13 develop alcohol abuse later in life (Wechsler Wuethrich 72).

With the current drinking age many minors still have the capability of getting alcohol. Fifty eight percent of 12th grade students have reported being drunk at least once in their life. While twenty percent of 8th graders reported being drunk at least once in their life (Underage Drinking SADD). Underage drinking is a huge problem in the United States and no one seems to have answers to solve it. With lowering the drinking age to 18 we are allowing individuals who have broken and disrespected our current laws the right to drink. Lowering the drinking age will give youth ages under the age of 18 easier access to alcohol.

An argument for supports of lowering the drinking is that in European countries many legal drinking ages are at 16 years and they have no problem with drinking; they are wrong. Binge drinking is an increasing and deadly fad in Europe. In 1999, 55,000 youths aged 15-21 died from alcohol. In a study of thirty European countries, binge drinking in 15-17 year olds increased in all 30 countries (Wechsler Wuethrich 81).In 1999, New Zealand lowered the drinking age from 20 to 18. Since the decrease traffic crashes and injuries have increased twelve percent for 18-19 year old males and fourteen percent for 18-19 year old females (Lowering the Drinking Age Join Together).

The minimum legal drinking age has set out and fulfilled its purpose from that start. It saves hundreds of lives every year. It decreases health problems, injuries and driving accidents in young adults. If the drinking age was lowered in all areas would we see a decrease in negative effects from alcohol consumption. In no way would lowering the drinking age have any positive effects on young adults and their futures.