Debate: Why should we against to lower drinking age - Term Paper Example

HERE HERE YOUR HERE HERE Why should we be against lowering the Drinking Age? There are some in society who believe lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 would have positive benefits, both for society and for the health and well-being of today’s youth. Proponents of changing the drinking age believe that under the current 21-and-over laws found nationwide tends to drive teenage drinking underground, forcing youths to drink in unregulated and unsupervised environments. However, there is far more evidence that reducing the drinking age to 18 would have significant health-related consequences and would likely provide increases in youth fatalities.

The drinking age should remain at age 21 in order to better serve the interests of society and ensure that teenage youths stay protected. A history professor at Middlebury College in Vermont states in regards to the current drinking law, “The law is out of step with reality…obviously unjust and discriminatory” (Hechinger 1). This professor believes that the current 21-and-over law drives teenage drinking underground. Research has shown that 44 percent of all college-aged youths binge drink (Hechinger 1), which tends to affirm the objection provided by a respected college educator.

Proponents of reducing the age limit seem to believe that by lowering the age, it would dissuade drinking in unsupervised and unregulated environments, allowing adults to have more control over consumption volumes in appropriate venues such as bars and nightclubs and would reduce fatalities caused by alcohol poisoning during binge drinking episodes. Proponents of this bill, however, are largely misguided. Though there might be some reduction of binge drinking, there is far more evidence that lowering the age limit would be a tremendous mistake.

On an average day, statistics indicate that there are 11 teenage alcohol-related traffic accidents (Voas 1). In addition, teenage drinking under the current legal structure leads to 1,700 deaths annually, 500,000 injuries, and 70,000 sexual assaults (Voas 1). Since most teenage drinking occurs underground, if the new proposed law were to be enacted, it would drive youths into public environments where there is little that responsible adults can accomplish to try to reduce volume consumption. Seeing that most teens lack self-control and responsible, adult rationalization, it is likely these figures would dramatically increase and cause more injuries and fatalities among teenaged drinkers.

Furthermore, the brain does not finish its structural maturation process until early adulthood, still forming important neural connections in areas of cognition, memory and reasoning (Weiten and Lloyd 261). By having the current legislation set at age 21, it provides opportunities for youths to achieve full neural growth and development. If the drinking age were lowered to 18, there are significant long-term health risks stemming from alcohol that is known to have dangerous consequences on brain cell formation.

Despite any arguments in favor of changing the law, there are far more risk factors and consequences for allowing teens to consume alcohol. Whether increasing potential fatalities and injuries in teen drinkers or causing legitimate brain damage, it is simply not a good policy at this time. The drinking age must remain at 21 to best serve the interests of all in society. Works CitedHechinger, John. “Bid to reconsider drinking age taps unlikely supporters”, The Wall Street Journal. Last modified August 21, 2008. Web. November 23, 2012 http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/30/health/la-he-drinking-age-20110530Voas, Robert.

“There’s no Benefit to lowering the Drinking age”, The Christian Science Monitor. Last modified January 12, 2006. Web. November 24, 2012 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121928142497058879.htmlWeiten, Wayne and Margaret Lloyd. Psychology Applied to Modern Life – Adjustment in the 21st Century, 7th ed. (2005). Thompson Wadsworth. Print.