Reducing the Age of Drinking to 18 Years in the US - Research Paper Example

Reducing the Age of Drinking to 18 Years in the U.S. To begin this discussion let us consider survey carried out by the national survey on drug use and health in the year 2002. The data compare the amount of alcohol consumed by adults 21 years and above to the amount of alcohol consumed by underage. In the adult population, binge drinkers form 23 percent of the population but drink 76 percent of the alcohol. Frequent bingers form 7 percent of the population but drink 45 percent of the alcohol. The survey made the conclusion that most American adults either abstain or drink very little. It also suggests that a small percentage of drinkers consumes most of the alcohol. This small percentage often consumes several drinks at once increasing the risk of serious health and safety problems. When compared to the data representing underage drinkers the following conclusions were made, the proportion of young drinkers who report heavy drinking is higher than for adults the image being 43 percent for adults and 50 percent for young drinkers (U.S. Department of justice 1,2). The reason behind federal law regulating the age for alcohol consumption was due to the rise in highway fatalities. The uniform drinking age act of 1984 threatened to withdraw highway funds from the state that failed to increase the minimum legal drinking age to 21. This law saved lives this was due to the decline in motor vehicle fatalities (Miron and Tetellbaum 10). Economically speaking in order to consider the minimum age of drinking an estimation of the loss in consumer surplus that results from reducing people’s alcohol consumption is put into consideration. It also requires the benefits to the drinker and to others from reducing alcohol related harms. Lowering of the drinking age in U.S. to 18 has been a primary effort for most activists the argument being 18 is the age agreed upon by most states. Again, 18 is the age of the majority for other activities such as voting military service serving on the jury. These facts make 18 a focal point when we compare U.S. to other countries who have set their age at 18 (Carpenter and Dobkin 135). The age set by U.S. is the highest in the world, majority of the rest of the world have the minimum age at 17 or 16 others have no minimum age. Many supporters of the minimum age argue that the human brain develops until the age of 21. However, many experts are keen on dismissing this point saying it would mean that only the U.S hold on to this idea. The current federal age as argued by most critics seemed to have reduced the total underage consumption. However, they argue that underage persons who consumed alcohol are more likely to do so behind closed doors. The danger would be their overindulgence in alcohol consumption as soon as the get access to the stuff. Mitchell who is a supporter of the reducing of the minimum age to 18 argues that the reduction in highway fatalities is due to safer and better-built cars and the increased awareness of the dangers in drinking and driving. Mitchell points out that delaying of young adults exposure to alcohol is not a bright idea (310). Most college students support the idea of lowering the drinking age to 1. According to the daily sundial, some of the reports quoted illustrates that most young people found it ok for young people to enjoy themselves after a long week of studying and working. Others argued that 18 was the focal point age whereby things opened up it are the age that one acquired multiple obligations. Others argued from a health perspective saying, alcohol is healthy when consumed in moderation it reduces the risk of heart diseases to lowering the likelihood of gallstones. The argument is taken further by comparing other countries such as china France Italy and Spain whose minimum legal drinking age is 18. The youth in these countries are allowed to consume alcohol; however, they are taught to drink in moderation. The youth state that the current law is unreasonable and ineffective in that young people always have access to alcohol forcing the youth to consume alcohol in unsupervised places. Chances are the youth may abuse alcohol or indulge in illegal activities like abuse other stuff. When we lower the drinking age, the youth can access the bars restaurants and other supervised and regulated environment. The worst case of restriction is leading the youth to indulge in illegal activity and take part in organized crimes. Lowering the alcohol age is a way of avoiding this concept fro becoming a reality (Daily sundial 10). Experts believe the 21-age limit is contributing to an increase in extreme drinking. College president advocate for lowering of the age limit to 18 because they believe it will make kids safer. The 21-age limits they believe is a failure because it has not reduced or eliminated drinking for kids. Kids still access alcohol and consume it in hiding in places where they do not practice moderation. The leaders continue their argument by supporting the believe that the current law supports a culture of irresponsible and reckless behaviour, unsupervised binge and extreme drinking. Reports indicate the determination of kids to perfect the art of drinking by playing drinking games. The students render the law as unworkable. The police argue that underage consumption of alcohol is a situation that cannot be stopped, but it can be contained. The police say the law is ineffective. The whole idea of lowering the age limit to 18 is to allow the youth the freedom to drink responsibly, and make wise and informed choices when they are faced with challenges without the fear of having broken the law. A good example is the case of Gordie a college student who died of alcohol poisoning. Parents believe that Gordie having just joined college and being underage had taken excessive alcohol. His friends’ afraid f reaching out for help for fear of having broken the law had left their friend to die around them. The parents of Gordie believe that if the limiting age had been 18 then maybe Gordies friends would have sort for help without hesitation (CBSNews 10). By lowering the limiting age to 18, it requires some entrusting the youth with the responsibility of making the right decision. The military, on the other hand, limit the at 21. However, it is of interest to most military men to lower the age to 18. The lawmaker believes that this will serve as a way of enhancing the morale of young military men. Let us now consider the opposing side; a large population in the U.S still believe that the limiting age should be 21. Lund the IIHS president argues that by lowering the drinking age we risk killing more teens on the highway. Studies conducted to show the effect of lowering or increasing the minimum drinking age show that the number of deaths goes up when the drinking age is lowered. He further argues that a drinking education may teach teens about alcohol, but that would mean producing better educated drinking and driving teens it, however, did not prevent the highway fatal accidents that are because of driving under the influence (Lund 3). Another argument that opposes the lowering of the age limit states that, maintaining the minimum age at 21 is a way of saving lives and improving the society. Statistics as of 2007 estimated number of deaths because of alcohol consumption was at 85000 people. By lowering the age to 18, we look at the probable rise in the number of deaths. The argument further considers the concept of brain development. Research shows that the human brain till grow and develop at the age of 21; therefore, indulging in alcohol consumption at a tender age can damage the short and long-term brain growth and the damage can be permanent (Daily sundial 2). The Cdc fact sheet states that excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for over 4600 deaths among the underage youth. It further states that underage drinking is strongly associated with many health and social problems such as alcohol impaired driving physical fighting poor school performance sexual activities and smoking (32). Research shows that when the limiting age is lowered drinking increases and when it is raised the drinking decreases. The analyses further show that a higher legal drinking age is associated with decreased rate of traffic crashes, and finally the research made a conclusive relationship on alcohol consumption and health implications. The evidence shows that a high legal drinking age reduces rates of health and social problems. The study also shows that increased enforcement as an effective means to controlling the sale of alcohol to minors (Wagenaar and Toomey 209). The ethic & the reduction religious liberty also oppose the reduction of the minimum legal drinking age. They argue that by lowering the minimum age, the negative trends associated with alcohol consumption will enhance instead of being reversed. Among the negative trends enhanced, we have drunken driving. More vehicle accidents, higher levels of binge drinking the support of the current age limit was supported in that statistics show that under the current law approximately 1000 deaths are averted. The current law also prevents binge drinking among teens and lastly the age limit of 21 lowers the drinking and intoxication rates. Under the lowered age limit, the state faces multiple dangers for instance, the impairment of cognitive development among the youth alcohol consumption causes a decrease in performance. In school, the 18 year old could easily lure the underage group into alcohol consumption. Then there is the increased likelihood of unplanned and unprotected sex (Lewis 109). The problems associated with minimum legal drinking age are numerous the increase in the population of young adults that drink also marked an increase in suicide cases. Crime is also another vice linked to alcohol consumption. An increase in alcohol consumption by the youth led to the probability of this group indulging in crimes. These crimes include causing nuisance, destruction of property and violent crimes. Apart from maintaining the minimum age at 21 the state could also adopt other policies to ensure the young youths have no access to alcohol. For instance, the state should consider raising the alcohol tax to pay for prevention programs for youth. The state should also put restrictions on alcohol advertising this makes drinking less appealing to the youth. The state should also utilise compliance check programs in this program law enforcer utilises underage decoys to monitor if retailers are selling alcohol to minors. The state should follow up on keg registration laws to prevent the purchase of kegs of beer for underage consumption. The state should also be consistent on restricting public drinking in locations that young people are likely to be present (U.S Department of Justice 6). In conclusion, we can see that both limiting the age to 21 has its benefits and at the same time lowering the age to 18 ensures the youth are allowed to take control of their lives and given the chance to make decisions pertaining alcohol consumption. The group opposing the lowering of age to 18 is clearly concerned of the health implications the cause of deaths due to driving when drunk, and lastly they are concerned the education of the youth involved in drinking at a tender age. On the other hand, those in support of lowering the age are concerned with the youth welfare their responsibility of being able to control their drinking habits. It is evident that both sides have a strong argument but in my opinion, the limiting age should be maintained at 21. Works Cited Bauko, Radley. “Back to 18?” 12 April 2007. Reason.com. 18 November 2011. C, Ruth. Whty The Drinking Age Should Be Lowered. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1998. Carlson, Doug. “Lowering Drinking Age: Research says Bad Idea.” 27 August 2008. ERLC.com. 18 November 2011 . CBSNews. “The Debate on Lowering of the Drinking Age.” 1 March 2010. CBSNews.com. 18 November 2011 . CDC. “Alcohol and Public Health.” 2008. CDC.gov. 18 November 2011 . “Alcohol Related Disease impact.” 2008. CDC.gov. 18 November 2011 . Department of Transportation. “Fact sheet: Minimum Drinking Age Laws.” 2008. Dopkin, Christopher Carpenter and Carlos. “The Minimum Legal Drinking Age and Public health.” Journal of economic Perspective (2011): 133-156. Elina, Jeffrey A Miron and Elina Tetelbaum. “Did the federal Drinking age Save Lives?” Regulation Spring (2009): 11-17. Lund, Adrian. Protecting Teens from the dangers of Alcohol use and Abuse:Wishful Thinking versus Science. Newsletter. washington DC, 2007. Sundial.csun. “Lowering the Drinking ageto 18.” 23 February 2011. Sundial.csun. 18 November 2011 . Toomey, Alexander Wagenaar and Traci. “Effects of Minimum DrinkingAge Laws: Review and Analyses of the Literature from 1960 to 2000.” Journal of student Alcohol (2002): 206-252. U.S. Department of Justice. “Drinking In America.” Updated for 2002 National Survey On Drug Use and Health (2002): 1-8. Read More