Underage drinking has been an issue affecting the country for numerous years. The legal drinking age is twenty-one years. The question of whether or not to lower the drinking age has remained constant over the years. Over the years, alcohol consumption by young adults has resulted in numerous harm, including death, injuries, crime, and even reduced productivity and risky sexual behavior. Other individuals may influence some of these actions through peer pressure, which is common in adults. All these consequences take place even though there is a limit on the drinking age. Therefore, it is crucial to examine whether or not lowering the drinking age limit would be advantageous.
The drinking age limit that has been set to prevent underage drinking is not working. Hanson explains that whatever we are doing to prevent underage drinking is not working (Brandon and Brandon 232). Today, young people still consume alcohol even when they have not attained the legal drinking age. This shows that though a limit is set, it is not adhered to, and the young people still partake in binge drinking. Young people are known to use fake identities to purchase alcohol and, at times, their friends who have already attained the legal drinking age. This clearly shows that the actions that are being taken to prevent underage drinking are not working.
When an individual reaches the age of eighteen, they are considered adults. However, adults of eighteen to twenty years are still prohibited from taking alcohol. For this reason, Hanson has likened it to the national prohibition that took place in the twentieth century in the United States (Brandon and Brandon 232).
During this time, there was the prohibition of the consumption of alcohol across the country. The main aim was to curb crime and enhance morality in the country (Halašta 9). However, Americans who wanted alcohol still managed to find ways to get it through smuggling from neighboring nations or brewing from home (Halašta 36). The adult population went on drinking, which is the case that is seen today with the young adults between eighteen and twenty years. Hanson explains that fewer young adults drink, but when they do, the consumption of alcohol is increasingly high (Brandon and Brandon 232). It is not definitive that every young adult consumes alcohol, but those that do are known to drink it at an alarmingly high rate.
The prohibition of legal consumption of alcohol can affect individuals in various ways. One of these ways is that it forces young adults to partake in the use of alcohol in an uncontrolled environment, for instance, in fraternity houses (Brandon and Brandon 232). Fraternity houses are often involved in the promotion of excessive and rapid consumption of alcohol. This is an environment where peer pressure is excessively high, and the individuals have no supervision, which means that they are free to do what they want. Such a situation can create many dangers for individuals, including alcohol poisoning (Brandon and Brandon 232). Alcohol poisoning often leads to a disturbance in mental function and even behavior due to alcohol consumption, as the name suggests. Severe cases of alcohol poisoning often lead to individuals being admitted to the hospital and can also be fatal. Having the legal drinking age as twenty-one has its detrimental effects on young adults who want the experience.
There are numerous reasons why the legal drinking age is set at twenty-one. Research, however, shows that among those reasons is to reduce the number of teenage alcohol-related fatalities. Alcohol is the most abused drug among young adults in the United States, and underage drinking causes violence, injuries, and deaths. However, Hanson explains that maintaining the legal age at twenty-one is mainly shifting the fatalities to an older age group (Brandon and Brandon 232). Excessive drinking can lead to deaths not just among teenagers but also among adults. Alcohol has the same effect on all human beings and cannot be argued that the results are the worst for people below the age of twenty-one. Therefore maintaining the legal age of twenty for preventing fatalities among teenagers only delays these fatalities to a later age.
Still, another reason for maintaining the legal drinking age at twenty-one is maturity. People argue that the brain does not finish maturing until the age of twenty-five. Having such a mentality would lead to people recommending raising the voting age and the maturity age (Brandon and Brandon 232). Different reasons should not be used when creating rules and laws in society. It is vital to maintain consistency and to have substantial ground when making such decisions. When an individual reaches the age of eighteen, they are believed to be able to make decisions without a guardian (“The Drinking Age Debate”). Maturity should, therefore, not be a reason for the drinking age being twenty one given that eighteen is the age where an individual is viewed legally as an adult.
Apart from limiting the drinking age, other ways have been implemented to prevent underage drinking. One such method is through the use of the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program. The DARE program is used in approximately seventy percent of the schools in the country (Brandon and Brandon 232). The program, however, is mainly considered a scare tactic. According to Hanson, there is no scientific study that shows any evidence that DARE has been successful or productive.
On the contrary, studies show that students who have been exposed to the program have used alcohol more frequently and heavily (Brandon and Brandon 232). The program has been known to exaggerate the effect of alcohol and drug abuse, so the students do not believe what the program tries to teach them (Lopez). The program, though used in numerous schools, has significantly unsuccessful in preventing underage drinking.
Other regions do not have certain restrictions when it comes to young people consuming alcohol. Areas such as Southern France, Portugal, Spain, Greece, and Italy, young people begin the consumption of alcohol at an early age (Brandon and Brandon 232). This natural experimental practice has been going on for thousands of years, with young people beginning to consume alcohol at an early age. Compared to the effects that are believed young people would be at risk to if they drank alcohol at such an early age, there is no evidence showing that these young people have been harmed intellectually or even behaviorally (Brandon and Brandon 232). The young people in all these regions have not been harmed in any way. This gives the notion that there would be no effect on young people if they were to begin the consumption of alcohol at the age of eighteen.
While there are substantial reasons for why the legal drinking age should be lowered, Fell creates a compelling argument on reasons why the drinking age should not be reduced. According to Fell, maintaining the drinking age at twenty-one has significantly saved lives (Brandon and Brandon 233). Since the legal drinking age was brought up to twenty-one years, there is a steady decrease in binge drinking among eighth, tenth, and twelfth graders. Fell explains that in the 1970s, when several states lowered the legal drinking age was reduced to eighteen years, there was an increase in the consumption of alcohol. However, when in 1984, it was increased to twenty-one, decreasing consumption (Brandon and Brandon 234). This decrease has been maintained ever since, with 2009 being the year that saw an all-time low in young adults’ consumption of alcohol (Brandon and Brandon 234). All the above gives substantial evidence on why the drinking age limit should be maintained.
Drinking from an early age has severe consequences—young people indulging in alcohol and combining it with driving results in many fatalities. However, Fell explains that “the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that an increase in the drinking age-limit to twenty-one years save an approximate of eight hundred lives every year” (Brandon and Brandon 234). Still, research also shows that when young people start alcohol consumption before the age of fourteen, they are more likely to become addicted, be involved in a crash due to intoxication, or have increased chances of being involved in its fights. While one may argue that teenagers experiment, the age limit delays the onset of drinking, delaying the consequences of drinking is more advisable as the time may ensure these consequences do not take place.
On the other hand, reducing the drinking age to eighteen years should be reconsidered. Hanson proposes that drinking learner permits should be issued to people within that age limit (Brandon and Brandon 234). “The lawmakers would determine the specifics of the time, and they would have the leeway to change it with time. These drinking permits should serve a similar purpose to the driving permits whereby the young adults could drink after acquiring permission from an adult and in restaurants or bars” (Brandon and Brandon 234). If the individual does not get into any trouble, then these restrictions would open up. Studies show that when young adults consume alcohol with adult supervision, consumption is relatively low compared to young adults who drink alcohol in the presence of their friends (Kaynak 601). Parental control is linked with less alcohol consumption, which is vital when trying to reduce the consequences of alcohol consumption.
The debate on the drinking age limit is an ongoing topic for a long time. There is no evidence that young adults drinking at an early age are affected intellectually or in terms of behavior. The main argument behind the age limit is that it prevents fatalities while it is clear that the fatalities are mainly moved to a later age. The law recognizes eighteen years as the age where one becomes an adult able to make their own decisions. The same way the law recognizes the age should be the same way the age should be recognized when deciding the drinking age limit for young individuals.