Legal Drinking Age Alcohol is nothing new to our world. It is a popular drug that alters our state of consciousness by impairing judgment and motor control. With this, alcohol has short-term positive effects, such as feelings of euphoria, but has negative effects, such as making poor choices while drunk. The dangerous effects of alcohol are undeniable even with the current legal drinking age set at 21. Since Prohibition, our country has sought to prevent youth alcohol consumption and reduce fatal traffic accidents. This is what led to the drinking age being changed to 21. Many studies have shown that the legal drinking age has had little success in reducing underage drinking and traffic accidents. Lowering it is more effective in achieving these goals. The United States should lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18. 18 year olds should have all the rights of an adult, including the right to drink. Lowering the drinking age will allow people to moderate their alcohol consumption and be more educated about alcohol consumption. We should also take other countries as an example to lower the drinking age. Finally, lowering the drinking age will reduce the likelihood of excessive alcohol consumption occurring. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Prohibition was introduced in 1919 as the United States' Eighteenth Amendment ("Eighteenth Amendment"). It limited availability and punished those who broke the law. The drinking age was set at 18 in the late 1970s and early 1980s until it was raised to 21 in 1984. Like Prohibition, these efforts have not been enough to keep people to drink; alcohol intake remained prevalent (Fennell). The National Minimum Drinking Age Law of 1984 is still in effect today, but has little success in keeping the underage population from drinking. Since that didn't work, we should revise the drinking age. Based on this knowledge, I propose to change the legal drinking age to 18 to reduce the problems it has created in our society. First of all, 18 year olds should have the right to drink along with the other rights afforded at 18. These rights include being able to join the army, leave their parents' homes and buy tobacco. If someone can make these life-changing decisions at age 18, it seems impractical and unfair for them to continue drinking illegally. After all, being able to serve in the military is a huge responsibility. Perhaps it is bigger than choosing to drink, since doing so involves actively putting one's life on the line. According to Wechsler and Nelson, in the 1970s, when the legal drinking age was 18, “eligible males between the ages of 18 and 25 [were drafted] into compulsory military service during the Vietnam War.” Their understanding was that if men were old enough to serve in the military, they should also be able to drink (989). This was before the United States raised the legal drinking age to 21, but the point still stands today. It seems unreasonable, perhaps a little ridiculous, to allow 18-year-olds to fight for their country but not to buy alcohol. Many believe that these rights cannot be compared, since they exist in different aspects. While choosing to fight in war is an act of courage and sacrifice, choosing to drink alcohol is about having fun and letting yourself go. Althoughsoldiers are not allowed to drink while serving, many choose to do so anyway. According to Carla T. Main, 15% of military personnel take part in binge drinking in the United States and 25% outside the United States (39). This is to let off steam and perhaps forget traumatic events. Being drunk can impact them by preventing them from thinking clearly about their actions. This is what alcohol is capable of in any situation. I recognize that excessive drinking can be dangerous. However, not every alcohol incident will lead to waste. I believe that drinking in the military involves similar sacrifices as joining the military. You are making a choice that puts your life at risk one way or another. Referring to Main, not everyone drinks a lot and those caught face the consequences of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Main 38). Every choice we make carries consequences, and people must be aware of these when they choose to serve. In this sense, drinking alcohol and joining the military requires responsibility for one's actions. If you can't drink responsibly, you shouldn't be allowed to serve in the first place. Joining the military isn't the only right afforded to 18-year-olds. They also have the right to leave their parents' home, especially when they move to university. All states allow the emancipation of minors, and in most states the age of majority is set at 18 (“Juvenile Emancipation”). This means that most people can leave their home before the age of 18. Other privileges arise from leaving the parental home, depending on the individual situation. One responsibility includes paying rent. If they move, people are liable to pay rent. This can be monthly or annual depending on whether the apartment is on or off campus. Paying rent is a huge responsibility, but it teaches discipline and punctuality. Paying rent is not easy and apartments are not always affordable for young people in low-paid jobs. According to the New York Times, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan is around $3,500 a month (Toy). This is the price of an apartment in a metropolitan area, so prices vary across a wide range. However, paying to live outside of your parents' homes is asking a lot of young adults. Moving teaches people how to be independent and self-sufficient. This is something that most 18 year olds deal with in their lies, but drinking alcohol is something they have to wait to do legally. In contrast, 18-year-olds are not always able to handle their financial problems on their own. When they are still learning how to pay rent, many rely on financial help from their parents. The Week finds that 62% of people aged 19 to 22 are financially dependent on their parents (“Parents Who Pay”). Some may also rely on parents for emotional support, as starting a new phase of life can be stressful. This argues that people who cannot be fully independent with financial responsibility should not be allowed to drink. Dealing with financial matters is very challenging for young people anyway, but I don't think it's impossible. There is no shame in asking parents for help either. According to data from the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 90% of the young adults in the study left before age 27 (Dey & Pierret). This shows that although it is difficult, many people manage to leave as young adults and stay. We cannot guarantee that 18-year-olds will be able to successfully manage changes in their lives. However, it is clear that manythey can do it with a little support. In the same sense, people can drink with support. If 18-year-olds can manage this stressful time, they will also be able to choose to drink. Another right that comes from turning 18 is the right to buy cigarettes. Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that the average pack of cigarettes in the United States costs more than seven dollars including taxes (“Economics Infographics”). The average price of alcohol is about the same. Seven dollars is a small price to pay for the risks involved for a person. Common risks of smoking cigarettes for an extended period of time include cancer, chronic disease, and even death. Smoking overtime thus shortens lifespan, causing over 480,000 deaths per year. Although there is no average lifespan for a smoker, as people quit smoking, the risk of death from smoking has increased over the past fifty years in the United States (“Health Effects”). With these risks presented, it is surprising how it is legal for 18-year-olds to purchase cigarettes while alcohol is not. Despite the dangerous risks associated with alcohol, we cannot deny that tobacco, a legal substance, also has dangers. Eighteen-year-olds have the right to join the army, leave their parents' home and smoke tobacco. All of these pose a threat to a person's well-being just like alcohol, yet alcohol alone is prohibited. People are better able to control their alcohol consumption when it is legal for them to drink. By lowering the drinking age to 18, people will be more likely to drink in moderation. There are already exceptions to the drinking age in individual states. Currently in 31 states it is legal for parents to give alcohol to children, as long as it is on their property (Hingson 47). This allows parents to monitor their children while they drink in a safe environment. This is one way to prevent excessive alcohol consumption, as parents can control the amount of alcohol their children drink. This way people can feel more comfortable drinking knowing that they are allowed to do so. In a study by Turrisi et al., an intervention group with 347 parents provided each with a manual. They combined this with a motivational intervention, which caused lower levels of alcohol use in college students, including high-risk drinking (Hingson 47). This shows that parental initiatives are beneficial as an intervention. It is important for a parent to be aware of their child's alcohol use. It allows them to feel more comfortable with their child's well-being, knowing that their child is not in danger. With this power, parents can teach the importance of moderation and prevent their children from drinking more than they can handle. Education will allow for better control. There are consequences to drinking and people need to recognize that the risks exist. When people educate themselves about the effects of drinking, they can control their alcohol consumption. This also allows people to anticipate worst-case scenarios, such as drinking under the influence, and make plans to avoid endangering themselves and/or others. People are less likely to drink and drive with the right interventions. Zero tolerance laws make it illegal for anyone under 21 to drive and drink. These laws have caused a decrease in fatal traffic accidents for people under 21 (Hingson 49). This is because they know that any increase in their blood concentration level will get them in trouble with the law if they are stopped. The situation is different for those over 21,as they can still drive with a higher blood concentration level as long as it does not cause reckless driving. One study also suggests that with a lower drinking age, 18-year-olds should have a license that will be revoked if alcohol consumption becomes dangerous (Hingson 47). These are just a couple of ways that education affects the likelihood that people will drink and drive, perhaps even reducing the likelihood that this will happen. Along with education, policies are put in place. With the current legal drinking age, states have adopted alcohol control policies to reduce underage drinking (Wechsler & Nelson 988). These enforced policies should continue if we lower the legal drinking age. All in all, education is the best approach to preventing underage drinking, regardless of the drinking age. Some argue that education isn't enough to stop people from drinking and driving. Even after learning the dangers of doing so, people will continue to do so, or at least those who can legally drink. This knowledge is based on the laws of zero tolerance. Zero tolerance laws, as I mentioned, make it completely illegal for minors to drink while intoxicated. People over 21 may be more likely to drink and drive, as it is legal for them to some extent. This may be true, since these laws do not apply to those over the age of 21. This is still just a hypothesis, though. There is evidence that the people most likely to drink and drive are those who have just turned 21, not people below and above that age. A study by Fromme, Wetherill, and Neal demonstrated that “rates of drunk driving before and after age 21 were also significantly different, with a higher prevalence of driving after the 21st birthday” (24). According to their findings, drunk driving is more common soon after the age of 21, due to the excitement of finally being of age. Drinking and driving are therefore due to inattention when considering factors such as 21st birthday parties. Education may not be enough to stop it, but changing the drinking age and maintaining zero tolerance laws could reduce it. One way to see whether lowering the drinking age is effective is to look at how other countries handle the situation. Carpenter lists seven states that have proposed lowering the drinking age, although none have yet adopted it (133). It is important to consider other countries' policies before considering changing our own. New Zealand and its rate of fatal road accidents prove that lowering the drinking age is doable. This can't guarantee that the US will achieve the same results, but it's worth considering whether a lower drinking age is the right approach for us. New Zealand currently has a drinking age of 18, which has been in place since 1999. Kypri et al. conducted a study to see if lowering the drinking age in New Zealand increased road accidents. They state that alcohol consumption since the introduction of the new drinking age has fallen “by around 20% compared to levels in the late 1970s” (127). The decline could be due to other factors, such as economic changes. Regardless of this possibility, this evidence shows that lowering the drinking age has shown signs of success. The study also found that “increasing the minimum purchasing age to 20 or 21 years targets the segment of the population with the highest alcohol consumption and the highest prevalence of hazardous alcohol use.”(Kypri et al. 130). In this way, they discovered that the target age group, in which alcohol consumption was most common, is between 20 and 21 years old. Lowering it made the age group less likely to drink as much as they used to. Overall, the current drinking age in New Zealand is successful in terms of road traffic fatalities and their correlation with the drinking age. I think it would be a good example to follow. It is arguable that New Zealand is a good example of a lower drinking age. The drinking age of 18 has negative effects on society, such as increasing the mortality rate among adolescents. According to the New Zealand Herald, the high death rate among young people is attributed to the age at which they drink alcohol. Suicide rates, in particular, have increased exponentially (Johnson). It's true that underage drinking and suicide are somewhat related, but it's not always a cause-and-effect situation. There's no denying that suicide remains a problem in New Zealand today, but we can't just blame the drinking age for what other factors may have caused. The suicide rate in New Zealand is 29% (Johnson), while the suicide rate in the United States is 13% (“Suicide”). It is clear that New Zealand's is higher, but again the drinking age is not the only factor causing the rates to rise. Along with New Zealand, Canada is another country that has a lower drinking age. Unlike New Zealand's location in Oceania, Canada is located right above us on the map, much closer to the United States. According to the Canadian Center on Substance Abuse, it is legal to drink at age 19 everywhere in Canada, excluding Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec where the drinking age is set at 18 ("Legal Drinking Age"). The minimum drinking age in Canada is 18 or 19, both lower than in the United States. Unlike New Zealand's death rates, Canada's are not as significant. For one thing, their suicide rate is 15% (“Suicide Statistics”). The suicide rate in the United States is only 2% lower. Their suicide rate shows that it is possible for countries with a lower drinking age to have lower suicide rates. Even with suicides and hospital admissions, the Canadian healthcare system is able to better care for patients (Voas 1601). This helps keep the death rate low, or at least lower than it would be without the healthcare system. Canada is definitely a country that uses the drinking age well, even if it struggles with the problems that come with it, as we all do. Finally, I want to discuss binge drinking and how lowering the drinking age can help avoid it. Drinking among young people is seen as risky behavior. Many minors drink to rebel against the rules of society rather than out of a real desire to drink. Excessive alcohol consumption is also known as binge drinking. It involves drinking five or more drinks in a short period of time, also depending on the person's gender and weight (Carpenter 134). This is enough to create unsafe conditions for intoxicated people, such as those who drive while intoxicated. Minors tend to drink when alcohol is available to them, making it easy to forget that it is illegal for them to drink. We don't always like rules, especially when they seem unreasonable at the time. This can apply to underage drinking. Jessor and Jessor used problem behavior theory to find that “traditional risky behaviors such as substance use and delinquency, or those behaviors that are not socially sanctioned, tend to cluster” (Pasch 14). This proves that substance use is not 18.