Throughout history, there have been many attempts at “cleansing” the country of the “evils” of alcohol, but has anyone noticed that the cure is worse than the disease? Drunk-driving stories haunt the papers. Alcoholics tear families apart. College students flock to dorms and secret meeting places to binge on illegal drinks, many of them dying from over intoxication. These problems, although still present, were not as prominent as they were before the legal drinking age was raised to age twenty-one. Decreasing the drinking age lowers alcohol abuse. Not all spirits are demons.
As most people know, the legal drinking age in the United States is twenty-one. In the eyes of the law, at eighteen one is considered an adult and responsible for his actions. That person can be tried in court as an adult, vote, buy cigarettes, enter into legal contracts, join and even be drafted into the army, and get married, but are not allowed to leisurely drink a single drop of alcohol. Dr. Ruth Engs, an expert in the field of alcohol, stated fiercely that we currently do not even allow twenty-year-olds to drink champagne at their own weddings (Engs, 2007). Even more absurd are the choices minors have opportunities to make, but are not considered responsible enough to drink alcohol. At sixteen, citizens of the United States are given driver’s licenses and sixteen-year-old girls can make the decision to end a human life in a hasty abortion, but drinking is much too much responsibility for them (Balko, 2007; Engs, 2007).
At twenty-one, the United States has the highest drinking age in the world. Most countries place the drinking age at eighteen, many at sixteen, and a good number with none at all. Some of the most prominent and respected countries are on the list with the logical drinking age of eighteen including Australia, Canada, Ireland, The United Kingdom (who allow drinking at sixteen in restaurants), and many more unnamed here (Engs, 2007). High school students in these countries with lower drinking ages oddly do noticeably better on standardized tests than students in the U.S. (Balko, 2007).
There is a common saying, “History repeats itself.” We are repeating our own history through fruitless efforts at a second Prohibition, making the same mistakes our great-grandparents made in the 1920’s. By lowering the drinking age to eighteen, we would be making a logical and reasonable action for the betterment and benefit of our country.
i completly agree with lowering the drinking age to 18 though i think that age is as low as it should get any lower and imature children might go crazy
You have a very good point. Maybe if we were to lower the drinking age then there wouldn’t be so many people trying to sneak and get drunk. I think many of the teens that do drink is because their parents don’t want them to and the law forbids them to.
Kudos to you mi dearie! You’re an amazing writer! I shall be checking back frequently to your blog!!! =]]]
First of all, you are an amazing writer and have a gift of persuasion! However, I disagree with your point of view on the issue of lowering the drinking age. I have worked a little and researched this topic, and what I found was that in the early 70’s, the U.S. lowered the drinking age to 18, and alcohol related deaths in teens actually increased dramatically. You can see the study on MADD’s (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) website. Also, I would argue that the standardized test scores in countries with lower drinking ages has no correlation with the drinking laws.
I guess we have to agree to disagree.
I still think you’re an amazing writer, though.
Although lowering the drinking age might allow younger teens full access to alcoholic beverages, it will sure keep teens from getting drunk just to defy the law. Many kids do wrong things just because the thrill of doing something “bad,” makes them feel good. I agree that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. If you can go to the army and be willing to die for your country, you should at least be able to have a drink.
I agree with you, but not 100%.
I dissagree because lowering the drinking age, at first, would cause a problem. Being told “it’s okay to drink,” would make some people go out and buy more alcohol. More alcohol puts more lives in danger. Inoccent people may be killed from more and more drunk drivers because it was “leagal” to have another round at a bar.
But on the other hand, some teens drink because they are told not too. Because it is leagal, more and more people will just not want to. Therefore drinking will, maybe, be done less.
Would lowering the legal age just encourage those wanting a taste of the forbidden to want to try it at an even younger age?
My husband, a former military man, always points out the irony behind our being willing to send an eighteen year old to serve our country (possibly even in combat) but that “we” won’t allow that same individual to purchase alcohol.
Well, thank you all for your opinionated comments. I can see that you all are just as split as the sites I found when I did my prelimanary research. Some of you agree and others disagree strongly. That’s normal – it’s a controversial topic.
To Mrs. Gilmore-
“Would lowering the legal age…?”
If you look at the links to Dr. Engs sites, you’ll see that she is in favor of no drinking age at all. I think that is perfectly logical, allowing the consumption of alcohol to be up to the parents, but unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view), the government is DEEPLY involved in the citizen’s private lives and it is VERY unlikely that we will ever have no minimum drinking age. Eighteen just seems reasonable.
And “at a younger age?” There are numerous reports of childeren 10 and younger getting drunk. This all reflects on the parenting of Americans.
To Kathleen-
Hmmm… I thought that someone might bring up MADD. Well, drunk driving is indeed a problem, and you are speaking of the time in the 70s when it was lowered. Since then, the number of educational programs teaching teens about the dangers of drunk driving has increased immensely, correlating with the decrease in drunk driving accidents since the educational approach began.
I think education and parental responsibility are the answers to the minor (as in not an adult, not small) drinking problem, not government interference.
Then again, as you said, we will have to agree to disagree.
To everyone else-
Don’t get offended I didn’t speak to you directly. Your comments are appreciated. By the way, don’t think I’m unintelligent if you see multiple spelling errors. I just can’t spell.
I do not think anyone of any age should be drinking. Did you know that the first thing alcohol affects is judgement? In other words, once you have that first drink, you will not be able to tell that you are a little less coordinated, and you might think you can have “just one more.” Lowering the drinking age might help some people, but there are always others who will be adversely affected.
You may think that nobody should drink, but does that give anyone the right to dictate and forbid anyone from drinking? Shouldn’t that be up to the individual person? A government with too little control is a bad thing, but one with too much is worse to me. I think everyone should have the freedom to CHOOSE. Free will, if you will.
I think 18 is a good age to begin, but how about just beer and wine, not liquor. Let the young ones build a tolerance. I think parents should be introducing them to drinking, and how to drink responsibly. I think driving is a whole other subject. You should never drive impaired, or not 100% focused on driving, that puts others in danger. No cell phones, texting, reading, eating, etc.
Do you honestly want me to believe you don’t drink coffee while you drive? Do you read the road signs? Never had a snack bar? Yell at arguing children in the back seat? Maybe we would be safer drivers if we weren’t trying to multitask, but not many people will focus solely on driving. Human minds wander too much.