Change or Lowering Drinking Age - Essay Example

?Insert Introduction Countries that have a developed criminal justice system also have more comprehensive legislation to legally qualify and make prescriptions on an array of socio-cultural, economic or political actions and developments which take place within the auspices of the society. Drinking or the consumption of alcohol is one of the legal issues, because it comes with legal implications. Because of this, the legal drinking age is the age at which an individual can purchase or/ and consume alcoholic food or/ and alcoholic beverage. The law on alcohol consumption may vary among countries or there may be exemptions and special circumstances in these laws. In the United States and the United Kingdom for instance, the age of alcohol consumption is 21 and 18, respectively. The notion that there should not be a lowering of the drinking is underpinned by more serious matters and reasons that are to be visited in the discussion which ensues forthwith. Elements That Make the Topic Controversial The idea of lowering or changing the age of drinking is not only a controversial matter but also one with serious implications. At the heart of the matter is the fact that the age of drinking has almost always been commensurate with the age of legal accountability [usually, 18 years]. The nature of the element being consumed [which is alcohol] readily attracts the need for the age of legal accountability because of the legal issue which alcoholism readily warrants. Fundamental to the nature of drinking is that alcoholism significantly tampers with a person’s reasoning capacity and thus, any person who dabbles in drinking may lose a degree of his compunctions to crime. Another fundamental reason for the consideration of the age of consuming alcohol is the highly addictive nature of alcohol. Drinking alcohol is an exercise which is highly repetitive. In this case, with the age of drinking being lowered, other serious drivers to alcoholism such as peer pressure and the absence of solid or mature judgment may easily push America or any other country’s teenager to the brink of rampant alcohol addiction and uncertain future. According to McGuire, this state of affair is likely to herald rippling effects such as dwindling academic performance among teenagers and children, increased traffic offences and accidents, heightened spates of juvenile delinquency and an uncertain future for the entire nation, given that these teenagers and children are bound to be future leaders and parents (McGuire, 124). Lowering the drinking or alcohol consumption age is also bound to make proper administration of schooling and learning affairs very a difficult undertaking. The fact that the age of drinking is to be lowered essentially means that children as young as 18 years are to be targets of alcoholic drinks. The drawback with this development is that once it becomes permissible for 18 year olds to consume alcohol, it will become legal for the same to carry alcoholic beverage to schools. Thus, unruliness in schools is bound to accost any legislation which lowers the drinking age (Birckmayer and Hemenway, 1367). Another element which appears in the controversy is the issue of freedom. Proponents for the lowering of the drinking age cite the need to accord as many people as possible with the power to choose to underscore their standpoint. This is to the effect that 18 year old children also have a sense of right and wrong, and should therefore be allowed the choice to engage in, or eschew alcohol consumption. Thus, it is factual that at the heart of the matter is the need to be free to choose and be [legally and ethically] accountable. The issue may therefore be in principle, about the degree to which an individual may enjoy his liberty while remaining accountable (Barnett, 8). Background of the Controversy On one hand, the controversy comes against the backdrop of the US living by the dictates of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. This Act compelled all states and federal governments to adjust the legal drinking age upwards, to 21. The failure to implement this Act was to directly herald a 10% decrease in federal highway funding. Thus, many politicians have not paid great regard to the matter since: the Act only affects a small population [18-20-year-old voters]; and the resultant withholding of federal highway funds by the central government would serve as a form of political suicide. The gravity of the foregoing means that the 18-20-year-olds may: forfeit their driver’s licenses; be subject to a fine of up to 500 dollars; become subject to jail terms; and be forced to 8-40 hours of community service. On the other hand, there are those who are convinced that 18-20-year-old youths are already mature enough to make sound decision and to be legally accountable. As long as an individual has matured and attained the legal age, it is illogical that he should be kept from accessing alcoholic beverage on any account. Major Sides of the Debate and the Reasons These Sides Provide for their Standpoints Those who are in favor of the motion such as Ruth argue that the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 is repressive to the 18-20-year-olds. This is because, the age has already become mature [being able to discriminate a right from wrong] and therefore, withholding accessibility to alcoholic beverage from the age-group is to deny the fact that this age-group has attained a legal age (Ruth, 1). In a closely related wavelength, the same group continues that lowering the drinking is something that is legally enforceable since the group concerned is above the age of accountability. This group continues that matters [such as drinking under the influence of alcohol, alcohol abuse and over-consumption of alcohol] which are usually cited as reasons against the move have already been legally prescribed. Some of the proponents of this idea also continue that the drawbacks of alcohol consumption among the 18-20-year-olds can be reversed by lowering the age of alcohol consumption. Ogilvie continue that because of the aforementioned Act, those below 21 years drink in unsafe and un-monitored settings. Credence is lent to this argument since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that 90% of alcohol that is consumed by those under 21 in the US is accompanied by binge drinking. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explains that this is the case since those below 21 cannot consume alcohol in public. Because of the same situation, underage students often pre-game before engaging in the actual act of drinking, to avoid being caught by law enforcers. This is a breach to the aforementioned Act. The rationale herein is that lowering the drinking age will uphold and strengthen the Act instead of weakening it (Ogilvie, 1). On the converse, others such as Main are categorical that in order to eradicate binge drinking, it will be helpful to maintain the status quo by excluding the 18-20-year-olds from those who are legally entitled to alcohol consumption. Interestingly, opponents of this idea also cite UT’s Waggoner Centers for Alcohol & Addiction Research director, Dr. Adron Harris to underscore their standpoint. Dr. Harris stated that it is more profitable to restrict the availability of alcohol, especially for teenagers, and to abate harm that alcohol produces (Main, 33). In another wavelength, advocates for the incumbent drinking age maintain that the status quo is important in reducing fatalities and catastrophes. Those who cite this as a reason point out to the fact that the 18-20-year-olds are usually still in school and are still to be shielded from the ravages of alcoholism such as stunted academic development and poor academic records, irresponsible behavior and juvenile delinquency. Possible Contradictions among the Reasons That there are inherent contradictions in these two arguments is a matter that cannot be gainsaid. Proponents of the change from the status quo are presumptuous to the fact that there are two facts that cannot be challenged: according the 18-20-year-olds the right to dabble in alcoholism will undeniably increase alcoholic behavior in this age group; and increased alcoholic behavior is totally not problem-free. Again, not a big percentage is self-controlled and this will expose the 18-20-year-olds to excessive alcohol consumption. In the US and the world over, the consumption of alcohol wherein is excess readily co-occurs with health problems. Alcohol is seen to have the same effects with heart diseases and cancer in terms of the infliction of loss of productivity and disability. That alcohol kills the brain’s dendrites and dendrons and yet alcoholism is to be allowed among the 18-20-year-olds [a school and college-going age is a matter that will not auger well for the future of the US. Those who point out that maintaining the status quo is important in assuaging alcohol-related fatalities meet serious contradictions. Particularly, Michelle Milton a Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute shows that indeed, with the passing and implementation of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, these alcohol-related fatalities decreased by 33% between 1988 and 1998. While this development may appear to venerate the claim that the status quo would abate alcohol-related fatalities, it is also unfairly true that this phenomenon was not limited to the United States. In Germany where the drinking age is 16 for instance, alcohol-related fatalities dropped between 1974 and 1990, by 57%. Obviously, Germany did not see the restriction of the drinking age to senior age groups as the reason for this development. On the contrary, Germany cited an integration of law enforcement, advances in the automobile-safety technologies such as roll cages and air bags and education as the factors that had brought about the positive developments (MIRON and TETELBAUM, 22). Popularity of Support for Every Standpoint According to the Gallup Poll, those who are in favor of the lowering of the drinking age makes up 40% of the United States (Carroll, 96). Personal Standpoint and How This Standpoint Compares To Other Authors From a personal standpoint, reversing the status quo [the declaration of National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984] will suffice, in order to bate alcohol-related fatalities. Several factors inform this standpoint, with all these factors stemming from the fact that the Act incriminates the consumption of alcohol among the 18-20-year-olds. This makes members of the age group to break the law in order to consume alcohol. Thus, it is important to appreciate the fact that alcohol-related fatalities are coupled by the incrimination of the consumption of alcohol by the 18-20-year-olds. The 18-20-year-olds will always take alcohol [in hiding] simply because there is a legal proscription of the act. Again, the government is not able to follow provisions of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 to the letter: parents stock alcoholic beverages at home, yet the Act assumes that only the consumption of alcohol among the 18-20-year-olds only takes place in public. Should the government lower the drinking age, it will be important that education is enhanced and changes are made to heighten public safety [by for instance loosening up zoning laws which restrict neighborhood bar options] and preparing young people for responsible decision making and road safety. Works Cited Barnett, Nancy P. “The Minimum Drinking Age Debate.” DATA: The Brown University Digest Of Addiction Theory & Application, 27.11 (2008): 8. Birckmayer, J. & Hemenway, D. “Minimum-Age Drinking Las and Youth Suicide, 1970- 1990.” American Journal of Public Health, 89.9 (1999): 1365 – 1368. Carroll, Joseph. Most Americans Oppose Lowering Legal Drinking Age to 18 Nationwide. The Gallup Poll Briefing, (2007): 96. Print McGuire, Walsh. “Drivers and Effects of Teenage Drinking.” Journal of American Psychological Association, 7.5 (2008): 123-134. Print Main, T. Carla. Underage Drinking and Drinking Age. Policy Review, 155 (2009): 33. Print Miron, J. A. and Tetelbaum, E. Does the Minimum Legal Drinking Age Save Lives? 2009. Retrieved From: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2008.00179.x/full Ruth C. Engs. “Why the drinking age should be lowered: An opinion based upon research.” Applied Health Sciences, Indiana University: Bloomington, 1998. Print Ogilvie, P. Jessica. “Is lowering the drinking age a good idea?” Los Angeles Times, 30 May 2011. Print Read More