Lowering the Drinking Age to 18 in the USA - Essay Example

Lowering The Drinking age to 18 in USA The debate as to whether the drinking age of America should be lowered from 21years to 18years has been controversial. While some people intensely back the motion, others are totally against it. The debate is sparked by the provisions of the law itself since the act implicitly does not prohibit less than 21 years of age people from its consumption, but rather not to purchase it in public just like the adults. Many scholars have researched extensively on this issue. While some support the idea, others are totally against it. The paper looks at the various articles and journals that support this motion while drawing reference to The Constitution of the United States of America and supports the idea that the drinking age ought to be lowered. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 highlights the ethical benefits of setting the minimum drinking age of the American population at 21. Although some states have completely instituted a ban on the consumption, purchase and handling of drinks to the minimum age required, others allow them although under tight restrictions. The national law in specific requires all state laws to prohibit public possession of alcoholic beverages by minors. However, the public possession law does not apply to possession of beverages in religious functions, while in the company of adults and parents who are older than 21 years. The law also does not term it as a crime when a medical practitioner such as a physician, doctor or nurse prescribes an alcoholic drink to a patient. It is also not illegal for a minor to possess and consume alcoholic beverages in a private function. Some observers point out the illogic of the age according to decision making process. Constitutionally, any person who has attained the age of 18 is regarded as an adult and has a right to vote in national elections. An adult according to the law is a person who can make informed decisions and be accountable to the government. There should be no special application of the bill of rights to this class of people when it comes to drinking laws. An adult is an adult, so long as constitutionally one is perceived to be capable of making informed judgments. Thus, the law ought to be repealed to lower the age to 18. According to Zimmer and Hatch (n.p.), the law prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcoholic drinks to persons of 18 years has failed. Many arguments have been raised on the impracticability of the issue. Zimmer and Hatch, (n.p.) compares the alcohol related problems of America and the united kingdom and comes up with a conclusion that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 years. The fact that the United Kingdom has lower alcohol related problems in comparison to America is attributable to the minimum drinking age. According to “The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984”, certain exceptions are included in the law. An example is of this is where minors are allowed to take alcohol while in presence of their parents or guardians. So long as the youth can drink with their parents and in restricted areas, the law contradicts itself substantially. If the legislators and the drafters of the law were bent at preventing the young people from drinking, the law should have outlawed this practice altogether from them. However, it has created loopholes for the youth to drink and still be within the law, which at times could lead into grave consequences such as alcohol poisoning and drug abuse. Whether the law prohibits underage drinking with dare consequences, it is still rampant among the youth and especially in schools and colleges. Statistics show that underage drinking actually makes a rough contribution of about 17.5 % of total national alcohol sales. The prohibition of alcohol sales to the youths does not mean that they will not consume alcohol at all. They device ways of consuming it for example in places such as house parties which are unsupervised, which end up becoming drug abuse places and binge drinking contests. Lowering the drinking age allows them to drink alcohol in regulated and safe environment Wallace. Other issue is the underreporting of alcohol related accidents due to fear of legal consequences which lead to death in many cases. Proper medical care can be provided in accidents if the action is not illegal and is reported promptly. Excessive drinking can be controlled if moderated drinking is made part of the culture and not banned. One of the very important reasons the age should be lowered is the lax administration of law. Police personnel have a lot more pressing cases to handle rather than to chase youth below 21 who are drinking. As the law cannot be enforced effectively, it needs to be changed to make the law enforcing agents comfortably enforce it. Juvenile courts are full of unsolved cases of drunk and disorderly adolescents and judges keep receiving new cases by the day. Since these cases are not treated with a lot of seriousness, they are left to lie on the judge’s desks as they need time to handle other pressing cases. It would save the judges a lot of time if the law was repealed to allow less than 21 years people to engage in public drinking. The American constitution allows people as young as 17 years of age to vote in national primaries. Choosing leaders according to legal experts is a constitutional right of every American citizen. A person, as young as 17 is constitutionally perceived to be old enough to make important decisions such as voting and actively being involved in a national elections or referendum (“Constitution Of The United States” 24). What then, makes the difference when it comes to decisions about drinking? An adult is an adult, and can make any decisions of capacity. The law, in locking out the under 21 youth out of the drinking age bracket sounds rather ridiculous. If a person is seen under the law mature enough to make a decision about who to vote for in the general election, that person can still make a decision on whether to drink or not? Am sure many of the youth who are in high school or colleges have to look after themselves most of the time. No parental or guardian supervision is available all the time. A person who has not started drinking at such a time must have made the decision not to, regardless poof what the law states. The ridicule of the law is even bigger when it allows youth to smoke but prohibit drinking. Smoking is more dangerous than drinking, and is a health hazard, yet anybody can smoke and it is legally allowed. However, drinking, posing a health hazard of little magnitude to the populations is prohibited to the youth. For medical’s argument sake, smoking ought to be banned and drinking allowed. While the government allows people it refers to as minors to join the army, does that amount to a decision equivalent to drinking? The army means war and war means increased risks of death. However, the government trusts that a person as young as 18 years is capable of making a decision such as joining the army, yet cannot make a decision on whether to drink or not. Surely, this is not only ridiculous but absurd. 18 year old is an adult who can vote, marry, decide on either going to college or not and chose his occupation. If he is allowed to take so many important decisions, we should trust our children to drink responsibly. It is true that some will overdo it leading to drunken driving, accidents and even deaths. However every age group has criminals, and thus it is unfair to consider everyone in this age group to be irresponsible. It will be better to lower the drinking age but also ensure that youth are properly educated about the hazards of overdrinking and the benefits of moderated drinking. After this, it is their life; they are adults and should be allowed to do what they want to. The most pressing concern in lowering the drinking age is drunk driving. More than 11000 people died in 2010 due to drunken driving. Research also shows that incidents of drunken driving are more common in youth below 25 years of age and reduces with the increase in age (Overbey 10-15). The argument is that if the drinking age was lowered to 18, more young people would perish due to drunk driving. The nation cannot be responsible for this catastrophe and thus drinking age should be lowered. Drunk driving is a personal decision and cannot be used as an excuse to lower the age considerably. According to Kiehl (n.p.), binge drinking is a common phenomenon in US colleges where they have bets with each other to see who is a better drunk. This leads to alcohol poisoning and causes death in many cases. Lowering the drinking age will invite more cases of binge drinking which is harmful for the young people. Youth in the age of 18 are exploding with testosterones. This explosion of hormones makes them violent and aggressive. Alcohol has been associated with an increase in this violent behavior and causes a number of fights among youth. Lowering the drinking age will cause an increase in campus and street violence leading to death and lifelong harm to the bodies of young people. There is no point of locking out youth of 18 years of age from drinking. In fact, lowering the drinking age is likely to be beneficial every person. The pros and cons of the vice having been discussed, and dangers that it comes with having been highlighted, the advantages of allowing 18 years citizens to drink far outweigh the disadvantages. Allowing the teenagers of 18 years to decide whether to drink or not is a bold step towards enhancing democracy and an extension of their rights. It is fair enough to let them make this decision individually without having to be forced into something they are not willing to. This is seen as a bleach of their rights in a way. The fact that these teenagers make various decisions regarding their lives is enough prove of this. By deciding not to smoke is a decision with similar and equal weight just like drinking. The government believes that at 18, a person is old enough to vote in national elections, which is described as an adult right. If the youth can make decisions such as voting, joining the army and being involved in war, why does the same government fail to trust them in making decisions regarding drinking? Works Cited Constitution of the United States. United States Government Printing Office Washington, July 25 2007. Print. Hatch, Lisa Z, and Scott Hatch. The Gmat for Dummies. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2013. Internet resource. Kiehl, Stephen. "Colleges: Drinking Age Not Working: Presidents Say Lowering from 21 may Cut Binges." McClatchy - Tribune Business News .Aug 19 2008 ProQuest. 3 Apr. 2013 . Overbey, Chris. Drinking and Driving War in America. Lexington, Ky: Lulu, 2010. Print. Read More