Why Drinking Age Needs To Be Lowered To 18 In The USA - Essay Example

Argument against lowering the drinking age to 18 in the United s. Introduction There are actually sober arguments that advocate the lowering of the drinking age to 18. These range from those rationalizing the issue by citing physiological, cultural, economic, and psychological/behavioral, among other causations. There are even those who argue that geography and climate is a strong variable why it would be natural to allow the youth to drink liquor. For example, it has been argued that in Europe, alcohol has been integrated into daily life and is often taken during meals and no significant negative effect has been so far been reported, raising the question whether a strict alcohol prohibition leads to alcohol-related accidents. A behavioral argument in favor of lowering the drinking age cited the Prohibition experience and Engs (1998), for instance, has this to say: As a nation we have tried prohibition legislation twice in the past for controlling irresponsible drinking problems… These laws were finally repealed because they were unenforceable and because the backlash towards them caused other social problems. Today we are repeating history and making the same mistakes. Intentions behind the above arguments vary and some maybe legitimate as well but the issues raised by those in favor of restricting the age limit for alcohol access to 21 has so far succeeded in presenting a stronger case. The reason for this is simple: the empirical evidences and the statistics point to the fact that lowering the drinking age would have adverse effects on individuals and the society in general. Background In the United States, the current legal use for alcohol consumption is 21. The statutes covering this prohibition can be considered as those intended to influence individuals in regards to health-related behavior. A short review of its history will reveal that the minimum drinking age was implemented immediately after the Prohibition when all of the US states adopted a stringent policy against youth alcohol consumption. When the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the Constitution was introduced, lowering the voting age to 18, a number of states have also lowered the drinking age. But by 1984, the federal government implemented a drive to standardize the minimum drinking age to 21 through a congressional initiative. This has been supported by numerous governmental agencies, organizations and individuals such as the National Transportation Safety Board, the National Council on Alcoholism, the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving and the American Medical Association. Specifically, according to Wallander and Siegel (1995), “the minimum drinking age is an attempt at market regulation with the aim of reducing the opportunity for adolescents to consume alcohol.” (p. 73) Such objective is, of course, widely aimed at addressing problems as a consequence of alcohol use and abuse among this age group such as road crashes. Health Argument To start with, the negative effects of alcohol on youth and on people in general are well documented. The body of literature on the subject has so far identified at least three areas in which alcohol use and abuse could affect adversely: economic, moral and physical. It is the physical hazard that is considered the most critical consequence out of these when one talk about drinking among young people. When alcohol is introduced into the system, it passes through the bloodstream and, finally, it reaches the brain. The process results into what is akin to a relaxation of the nervous system owing to its depressant characteristic as well as the impairment of the brain’s ability to process information, resulting to slower stimuli. This has been explained by Monti, Colby and O’Leary (2004), who emphasized that alcohol is a toxic substance to cells in the body: At low BALs, the balance between positive and negative remains on the positive side. However, each successive drink adds less to the positive experiences and more to the negative experiences… The positive sensations and feelings one gets will be less positive, and the negative sensations, consequences, and reactions will get more negative. (p. 198) The above factor is the reason why authorities and policymakers are bothered into legislating strict laws against low drinking age. The negative effects can be both immediate and chronic. For example, a person who consumes alcohol can suffer not just disorientation leading to related incidents such as accidents and fatalities but also hangovers, addiction, fatal overdoses, injury, death as well as damage to liver, the brain and other organs of the body. To think that such effects would, in effect, be sanctioned by tolerating teenagers to use and abuse liquor is not morally and ethically sound. No society would acquiesce on consciously harming its young population even when issues of rights and freedom have to be curtailed. Case Study: Alcohol Use and Morbidity Currently, the US implements a zero alcohol tolerance policy for those under 21 with the aim of reducing fatal crashes on the road, among other related hazards. Many studies undertaken, which examined the efficacy of this policy in achieving its objectives, reported positive results. For example, the investigation of Voas et al. (2002), revealed that in the span of 16 years, from 1982 when stricter laws against underage drinking were initiated up to 1996, there is a dramatic reduction in alcohol-related accidents and morbidity rate. In the following table, they outlined the effect sizes of these laws “from the natural log of the dependent measure (the ratio of underage drivers in fatal crashes with positive BACs to drivers with zero BACs).” (p. 585) Table 1 Source: Voas et al., p. 585 From another perspective, it might be helpful to demonstrate what happens when minimum drinking age is lowered and the result was grim. This was revealed in the study by Guria et al. that examined the New Zealand experience after the country lowered the legal age in alcohol use from 21 to 18. To quote its most important finding: The number of 14 to 17 year old drivers as a percentage of total prosecutions for driving with excess alcohol has increased from 4.2% in 1998-99 to 5% in 2000-01… For 15-17 year old drivers involved in fatal crashes, the percentage with alcohol cited as contributing factor has increased from 14% in the 24 months before the drinking age was lowered to 35% in the 24 months after the change. The following graphs illustrate the above statistics in more detail, putting different variables side by side for comparison. One need no longer examine them closely since the pattern is quite obvious. The trend is not just a minor blip because the trajectory is glaringly a dramatic spike. Figure 1 Drivers in alcohol related fatal crashes: 15-17 year old drivers (Guria et al.) Figure 2 Proportion of 15-17 year old drivers in alcohol related fatal crashes. (Guria et al.) Conclusion In the debate with regards to lowering the minimum drinking age, there is no doubt which side is more valid. The laws that mandate that youngsters below the age of 21 should be prohibited access and use of alcoholic drink should be maintained and never amended. The statistics and the documented experience of both the US and elsewhere around the world support this position. Otherwise, America would immediately follow the footsteps of the likes of New Zealand who have to address an alarming morbidity rate caused by alcohol-related road accidents. Those who constantly invoke the reasoning behind the abolition of the Prohibition, should keep in mind that what is being covered here is a section of the population that is still needs to be guided, educated and protected by society especially from a toxic substance like alcohol. References Engs, R. (1998). Why the drinking age should be lowered: An opinion based upon research. Retrieved Dec. 5, 2010, from Indiana State University Web site: http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/articles/cqoped.html. Guria, J., Jones, W., Leung, J., and Mara, K. (2003). “Alcohol in New Zealand Road Trauma.” Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2(4). Monti, P., Colby, A. and OLeary, T. (2004). Adolescents, Alcohol, and Substance Abuse: Reaching Teens Through Brief Interventions. New York: Guilford Press. Voas, R., Tippetts, A.S. and Fell, J. (2002). “Assessing the effectiveness of minimum legal drinking age and zero tolerance laws in the United States.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 35, 579-587 Wallander, J. and Siegel, L. (1995). Adolescent health problems: behavioral perspectives. New York: Guilford Press. Read More