Minimum Legal Drinking Age - Essay Example

Minimum Legal Drinking Age The Uniform Drinking Age Act of 1984 mandates that the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) is to be 21 across all States in America. States which do not conform to the act risk losing federal transportation funds. A large number of studies deal with the MLDA as an alcohol control policy, and it is the subject of several essays. Most of the studies focus on motor vehicle crashes, which is the leading cause of death in teenagers. The MLDA has proponents and opponents, who hold fast to their respective positions in this debate (American Medical Association, n.d.). Morris E. Chafetz, in “The 21-Year-Old Drinking Age: I Voted for it; It Doesn't Work,” and Toben F. Nelson, and Traci L. Toomey, in “The Drinking Age of 21 Saves Lives,” adopt opposing views on this issue. Chafetz argues that the MLDA of 21 “has not worked,” and is not linked to reduced drunk-driving fatalities (7). He holds that enforcing a minimum legal age for drinking does not take into consideration the deaths caused by alcohol off the highways, and drives teenagers to binge drinking in unsupervised surroundings. On the other hand, Nelson and Toomey take the position that the MLDA of 21 has reduced drinking-related deaths, and decreased binge-drinking in underage college students. Although both authors have credibility and are knowledgeable and logical about the subject, and Chafetz is more accommodating of opposing viewpoints, Nelson and Toomey make a more convincing argument as their stand is supported by extensive references to research studies. Both the essays are authored by writers with impeccable credentials. Chafetz is a credible speaker in the MLDA debate, as he is the founder of the National Institute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse and The Health Education Foundation in Washington. His reputation is further bolstered by the fact that he was a member of the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving, Director and Executive Member of the National Commission against Drunk Driving and the Presidential appointee at The White House Conference for a Drug-Free America. He is also a Doctor of Psychiatry, with a long history of association with social issues, such as alcoholism and drug abuse. Chafetz’s credentials are more than matched by Nelson and Toomey, who belong to the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health. Their argument is further supported by a group of academicians and researchers. The reputation of the writers contributes to the trustworthiness of the essays and makes them both credible. Similarly, both the essays are written by knowledgeable authors who make their respective positions clear through unambiguous declarations. Chafetz emphatically states that “Prohibition – is not working among 18-20 year-olds now” (8). On the other hand, Nelson and Toomey are equally firm in their conviction that “A drinking age of 21 has led to less drinking, fewer injuries and fewer deaths” (9). There is no room for ambiguity in either essays and the authors’ tones convey their absolute belief in the correctness of their respective positions. Similarly, both the authors display knowledge about the issue being debated. As the founder of The National Institute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, Chafetz is obviously conversant with the issue of alcohol consumption, and quotes statistics from his institute “that 5,000 lives are lost to alcohol each year by those under 21” (Chafetz 7). As a Doctor of Psychiatry, Chafetz also demonstrates knowledge about brain impairment and alcohol dependency, in line with his profession as a medical doctor. Nelson and Toomey are significantly knowledgeable about the effects of alcohol on college students – this is in keeping with their University background. Chafetz’s essay scores over Nelson’s and Toomey’s in his adoption of a stand which accommodates opposing viewpoints. Chafetz is willing to “concede that the law has had some effect on our highways” and admits that “drunk driving fatalities are lower now than they were in 1982” (7). These concessions definitely inspire confidence in the writer’s intentions and demonstrate his goodwill. In contrast, Nelson and Toomey are categorical in their stance that any argument which supports the lowering of the MLDA is based on “myth” (9). While this may give a tone of unreasonableness to the essay, it has the advantage of heightening the conviction of the writers. Both the essays show logical reasoning which persuades the reader to seriously consider the claims made by the writers. Chafetz effectively highlights the need to broaden the scope of the argument to include all aspects of drinking in adolescents. Once the debate moves beyond the narrow confines of drunk-driving, it becomes more holistic in its approach and addresses the “serious problem of reckless, goal-oriented, drinking to get drunk” (Chafetz 7). Chafetz establishes that “alcohol is woven into the fabric of our world” (8). Once this truth is accepted, it logically follows that the emphasis should be on “Personal and social responsibility” (Chafetz 8). Nelson and Toomey’s argument also displays a logical progression of thought. The authors highlight the problem: “College student drinking is a serious problem” (Nelson and Toomey 10). They then go on to provide several recommendations to address it. By listing several practical means of tackling the problem, and the obstacles which stand in the way of implementing these solutions, the authors strengthen the logical appeal of their arguments. . Nelson and Toomey’s essay is strengthened by their recourse to extensive research studies. The authors use “compelling research evidence” to prove their arguments (Nelson and Toomey 9). They adopt the approach of making a claim and going on to substantiate that claim with evidence. They state that “A drinking age of 21 has led to less drinking, fewer injuries and fewer deaths” (Nelson and Toomey 9). They support this claim with the data that “The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that setting the drinking age at 21 saves the lives of 900 young people each year and has saved more than 25,000 lives since 1975” (Nelson and Toomey 9). They explicitly state that their stand is supported by experts from “the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention” (Nelson and Toomey 9). Faced with such a solid bank of educated sources, the reader is not willing to accept Chafetz’s contention that those who advocate enforcement of the MLDA are moved by “the tyranny of “experts”” (Chafetz 8). On the contrary, the reader tends to agree with Nelson and Toomey that proposals to lower the minimum drinking age “have no foundation in research” (10). While Chafetz’s credentials definitely make him an authority on the subject, and he adopts a professional tone, his arguments come across more as a matter of personal opinion. Chafetz himself agrees that his argument is based on his position “as a parent and psychiatrist” (8). He criticizes the experts who support the MLDA of 21, but does not cite any expert testimony to bolster his own recommendation that the MLDA be lowered. The discussed essays are written by knowledgeable authors with impressive credentials. They both demonstrate clarity of writing and logical reasoning. Chafetz’s essay has an edge over Nelson and Toomey’s in its willingness to acknowledge opposing views to a certain extent. But, in the final analysis, it is Nelson and Toomey who score in convincing the reader: this is due to their tactic of supporting their claims with a wealth of evidence and data. Works Cited American Medical Association (AMA). “Minimum Legal Drinking Age.” 2013. Web. 8 Feb. 2013. Web. Chafetz, Morris E. “The 21-Year-Old Drinking Age: I Voted for it; It Doesn't Work.” Title of Collection. Ed. Editor's Name(s). City of Publication: Publisher, Year. Page range of entry. Medium of Publication. Nelson, Toben F. and Toomey, Traci L. “The Drinking Age of 21 Saves Lives.” Title of Collection. Ed. Editor's Name(s). City of Publication: Publisher, 2009. Page range of entry. Medium of Publication. The 21-Year-Old Drinking Age: I Voted for it; It Doesn't Work Dr. Morris E. Chafetz In 1982 I accepted appointment to the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving and agreed to chair its Education and Prevention Committee. The Commission met over the next 18 months and ultimately advanced 39 recommendations to President Reagan, in December 1983. All 39 received unanimous Commission approval. The most conspicuous of those recommendations, and arguably the most controversial, called for raising the minimum legal drinking age to 21 nationwide. I will admit to having had serious reservations about this particular proposal. But in the interest of maintaining unanimity, I reluctantly voted yes. It is the single most regrettable decision of my entire professional career. Legal Age 21 has not worked. To be sure, drunk driving fatalities are lower now than they were in 1982. But they are lower in all age groups. And they have declined just as much in Canada, where the age is 18 or 19, as they have in the United States. It has been argued that "science" convincingly shows a cause-and-effect relationship between the law and the reduction in fatalities. Complicated mathematical formulas, which include subjective estimations (called "imputation") have been devised to demonstrate "proof." But correlation is not cause. We must neither confuse numbers with science nor interpret a lack of numbers as implying an absence of science. But even if we concede that the law has had some effect on our highways, we cannot overlook its collateral, off-road damage. The National Institute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, which I founded in 1970, estimates that 5,000 lives are lost to alcohol each year by those under 21. More than 3,000 of those fatalities occur off our roadways. If we are seriously to measure the effects of this law, we cannot limit our focus. And if we broaden our look, we see a serious problem of reckless, goal-oriented, drinking to get drunk. Those at whom the law is directed disobey it routinely. Enforcement is frustratingly difficult and usually forces the behavior deeper underground, into places where life and health are put at ever greater risk. The 600,000 assaults reported annually, the date rapes, the property damage, the emergency room calls do not in general occur in places visible to the public. They are the inevitable result of what happens when laws do not reflect social or cultural reality. The reality is that at age 18 in this country, one is a legal adult. Young people view 21 as utterly arbitrary -- which it is. And because the explanation given them is so condescending -- that they lack maturity and judgment, these same people who can serve on juries and sign contracts and who turned out in overwhelming numbers to elect our first black president -- well, they don't buy it. And neither do I. And neither should the American public. Whether we like it or not, alcohol is woven into the fabric of our world, most of which has determined that the legal drinking age should be 18 -- or lower. And so far as I can tell, there is no evidence of massive brain impairment, alcohol dependency, or underage alcohol abuse, which the "experts" tell us will be the inevitable result of lowering the age in the United States. It is time to liberate ourselves from the tyranny of "experts," who invoke "science" in order to advance a prohibitionist agenda. Prohibition does not work. It has never worked. It is not working among 18-20 year-olds now. The cult of expertise has made parents feel incapable of raising their children. In many states parents are disenfranchised from helping their sons or daughters learn about responsible alcohol consumption. But as a parent and psychiatrist I trust the instinct of parents more than I do the hubris of "experts." Despite what these latter-day prohibitionists may think, the problem is not the drink -- it is the drinker. There should be more emphasis on the person and the surroundings in which alcohol is consumed and less emphasis on alcohol itself. Personal and social responsibility, not the substance, is the real issue. But so long as the age remains a one-size-fits-all, federally-mandated 21, and so long as any state that may want to try something different, in hopes of reversing the dismal trend of binge-drinking that (maybe or maybe not coincidentally) has become more serious in the years since the drinking age was raised, forfeits 10% of its federal highway funds, nothing is likely to change for the better. I do not believe that any state should be forced to adjust its drinking age. But I do believe that the genius of federalism should be allowed to work its will unimpeded, and from that genius, not only better practices, but also safer environments and more responsible consumption, are likely to emerge. Dr. Morris E. Chafetz, a Doctor of Psychiatry, has played a pivotal role on important social issues including drugs and alcoholism. He founded the National Institute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse in 1970. He gained national recognition as a member of the Presidential Commission on Drink Driving, and Director and Executive Member of the National Commission against Drink Driving. Finally he was the Presidential appointee at The White House Conference for a Drug-Free America. His career has culminated in the foundation of The Health Education Foundation in Washington. The Drinking Age of 21 Saves Lives September 29, 2009|By Toben F. Nelson and Traci L. Toomey The national policy that set a minimum legal drinking age of 21 is being questioned by a group of 135 college and university presidents through an effort called the Amethyst Initiative. In a September 16 commentary on CNN.com, Amethyst Initiative leader John McCardell, a former president of Middlebury College, proposes lowering the drinking age, which he suggests will lead to less drinking and related problems among college students. History and a comprehensive review of the research tell a much different story. The evidence is clear, consistent and compelling: A drinking age of 21 has led to less drinking, fewer injuries and fewer deaths. In the 1970s when many states reduced their drinking ages, drinking-related deaths among young people increased. When the drinking age of 21 was restored, deaths declined. This effect is not simply a historical artifact explained by advances in safety technology and other policies. New Zealand recently lowered the drinking age based on many of the same arguments advanced by the Amethyst Initiative. The result was more alcohol-involved traffic crashes and emergency room visits among 15- to 19-year-olds. New Zealand is now considering raising its drinking age. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that setting the drinking age at 21 saves the lives of 900 young people each year and has saved more than 25,000 lives since 1975. It was on the basis of compelling research evidence about its lifesaving benefits that a bipartisan effort created Public Law 98-363, "The National Minimum Legal Drinking Age Act" in the first place. Subsequent research has strengthened the evidence. College students who are underage, for example, binge drink less than students aged 21-23. Underage students who attend colleges that rigorously enforce the drinking age, and who reside in states that have more laws restricting access to alcohol for those under the legal age, are less likely to binge drink. Another myth promulgated by the Amethyst Initiative is that European young people are taught by families to drink responsibly because of the typically lower legal drinking ages there. The reverse is the case. Surveys of youth in multiple European countries show that rates of frequent binge drinking among adolescents are higher in Europe than in the United States. Panels of experts, convened separately by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have studied the evidence on the age-21 law and concluded that it is effective public policy. Rather than lowering the drinking age, they recommended bolstering the law by closing loopholes in state law and strengthening enforcement. There is a silver lining to the call for reopening discussion on the minimum legal drinking age. While some college presidents have signed on to the Amethyst Initiative, most have not. College presidents acknowledge that a serious problem exists on their campuses and that something needs to be done. Working effectively with their communities and states to address student drinking is the place to start, not with a discussion about lowering the drinking age. College presidents must show leadership by promoting solutions recommended by a report from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism College Drinking Task Force released in 2002. These recommendations for college and community leaders included creating systems for reaching individual students with effective interventions, implementing, publicizing and enforcing laws to prevent alcohol-impaired driving and underage drinking, restrictions on alcohol retail outlets, increasing prices and excise taxes on alcoholic beverages, and responsible beverage service policies at on- and off-campus venues. Few colleges and their communities have even begun the steps needed to enact these efforts. These recommendations will be difficult to implement and significant barriers exist, including resistance from the industries that profit from selling alcohol. College presidents cannot accomplish this alone. They need the support of students, regents, parents, alumni and their communities. State and local legislators need to pass tougher restrictions and provide resources for enforcement. Lobbying legislators to dismantle the effective drinking age law is a step in the wrong direction. So rather than try the approaches advocated by the Amethyst Initiative that have no foundation in research, let's be clear about the issues. College student drinking is a serious problem. Each year more young people are injured, sexually assaulted and die as the result of drinking. These statistics would be even worse without the age-21 law. Lowering the drinking age will not save lives or make our campuses and communities better places to live. It will increase heavy drinking and the problems that accompany it in college communities and push the problem back into high schools. Real prevention requires constant vigilance, dedication and the courage to implement difficult solutions. Other co-authors: John R. Finnegan Jr. is dean of the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Henry Wechsler is director of the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, Robert Saltz and James Fell are with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Thomas Greenfield is with the Alcohol Research Group at the Public Health Institute, and Ann Mahoney and Linda Bosma are the current Chair and Chair-elect of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs section of the American Public Health Association. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors. Read More