Should the Minimum Legal Drinking Age Be Lowered - Essay Example

Should the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) be Lowered? Essay Introduction It is somehow interesting that there is now an actual discussion or debate over the legal drinking age and what should be the minimum. The Amethyst Initiative, approved by more than a hundred university presidents, demands a reevaluation of the federal law that led to the implementation of 21 as the minimum drinking age in all states (Frost et al., 2009). The Vermont government has been thinking about a decree to request Congress to release disclaimers to states that want to push down the minimum age, and supporters of liberalization are drawing public attention nationwide (Frost et al., 2009). A widespread issue is that age-based ban has not been more ‘effective’ than universal ban. This essay argues against the lowering of the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA). Yet, dissimilar from those who support liberalization this essay supports the fact that the minimum drinking age truly decreases the prevalence of alcoholism and protects lives. Undeniably, ban was also effective in such manner (Ellis & Nelson, 2013). With the MLDA, just like with numerous other forms of policies against unsafe behavior, there is a compromise between liberty and life. Lowering the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA): Not a Good Idea After the dismantling of Prohibition in 1933, almost all states establish the MLDA at 21. Louisiana and New York were different, with a minimum drinking age of 18, while several other states adopted a split age, higher for liquor than beer. These minimum age prohibitions stayed somewhat stationary over the 1960s, although with several reforms in the range and punishments related to the regulation (Ellis & Nelson, 2013). However, it did not endure. The emergence of baby boomers and the political tensions produced by the Vietnam War resulted in the implementation of the 26th Amendment in 1970, granting people aged 18 voting rights. After five years, several states reduced their MLDA. Almost all states had determined 18 or 19 as the MLDA for all beverages by 1975 (Frost et al., 2009). During that time, legislators did not completely take for granted the likelihood of a rise in youthful drinking as an outcome of the reduced MLDA, but that consideration produced a wartime argument. As commented by Daniel Cooper, the Michigan State Senator at the time, “If he is responsible enough to serve as a platoon leader with eight or 10 men under him in a life or death combat situation, you can’t tell him he’s not responsible enough to drink” (Frost et al., 2009, 99). Anyhow, there were very few methodical findings on the impact of minimum age prohibitions on public safety. However, it was known and apparent that these policies were habitually disrespected by a large number of youths. Hardly any punishments and arrests were carried out. The policies seemed to be only a figurative declaration of official beliefs about correct behavior (Frost et al., 2009). Nevertheless, in the 1970s, confirmations began amassing that these policies had bigger impact than formerly known or thought of. States that reduced their MLDA suffered from a rise in traffic casualties because of young people driving under the influence of alcohol. The proof was adequately convincing to turn the political surge, by that time already destabilized by the conclusion of the Vietnam War (Ellis & Nelson, 2013). All states maintained or refused to lower their MLDA after 1976, and some annulled earlier drops. The Commission on Drunk Driving by President Reagan suggested in 1983 that Congress should implement a national MLDA of 21, mentioning the findings on the useful impact of increasing the minimum drinking age on traffic safety and the specific issues arising from nearby states with dissimilar MLDAs (Ellis & Nelson, 2013). Congress did not openly establish national MLDA, but instead decreed a provision that pushed every state to establish 21 as the MLDA by threatening to hold back several federal highway funding. In the end, the Supreme Court declared this policy constitutional, in spite of the provision of the 21st Amendment that the power to control alcohol was a state decision (Ellis & Nelson, 2013). The last state, which was Wyoming, finally obeyed by 1988, and 21 was the MLDA throughout the U.S. The problem with the argument that the MLDA is an issue best left to state prerogative is that guaranteeing public safety is a major obligation of administration at all levels, as well as the federal government. Furthermore, past studies reveal that 80% of the American population approves establishing the MLDA at 21, with slight or no disparity by state in beliefs about MLDA policies (Ellis & Nelson, 2013, 38). In spite of the massive public approval of 21 as the MLDA, it is probable that if Congress had refused to establish 21 as the national MLDA, minimum drinking age would still differ significantly from state to state. In case the federal law is abolished, there will be state differences in MLDAs. Highways pass through state boundaries and majority is constructed with federal resources, hence it is the duty of the federal government to make sure that the nation does not go back to the ‘blood borders’ for youth that were encouraged by varied MLDAs in various states (Frost et al., 2009, 100). The federal government has a specific responsibility to safeguard the youth. If the MLDA is reduced to 18, the outcome will be more accessibility of alcohol not just to people aged 18-21 but also to those younger than 18. Surveys have revealed that reducing the MLDA to 18 also raises alcohol-related vehicle accidents for those aged 15-17 (Ellis & Nelson, 2013, 39). The earlier youth begins to drink, the higher the probability that they will be harmed while under the influence of alcohol, have a vehicle accident after drinking, or becoming involved in a trouble. Young people who begin drinking at 18 are more prone to become drunk as those who begin to drink at 21. Those who begin drinking at 18 also have a higher likelihood of becoming alcoholic (Ellis & Nelson, 2013, 39). The federal government must take steps when it can significantly enhance the safety and wellbeing of the people. By encouraging states to implement MLDA-21 policies, the federal government has definitely accomplished such. MLDA-21 policies protect roughly 900 lives annually in decreases in traffic casualties caused by young motorists (Frost et al., 2009, 100). Clinical studies reveal that too much drinking by young people 20 and below may bring about brain disorder and reduction in brain performance. Early drinking raises the possibility of future alcoholism, vehicle accidents, attacks, and other problems caused by drinking (Frost et al., 2009, 100-1). Congress endorsed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act to safeguard public safety and health. The problems experienced by other countries that decided to lower the MLDAs reveal that the judgment of the federal government was correct. New Zealand reduced its MLDA from 21 to 18 in 1999 (Ellis & Nelson, 2013, 38). The outcome, as reported in several studies, was a sharp rise in vehicle accidents (Ellis & Nelson, 2013, 38). When the health, safety, and lives of a huge number of youth are in danger, it is right for the federal government to get involved and safeguard the public. Conclusion States, it is important to emphasize again, remain at liberty to reduce their MLDAs provided that they are eager to take the burden of rise in youthful fatalities and surrender federal highway funding. The federal government is not openly forcing any state to implement 21 as the MLDA. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act has been an objective, successful, and widely accepted instrument for solving the numerous issues related to youthful drinking. Cancelling it would be a very terrible error. Some have proposed giving special authorizations to those aged 18-21 that give them the right to drink alcohol if they finish an alcohol training or seminar. This appears to be a reasonable proposal. Nevertheless, there is no proof that reducing the drinking age to 18 for people who finish an education course will solve the issue. References Ellis, R. & Nelson, M. (2013). Debating Reform: Conflicting Perspectives on How to Fix the American Political System. New York: CQ Press. Frost, N. et al. (2009). Contemporary Issues in Criminal Justice Policy. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Read More