Lowering the Legal Drinking Age - Essay Example

Lowering the Legal Drinking Age

• Introduction

The essay will mainly focus on a controversial issue regarding lowering the legal drinking age. It is evident that there is lot of arguments raised against this topic in real-world scenario. Many experts have clearly stated that legal drinking age should be lowered to 18 years; whereas, others have argued that such a legal act might adversely affect young brains. In mid-1980s, the legal drinking age was set at 21 years in order to reduce all kinds of highway fatalities. However, it can be argued that this age limit has certainly not restricted young population from drinking. The current controversy regarding the topic is -18 years is considered to be the age of adulthood in U.S. and many other countries. Hence, individuals at this age should be given flexibility to undertake own decisions. On the contrary, alcohol consumption at the age of 18 would be a medically irresponsible act. Alcohol is closely knitted with the culture of recreation, but it even reflects a dangerous substance. There is no such minimum drinking age in Cambodia, Albania and Vietnam. The purpose of this study is to understand the intricacies of minimum drinking age and whether the legal drinking age should be at all lowered or not. The thesis statement for this study is – “to determine the significance of lowering legal drinking age in some countries”.

• Main Body

The controversy regarding reducing the legal drinking age is an alarming issue across the globe. In earlier years, strong government regulations had been formed to maintain legal drinking age of 21 years in U.S., Asian regions and other European countries. The current legal system is such structured that it forbids alcohol to U.S. residents, specifically under the age of 21 years. Some experts have stated that such norms negatively influence one’s mentality and triggers irresponsible consumption of alcohol. It is a common assumption that increasing legal drinking age to 21 years is a step towards enhancing public health conditions. Arguably, teaching people ways of responsible drinking is far more sensible than increasing the legal drinking age. The current law where the legal drinking age has been set to 21 years was mainly sanctioned to minimize traffic deaths because of young drunk drivers. It is evident that such norms have been able to control the percentage of death rates due to accidents but it has certainly not reduced rate of alcohol consumption. The age segregation has eventually influenced young population to drink as much as possible (Homel 72).

There are pros and cons which should be considered while thinking about lowering the legal drinking age. In majority of U.S. states, MLDA or minimum legal drinking age is 21 years with the expectation that alcohol consumption by young adults can be reduced to a minimum. Proponents of MLDA argues that legal norms have not stopped teens from drinking neither it has resulted into drinking in a controlled environment. The entire set-up has pushed young population to drinking in less controlled and private environments, resulting into life-endangering behavior and health problems observed within teenagers. On the contrary, opponents of MLDA has emphasized on the fact that young population has definitely not reached an age where they can understand the actual meaning of responsible drinking. For instance, if legal drinking age is further lowered then the target group can even kill or harm themselves which is usually not observed amongst 21-year-old adults. There is no doubt about the fact that the rate of traffic fatalities has significantly decreased due to an increase in MLDA. On the basis of scholarly research, it has been derived that there are some benefits and drawbacks linked with lowering MLDA. 18 years is considered to be the age of adulthood, during which individuals have the right to vote, marry, etc. Hence, it is evident that at this age individual will be able to make a sound decision about alcohol consumption. The unsafe drinking activity can be greatly reduced when 18 to 20-year-old individuals are allowed to drink alcohol. Traffic fatalities or accidents are a usual phenomenon among newly legal drinkers (White and Hingson 201). It cannot be standardized that MLDA correlates with such traffic fatalities. There is no statistical association between MLDA 21 and lower rates of vandalism, homicide or suicide. When other kinds of pleasurable activities are legally permissible in different geographical regions then restricting young adults from alcohol consumption will be unfair. Lowering MLDA shall even promote economic conditions of a region. When MLDA is lowered then more number of individuals shall legally be able to consume alcohol in restaurants, bars and other forms of licensed establishments. The revenue margins would eventually increase for all private business owners involved in the alcohol industry along with collection of greater tax revenue by the government. Arguably, MLDA is a regulatory framework structured so as to control activities of irresponsible drinking. Alcohol consumption greatly affects brain functioning of young adults, particularly in relation to emotional regulation, organization and planning (ProCon.org). It can be stated that interference of alcohol consumption with young adult brain development leads to severe chronic problems, such as risk-taking behavior, higher vulnerability to addiction, violence, depression, memory loss, suicide, reduced capability for decision-making, etc. The lowering of MLDA will result into more number of young adults visiting nightclubs or bars which are not controlled environments for drinking.

In overall context, drinking activities among young adults need to be controlled since it not only affects them but also others. When MLDA was increased to 21 in the year 2007, it was observed that BAC or blood-alcohol concentration in nighttime drivers drastically decreased to 2.2%. According to the U.S. district court, alcohol consumption at an underage cannot be denoted as a fundamental right (Fell and Voas 871). On the other hand, ‘age’ can never be considered as a discrimination criteria compared to race or ethnicity. 18-year-old individuals are not matured enough to undertake decision for alcohol consumption, since they are entering into a new stage of independence. It is expected that at this stage individual will be more prone towards risky sexual activity, other irresponsible behavior or even binge drinking. A peer-reviewed study clearly indicated that reducing MLDA would ultimately influence young adults to drink alcohol along with taking illicit drugs (CBS Interactive Inc). John McCardell, former president of Vermont’s Middlebury College, stated that –

(CBS Interactive Inc). Arguably, there are many scholarly authors, such as William DeJong, writer of Journal of Studies on Drugs and Alcohol emphasizing on the fact that MLDA 21 has saved numerous lives. According to this scholar,

(Singh). There are fewer justifications made towards safeguarding the current law. However,

(Singh)

On the basis of varied opinions, it can be concluded that MLDA needs to be reduced for societal benefit. The legal bodies are inclined towards maintaining a higher age as MLDA, since it is a common assumption that criminal activities can be reduced if young adults do not have legal permission to consume alcohol (Fell and Voas 871). However, some scholars have stated that such strict norms are ultimately creating a negative impact on young minds. It cannot be standardized that public health conditions can be enhanced through restricting 18 year olds from alcohol consumption. On the contrary, such legal norms trigger reckless and irresponsible behavior within young adults. The legal drinking age should be reduced in U.S. and other such countries where MLDA is 21 years. Since, it is the only way through which the reckless attitude within young adults can be controlled (Homel 72). Extreme drinking challenges are undertaken by young adults due to such legal norms. It has been portrayed by some scholars that law enforcement has not been able to control alcohol consumption rate, rather it has motivated teenagers to get involved in drinking games (CBS Interactive Inc). Law enforcement should be in context of providing controlled environment for drinking instead of setting high age limit for drinking. The drinking age needs to be lowered along with increasing tax rates on spirits. Once the law for MLDA 18 is passed it would result into excessive drinking among young adults. Hence, the proposed measure is to impose higher tax on youth-targeted drinks. It shall deter teenagers from consuming excessive amount of alcohol, thereby, minimizing cases of any assault or criminal activity.

Scholarly evidences have highlighted that higher tax rate tends to reduce number of violent incidents and accidents. The aspect of social responsibility can be addressed by making young population knowledgeable about the tax revenue generated from selling alcohol (Fell and Voas 871). A tie-up can be made by the government through which the tax obtained from alcohol companies can be invested in various educational schemes in order to portray importance of responsible drinking. The tie-up can even be extended to covering costs related to any criminal damage or medical treatment. It shall be a suitable procedure to justify the mechanism of lowering the legal drinking age (Glaser). Another proposed solution is to incorporate special programs in schools or colleges on responsible drinking. Liberty might influence young adults to commit illegal activities, however, such programs will make them knowledgeable about how excessive drinking can affect neighbors as well as own health conditions. Some stakeholders have criticized reducing MLDA by linking alcohol consumption with some influential terms such as social responsibility decreases due to such activities, number of alcohol-related car crashes are more in number, homicide or suicide are interlinked with alcohol consumption, etc. (Homel 72). Cultural differences have also been taken into account while criticizing alcohol consumption at the age of 18. For instance, researchers outline that beer is considered as a part of the overall meal in Germany; however, similar culture does not prevail in U.S. The claim made has no such relevance because discrimination based on age is not interlinked with cultural norms (Glaser). Another misleading argument made by scholars is that MLDA 18 would provoke more of traffic fatalities. In current scenario, the rate of accidents is significantly high even when the legal drinking age is not minimized. The irresponsible behavior can be regulated by imparting some degree of knowledge and independence to teenagers.

• Conclusion

From the above study, it can be concluded that legal norms shall be structured to benefit the overall society. In earlier time-period, legal norms have been formulated to minimize criminal cases and alcohol related accidents. However, age limits in context of drinking has not brought forth any massive change in societal norms. It has provoked teenagers to consume alcohol excessively that too not in any kind of controlled environment. On the basis of this study, it can be claimed that legal drinking age needs to be reduced because such discrimination leads to inappropriate human behavior. It is recommended to sanction new laws on lowering legal drinking age along with promoting programs on drinking responsibly.