Siefring 1
Kimie Siefring
English 1102
Ms. Kendra Andrews
4/113
Why is The Drinking Age 21?
At 18 years old, a young American citizen can go vote for the United States of America,
can go buy a gun, and can go join the military. At the age of 18, and person is considered a fullfledged adult, and they can get charged with adult charges and they gain more responsibilities.
Though why is it that an 18 year old can go fight for our country and shoot a gun and receive all
these new privileges, but they can’t have an alcoholic beverage? The minimum drinking age is
21 in the United States and when this law is violated heavy punishments are given to those who
have broken it. For years this has been an ongoing hot topic in the USA, and many people
question the reasoning behind the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA). Why is the drinking
age 21? Why has it not been changed to 18? What would the possible outcomes be if the
drinking age was lowered to 18?
According to the United States government, testing has been done and it was discovered
that the brain is not fully matured until 21. They argue that if the brain is exposed to alcohol
before it has fully matured it can stun growth in the brain. They argue that this can be harmful to
a young adult and that it can cause issues later on, therefore the MLDA should remain at 21.
Now it has been proven that alcohol at a young age can stun growth in the brain, but so do many
other things. If the brain isn’t fully matured until then why is it that you can go buy a pack of
cigarettes at 18? The smoke from a cigarette causes far more health problems, such as lung
cancer. If the brain doesn’t mature until a person is 21, then why is it that you vote and fight for
your country at 18? If a person’s brain is still developing at 18, then they shouldn’t be allowed to
make decisions such as voting for their future president. Overall it just is somewhat of a double
standard to have to say you are an “adult” at 18, but still restrict you from enjoying a drink. How
are you allowed to take a bullet for your own country, but she won’t let you enjoy a simple
alcoholic beverage.
“By age 18, more than 70% of teens have had at least one alcoholic drink” (NIAAA). To
a young teenager, the drinking age is almost like a challenge to them. This is because drinking by
thee youth is seen as an enticing "forbidden fruit," a "badge of rebellion against authority" and a
symbol of "adulthood.". Having to secretly underage drink causes for a major problem, the fact
that teenagers that underage drink in secrecy and in uncontrolled, dangerous situations.
Teenagers have to hide the fact that they are breaking that law and they make irrational choses,
such as drunk driving or getting in the car with a drunk driver. According to National Institute on
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death in
Siefring 2
people aged 15 to 20. Serious, deadly crashes involving alcohol are two times more likely to
occur with teens compared to people 21 and older. This is because teens are not as experienced
with driving, and their judgment skills are impaired by alcohol along with their motor skills.
Mixing drinking with swimming or boating can be fatal that too and the NIAAA state that four
out of 10 teens that drown have been drinking alcohol. Underage drinking has been linked with
deaths and injuries from burns, falls, alcohol poisoning, and suicide. The point I am trying to get
at here is that because kids have to hide what they are doing, they are more likely to get hurt or
cause harm to those around them. The MLDA was raised to try to reduce such factors but all it
has done is raised them and it has caused more problems to arise. Lowering MLDA from 21 to
18 could possibly lower the number of underage teenagers who are affected or harmed from
alcohol-related injuries or accidents due to fear of legal consequences if they seek for help or
medical attention.
According to Drinking Age ProCon, State governments should have the right to establish
a lower legal drinking age that reflects their unique demographics, legal context, and history. The
Uniform Drinking Act, which compelled states to set the legal drinking age at 21 by withholding
ten percent of highway funding from states that kept the minimum legal drinking age at 18, is an
example of federal government overreach into state affairs. Many states that were happy with
their MLDA 18 bowed to federal pressure rather than lose millions in annual highway funds. So
in a sense states had the right to choose their MLDA, but the federal government forced them in
to choosing otherwise because it wouldn’t be possible to afford it. I also believe that it could be
good for the economy if the MLDA 21 was changed to 18. If you really think about it, more
people would legally be allowed purchase drinks in bars, restaurants, and other licensed
establishments. Revenue would rise for private business owners along with some chain
restaurants, and tax revenue would be given to the federal government. It also has to be taken
into account that if the drinking age was lowered to 18, young people would feel safer to drink
and because they wouldn’t have to hide it that would drink in more controlled environments. In
the end, it would make things safer for everyone to. Prohibiting this age group from drinking
legally cause them to avoid licensed locations and they are forced to drink in unsupervised places
such as house parties, where they may be more prone to binge drinking and other unsafe
behavior. If you also think it through, many states have different laws already, so wouldn’t it be
fair to make it so that they too can create their own MLDA. It would also make sense because
every country has different demographics, and each demographic has a different history with
alcohol. So would it not be best for each state to figure out what drinking age best fits their
needs?
There are apparently there are fewer drunk driving traffic accidents and fatalities in many
countries with MLDA of 18, according to Levy and Asch. Although the United States increased
the MLDA to 21 in 1984, its rate of traffic accidents and fatalities in the 1980s decreased less
than that of European countries whose legal drinking ages are lower than 21 for only that short
period of time. Also it must be taken into account that technology has grown itself since the
Siefring 3
drinking age was raised. More safety equipment has been created since then and cars are much
safer and are produced with more safety features then back in the 1980’s. Even though the
drinking age did lower the rates of alcohol related fatalities and injuries, it might have been from
other factors such as increase in technologic expansions. Also according to some people, they
believe that if the drinking age was lowered to 18, that suicide and criminal activity rates would
greatly increase because of it. According to Journal of Studies on Alcohol, the MLDA 21 is not
statistically associated with lower rates of suicide, homicide, or vandalism. In a 2002 meta-study
of the legal drinking age and health and social problems, 72% of the studies found no statistically
significant relationship despite claims that lowering the MLDA to 18 would increase suicide and
criminal activities by adolescents.
“The MLDA appears to have only a minor impact on teen drinking” (Miron). The
minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) is widely believed to save lives by reducing traffic
fatalities among underage drivers. Further, the Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act, which
pressured all states to adopt an MLDA of 21, is regarded as having contributed enormously to
this life-saving effect. The article Does The Mininum Legal Drinking Age Save Livees by
Jerffrey A. Miron and Elina Telelbaum challenges both of those claims. The article argues that
statistically it is proven that the MLDA has not actually shown a great decrease in alcohol related
incidents. So once again, the MLDA is failing to do what it was original raised to do. The
MLDA was designed as a safety precaution, but it appears to have become a restriction rather
than a benefit. It was raised to benefit the lives of young Americans by protecting their health.
Though now it seems that all it has done is cause them to sneak about and to underage drink
because they are restricted from do so legally.
In the research document, Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws: Review and
Analyses of the Literature from 1960 to 2000, it is believed that the drinking age should be raised
because it would decrease the amount of drinking nationwide. “In the 48 studies, a total of 78
alcohol consumption outcome measures were analyzed (e.g., sales figures, self-reported
drinking). Of the 78 analyses, 27 (35%) found a statistically significant inverse relationship
between the legal drinking age and alcohol consumption; that is, as the legal age was lowered,
drinking increased, and as the legal age was raised, drinking decreased” (Wagenaar). I would
like to argue that these studies were based off of the immediate response to increasing the
drinking age. If the drinking age was lowered to 18, yes the drinking would increase, but only for
a short period of time. The interest in drinking would be lost of a course of time, and the once
“rebellious” binge drinkers would shimmer down. Also because you would be allowed to drink
in a controlled setting people would drink less in the end and they wouldn’t need to hide what
they were doing, so they wouldn’t have to force themselves to drink quickly to get drunk.
Eventually binge drinking would decrease, and almost everyone would resort back to just being
social drinkers.
In the end, the drinking age was raised for the right reasons. Though now it seems
outdated and non-beneficial to today’s society. The drinking age is something that harsh
Siefring 4
restriction to young adults that at the age of 18 receive so many other responsibilities/rights. As a
young adult you are giving the right to choose what you do with your health. If you want to
smoke cigarettes, you are legally allowed to do so, know full will the harsh side effects of doing
so. The minimum drinking age has, in itself, caused more injury and harm to young adults then it
has helped. Young people are afraid to admit that they underage drink because they do fear the
law. This causes them to drink in uncontrolled and very dangerous environments. Also, if more
than 75% of seniors in high school admit to drinking alcohol, than why bother having a
restriction on something that almost everyone already does. All it does in the end is because for
chaos and un-necessary accidents, along with run ins with that law. It also would finically
probably be better for the federal government to lower the drinking age because it would
increase revenue for our country because of how much the sales would increase. The United
States of America needs to start trusting their young adults when it comes to the issue of alcohol
consumption. If young adults are trusted with guns, voting rights, and military responsibilities,
then America should trust them to be able to consume alcohol in an “adult manor”.
Siefring 5
Cite Page:
"Underage Drinking." National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). N.p., n.d.
Web. 08 May 2013.
Alexander C. Wagenaar and Traci L. Toomey, "Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws:
Review and Analyses of the Literature from 1960 to 2000," Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 2002
Peter Asch and David T. Levy, "Young Driver Fatalities: The Roles of Drinking Age and
Drinking Experience," Southern Economic Journal, Oct. 1990
"Drinking Age ProCon.org." Drinking Age ProCon.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 May 2013.
Miron, Jeffrey A., and Elina Tetelbaum. "Does the minimum legal drinking age save lives?."
Economic Inquiry 47.2 (2009): 317-336.
Wagenaar, Alexander C., and Traci L. Toomey. "Effects of minimum drinking age laws: review
and analyses of the literature from 1960 to 2000." Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 14
(2002): 206.
Norberg, Karen E., Laura J. Bierut, and Richard A. Grucza. "Long‐Term Effects of Minimum
Drinking Age Laws on Past‐Year Alcohol and Drug Use Disorders." Alcoholism: Clinical and
Experimental Research 33.12 (2009): 2180-2190.
Jones, Sandra N., and Vicki D. Lachman. "Continuing the dialogue: Reducing minimum legal
drinking age laws from 21 to 18." Journal of Addictions Nursing 22.3 (2011): 138-143.
Miron, Jeffrey A., and Elina Tetelbaum. "Does the minimum legal drinking age save lives?."
Economic Inquiry 47.2 (2009): 317-336.