Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21?

Recommend (1) Comments (1)

We agree: one should not drink while in combat. But beyond that the argument does not persuade.

The constitution is clear: “the right of a citizen age 18 to vote shall not be abridged on account of age.” Though this language does not establish a legal age of majority, it comes pretty close, especially since, in the years following its adoption, every state has brought its definition of legal adult down from 21, the vast majority to 18.

With, of course, a single exception.

Though at age 18 one may be drafted, be married, serve on a jury, sign a contract—in short, be considered an adult (not a “teen” or a “minor”) in the eyes of the law—one may not purchase or possess alcohol. Some legal privileges and responsibilities are conferred or expected at lower ages. Constitutional requirements for election to national office are more appropriately seen as exceptions to full adulthood rather than benchmarks of adulthood. There is no federal or state law stipulating the age at which one may rent a car or reserve a hotel room.

The arguments made in defense of retaining the single exception—that 18 year-olds lack maturity and judgment, and that their brains are not fully developed—insult every man and woman in uniform. Try to explain to the wounded 20 year-old returning from combat that he or she lacks the requisite maturity to purchase a beer.

There is no disputing the fact that the earlier one is exposed to alcohol, the greater the likelihood of future alcohol problems. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to show that raising the drinking age had any effect on the average age of onset (the average age at which a young person first uses alcohol). In fact, the age of onset is YOUNGER now than it was in 1984, when the age was raised. To suggest that lowering the age will increase the likelihood of dependency is to replace experience and fact with emotion and opinion.

The bottom line is very clear:  at 18 you are an adult in the eyes of the law.