Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21?

Absurdity

It truly does seem absurt that an adult of 18 who can be drafted into compulsory military service to die for his or her (in the 21st century, who knows if the draft won't apply to females?) country cannot even console himself by sitting down legally with a cold beer or a lively shot of Jaeger. And, as always, the issue of the divorce between law and practice--'de jure' and 'de facto'--comes into play. As a young man myself, I can hardly think of any single individual who has made it to the age of 21 without a substantial drinking history. Why legislate something which is hardly taken seriously by anyone?

They can die at 18

I agree with Professor Chris. You can't really ask soldiers to die for us and then tell them they cannot have a drink in the United States. Its absurd. As we all know, they are drinking already not that it makes it right. But let's get our head out of the sand!

Makes no sense

I do not believe that Age is what makes a person an adult. Neither does their ability to serve in the Military. The law of our country has made it so that our Kids 18-21 can die in the service of our country.

Just because we allow that does not mean we should make it easier for them to kill themselves and others with a loaded bottle of Alcohol.

responsibility

I do not believe any of these regulations should be the measure of an adult, least of all drinking age. Drinking, by its very nature, is irresponsible. Yes, I am saying "responsible drinking" is an oxymoron. We drink to leave behind the responsibilities of the work day. We poison our body and alter our judgment.

Lowering the drinking age is slapping a band-aid on the problem so its legal in college, where the law isn't taken serious anyways.

Legally, age matters.

As I've read in several other comments, at 18, you're legally an adult. At that point you can serve in the military, get married, buy a house, etc. So, if you're deemed capable of handling these responsiblities by the federal and state governments, why can't you handle the responsiblity of having a drink or two? Like mmsomekid said above, "People seem to confuse drinking with getting drunk." Allowing parents to teach their kids at an early age and cracking down on drunk drivers would solve a lot of the issue.

College Presidents Should Work To Keep Students Safe

If supporters of the Amethyst Initiative had bothered to research 'binge drinking' they would have discovered that the UK’s binge drinking problem is greater than the United States’ and the UK’s drinking age is lower. No one in the UK suggests that a lower drinking age, i.e. easier access to alcohol by those who are abusing it, would result in lower abuse rates.
I want to know is why they don’t suggest raising the drinking age to 22 or 23, after most students are out of college? Its not like they're fooling anyone, they just want to hand off the problem to someone else, i.e. High School Principals, rather than deal with the problem themselves.
I strongly encourage you to read and forward the following article to college presidents: http://natchgreyes.blogspot.com/2008/08/american-college-presidents-seek-to.html

You aren't an adult unless you have adult responsibilities

Adult behavior is not defined by age, it's defined by responsibility. Our education system has created artificial adults by allowing adult freedoms to young people without applying adult consequences. Binge-drinkers in the real world have serious difficulty finding employment or maintaining relationships. These potential consequences outweigh the desire to misuse alcohol; and so, most adult binge-drinkers bear the label "alcoholic."

By contrast, a student faces few real, immediate or comprehensive consequences for binge-drinking. Universities that are serious about the safety of their students should implement no-tolerance policies for binge-drinking and its accompanying behaviors, and stop wasting time lobbying on this issue. This law is not the problem; I doubt that either changing it or allowing it to remain will address binge drinking.

Adult at 18?

Alcohol is a substance that can alter your judgment if consumed. Now let's ponder on that for a second...When teenagers at 18 decide to join the military they are thinking clearly about the consequence of their decisions. I will stress that point again, they are thinking clearly. Alcohol is no different than other drugs that are illegal such as marijuana. We can not trust teenagers from age 18-20 to drink responsibly, especially considering the fact that most of them do not have economic stability. There are so many things that can go wrong when teenagers get drunk such as drunk driving, fights and even rape. The bottom line is we can not lower the drinking age because most of the teenagers drink before the age of 21 and cause problems such as car accidents, so we can not give them further freedom and let them drink before the age of 21.

The Alcohol Issue is a Double-Sided Sword

I remain uncommitted...kind of. In my view, alcohol is a drug, like marijuana. Yet, it is treated differently by society. Because it is treated differently, we have to accept that our young people will drink. No, most are not ready at 17, 18, 19 or 20. I would argue that many who are 21 and over are not ready. Like European countries, we need to teach responsible drinking and take the glamour out of this "prohibited poison". With that in mind, it would make sense to lower the age to 18 and maintain our vigilent enforcement of laws pertaining to how people who drink affect others. Again, my drouthers would be to ban alcohol sales...along with tobacco sales. They have both been proven to be dangerous drugs.

False Assumption?

I am wandering if this is a false assumption? It really seams to me that this whole argument is centered around Binge drinking. I have read a great deal of the "Evidence" on both sides of the debate. I have made a Educated conclusion based on that reading. I am against changing the Law. It is my personal oppinion that people, young or old, are going to binge drink no matter what the law says. (From my own College years Experience) I would have to say that during my first 4 of my 12+ years in college, I never once had the experience of seeing binge drinking, not to say that it did not happen. But, What I am wandering is if they are trying to cure a symptom of a bigger problem or just make the bigger problem bigger. You do not cure disease by fixing the symptoms. You cure the disease by attacking the disease.

Drinking period puts lives at risk

It is not just a matter of off the Highway. It is every where. "Binge" driking has nothing to do with the law. That is a hypothosis formed by Amythest Initiative. In my opinion, they have taken a bunk of data, combined it, and formed a false conclusion.
As I posted earlier, the statistics for drinking in my community show that the same problem is present among those age 12-16. It does not make any more since to change the legal age from 21 to 18 than it does to change it to 16.
The law is not the root of the problem. You do not solve problems by curing a symptom of the problem. You solve the problem by going to its root. The root is the parents, plain and simple.

Enforcement of Law

Underage drinkers are afraid to call for help in a crisis in fear of getting repremanded by the police (which they are not sympathetic for) and that taking time away from law enforcement to patrol more dangerous crimes. By having the limit be 21, you are essentially criminalizing an activity that is legal to the rest of the adult world, creating even more of an incentive for underage kids to want to try it. Underage drinking will not go away, and there is a huge difference between 16 and 18. At 18, kids go off to college. Instead of living in a dream world where all rules are followed, you must acknowledge that the system in place right now is unhealthy and is more dangerous than if the drinking age was lowered and drinking was legalized at 18. You're right, the root of the problem is the parents, because they are too ignorant to realize that their children become a part of the real world once they hit 18.

Laws need well-defined goals... (Part 1 of 2)

Part 1 of 2 (cannot fit in 1000 chars)

Laws need well-defined goals that mesh with the tenets of our society AND abide by the restrictions on government found in the Constitution. Even with well-meaning goals a law is still wrong if it fails the second test.

Many of the proponents of the law cite a decrease in criminal activity that was committed while the perpetrator was intoxicated. One possible idea to communicate this fact is to treat crimes committed while intoxicated more harshly than those committed otherwise. This is similar to how a killing committed during the commission of a felony is automatically charged as first-degree murder.

Laws need well-defined goals ... (Part 2)

Part 2 of 2

Likewise, if the goal of the legislation is to protect people from harming themselves (binge drinking and dying of alcohol poisoning) then that legislation differs in principle from most other legislation in that we (society) are restricting actions that do not directly harm society. Most laws that attempt to do so are rejected by the Supreme Court for First Amendment reasons.

If you accept that American citizens are adults at the age of 18, and agree that based upon the First Amendment the government should not restrict the actions of individuals that do not pose a direct threat to society, then Legal 21 laws should be struck down as being unconstitutional. Since drinking can be done without becoming intoxicated and without committing crimes its restriction is unfairly punishing individuals who have not committed any crime.

Interesting argument

I'm not really sure why you would argue that the drinking age should be lowered from 21. What is your agenda here? Who can argue that not serving drinks in bars and restaurants and not selling beer to 18 year-olds is a bad thing?

Do 18-20 year-olds have a big problem with it? Do parents have a big problem with it? Perhaps beer sellers have a problem with it, but who else does?

This specific argument claims that the law marginalizes parents. Well I'm a parent and don't feel marginalized and I don't think I can name one other parent who would like to see the drinking age lowered.

Would I ever choose to have my 18 year-old drink a glass of wine at a family gathering? Maybe. Would I feel like I'm breaking the law? Of course not!

Strange Though

I would say that I disagree with this as well.

However, I believe that the law is the law and if it says that you cannot drink until you are 21, then you cannot drink until you are 21.

What is my responsibility to my children? Teach them that drinking at any age is not good. Teach them that there are reasons not to ever start drinking. I am a firm believer in education on every thing.

Exampl: I began at a young age teaching my children about guns and the responsibilty of owning and using them. Why? Because are a family of hunters. They now have a respect for them and as a result, know how to properly handle them.

Bogus logic

Even if "one study estimates that only two in every 1,000 instances of underage drinking results in arrest or citation," that forms no basis for lowering the drinking age. Only a very small fraction of inmpaired drivers are arrested or cited. Since drivers in their teens and early 20s have the highest rates of automobile accidents, including fatal accidents, does it really make sense to make alcohol legally and much more readly available to a large proportion of this high-risk element?
Having failed to meaningfully address the scandalous on-campus binge-drinking problem, the academes of the Amethyst Project now point to what is in large measure a consequence of their own institutionalized failure as justification for abandonment of a standard that most studies show to have been beneficial in reducing death and serious injury on the highways. This is not an "egghead" approach; it is just a boneheaded approach!

False Logic

My question is this: How in the world does the legal age of 21 erode respect for LAW? That is like saying that drugs being illegal erodes respect for LAW. That is like saying having a speed limit erodes respect for law.
My belief is that respect for Law is something that should be taught at home but is left out in our society. When our Children see us not respecting the law, they will learn that and as a result not respect it.
People are going to break the law whether it is 18 or 21 for drinking, just the same as they do for under-age driving, smoking, etc. Changing the Law won't change that.

What does it matter?

What does it matter if America is out of step with the world? We do give answer to any other country in the world. We only answer to the other citizens in this country. I really do not feel that we should step into line with what other nations are doing. Our laws are our laws. They have been made for a reason. They work here for us. That said, I say, who cares what the rest of the world thinks. Leave it the way it is.

Power should lie on parents, not the government.

We don't have to be in step with the rest of the world. All that's being said here is that we should rely on the parents to teach their children to be responsible drinkers. If the drinking age were lower, this could happen. But, since parents must wait until their kids are in college and, most-likley, away from home, it is impossible to properly teach them responsible drinking habits without breaking the law. Parents shouldn't have to make their children leave home without the proper tools needed to take care of themselves in a place where alcohol is the most available.

Scotland Considers Raising Drinking Age to 21

September 11, 2008

Scotland Considers Raising Drinking Age to 21

AFP news service recently reported that Scotland officials are considering increasing the drinking age from 18 to 21, after two trails showed a decrease in alcohol-related incidents among young people as a result of increasing the drinking age. The news comes as the nation discusses the Amethyst Initiative, which seeks to revisit the debate on the legal drinking age and encourages lawmakers to lower it.

Alcohol-related deaths have more than doubled in Scotland in the last 15 years, while 40 percent of 15-year-olds and 15 percent of 13-year-olds surveyed by the government said they had drunk alcohol in the previous week. The announcement was made by Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond, who said the government was considering banning alcohol sales to under-21s to make "the streets safer and communities better" and counter mounting drinking problems.

In the AFP article, Salmond was quoted as saying: "The practical evidence is that restriction, that protection for young people actually helps reduce violent incidents, protects people and makes the streets safer and communities better.”

New Zealand has first-hand experience on the negative effects of lowering the drinking age. In a 2005 New Zealand-based study, researchers found that lowering the drinking age resulted in a 12 percent increase in alcohol-involved crashes among 18- to 19-year-olds and a 14 percent increase among 15- to 17-year-olds. In addition, hospitalization for road traffic crashes among 15- to 17-year-olds went up by 25 percent after the drinking age was lowered.

An Ounce of History

I had a professor, Dr. Dwight Compton who often said, "An ounce of history is worth a pound of reasoning." The history of the prohibition movement was that alcohol was then a right and alcoholism rates were at a historical high. With no known treatment except for a deep religious experience it seemed like the best choice for all. They had the problem one/half right, this issue was alcohol, but what about the role of the individual and the environment where they lived? Prohibition did work for a period of time. But it was a prevention model that would ultimately be doomed. Delaying the age of use should not be linked to the Prhibition movement. We must reduce alcohol related problems by finding the right prevention model that works in the 21st Century.

At What Cost? (Part 1)

Part 1/2

Ever since 9/11 the government has been impinging upon the freedoms of individuals in order to protect them; even going as far as to illegally detain persons of interest without due process. The supreme court has ruled such actions unconstitutional. I posted another comment with a more general argument but to specifically address this claim I post again.

First, I'll take as being true the assertion that more actual accidents will occur if we lower the drinking age (I'll not consider the degree, makeup, or results of those accidents). This is a desirable goal but it exists in a vacuum. If the number of alcohol poisonings and rapes decrease at the same time then total crime may very well decrease. You also then have to value the relative severity of each crime. Much of the current debate has been started by the educational sector that is more directly affected by the later statistics as opposed to the former and they are justified in their bias toward those crimes.

At What Cost? (Part 2)

Part 2 of 2

Second, if there is an increase of 5,000 in accidents but 30,000 more persons begin drinking and 20,000 of those who already drink start to do so responsibly, because it is not longer "forbidden fruit", then there a net "gain" to our society. Gain in that we are no longer prohibiting adults from expressing themselves in a socially neutral way.

Drinking attitudes

An occasional drink isn't the same as binging or drunk driving, so how about raising the driving age? A higher drinking age cuts down on abuse, so why not raise it to 40 or 50? Or join the army or vote at 21?
Going from a total ban and then at 12:01 on a birthday one can drink as much as they want sets kids up to overindulge because birthdays are celebrated. Drinking attitudes matter more than one's age.
Gradually introduce it with a limit of 1 wine glass with a PARENT and MEAL at 17 as in Europe, 19 for low alcohol beverages and 21 to purchase. Close loopholes allowing FAKE IDs good enough to fool some police.
I have stories of kids sneaking into the nightclub I worked at when the drinking age went from 18 to 21. I chose to cut down on my drinking 20 years ago to only once a week after seeing so many people drink too much.
How about an ad of Jenna Bush's fake ID saying - Many of our children flaunt the drinking laws. - (I worked with the policeman that confiscated it.)

Laws generate revenue, not solve problems

Data is flawed. I am a Former State Trooper, worked the night shift my career and arrested alot of DUI suspects, sometime the same person multiple times. A DUI is the following:

1. Bad luck (the ratio of police to drunks on the road is flawed)

2. Good luck (if you have the skills to detect "truly" drink drivers)

3. Skilled (if you can stumble into mud and make it a gold mine)

Kids will drink and DO DRUGS (yes do drugs), the laws DON'T make a difference. There are establishments that sell to minors (and eventually get caught, but another replaces it)

SOLUTION: www.18or21.com

Everything is a tradeoff

Banning alcohol for all ages would save even more lives....or would it. There are always tradeoffs between safety and abilities. If no one drove then there would be no driving deaths. We as responsible citizens(voting age adults) make tradeoffs between ability to get places quickly and lives lost. We don't often think of it that way but if no one drove then no DUI. We need to find a reasonable tradeoff.

Flawed study

The sited study failed to take into account the greatly increased Educational campaign that coincided with the increase in the drinking age during the 80's. It also failed to take into account improved safety standards of automobiles as far as I could determine. As such the study is useless. This is a problem with all studies based purely on statistical analysis. All such studies are suspect.

Opposition

Whose to say that the reason there has been less deaths and drunk driving accidents is because of the age being 21? I agree with your statement, that since the drinking age has been raised there has been less incidences resulting from alcohol, its inevitable. However whose to say that this is a direct result is from the age. Driving while inebriated is indeed a problem in our nation and the government has realised that. Hense the abundance of surfacing programs in schools that make children aware of the dangers of drunken nights, and the fact that a car is a 2500 lb bullet waiting to take lives and mixing alcohol with driving is not smart. The youth of today doesn't abide by the 21 law, every friday and Saturday night in every city in America thousands of under age kids purchase and consume alcohol so its really not a matter of keeping kids from drinking until they're twenty one, but an issue of educating these kids so they don't make unintellegent life decisions.

Guns vs. Beer

So if a Teen's brain is not fully developed, why are they allowed to fight in wars for this country? A gun is much more dangerous than a beer is.

So then..

So then forbid the consumption of any alcohol until people reach their mid-twenties. This would include wine as part of religious ceremony, etc.

Sounds like Nazis

The Nazis also offered "scientific" arguments as an excuse for violating people's rights. Some Holocaust victims remember the signs on the bier halls, "Juden Verboten" No scientific studies can establish that the United States of America ought not to be a free country, with liberty and justice for all. Scientific studies aside, the politicians I voted against have no right to tell me what I can and cannot drink.

Military

If a person's brain does not stop developing until his or her early to mid-20s. And drinking alcohol can seriously damage long- and short- term growth processes. And if damage from alcohol during this time can be long-term and irreversible, then what about people who are 18 being able to join the military?

If I can choose to join the military where I could be:
- injured physically (lose a leg, arm, etc.)
- mentally (post traumatic stress disorder, etc.)
- tortured by the enemy
- missing in combat, potentially never seeing family and friends again
- killed in combat, definitely never seeing family and friends again
Then I don't see why I can't choose to drink responsibly once I turn 18. In my eyes, I would think being tortured, physically losing body parts, or dying in combat is a lot worse then drinking responsibly.

If the government decides that we can responsibly choose to join the military or not at the age of 18, then I would say that the government should also let us responsibly choose whether or not to drink alcohol.

Nor is anyone else's...

1. A brain never stops developing. Alcohol is bad for ALL brains.

2. The law does not stop teens from drinking because no one in their right mind takes it seriously.

Stats Needed

Prior to the voting age change, some states had drinking ages of less than 21. NYS allowed the consumption of any alcoholic beverage from the age of 18. Some states allowed beer only. And some of those states allowed 3.2 beer only.

What needs to be done is a study of those states that went from an age of 21 to 18, and only those states. Compare the accidents, arrests and fatalities, both before and after the age change, of those between the ages of 18 and 21 with the rest of the driving population on a per mile basis. Also compare the statistics of the 18 to 21 age group under the two different drinking limits as a raw number. Consideration should also be given to cross border drinking, ie NJ to NY

Until I see some statistics like this, I'm not going to be swayed by theories.

It's not the drinking age...

It's also true that standards for automobile safety have increased significantly, in terms of how their manufactured. Laws about wearing seat belts are now enforced strictly as are laws about speeding. It is not the drinking age that has changed the decrease in highway deaths, but the other laws.

Maybe if people weren't allowed to get off with DUI's then they wouldn't drink and drive at all. In some places you don't even get your license suspended, just a ticket. Make the consequences of drinking and driving more serious and people are less likely to do it. To most people, the most serious consequence, potentially taking one's own or someone else's life, isn't something that is really considered. Having punishments that are harder to think "It'll never happen to me" about may help.

Shouldn't be a shock

that alcohol related arrests or accidents were on the rise when (for example) the drinking age changes were staggered chronologically. In DC the age was 21 while it was 18 in Baltimore for a time. Naturally, the 18-20 set were driving into Baltimore, getting drunk, and coming back to DC, turning Route 1 (the old route from College Park to Baltimore) into a carpile. Oversight like this, coupled with a total lack of responsibility-based education, definitely had something to do with it in my mind.

The evidence you cite doesn't show what you say it does

This site really needs a footnoting function. Most of the studies you cite in your argument are not available online. But one is: Hedlund JH, Ulmer RG, Preusser DF. "Determine Why There are Fewer Young Alcohol-Impaired Drivers." Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 2001. DOT HS 809 348.

It does indeed conclude that the incidence of fatal accidents by underage drunk drivers has gone down over time, but it does not conclude that change was due to the increased drinking age laws (or the zero tolerance laws). The study compares the changes in the accident rate in the US with the accident rate in Canada (with 18-19 drinking age laws) and found that the rates are virtually the same in both countries. To quote the report:

"Canadian reductions in youth drinking and driving, measured both by fatal crash data and by surveys, followed virtually the same pattern as in the United States. But the Canadian reduction was not due to laws directed at youth: the drinking age did not change during this time, and zero tolerance laws were implemented after the reduction had occurred. This means that the changes must have resulted from some combination of the difficult-to-assess educational and motivational programs and from other factors outside of traffic safety. This conclusion suggests that a substantial portion of the reduction in the United States also resulted from these same causes."
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/FewerYoungDrivers/iv__what_caused.htm #g.%20canadian

Well, they don't mix most of the time...

After serving in the US Army,I DO think that if you're brave enough to enlist and possibly die, you should be able to drink. One problem is that sometimes, younger soldiers can't handle their liquor. That said, the military is equipped to deal with the problem. I've seen underage soldiers get hammered in the barracks, get stupid, and spend a night with the MP's mopping floors, puking the whole time. When they see the sun come up and have to go straight to PT and then a full day's work, most quickly learn it's not worth it. Furthermore, soldiers look after one another, and often stop these things from happening. I have bought beer for underage soldiers who I deemed mature enough to drink, but I drank with them, and kept an eye on them.The military deals with alcohol abuse in ways that I feel are at once strict and constructive. If they will take on the intense responsibilty that entails fighting for America, they should be able to drink. The military will take care of its own.

Factual Inaccuracy

Just wanted to point out that it's no longer true that you can't rent a car until the age of 25. Drivers under 25 have to pay more, but you can rent a car as young as 18.

Poor citation

I'm irked by this posting. The claim is made in bold type that according to the AMA far less alcohol is needed to get a "teenager" (someone 13 years old?) drunk than someone in his or her 20's. But no citation to any AMA publication is provided nor way I able to find any backup for the claim.

I suspect that the full story is not being told here. Of course there is a metabolic difference between a 90 lb 14-year-old and the same person at 25, after a growth spurt and years at a desk job. But it isn't clear to me why that fact would show that moderate drinking is unreasonably dangerous for that person at, say, 19.

As for the graded rights, the ones to look at are those relating to bodily integrity and personal health decisions. Those all come in at 18 or younger, this one should as well if the effect on health is the primary concern. (Anyway the observations about car/hotel rentals are individual business decisions, not the law.)

Trainer of Alcoholic Beverage Servers and Sellers

I have served as a contracted trainer for Kentucky Alcoholic Beverage Control's STAR Curriculum for Responsible Server Training for the past five years. This was due to a city ordinance mandating that all vendors be trained every three years. Through a careful study reviewing drunk driving records and underage citations and onsite investigative aide inspections, this educational program (as well as other education interventions like TIPS, Safe Serve and Bar Code) have helped reduce down the underage drinking and drunk driving.

Environmental strategies like social host ordinances, keg registration ordinances, mandatory alcoholic beverage server training ordinances and support of law enforcement and the judiciary would be much more impactive than following the "normative model" advocated by the College/University presidents.

For more information, you may contact Sandra Watts at Kentucky Alcoholic Beverage Control Training Branch - (502) 564-4850.

Poor Facts

First of all, the statement that half of the people arrested for drunk driving came from bars proves absolutely nothing. This means that it's a coin toss as to whether a drunk person is coming from a bar or a private setting. Well where else do you think they are coming from? All this should tell you is that people who decide to drive drunk will do it whether or not they are at a commercial establishment, at home, or at a friend's house.

As for the 3/4 of 8th graders say that it is "fairly easy" to get alcohol statement, this should raise many questions in anyone's mind who comes across it. If adults are truly stupid enough to give or sell alcohol to an 8th grader, this doesn't say much for the argument by PIRE that adult's minds are any more developed than teenagers, much less 8th graders. I don't think I have ever heard of or seen an 8th grader who looks over 18, much less 21. I find it hard to believe that this fact did not come from an altered or severely warped survey of Junior High students.

The fact is that bars and other commercial establishments that serve alcohol are guaranteed to either have a sober staff or be shut down very quickly. This results in a much higher chance that if something goes wrong, there will be someone with a clear mind to do what needs to be done to help the intoxicated individual.

My own experience