Ewing 1

Amelia Ewing

Mr. Hackney

ENG 101

21 November 2017

Drink in the change

We don't hand teenagers car keys without first educating them about how to drive. Why

expect 21-year-olds to learn how to drink responsibly without learning from moderate models, at

home and in alcohol education programs? As asserted by Gabrielle Glaser, in an article posted

on New York Times, lowering the drinking age is a hot issue with many approaches and

reasonings. Countless people, aging from twelve to twenty-one, are calling for a change

regarding the legal drinking age. This issue is not only a testament to the health of Americans,

but also to their rights and responsibilities. Furthermore, many newly-turned adults are

bamboozled that being eighteen has seemingly left one thing out; the ability to buy and drink

alcohol. Teenagers see being eighteen being an age of complete independence, so why limit this

new found freedom? If they are old enough to participate in elections, take up arms and fight for

their country, and decide if they want to be a lifetime smoker, why is alcohol the last privilege

they receive? Whereas many researchers, professors, bloggers, and health care professionals

believe the drinking age at its twenty-one standing is working, I firmly believe it should be

lowered for a multitude of reasons including DUI laws, increase in tax money, leisure activity,

and more.

For one thing, not only do European countries take in more alcohol than Americans, but

they also have a lower rate of binge drinking. After being sent off to college, many young adults

are desperate for their new taste of freedom, quite literally. They scramble for any alcohol they
 Ewing 2

can find, most often bought by upperclassmen, and readily consume it illegally without any

second guesses. Not to point any fingers, but if the age was lowered like it is in European

countries, the young college students wouldnt be grabbing for bottles theyve never had ready

access to. Another key point, is that when underage college students begin drinking, they may

fall unconscious. At this point, because drinking at their age is illegal, they can not get help for

fear of getting in trouble. College students in America seem much more irresponsible because

they havent had the same freedoms as European teenagers. In the same fashion, countries with

their MLDA-or minimum legal drinking age- at 18, experience less traffic accidents and fatalities

than the United States. Likewise, [O]f the 190 countries, 61% have a drinking age of 18 or 19

years old. Its important to recognize that these statistics are directly correlated. Therefore, in

these 190 countries, their streets are safer from drunk driving accidents because they have wisely

lowered their drinking age.

In the same fashion, both accidents and fatalities are most prevalent and more common

among newly legalized drinkers, no matter the drinking age. Many naysayers against raising the

minimum drinking age believe the opposite to be true when in reality, [I]n 2009, the 21- to 24-

year-old age group had the highest percentage of drivers in fatal crashes with blood-alcohol

concentration (BAC) levels of .08 or higher. This quote from procon.org is further elaborating

on the idea of a lower drinking age will increase the number of accidents and deaths on the

streets. By all means, traffic accidents and their statistics should not be factored into this heated

debate for no matter the drinking age, there will still be newly legalized drivers causing trouble

out on the roads.

Some of the most compelling evidence on the opposing side of things fall under the list of

health concerns. Countless health studies preach that alcohol consumption interferes with a
 Ewing 3

young adults brain development. In particular, it could damage the frontal lobes which are

responsible for planning, emotional control, judgment, problem-solving, language, impulse

control, and organization. Sounds terrible, doesnt it? In actuality, drinking alcohol could help

reduce your risk of developing and dying from heart disease, reduce your risk for diabetes, and

could also lower the risk of having an ischemic stroke. Granted if that, alcohol consumption is a

moderate one. Mayo Clinic has described moderate drinking as so, Beer: 12 fluid ounces, Wine:

5 fluid ounces, Distilled spirits (80 proof): 1.5 fluid ounces. Which may seem a bit complicated,

but a simpler way to measure out moderate drinking is having one to two drinks a day. In other

words, drinking alcohol at any age has considerable pro and cons, but the good could most

definitely outweigh the bad.

Another key point, is the cost to both enforce the MLDA and to buy liquor, albeit illegal

or not. Due to a study done in 2005, the consequences of underage drinking cost taxpayers

almost $60.3 billion. Most of this drinking, as expected, is done on college campuses with the

upperclassmen providing the substance illegal to their newer classmates. If the government

lowers the minimum drinking age, it is actually more beneficial for the economy. More people

would be able to drink in bars, restaurants, and other places. Not to mention, this would lead to

an overall increase in revenue for business owners and, the government would receive more tax

money. In fact, the United States government spends more money to reinforce this seemingly

ineffective law. Moreover, when the MLDA gets lowered, the government can use that money to

overcome the fears associated with the disbursement of this law. After all, everyone fears young

adults will be reckless with this new freedom, but if the government puts the time, money, and

effort into alcohol education, then their fears would be lessened.

 Ewing 4

Prohibiting any activity actually causes that action to increase, not decrease. You can

prohibit something, but the desire for this object only increases. No matter the drinking age, the

desire, the want to consume alcohol will always be there. As a result, laws and policies

prohibiting the consumption of alcohol are killers. Ever hear of curiosity killed the cat?

Especially now, since many teenagers coming of age are not fully educated on the risks of

alcohol, they could die as a result of that shortcoming. Lowering the minimum drinking age

would be hugely beneficial to both the United States citizens and their government. It would

increase tax flow, make the roads safer, diminish the thrill of underage drinking, provide safer

college campuses, and thats not the half of it. Ultimately, a MLDA of eighteen would teach

young adults responsibility and lead to a safer country. Turning eighteen has always been the

harbinger of freedoms and responsibilities, including picking a new president, deciding if they

want to be a lifetime smoker, entering a matrimonial relationship, fighting for their country, and

chiefly being completely and one hundred percent in control of their life and health. Who are we

to deny them that freedom? With careful planning, the lowering of the drinking age could be a

seamless transition. Its time to lower the drinking age.

Works Cited:
 Ewing 5

Alcohol in Moderation: How Many Drinks Is That? Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation for

Medical Education and Research, 30 Aug. 2016, www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-

lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/alcohol/art-20044551.

Drinking Age ProCon.org. Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to a Younger Age?, 1

Sept. 2017, drinkingage.procon.org/#arguments.

Hall-Blanco, Abigail, and Anna Wavrin. Opinion: Lower the Legal Drinking Age. Newsday,

Newsday, 3 Jan. 2017, www.newsday.com/opinion/commentary/underage-

drinking-laws-kill-1.12850874.

The New York Times Company. The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Feb. 2015,

www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/02/10/you-must-be-21-to-drink/return-the-

drinking-age-to-18-and-enforce-it.