Eighteen is the Age a Teen is considered an Adult:

And yet they are treated like children when it comes to alcohol.

By David Pearson

The Drinking age in this country reflects the ideology that eighteen year olds are not adults, but in reality they are. They have all the same responsibilities and rights as twenty-one year olds. Eighteen year olds can smoke, vote, defend and die for this country at war, drive, pay taxes, get married and legally gain their independence from their parents. The only difference is that they can not drink at the age of eighteen. This difference was not always around. After the repeal of Prohibition, almost all States passed laws which designated the age of twenty-one as the minimum age for consuming and the purchasing of all alcoholic beverages. However the ages were lowered by twenty-nine states to the ages of eighteen, nineteen and twenty, between the years of 1970 and 1975. These changes transpired at a coinciding time as the legal age to vote was being lowered. The lowering of age of the drinking age came with many complaints and concerns. This led the Government in a crusade to have the drinking age returned to twenty-one. According to the 21st amendment of the U.S. Constitution, each State had the rights to police alcohol and that the Federal Government had no say in each states legal drinking age. To get around this the Federal Government passed the Uniform Drinking Age Act. This act instated a decrease in Federal highway funding for all states that did not increase the drinking age back to the age of twenty-one. With the threat of losing money all states returned the drinking age back to twenty-one by the year of 1988 (Toomey).

The Drinking age should be lowered again, once and for all because eighteen year olds have all the same responsibilities that twenty-one year olds do; because there is not much difference between a twenty-one year old and an eighteen year old; because children of all ages drink in Europe; and because it will result in less binge drinking and less deaths. The people that oppose this claim say that it will result in more deaths and more skipped classes because eighteen year olds are too irresponsible and immature. This is not the case at all; these are just crass reasons that are being utilized to oppress eighteen year olds, so that they will not be taken seriously. As Michael and Margaret Smith say in their article Treat students as adults: set the drinking age at 18, not 21 ô[W]ithholding alcohol belittles their status [and] Illegality also enhances the social or chic aspects of drinking.ö This is why the Uniform Drinking Age Act should be repealed so that all States have the right to lower the legal drinking age if they choose to do so. They could chose to lower the age all at once, gradually or even on a trial basis. By revoking the Uniform Drinking Age Act each State will be able to choose the path they want to take. Lowering the drinking age is prudent, and should be taken seriously for four reasons.

The first reason is that eighteen year olds have so many other responsibilities. They can drive, vote, smoke, join the military, get married, gain their independence, as well as pay taxes. By the age of eighteen every one has those rights, yet they can not drink. In a letter to the editor, Joseph Hennessey quotes Father Neuhaus as saying that "[I]f they're old enough to defend our country ... they're old enough to drink responsibly." And this could not be any closer to the truth. These eighteen year olds are entrusted with a weapon of destruction and killing, and yet they are legally prohibited from holding a bottle of beer, a glass of wine, or a shot of liquor. This doesnÆt make sense at all, how can they be responsible to defend and die for their country, but not be responsible enough to drink alcohol.

The same goes for smoking. Over 400,000 thousand people die in this country due to smoking related deaths (Dr.Donnica.com), and yet eighteen year olds can legally smoke. According to the Robert F. Kazimour Transportation Alcohol and Drug Policy, ô125,000 people die each year due to alcohol-related conditions or accidents.ö That number is 3.2 times lower then those who die from smoking each year in the United States, and yet smoking is perfectly legal for eighteen year olds, but alcohol is off limits. This is complete and udder nonsense to allow a substance that kills more people as opposed to a substance that is the result of less deaths. Some say that alcohol is an instant killer, and that tobacco products only kill over time. Does this mean it is okay to kill someone as long as it takes awhile as opposed to making it quick? It is ridiculous to think that any way of dying whether it is short or long is considered a better way to die then the other. In both cases they are killed because of a substance, and in the end that is all it should come down to.

The second reason the drinking age should be lowered is that there is not much of a difference between eighteen and twenty-one year olds. Most people that fall into this age group go to college, are in the military, or are in the work force. This group of adults is always seen as one entity and not as separate factions until it comes to alcohol. According to an article found in the New Jersey Law Journal it was common law that at the age of twenty-one a person was considered an adult, but times have changed and now the age one is considered a full fledged citizen is eighteen. When people talk about parameters and demographics 18-21 is put together as one group whether it deals with interests, TV ratings, or even the United States census. They are seen as equal and with the same responsibilities and rights, and yet eighteen year olds can not drink.

A third reason the legal drinking age should be lowered to eighteen is because in Europe and other areas of the world children of all ages can drink, and they do so responsibly. Andrew Stuttaford states that ôAdult disapproval magically transforms that margarita from a simple pleasure into an especially thrilling act of rebellion.ö And this is true. In Europe, parents do not force this view of negativity of alcohol on their children and this is why Stuttaford said ôI went through adolescence without feeling any need to drink a pint to make a point. My drinks were for the right reasons.ö This European view of alcohol is what keeps the notion of drinking positive, and the irresponsibility nonexistent. By lowering the drinking age to twenty-one we in part embrace this European view, and this will lead to more responsible drinking, and less binge drinking.

Less binge drinking and more responsible drinking is the fourth reason the legal drinking age should be lowered to the age of eighteen. Wechler states in his findings from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study that ôUnderage students drank alcohol less frequently but were more likely to drink to excess when they drank.ö And that this leads to, and is ôassociated with serious negative consequences, including academic difficulties; antisocial behavior; health and psychosocial problems; high-risk sexual behavior; and other risky behavior, such as drinking and driving.ö When binge drinking is involved those who donÆt drink are victims too from physical, verbal, and sexual abuse. Note that these are effects of binge drinking, and that the study showed that students drank like this due to the unavailability to alcohol. This means that if eighteen year olds have the opportunity to purchase and drink alcohol legally then they will not feel the pressure to drink as much as they can when they have the opportunity. This will result in less binge drinking, and less consequences of binge drinking.

Skeptics argue that by lowering the drinking age the drunken driving deaths will increase. This argument can be supported, and disputed by multiple studies. Alexander Wagenaar Compiled 102 analyses of the relationship of the drinking age to drunk driving. Wagenaar found that ôOf the 102 analyses, only 2 found a positive relationship between the legal drinking age and traffic crashes.ö These findings show that this claim, which was made by the majority of Americans, is irrelevant and can not be used to prevent the lowering of the drinking age to the age of eighteen. The claim that the lower the drinking age the more drunk driving accident occur is the back bone of all protests against the lowering of the drinking age. If they are worried about drunk driving then prohibition should just be reinstated, and that would solve the problem (Stuttaford). Instead of instating prohibition, drivers that are over sixty-five could have their licenses revoked, would this not also prevent auto accidents (Stuttaford)? Robert Kaestner a writer for Contemporary Economic Policy found that there is no connection between the minimum drinking age and the consumption of alcohol for males and females between the ages of seventeen and twenty. In the studies he observed one showed that fewer females drank, but it had no effect on males, whereas the other study showed the complete opposite. If the drinking age being set at twenty-one has no effect on how much underage drinkers consume, then how does it deter drunk driving accidents? The simple explanation is that the fall in drunk driving accidents can be explained by programs held in school showing the effects of drinking and driving. Another explanation can be that underage drinkers are more responsible then they were before. This show of accountability should be more then enough to prove that eighteen year olds should be able to have the right to drink.

Another claim made by the opposing side is that eighteen year olds are too immature and irresponsible. This claim could not be further from the truth. An eighteen year old can obtain a gun, get married, pay taxes, and vote. They can not be either irresponsible or immature if they are bestowed these rights. Electing the leader of the free world is a greater responsibility then drinking alcohol and yet eighteen year olds can vote, and not enjoy a refreshing alcoholic beverage. What parents do not understand is that alcohol should be taught to their kids as ôàa part of growing up, as something to be savored within a family, rather than guzzled down in some rite to mark passage from that family.ö(Stuttaford) Most parents teach their kids the negative effects of alcohol and how it is bad for them, and that way of teaching results in kids drinking. If kids are brought up knowing how and what to drink, then this will lead to a safer drinker. Eighteen year olds are more mature and more responsible then many give them credit for, the only reason drinking is considered unruly is because to many people have ôprohibitionist feverö and that they base none of their reasons on scientific truths (Stuttaford).

A third and lesser claim is that if the drinking age is lowered less college student will attend class because of a rise in drinking. This claim is ridiculous. As stated earlier, the availability to alcohol will increase, but it will lead to less binge drinking. It is common sense that with less binge drinking comes more casual drinking. An example would be to have a beer at dinner. This one beer will not affect someone from attending class. Whereas a binge drinker who is passed out can not attend class because he or she drank all they could because this was their one opportunity to drink. By enforcing the clich that eighteen year olds should not be drinking, it pushes more of them to partake in this forbidden act. So by removing ôthe worst law in the books.ö as Jonathan bush, uncle of George W. Bush calls it, this country will be servicing eighteen to twenty year olds by allowing them to drink safely instead of dangerously. Along these same lines Karin Lee Scrivo, who researches and writes for CQ Researcher found that ôSome college administrators believe a lower drinking age will help colleges monitor student drinking and promote moderate behavior.ö Why would college administrators say that if they would think it would result in more students skipping out on classes? This is proof that this claim by the opposition is week, and has no weight on the scale that will determine this debate on whether the drinking age should be lowered or not.

Now there are those who ask if the Uniform Drinking Age Act is repealed, then how would the drinking age be determined. Each State would hold the right to keep the drinking age at twenty-one, or lower it to the minimum age of 18. Each individual State would choose to lower the age by one, two or three years. If the State chooses to reduce the age limit to legally drink alcohol to eighteen, then they would have two choices. The State could lower the age a year at a time over a three year span, or they could lower the age limit to eighteen at once. If the State chooses to lower the age it does not have to be for a permanent period, it could be on a trial basis only. Once the Uniform Drinking Age Act is repealed all States should at least try to lower the drinking age so that the public can see how responsible and mature eighteen year olds can be when it comes to alcohol.

Eighteen year olds are considered adults when it comes to marriage, voting, military service, taxes, driving, owning property, and smoking cigarettes, yet when it comes to alcohol, eighteen year old adults are perceived as children. This false perception is the cause of the negative opinion that eighteen year olds are not responsible and immature. This negative opinion is what maintains the idea that eighteen year olds should not be able to drink. By denying eighteen year olds the right to drink alcohol this country is withholding eighteen year old adults one of their basic freedoms. There is no reason not to have the legal drinking age set at the age of eighteen. All of the oppositionÆs claims are weak and could not stand on their own if it were not for all the narrow minded parents who are pulling the weight. Eighteen year olds have every right to consume and purchase alcohol, and they should be given this right. Eighteen year old adults need to realize that drinking is not a sign of independence and assertion of personal freedom but instead it is a characteristic of adult life. The only way they will learn is if they are brought up learning this, and only if they are allowed to drink when they become an adult. By withholding alcohol, this country is withholding eighteen year oldsÆ freedoms, and maintaining the idea that underage drinking is the ôcoolö thing to do. The parents in this Country need to wake up and realize that they are not helping, but only hurting their eighteen year olds by not letting them drink alcohol. As Andrew Stuttaford said ôIt is a ludicrous and demeaning law, but à we have come to expect [that] in a land where the prohibitionist impulse has never quite died.ö This æprohibitionist impulseÆ must die, and the age of when eighteen year olds could drink must be reborn.

Works Cited Page

Hennessey, Joseph. ôDefending the drinking ageö First Things: a Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life (November 2002)

Kaestner, Robert. ôA Note on the effect of minimum drinking age laws on youth alcohol consumptionö Contemporary Economic Policy (July 2000)

Scrivo, Karen. ôDrinking on Campusö CQ researcher (March 20, 1998)

Smith, Michael and Margaret Smith, ôTreat students as adults: set the drinking age at 18, not 21ö The Chronicle of higher Education (March 1999)

Stuttaford, Andrew. ôDe-demonizing rum: WhatÆs wrong with æunderageÆ drinking?ö National Review (June 2001)

Toomey, Traci, Carolyn Rosenfeld and Alexander Wagenaer. ôThe Minimum Drinking age: History, effectiveness, and ongoing debate.ö Alcohol Health and Research world (fall 1996)

Wagenaer, Alexander and Traci Toomey. ôEffects of minimum drinking age laws: Review and analyses of the literature from 1960 to 2000ö Journal of studies on alcohol (March 2002)

Wechler, Henry, Jae Eun Lee, Toben Nelson, and Meichun Kuo. ôUnderage college students' drinking behavior, access to alcohol, and the influence of deterrence policies; Findings from the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study.ö Journal of American College Health (march2002)

RFK Transportation Alcohol and Drug Policy Revised August 28, 1998 RFK Transportation 1998, 2000

ôUnderage Drinkingö New Jersey Law Journal (June 2001)

www.DrDonnica.com