When it comes to the topic of drinking, there are so many different views, opinions, sides and arguments to it that it can get a little confusing sometimes. But all the confusion revolves around one central idea, and that one single thing is the minimum legal drinking age. For the past 32 years the minimum legal drinking age has been set to 21 years old. That means you can not purchase or consume alcohol unless you are 21 years of age or older. But my question is why 21, what makes 21 years old the most responsible and most reasonable age to consume alcohol. If you can join the military, get married and even vote at the age of 18, why is the legal minimum drinking age not 18? According to the government you are responsible enough to be an adult at 18, but somehow that does not constitute being responsible enough to drink?

Ever since the 1920's, the government has been trying to control drinking. In the 1960's the voting age was lowered to 18 due to the young men who were ineligible to vote but were forced to go to war. Along with the voting age the drinking age was set to 18 as well. For the years following it was put into each individual states hand on what their drinking age is. But due to an increase is vehicle fatalities due to alcohol consumption another change was needed. On July 17 1984, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was passed. It was an act to encourage a uniform minimum drinking age of 21, to combat driving under the influence and to improve law enforcement by providing incentive to states who would abide. If you did not follow this act, then the government would take away its annual federal highway apportionment by 10%. By 1988 all 50 of the United States had changed their minimum legal drinking age to 21. 

When looking at the drinking age and why it is 21, almost all arguments and focus seem to be on drinking and driving. While yes there has been a decrease in the number of vehicle fatalities due to drunk driving, the minimum legal drinking age is not the sole factor. According to Zach Messitte, a writer from Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel and president of Ripon College, there are other factors that have influences the decrease.  Messitte states, "But in the past 30 years, improved car safety, mandatory use of seat belts, air bags and stiffer penalties for driving under the influence also have contributed to better safety on the roads." (Messitte) Over the year's traffic laws and car safety are constantly changing and updating to create the safest roads possible. The decrease in the number of fatalities is definitely related to this factor as well. Another reason we can not just look at the minimum legal drinking age is because people under the age of 21 are not the only people who are getting into these accidents due to drunk driving. People of all ages are putting themselves in dangerous situations and choosing to drink and drive. The people from Choose Responsibility, a non profit organization created to help create awareness and bring to light the real effects of the minimum legal drinking age, have even states "The increase in the minimum legal drinking age has saved 23,733 lives in the United States; however, this remarkably precise estimate is of total lives saved, not lives saved under 21."(?) If they want to prove the effect of the minimum legal drinking age and lives saved the number of under 21 lives should have been listed, but it was not. Showing that the correlation between the two ideas is not as grand as people want you to believe. 

Throughout the years there have been multiple studies conducted and research collected about the relationship between the minimum legal drinking age and traffic accident fatalities due to drinking. Around the time the drinking age was first raised to 21, the American Journal of Public Health initiated a random telephone survey to identify and assess the laws impact on teenage drinking, drinking and driving, and non fatal accident involvement in the states of New York and Massachusetts. The researchers collected data from before the law was enacted and then twice annually in the years following the change. The analysis of the survey and research brought about several points that act as evidence that the minimum legal drinking age does not reduced drunk driving. Specifically looking at single vehicle nighttime fatal accidents the article says " ... a 5 per cent drop in such accidents in Massachusetts during the two years after the law compared to the preceding three years. In New York, such accidents rose 19 per cent after the law." (Hingson, etc.)  If this law was purposely put in place to lower the rate of traffic fatalities, then how do they justify its means when in New York it did the complete opposite? While slight positive results were exemplified in Massachusetts, there is not enough evidence to constitute the justification of this law. The article's research clearly states "When the average of teenage fatal accidents during the three years preceding the law was compared to the average of the two years following the law, Massachusetts dropped 1 percent while New York rose 5 percent." (Messitte) When looking at those numbers, in no way do those prove to be sound proof to show the minimum legal drinking age of 21 helps prevent fatal traffic accidents. 

If the true motive is to decrease the rate of drunk driving there are other, more effective ways to do so. Messitte, President of Ripon College, believes that it is all about creating harsher punishments. In explaining what is wrong with the system he states "First time offenders are often let off with little more than a ticket, and it is not uncommon for multiple repeat offenders to still be driving and endangering others on the roads long after their licenses should have been permanently revoked." (Messitte) A simple solution to curb drunk driving could be stricter enforcement and harsher punishment. If people know how high the stakes are they will think twice before getting behind the wheel after having something to drink. 

The minimum legal drinking age seems to cause more problems then it solves.  All over the United States underage drinking is still present and occurring. In fact, some experts believe that the minimum drinking age of 21 is contributing to an increase in excessive and extreme drinking, especially in teens. This law was created to reduce and eliminate drinking in the younger ages, but so far all it has done is driven the drinking underground and behind closed doors. Creating a very dangerous, risky and uncontrollable situation and atmosphere. College campuses have the highest population for this type of underground and risky behavior. John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College, argues that lowering the drinking age will make kids safer. "McCardell says the law has created a dangerous culture of irresponsible and reckless behavior, unsupervised binge and extreme drinking..." (Streeter) If you allow the 18-20 year olds to drink, because they are going to keep doing it anyway, a safe environment can be created and provided. Thus eliminating the need for activities geared toward getting drunk as fast as possible such as binge drinking, pre-gaming, and drinking games. With the minimum legal drinking age keeping these activities alive "The surgeon general says more than 3,000 Americans under the age of 21 are dying every year of alcohol related causes other then driving including homicide, suicide and alcohol poisoning." (Streeter) 3,000 teenagers lives, just this year, would still be alive if a safe environment was available to them to consume alcohol. We, as a society, need to look at all the facts not just the ones that apply to our opinion. John McCardell is not the only one who looks at all the facts. A group of both former and current university and college presidents have created the Amethyst Group. All of these presidents share a common belief that students would be safer if the minimum legal drinking age was lowered to 18. They say "the federal minimum drinking age has contributed to an epidemic of binge drinking, as well as other excessive, unhealthy drinking habits on their campuses." (?) One of the major concerns of this group is that students will refrain from seeking the help they need while engaged in this unhealthy and dangerous habits. In many cases all over the United States, teenagers have died due to drinking too much and no one got them the help they needed due to the fear of getting in trouble themselves. A young boy pledging a fraternity at the University of Colorado was found dead laying on a couch after taking 15-20 shots one night. It took his friends that were with him 9 hours before someone finally called for help. When talking to the 911 operator one of his friends said "We got a guy who's passed out. He drank way too much and we found him this morning." No mention of the fact they they were in fact the ones to leave him on the couch alone that previous night after partaking in the same activity. This boy's death was preventable, but because his so called friends did not want to get in trouble for drinking underage, he was left to die of alcohol poisoning. Around college campuses underage drinking is going to happen regardless of what enforcement is laid down, but in order to avoid dangerous and irresponsible drinking the Amethyst group believes the only solution is the minimum legal drinking age must be lowered. If lowering the drinking age will create a safer environment for teenagers to drink and be responsible, why not consider it?

When examining the difference between a responsible drinker and an irresponsible drinker there are a lot of factors that come into play. Two of the most important ideas are the role of parents and education. In any person's life the most influential figures are their parents. Your life is set up and pre determined to how your parents raise you and in what they allow you to do verses what they don't. When it comes to drinking some parents choose to allow their children to drink while under 21, while others are strictly against it. In a research study conducted on parent's about underage drinking, those who chose to let their children drink have very sound reasoning's. They stated "a sense of inevitability, the fear that being too strict could harm the relationship with the teen, and the fear that forbidding drinking alcohol would lead to teens rebelling and possibly endangering themselves." (?) These parents aren't bad parents for letting their children drink, they are responsible. Parents are teaching teenagers how to drink in moderation, how to minimize drunkenness, how to handle and appreciate certain types of alcohol but overall how to drink responsibly. In letting them experience alcohol in a safe environment not only are these teens exposed but they are prepared for outside influences, the biggest one being college. It was proven in a study that "parents providing the first drink to adolescents reduced subsequent alcohol-related risks compared to those who got their first drink from other sources." Parents providing alcohol in a safe environment takes away the risk of alcohol poising, binge drinking, sexual assault or any other alcohol related risk. One parent said "Those kids that get drunk in college, if they had one beer with their dad or mom when they were 15 or 16, they wouldn't be doing that." In teaching kids that drinking is casual, enjoyable and done in moderation they learn to appreciate alcohol and therefore don't go and overuse it or abuse it in the future. A safe controlled environment is crucial to teaching a teenager how to drink safely and responsibly.

While the minimum legal drinking age probably wont be changing anytime soon in the near future, neither will the fact that teenagers are going to continue partaking in underage drinking. Clearly enforcement has not been working due to the fact that its almost an impossible law to enforce. Mark Beckner, the chief of police in Boulder Colorado is very familiar with this situation. Being in charge of a college town he deals with drinking every day and said "We're not in a situation where we can stop it. The best we can do is contain it." When stricter enforcement was tested they quickly came to realize that they were just pushing teenagers further underground. So clearly, a new method was needed. The Amethyst Initiative, specifically John McCardell, believes that a lower drinking age along with alcohol education would be successful. By this he means "mandatory classes in high school that would include the chemistry of alcohol, the physical consequences of abuse, and sitting in on AA sessions. Passing an exam would result in a license to drink." McCardell's belief in this system is not crazy. It has been proven that interactive education programs have great success in educating and altering drinking habits. Once you are well aware of what alcohol can do to you and all the risk associated with it you should be allowed to drink, not have to wait all the way until you are 21.  The government expects all of a sudden once you turn 21 you're suppose to know how to drink responsible when technically you haven't been able to drink at all before this. Education is the key to creating safe responsible adults, especially when it comes to drinking. Gabrielle Glaser, not only an author but a mother as well, stated in her article "We don't hand teenagers car keys without first educating them about how to drive. Why expect 21 year olds to learn to drink responsibly without learning from moderate models, at home and in alcohol education programs?" You don't just automatically know how to safely drive a car, you have to learn and it takes time. It is the same concept when it comes to drinking. An educational background coming from a safe sound environment is necessary in order to know how to drink safely and responsibly. The minimum legal drinking age restricts this alcohol education leaving those who choose to drink uneducated and unsafe.

Since 1984, the minimum legal drinking age has been set to be 21. But from what standards? Creating such a high drinking age has created more danger and more problems then it is solving. Teenagers all over the United States continue to drink despite the legal age, but they do so in dangerous closed off settings where they wont get caught. Instead of pushing them underground we need teach them and educate them on how to drink both safely and responsibly. To do so we need to lower the drinking age and allow them to drink and learn how to drink in a safe controlled environment, eliminating any dangerous risk factors. If Europe can do it, why can't we?

