According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, "Excessive drinking is responsible for more than 4,300 deaths among underage youth each year, and cost the U.S. $24 billion in economic costs in 2010." (CDC). That fact alone might sway someone to agree with the current twenty-one and older alcohol consumption law. On the other hand, personally being underage provides me with a different perspective. I want to know why are we given the liberties to operate a car, vote for our president, and serve in the military all before the age of twenty-one but cannot legally consume alcoholic beverages. As a society, we will never live in a perfect world. Likewise, there will never be a perfect solution to the minimum drinking age laws. In a case like this, the best option seems to be simply collecting the pros and cons and formulating a stance based on the findings. The current minimum drinking laws should be adjusted so that the legal drinking age is eighteen. The sale of beer should be permitted to anyone eighteen and over but the sale of hard liquor should be restricted to those twenty-one and older. There should be no tolerance for anyone under twenty-one driving with a blood alcohol level (BAL) of anything over 0.00. Lastly, anyone over the age of eighteen should be permitted to enter bars at their will and should be allowed to consume alcohol in that setting. Not only would these changes improve the marginal utility of young adults but would also facilitate the maturity needed to handle alcohol as a whole.

For this paper's purposes I will define the sides as Pro-law and Pro-drink. Pro-law argues that underage drinkers are at higher risk for unintentional injury, drinking and driving related incidents, and health consequences from binge drinking while the body is still developing. Support for these claims are found in academic journals alike  --  medical, economical, and law. The evidence in these articles is primarily studies done on the general public, proving the dangers of underage drinking. The current minimum drinking age is twenty-one and was nationally implemented in 1984. The Pro-drink side argues that the current laws were instigated based on false evidence and are in fact more dangerous than if the laws were set to a younger age. This argument as a whole is not just about the act of drinking alcohol but furthermore includes the sale, transportation, venue acceptance, and blood alcohol content while driving. This research question does affect me in a couple ways. First, I am underage and in college where the drinking environment is noticeable twenty-four seven. Now whether I chose to participate or not, the drinking atmosphere is still relevant. Most people in school here at USC know at least one if not multiple people who have been in trouble with the school and or the police because of drinking related incidents stemming from being underage. Secondly, my brother who is only a year older than I and is in the United States Navy is permitted to protect our country but cannot have the luxury of drinking alcohol; seems a little dubious to me. 

The age of twenty-one has long been associated with the legal age to consume alcohol in the United States. It was not until the 1970's when twenty-nine states lowered the legal to eighteen. However, in 1984 President Ronald Reagan signed the Uniform Drinking Age Act requiring all states to implement twenty-one as the legal drinking age once again. Five years later, in 1988, all fifty states returned to the age of twenty-one. The reasons concluded for returning higher age were predominately unintentional injury, drunk driving, and crime. Activists, including President Reagan, determined that individuals under the age of twenty-one lacked the maturity and exposure necessary to consume alcohol responsibly. In an article published by The Journal of the American Medical Association, Ralph W. Hingson concluded "those who started before age 14 years as well as those who started at each intervening age up to 21 years were significantly more likely to have been injured while under the influence of alcohol." Support for this claim came from The National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiology Survey. The survey consisted of roughly 42,000 randomly selected adults of which ninety percent were between the ages of fourteen to twenty-one. Although conclusions similar to this are often presented, factors often looked past are family histories of alcoholism and inadequate alcohol education. Additionally, the introduction of recent automobile safety features (Figlio 556) should likewise be considered in the reduction of unintentional injury from the time when the Uniform Drinking Age Act was implemented.

Driving while under the influence is perhaps the leading caution when discussing underage drinking. Dr. Thomas Marcotte of the University of California, San Diego, conducted a study titled "High-Risk Driving Behaviors Among Adolescent Binge Drinkers." that was published in The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. The study focuses on highlighting the dangers minors generate from binge drinking. The evidence for the study comes from two groups of sixteen to eighteen-year-old individuals; one group participated in excessive drinking while the control group remained alcohol free. The comparison concentrated on the driving habits of the two crowds. The drinking group reported speeding, running yellow lights, and dangerously passing cars; breaking driving laws 666% more than the control group. The majority of driving incidents took place late at night. Unsurprisingly, the drinking group recounted driving more often late at night than the contrary group. (Marcotte 324) These findings are especially important because the years studied are when minors are honing their driving skills. The argument made by the Pro-law margin is knotted tightly with the disturbing effects of underage drinking and driving and rightfully so. 

Consumption of alcohol regularly begins while young adults are in high school. Youth start to explore outside of their comfortable boundaries they have been exposed to all years prior. Social interaction commences its climb: driver's licenses are attained, community circles flourish, and time is spent away from adults more than ever before. Practices linked with adults such as intercourse, drug use, and drinking are typically experienced for the first time during this time frame. Consequently, mistakes are made and lessons are learned; both positive and negative. At the core of problematic underage consumption, is binge drinking. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism or NIAAA defines binge drinking as "a pattern of drinking that brings blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels to 0.08 g/dL. This typically occurs after 4 drinks for women and 5 drinks for men -- in about 2 hours." The problem is not drinking alcohol but rather the abuse of the substance that results in negative outcomes, highlighted in the majority of arguments built in reference to underage drinking. Evidence pointing at the dangers of binge drinking can be found in The Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued in the American Academy of Pediatrics. Jacqueline W. Miller writes, "The prevalence of these risk behaviors ranged from 1.5% to 36.8% among current drinkers who did not binge drink (0 days), 6.1% to 48.6% among those who binge drank only 1 day, and 27.0% to 85.0% among those who binge drank  greaterequal 10 days." (Miller 79). The context for this study is high school students in 2003. Alcohol effects everyone inversely and with experience and appropriate exposure comes the maturity needed to control the use of alcohol. 

In an international essay, written by Allaman Allamani, the human need for alcohol is examined since its inception. (Allamani 1252). "Like the baking of bread, alco- holic beverages have been associated with human life through the millennia. A Neolithic wine was discovered that indicates the cultivation of Vitis vinifera in northern Mesopotamia at least as late as 6,000 BC (McGovern, 2003, 2010)." (Allamani 1253). Our society is so wrapped up amid the prevention of alcohol, we forget that it is not an extraordinary object. Alcohol has been nearby during some of humanity's most profound milestones. Simply put, degrading the use of alcohol is ignorant and unintelligent. The consumption of alcohol is a basic right in the United States. During 1920-1933, when the sale, production, and transportation of alcohol was deemed illegal in the United States, the majority of people still found means to consume alcohol. Therefore, if a national moratorium on the substance did not stop people from consumption neither will laws prohibiting underage drinking. 

Being the youngest of four brothers in my family, I have had many valuable lessons passed down to me. My brother Charlie, closest in age to me, enlisted into the navy upon graduation of high school. This summer, he will be deployed for the first time while serving our country yet it is illegal for him to drink a beer. The courage, dedication, and self-sacrifice necessary is unmatched yet is not rewarded. In 2005, The U.S. Department of Defense performed a widespread study of health-related behaviors among active-duty military personnel that linked alcohol use among men and women in all branches of the service and the civilian population. 

"The DOD study showed that soldiers drink more when it is legal." (Main 29). The military associates drinking with "a drain on moral, productivity, and a potential threat to unit readiness." (DOD). It seems clear that the grant of underage drinking would result in the fall of consumption in the military. Of course drinking, especially binge drinking, is not a necessity but sanity is; particularly when one is in control of lethal weapons. Alcohol is not the only means to happiness; whether it is acknowledged or not, it does play a role in many leisure endeavors that are carried out by the general public, including the military. Service men and women live harder lives than most and it is important they stay content however they deem fit. 

The National Center for Education Statistics reported 20.2 million students were set to be enrolled in an American University or College in fall 2015. (NCES). This mass collection of young adults is a perfect place to gain evidence and support the lowering of the national drinking age. In 2007, a nonprofit organization called Choose Responsibly was founded to lower the national drinking age. Since inception, Choose Responsibly has circulated a public statement titled "The Amethyst Initiative" focused at gaining the support of elected officials nationwide to reexamine the current drinking laws. The word amethyst comes from ancient Greek words meaning "not intoxicated". "According to mythology, Amethyst was a young girl who incurred the wrath of the God Dionysus after he became intoxicated with red wine." The story goes on to tell how the young girl was never the same and how saddened Dionysus was after he discovered the result of his actions. The meaning and story behind the initiative's name fits its core objective because it is referring to the, often unjustified, consequences of underage drinking. (Amethyst Initiative). The statement details the need to lower the drinking age of minors in private setting such as homes and clubs while taking no formal stance like the organization itself. The initiative currently has 136 signatures from the nations top universities including prestigious institutions: Duke, Dartmouth, and Notre Dame. With no formal stance, the statement desires the ideas of supportive officials to reform drinking policies so that the consequences experienced by student's decline. The current drinking laws do not correlate with the actualities of today's academic culture. While the laws are obviously not intended to effect minors negatively, the reality is that they do. During college, the individual is working towards qualities that have a major impact on the rest of their adult life. It is unfortunate that harmless decisions can have harmful effects on one's career. 

In the United States, eighteen-years-old is considered being an adult. One has the right to vote, enlist in the armed forces, and will be tried as an adult in the court of law rather than as a juvenile. Lawmakers assume an individual is mature enough to make such decisions at the age of eighteen. If the maturity is at par for such actions, then it is only conceivable that one is able to responsibly consume alcohol. I am not dismissing the Pro-law arguments because that would be naive and would defeat all research attained up to this point. However, I do see a need for a change in the current underage drinking laws. Binge drinking among minors remains an issue and will need continued attention, regardless of the drinking age laws. The settings, interactions, and happenings experienced during high school and college will not change and that needs to be recognized. If our society cannot reverse these outcomes we may as well support them. The age to purchase beer in quantity should be changed to eighteen while the age to buy liquor should remain twenty-one. Beer has a much lower alcohol content than liquor and therefore, can be consumed more responsibly. For minors, drinking should be permitted in private establishments such as homes, bars, or clubs. It is important that drinking occurs in settings that are aware of the activities taking place so that cautionary measures can be in place. Lastly, the zero tolerance policy for those driving under the age of twenty-one should remain in its current status. It is simply too dangerous and there is no need for minors to drink and drive. In order for these ratifications to take place, adults of power and lawmakers alike need to acknowledge the current, outdated, policies and accept the measures necessary to perform an effective change.

