It is no secret that drinking goes on in the college atmosphere, I would be lying if I said it didn't. But were not 21 when we go to college, were 18. When someone becomes 18 they are legally considered an adult. With the title of adult come great responsibilities. They have the right to choose their political leaders, purchase certain firearms and ammunition, and even enlist in the military. They are considered legally independent adults. However, they are denied a very simple right: the right to purchase or consume alcoholic beverages. Take this scenario; a twenty year old man can go legally kill people or be killed for his country, but he would be denied the right to have a beer with his dinner. I firmly believe that drinking should be legal at 18, because of the following reasons: teenagers go to war at 18, get convicted as adults for a crime, and lowering the drinking age will help stop underground drinking.

Teenagers do not look like they are responsible, because they are in high school or in their first year of college. Sometimes, they do not know what they want for their lives or for their future yet. However, the government already knows what it wants for a teenager that turns 18 years old. Once someone turns 18 years, they have to sign a paper saying that if a war comes they may be called to join the forces, even though they don't want to.  This happened to me and my father. Once he graduated from high school in the 1970s and I in 2015, we had to sign that paper, or else we had to pay a large fine. It is very controversial when teenagers talk about going to war, but not being able to drink until they turn 21. Everyone should think more about what would happen if we make the drinking age 18.  This argument started between 1970 and 1975 when 18 was the legal drinking age in 29 states. During this time, the drinking and driving rate declined, because most students decreased in per capita consumption. During this period of time, the crashes decreased and the teen fatality went down by 16%. But, some scientists did research on teenagers being among deaths and crashes. For that, campaigns decided to increase the drinking age in 1976 and 1983. However, not all the states were in favor of this law; such as, Texas, Montana, and Kentucky. These sates had to raise their drinking age drink to 21 in 1984, because the Uniform Drinking Age Act mandated reduced federal transportation funds to these states that didn't want to follow ("Minimum Legal Drinking Age"). After the 21 year old law, everything started to change. Many students didn't care about school anymore and the abusive drinking behavior began. Drinking alcohol at an early age is not a problem for every country. Italians, Greeks, Germans, Chinese, Jews, and Mexicans do not have the drinking age law that we have in the United States. These countries have their own beliefs of how drinking should be handled in a responsible manner. They do not allow irresponsible behavior. These countries let their teenagers drink when they are around; such as, familiar parties, holidays, or special occasions. For them it is important to let teenagers try new stuff but without getting addicted to it, which will help them think that getting wasted is not necessary to have fun. That is why it is not necessary to make a law when we talk about drinking, because it's up to a person to act responsible while drinking. Take this 28% of high school students admit to missing at least one class over the course of a year because they have a hangover (HRFnd, 2015). With the lowering of the drinking age, the possibility of less drinking could become a reality. There is an estimated two out of every 1,000 occasions of illegal drinking by youth under 21 results in an arrest, showing that it isn't a high priority for police to enforce the law (HFRnd, 2015).

The Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) laws specify the legal age when an individual can purchase or publicly consume alcoholic beverages. The MLDA in the United States is 21 years.  However, prior to the enactment of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, the legal age when alcohol could be purchased varied from state to state. The Center for Disease Control has provided my research with some knowledgeable facts pertaining to underage drinking; after all states adopted an age 21 MLDA, drinking during the previous month among persons aged 18 to 20 years declined from 59% in 1985 to 40% in 1991 (Barnett, 2008). Drinking among people aged 21 to 25 also declined significantly when states adopted the age 21 MLDA, from 70% in 1985 to 56% in 1991 (Griggs, 2015). These lacks of rights make people under 21 second-class citizens. They are not immature children; they are grown adults that can make decisions for themselves. Many of these legally defined "children" are the soldiers that die for America. It is a legal hypocrisy; adults are not able to assume their full rights. Too often, casual advocates of lowering the drinking age give emotional and unsubstantiated reasons for allowing 18 to 20 year olds to drink. Some of the favorite arguments citizens in this country try to persuade other citizens include the fact that many people this age drink anyway, in spite of the law, and that if younger people were allowed to drink they would be less rebellious and secretive and more responsible. 

This is not the first time drinking alcoholic beverages has been regulated. The Health Research Funding group based out of Boston Massachusetts published an article that showed in the 1920's National probation was enforced, and in the 1850's state prohibition was enforced (Tucker, 2010). These laws were enforced so harshly a backlash occurred and even more social problems happened. We are doing the exact same thing today, by prohibiting people under 21 not to drink. Doing this it is causing and even worse backlash then it did in the 1920's. College students are being forced to create their own little bars in their dorm room or apartments, where binge drinking occurs and in order to get drunk faster before they get caught. This law is creating alcoholics not preventing them this needs to change. 

Finally, in 1984, the federal government, backed by The Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), ordered all 50 states to raise their legal drinking age to 21 years old or suffer a 10 percent cut in their annual federal highway dollars. By 1987, every governor had complied. According to MADD, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (NMDAA) has saved some 17,000 lives on the highways since 1988(Daniloff, 2010). On September 5, 1980, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) was incorporated and the mission as stated in its Articles of Incorporation were "To aid the victims of crimes performed by individuals driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, to aid the families of such victims and to increase public awareness of the problem of drinking and drugged driving" (Daniloff, 2010). In 2015, MADD's efforts to significantly reduce drunk driving through the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving as well as interest in defining its role in the fight against drugged driving, the Board of Directors revised its mission to reflect those priorities to, "The mission of Mothers Against Drunk Driving is to end drunk driving, help fight drugged driving, support the victims of these violent crimes and prevent underage drinking." But some people feel MADD has gone too far. Over the past two decades, several efforts have bubbled up to bring the drinking age back down to 18. The issue caught fire in 2004, when former Middlebury College president John McCardell, alarmed at the intensity of underage drinking, particularly on college campuses (Daniloff, 2010).

There's a movement to lower legal drinking ages in the U.S., and its leaders are not college students or a brewery owners. They are university presidents. Weary of battling drinking on campus during his tenure as president of Middlebury College, John McCardell Jr. penned a column in The New York Times assailing the 21-year-old drinking age as "bad social policy and terrible law." "Right now we're in an impossible position on college campuses. Why should we be expected to enforce a law that's ignored by 70 percent of students before they even come to college?" McCardell, now president of the University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee, told CNN. "It's taking place behind closed doors, where it's much more dangerous. It's unsupervised," he said. "It's out of step with social reality." Instead, he argues, colleges should be given the chance to educate students on how to drink responsibly, within campus boundaries and out in the open. In 2008 McCardell recruited more than 130 college presidents to sign the Amethyst Initiative, which pushed for a new federal transportation bill that wouldn't penalize states for setting drinking ages under 21. He said he and other college presidents were set to testify before Congress that fall when the economy tanked and legislators' priorities turned elsewhere (Griggs, 2015). 

At age 18, we are responsible for our own actions. Nowadays, teenagers commit crimes at the age of 18 or under. Teenagers that commit crimes tend to be sentenced as adults.  They can be sentenced up to 40 years or life sentences, depending on the seriousness of the crime. If they deserve to be sentenced as an adult, and then it is a good idea to do it, that way they would think better about their actions and the consequences.  Teenagers should know that for every mistake they do, there is a consequence. The government thinks that if a teenager commits a crime he or she should be treated as an adult, because he or she thinks like one. What about if the government starts treating teenagers as adults, and listen to them when they talk about regulating the drinking age? They just need to be fair on all the decisions they make.  Most teenagers know what they are doing, but it is kind of unfair that for one that commits a mistake all of them have to pay, because of him. People should look at teenagers that are mature and deserve to be drinking, because they have worked really hard.

The biggest realization that people need to know are underground drinking is growing large every day. Underground drinking is consuming alcohol underage.  Most teenagers drink with friends. They just want to drink until they get wasted. The consequences of these actions is that most of the time they get sick, scared, or even injured, but they can't call the police, because they know that if they do, they will be in trouble, because it's illegal. The underground drinking begins because no one believes teenagers can handle drinking, or they are not tolerant and mature enough to even taste it. Tolerance doesn't come with age. Tolerance comes with the realization of responsibility and there are people that are more responsible at 15 than some are at 50. Tolerance also has to do with body size and years of drinking. When we are a teenager, we just like to try different things. Sometimes we don't think of the consequences. The curiosity is the one that makes us do things we don't have to do. When teenagers are with older friends, they just want to do what the other ones do, which leads them to get rebellious and get as drunk as they can, because they know that they won't have a chance like that soon. Sometimes, this kind of chance won't happen again, sadly because most students die or get injured. That is why there is no point of making alcohol legal at 21 if either way teenagers are going to drink. These laws are making things more complicated for teenagers as for the government.  There wouldn't be problems like this if the drinking age returned to 18, because more teenagers would know that if they drink excessively there will be a consequence, and they may think twice when they drink.

Here's a radical idea that people striving to achieve the lower drinking age should urge their local governments to consider: why not lower the legal drinking age to 6? The average 6 year old isn't going to run off to the convenience store to spend their allowance on beer. They will, however, have the chance to have their parents teach them what it means to drink alcohol responsibly. A small amount of wine with a meal is common in societies that are outside of the United States. These societies also see lower abuse rates of alcohol. Is this a coincidence? Anything is possible, but the data seems to speak for itself.

Since the 21 only law was enacted, kids are missing school more often because of alcohol as well. Nearly half of students report that they throw up after drinking. A quarter of students are missing classes at least once because of hangovers. The drinking law is clearly not working. It is up to us to put pressure on our elected officials to get their federal hands out of a state's business and let people make up their own minds. If two states can have marijuana for recreational purposes legalized, then why can't we change the drinking age to 18, 19, or 20? Consider this; we don't just 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?

It is easy to say teenagers are not mature, tolerant, and responsible enough when it means making a decision. People should see that teenagers already are carrying a huge responsibility which is taking care of the country. We are responsible to choose our next president, and give strong opinions. The government has given us the right to get married at 18, have kids, go to school and work, but the most important is that they gave us the right to kill and be killed.  Teenagers can be convicted as adults because of a small mistake done without thinking. If the drinking age is lowered to 18, underground drinking will end and more lives will be saved. We are being taught to act as adults and take responsibilities as adults, so why not drinking if we are already responsible of our actions and lives?

