The high drinking age in America has evoked many societal problems in 2016. The first issue I want to focus on is how far our country is compared to the rest of the world.  Every other national power has the drinking age lower than 21, therefore, we should see the error in our ways. Rather than setting standards, as we Americans do, we are setting a negative example for the rest of the world. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was based on technicalities that no longer apply and should be amended as soon as possible. Another idea I will focus upon is the definition of an adult. There needs to be one clear age where all "adult" responsibilities and duties are handed to you. That age worldwide, and in the most part in the US, is 18. In the eyes of the law you are considered an adult in the United States at 18, therefore, you should be given all your rights at that age. By focusing on these main issues I will convince to you why lowering the drinking age is a necessity in the United States. 

The root of the issue is the National Minimum Drinking Act of 1984, however laws that have to do with the legal minimum drinking age can be traced all the way back to the 1920 and the prohibition. The prohibition was a short period of time when alcohol was completely banned from the United States. After the prohibition, most states elected to adopt the minimum drinking age of 21. However, when the 26th amendment, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, was passed in the 1960s this caused debate to start. Between 1970 and 1975, 29 states lowered the minimum drinking age in some extent (20,19,18) as aftershock of the 26th amendment (Wagenaar). People had the same argument we have today "if they can vote they should be able to drink." For a short period of time American's had it right. Giving the states to choose, which usually caused a lower minimum age.  Then on July 17, 1984 when the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was put into place. The reason for this act was because studies had shown an increase in motor vehicle fatalities attributes to the decrease in the minimum drinking age (National Youth Rights Association). This law did not fully outlaw the consumption of alcoholic beverages for persons under 21 years old, but it did heavily punish states that did not conform. If a state did not conform to the act then they would lose 10% of all federal highway construction funds.

The current law, passed in all 50 states in the 1980s, was intended to diminish the number of traffic deaths caused by young drunk drivers. It has succeeded in that, but tougher seat belt and D.U.I. rules have contributed to the decrease, too. Raising the drinking age hasn't reduced drinking, it's merely driven it underground, to the riskiest of settings: unsupervised high school blowouts and fraternity parties. This age segregation leads the drinking away from adults, who could model moderation (Glaser). This act was sloppily written from the start. First of all, how does raising the minimum drinking age help with the number of traffic fatalities? Perhaps the government in 1984 could have made seatbelts and airbags mandatory, but instead they took away rights from 18 to 20 year olds that they earned. The reason that 18 to 20 year olds have earned the right to drink is because of what the term "adult" grants them. At the age of 18, if you are a citizen in the United States, you can vote for our next president, you can bare arms with a license, you can serve in the armed forces, and you are considered an adult in the court of law. Those four privileges are granted at the age of 18 and all belittle consuming alcohol. Therefore, the drinking age should reflect when we are adults.

Before the National Minimum Drinking Age Act it was the state's right to choose the drinking age in their respective states. Most states had it at the norm of 18 or 19. When the national government chose to put this Act in place it stripped another right from the state government. As I previously mentioned, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was created to lower drinking and driving fatalities in the age group of 18 to 20. Although for some reason, the United States has the highest percentage of drinking and driving in this age group, by far, even though it is outlawed to drink. The United States has a higher percentage of drinking and driving fatalities in the age bracket of 18 to 20 than England, Italy, China, and Spain combined. Keep in mind all of these countries have a drinking age of 18 or lower. The new seat belt and airbag laws have made cars much safer than before. According to one study, seat belts alone have saved over 63,000 lives from 2008 to 2012 (Lives Saved in 2007). These two safety features are the key to the drastically reduced drinking and driving fatalities and the National Minimum Drinking Age Act has been proven once again, redundant and unnecessary.

I feel the problem is the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 has driven alcohol consumption underground. Therefore, there is no supervision and teens are more likely to drink in excess and because they are not told to stop and rather just continue. As Georgia Nugent said, "By outlawing moderate use of alcohol in appropriate social contexts and with adult oversight, we have driven more drinking underground, where it has taken the very dangerous form of "pre-gaming." The "under-age" drinker, no longer permitted the occasional beer during a dance party, is now more likely to chug high-octane alcohol in dangerous quantities before heading off to that party. As a result, alcohol use has become more, not less, dangerous." That quote sums up the problem that the National Minimum Drinking Age Act has caused. It was created to fix problems, but it rather caused more problems in itself (Nugent). 

The second topic I will focus upon in the definition of an adult in the eyes of the law. In America and the rest of the world, we turn into adults at 18. 18 is the age where we have to be much more responsible for our actions because everything is serious. After high school we either: go to the armed forces, go to college, or go the work force. All three of those options are very serious and you must be an adult for them. This drinking age is something that is unnecessarily high in our country and does not correlate with the rest of our laws, pertaining to adulthood. That is why it must be lowered, immediately. One great quote that sums up this dilemma nicely is, "American 18-year-olds have the right to vote, marry, buy guns (shotguns and rifles only), and join the military. They're astute enough to defend their country, decide elected officials and serve on a jury, but not regulate their own desires?" (Glaser).

One major detail is the idea that often goes overlooked is the military perspective. There are thousands of men and women that fit in this category of 18 to 20 year olds that cannot drink alcohol. So many people are outraged by this fact alone. A teenager at the age of 18 is legally allowed to go overseas and possibly die or get injured for his or her country, but is not allowed to drink what he or her pleases? That seems too preposterous to be true. However, in the United States this is a reality that so many teenagers run into. They're are giving the ultimate sacrifice and somehow are still treated unjustly. For example, in Germany you can drink soft liquors (beer, wine, etc) at the age of 14. Many other countries in the European Union follow the same model and they are not having the same issues as us with drinking and driving. 

Speaking of the definition by far the most important aspects of being an adult is voting, serving on a jury, and being tried as an adult in the court of law. All of these privileges are given to us as American citizens at the age of 18 because we are considered adults. By far, these are the most important duties as being a citizen of the United States. You must be very adult to make your decision. Therefore, if you are given this privilege you should be given all of your rights that an adult is given in this country which includes drinking at the age of 18.

What seems to be the problem is when you take away something from someone they just want it more. Like during the prohibition drinking levels increased just because alcohol was outlawed. According to one study, drinking levels increased to 1.63 gallons of alcohol per capita, which was 11.64% higher than pre-prohibition levels (Did Alcohol Use Decrease During Alcohol Prohibition?). Instead of teaching our children that drinking alcohol is no big deal, we make them wait until 21 to drink legally. If you tell someone that they cannot have something, it just makes it more enticing, even though most of them have already had a drink, most likely at a party in friend's basement, a frat house, or if the military, in the barracks.Since the drinking age was raised to 21 nationwide, instead of seeing a decrease in the amount of binge drinking, we have actually seen an increase (Andersen). Between 1993 to 2001 in the age category of 18 to 20: binge drinking went up 56%, 1 in 6 teenagers experienced "black out", and the number of alcoholism has increased 90%. With those figures in mind you can see that the National Minimum Drinking Age Act is pointless and is really hurting not helping our society. This tells us the current laws are not working because they have ruined the cultural aspect of drinking in America. That is what we need to change, figures like that (Chiappetta). The issue in America is the enticing factor that alcohol seems to carry for some reason. We can blame the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 because it ruined the societal stigma behind alcohol. In other countries and America pre-1984 alcohol was considered something adults drink in moderation and enforcing the minimum age was not a problem. Of course everyone did not wait until the legal age, although it was much lower than after it changed. According to a study, the percentage of underage drinking rose 10% from 1984 to 1993 (Underage Drinking). All of the kids who turned 18 and were used to drinking were stripped of their rights. That is where it went all wrong. 18 to 20 year olds started drinking underground in unsafe and unsupervised areas and did not know their limits. This continued and still has not changed from then to now in 2016. The only way we can change it socially is to lower the age back to 18. This will slowly help America catch up with the rest of the world when it comes to national minimum drinking ages (O'Malley).

One very common rebuttal that many make is that alcohol is something that 18 year olds cannot handle. These people are supporters of keeping the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in place. They argue that the maturity of 18 year olds is not there, although, that is more on an individual basis and cannot be a predetermined age. One reason I say this is because 18 to 20 year olds are considered mature in the eyes of the law. What has never made sense to me is that at the age of 18 Americans can go and purchase a firearms for recreational use. We are worried about 18 to 20 year olds drinking, however, we let them carry firearms. That does not make any sense to me or any other rational human. It is much easier to discharge your weapon on accident than it is to get drunk, get in a car, and injure yourself. Also, America has a much higher death rate due to alcohol (3 out of every 100,000) than many countries that have their drinking age lower. 4 countries on the list that have lower ages than 21 are: Italy, England, China, and Spain. All four of these countries combined still equate to less deaths per 100,000 from alcohol than America (Alcohol Death Rate per Country). The most interesting part is that all of those countries have minimum drinking ages that are 18 and China is 16. This proves that in the 21st century teenagers can make smart decisions and should be able to consume alcohol. The whole mentality of "maturity" is false and should be ignored.

Another common rebuttal is that human brains are not fully matured until after 21. The naysayers believe that maturity, in a physical sense, does not occur until the mid-twenties. These people believe that the consumption of alcohol before full neurological maturity may cause damage. This research does have scientific backing and does make some good points. However, if we could actually stop teens from drinking then this plan would make sense, although, we cannot stop them. Even if we changed the drinking age to forty it would not stop anyone. The problem with the drinking age at 21 is that it puts these 18 to 20 year olds in rough situations. Where they are drinking in shady environments without supervision. This is the last thing we want because it will just worsen the issue at hand. If we can successfully eliminate the National Minimum Drinking Age Act we can start to fix the problem. These 18 to 20 year olds can drink 

in more secure and supervised areas. This will cause these teenagers to make better habits and therefore, make better choices when it comes to alcohol (Wechsler).

In conclusion, those are just a few reasons why lowering the drinking age in America must be a priority. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 has just ruined alcohol culturally for us as Americans. Our government must put a new amendment that annuls the Act. We also need to clearly define the term "adult" in our country because right now it is not clear. We can do this by getting rid of the minimum drinking age of 21. In 2016, with the new technology in cars that help prevent the drinking and driving fatalities, the national minimum drinking age of 21 is unnecessarily high. It robs the freedoms of our young adults, when they are the ones that are the heart and soul of our country. Those are some reasons why the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 must be revoked.

