In a society that highly admires celebrities and the media, the people of society tend to mimic what is publicized in tabloids and on television. The consumption of alcohol is common among all of those above the legal drinking age. Teenagers and children grow up watching their older siblings and family members drink and wait for the day until they turn 21 themselves. Fighting this temptation to drink underage is hard, especially when teenagers begin going to parties where alcohol is present and available. Underage drinking has become a real issue in the United States, seeing that the US is one of only a few countries in the world with the legal minimum drinking age at 21 years old (Tucker, 2015). Lowering the legal minimum drinking age may have a few drawbacks, but the pros outweigh the cons in this never ending debate.

 The start to this entire debate began in 1920 when the United States government banned the sale, production, and consumption of alcohol in an era known as the Prohibition (Wechsler and Toben, 2010). This Prohibition law stayed intact until it was repealed in 1933, which set the legal minimum drinking age at 21 years old nationwide. Some states interpreted the law differently, meaning there were loopholes to the minimum drinking age in those states. By the time the Vietnam War had begun, many states lowered the legal minimum drinking age based on the legal minimum voting age being lowered too. After this change in the law, alcohol related traffic accidents as well as sales and consumption of alcohol among teenagers increased (Wechsler and Toben, 2010). It was obvious there were a multitude of issues caused by the lowering of the drinking age, so something had to be done. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan created the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, and by 1988 all states enforced this law in full. This law required every state to ban alcohol sales to those under the age of 21 or that state would be denied highway funding from the federal government (Wechsler and Toben, 2010). Recently debates have been sparked on this topic, and many people have had thoughts on lowering the drinking age. One group in particular advocates strongly for lowering the drinking age. The Amethyst Initiative group was started by college and university professors who believe that their campuses and other areas of the country would benefit from a lower drinking age ("Amethyst Initiative", 2016). These college faculty members advocate for a lower drinking age because they are tired of watching students on their campuses binge drink to a point of harming themselves and other patrons around them. A powerful group that opposes the Amethyst Initiative is Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). They believe that by lowering the drinking age to 18 it will only increase the number of alcohol related traffic fatalities. This group supports their platform so strongly because many of them have lost children or loved ones to drunk driving (CBS, 2016). Of course they are now very biased to this issue, so these women refuse to consider any possibility of lowering the drinking age so that responsible drinking habits could be taught. They only believe that by lowering the drinking age, more teenage drunk drivers will be out on the roads which is not the case according to other research. Needless to say, it has been a battle to determine what works better for society -- to keep the drinking age at 21 or to lower it.

Among the pros to support the argument of lowering the drinking age, the most common point brought up is learning to drink responsibly at home under parental supervision. It is believed that if 18-year old are permitted to drink alcohol in controlled and monitored environments, they will learn responsible drinking habits and refrain from harmful habits such as binge drinking and doing things that could potentially harm themselves or others (Procon.org, 2016). Many teenagers turn 18 during their senior, sometimes junior, year of high school meaning they will most likely live at home with their parents until they move out or move to a university. This time spent at home with parents can be used to learn responsible drinking habits while being in a controlled environment. Another reason supported by those who want to lower the drinking age is that an 18-year old is considered an adult, so why are they not treated as an adult (Procon.org, 2016)? With the right to vote, get married, join the military, and sign legal documents for themselves, an 18-year old should be able to make their own decisions concerning the consumption of alcohol as well. All of these other decisions they are legally entitled to make have the potential to have serious consequences and consuming alcohol is no different. The last and most crucial pro to consider when taking a side on this argument is that the current minimum legal drinking age has a negative effect on traffic accidents and fatalities that are alcohol related (Procon.org, 2016).  In fact, the number of traffic incidents involving alcohol is lower in countries that have a legal minimum drinking age as 18-years old (Procon.org, 2016). In some countries overseas driving is not as common so this may contribute to the numbers and alter the meaning of the statistics. Americans are obsessed with driving their own personal vehicles but in today's world there are many other options to driving, especially while intoxicated. Teenagers are infamous for designating a sober driver when going out or simply "calling an Uber". Taxis are still available in many cities and parents will often offer to pick up their kids if they have been out drinking at a party and need a safe ride home. Walking is always an option as well, just not ideal in some cases. The truth about these three facts is why the drinking age should be lowered. People who disagree with lowering the drinking age are in denial about the truth but it is obvious that our society would benefit more from lowering the drinking age. 

On the other hand, researchers have found statistics and facts that validate for the drinking age to remain at 21-years old. The biggest reason for keeping the drinking age at 21-years old is because of the damage it can do to a young adult's brain (SpeakUP Prevention Coalition, 2012). The brain is cognitively, functionally, and emotionally affected in negative ways when alcohol comes into play at too young of an age (SpeakUP Prevention Coalition, 2012). Another thing to consider is how drinking has become a teenage epidemic. Once one member of a small clique or friend group starts to drink, other members will follow suit. If teenagers at the age of 18 were able to legally drink it would be much more common for their younger siblings and peers who were not of legal age to drink as well (SpeakUP Prevention Coalition, 2012). By making the minimum legal drinking age 18 it would mean college students were legally able to drink during their time in school. This could lead to violence, alcohol poisoning or sexual assault (SpeakUP Prevention Coalition, 2012). Sexual violence and assault is a huge issue on college campuses as it is, so by lowering the drinking age this could increase the occurrence of sexual violence. Even with the minimum legal drinking age set at 21-years old, a large percentage of college age adults disobey this law and bad things can happen because of this. By lowering the drinking age, it would only cause this issue to escalate, especially on college campuses. 

Made up of college professors and faculty members, Amethyst Initiative is currently working to persuade and convince the government that lowering the drinking age will benefit their students. It is uncommon for adults above the age of 21 to support this argument, but this group has firsthand experience with the issue since they work on college campuses across the United States. This group believes that a dangerous culture of binge drinking on college campuses has erupted and the only way to resolve this issue is to lower the legal minimum drinking age (Amethyst Initiative, n.d). Not only is this an issue on college campuses, but off campus as well. No matter how many alcohol education courses students are required to take, the courses will not change their habits. The only way to control the binge drinking habit of many college students is to give teenagers the freedom they deserve and inform them of ways to drink responsibly (Amethyst Initiative, n.d).  The Amethyst Initiative group is gaining support from other college professors and hopefully they will eventually have enough support to make a difference. This movement has definitely gotten parents and other adults thinking about the benefits of a lower drinking age.  

To elaborate on what the Amethyst Initiative group stands for, it was pointed out that teenagers do not teach one another how to drive a car so why would they teach each other how to drink responsibly (Geltman, 2015)? Elizabeth Geltman gave an analogy to prove her point about teaching drinking responsibility to teenagers. She does not want her teenagers to learn how to drink responsibly from other teenagers, Geltman would rather teach them herself so she knows her kids are safe drinkers. This is a great point to make to those who do not want the drinking age to be lowered because it makes sense for an adult who knows how to handle their alcohol to teach their teenager how to drink responsibly while they still live at home. For example, the president of Cornell University invited freshman to a reception in his home and served them champagne during a book talk (Geltman, 2015). By having students drink in front of staff and faculty of the university it taught them how to drink without overdoing it, and act with appropriate behavior (Geltman, 2015). These responsible drinking skills learned by the students in situations like these help them to make better decisions when consuming alcohol, in on and off campus situations. Especially for females, it is dangerous to drink irresponsibly because of the possibility of falling victim to sexual assault and rape. In 2015, it was reported by the Association of American Universities that nearly 1 in 4, or 23%, of college women were sexually assaulted (Wallace, 2015). Not to say males are not affected by this as well, but in most cases on college campuses it is females that are sexually assaulted and alcohol usually plays a huge factor in the situation. As stated above, it would be more beneficial for parents to teach their teenager how to drink responsibly while they still lived at home, rather than sending them to college with no knowledge of how alcohol will affect their bodies (Geltman, 2015). Most parents who know about their student drinking while away at school would want reassurance that they are drinking responsibly and by lowering the drinking age, they could teach their children themselves.

Although there are strong arguments to lower the minimum legal drinking age, the current law still stands and the government has authority to punish those who break this law. Not only does the government support the current minimum legal drinking age, but public health researchers do as well. According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, around 900 lives are saved because less under-aged teenagers are involved in alcohol related traffic fatalities (DeJong, 2014). This is a large number of lives being saved and it is all due to the minimum legal drinking age being set at 21-years old. In addition, the law Ronald Reagan signed in 1984 gave incentives to states that had not yet raised their minimum legal drinking age to 21 and by enforcing this law, Americans benefited (DeJong, 2014). From 1982 to 2007 the percentage of alcohol related traffic deaths decreased by 60 percent for people of the ages 18 through 20 years old (DeJong, 2014). This tremendous decrease in fatalities shows how important it is for the minimum legal drinking age to remain at 21 years old. Lowering the legal minimum drinking age in other countries sometimes has similar outcomes as the United States. For example, in 1999 New Zealand lowered the drinking age from 20 to 18 and the number of alcohol-related traffic incidents increased among 16 and 17 year olds (Singh, 2015). This shows that the United States is not the only nation that has issues with a legal minimum drinking age of 20 or 21 years old. The amount of deaths that could have occurred due to the lower legal minimum drinking age would be detrimental to society, so it is good that the current law is still intact. 

To further support the argument of keeping the legal minimum drinking age at the age of 21, Dr. Andrew D. Plunk found that a lower drinking age would lead to higher rates of alcoholism and decreased educational attainment (Singal, 2015). Graduating from high school or a university is what Dr. Plunk is implying when saying educational attainment. These outcomes make sense, seeing that when a teenager begins drinking at a younger age it can lead to early alcoholism and cause issues for that teenager later in their life. Another issue that early drinking for teenagers can cause is a higher high-school dropout rate because having the freedom to purchase and drink alcohol at one's disposal has the potential to consume a teenager's life (Singal, 2015). So when looking at all of the pros and cons of having the minimum legal drinking age set at 21 years old, many would agree that the pros outweigh the cons. Yes, drinking under the age of 21 years old could be harmful to teenagers but there are ways to prevent dangerous alcohol habits that people often overlook. 

Even though there is a mass amount of evidence supporting the current minimum legal drinking age, there are still valid arguments that can be made to lower the drinking age in the United States. College presidents who support the Amethyst Initiative argue that 18 to 20 year olds in Western European countries drink more responsibly since their drinking age is lower (Wechsler, 2010). It is also thought that the decline in traffic fatalities after the minimum legal drinking age was raised was influenced by other factors such as an increase in motor vehicle safety (Wechsler, 2010). Another point made is that 18 year olds are considered adults by American society. Being an "adult" means the person has the right to vote, join the armed forces sign contracts, and serve on a jury but they are not allowed to consume alcohol for another three years, according to current American laws ("Choose Responsibility", n.d). Many people firmly believe that 18 year olds should be treated like adults since they are considered adults, which means having the right to make their own decisions concerning alcohol. The Choose Responsibility group advocates for the empowerment of 18 year olds, teaching them responsibility when using alcohol, and hopes to end the peer pressure of binge drinking among teenagers ("Choose Responsibility", n.d).  If teenagers were given the right to drink before the age of 21, it would allow their parents to teach them responsibility when drinking alcohol later in life. The reason binge drinking is such an issue among college students is because many of them have never been exposed to a drinking environment, therefore they do not know how to control themselves when consuming alcohol. There has been research to prove these opinions wrong, but overall it would be more beneficial to learn responsible drinking habits early, rather than not knowing how to handle oneself at an older age when drinking is permitted by the law. A sexual education course is usually taught during a teenager's freshman year of high school, maybe earlier, and most teenagers do not become sexually active until 17-years old which falls during their junior year of high school. By taking a sexual education course early it allows time for the teen to become responsible for their body in terms of sexually activity. Why is the consumption of alcohol not looked at in the same way?

