In a society filled with an insurmountable amount of differences, one thing most people have in common is that they want what they believe is best for society. This social norm continues when talking about the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA), whether one believes that an eighteen or a twenty-one-age limit is best, the safety of young adults is the driving factor behind the argument. In the United States, approximately two and a half million people die each year and five thousand of those deaths correlate to consumption of alcohol by those who are not legally old enough to drink. Is the solution to have law enforcement crack down on underage drinking or is it to lower the legal drinking age to eighteen? Common sense seems to dictate that keeping the 21st amendment will prevent the mortality rate from increasing amongst those twenty and younger. In reality, those who are under the age of twenty-one find outlets to drink even if it is not legal, and the way that they do that is often riskier than if it were legal. If the government encouraged more education to high schoolers regarding the effects of alcohol, then lowering the age of buying and consuming alcohol would decrease the amount of alcohol related deaths both on the road and in regard to excessive drinking.

Ever since prohibition, the laws concerning the legal drinking age have changed several times over the course of eighty years. Post prohibition, most states had set a twenty-one MLDA but it was not federally mandated therefore in the 1960’s most states lowered the age limit to eighteen. When the MLDA was lowered it “led to a huge increase in alcohol-related car accidents and drunk driving was deemed a public health crisis” (Tietjen). It was found that most drunk driving accidents involved people between the ages of sixteen and twenty thus Ronald Reagan put into place the National Minimum Drinking Age Act requiring states to raise their MLDA to twenty-one or experience cuts in federal funding for highways. All fifty states complied with this law therefore the MLDA became twenty-one nationwide. Since then, many groups have come out to support this legislation with the intent to protect young adults from the dangers associated with alcohol. In a part of a document series, CBS produced a video in which authorities on this topic debated what actions should be taken to prevent increasing mortalities rate from drinking. One of my oppositions, Chuck Hurley the CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), was interviewed for this video.  He speaks on how a lowered MLDA would only further the problem, not stop it. MADD is a group that has gained a lot of traction over the years and mere exposure is big contributing factor they have in their favor. The problem with MADD’s information though is that it is outdated. They refuse to see that alcohol is much more harmful now off the roads than it is on. Hurley states that his goal is to “illuminate underage drinking all together” and when asked if this is feasible he responds, “it is not”. Another not so famous scholar who opposes my theory is Julia Martinez. She works in the psychology department at the University of Missouri and speaks out at the addictive behaviors of alcohol and the negative effects it has on adolescent brains when consumed excessively. As a very educated woman in this field of study, she is more than qualified to speak on this topic. She conducted a study showing the correlation between those who drink before being twenty-one and those who wish to lower the legal drinking age but she presents no facts as to how to solve the problem of unsafe underage drinking. She further confirmed that underage drinking is a real problem and even states that “those students who currently respect the MLDA of 21… plan to drink heavily upon becoming 21” so even for those who follow these laws concerning alcohol put themselves in danger when it is legal because they have not been taught to drink moderately. It is discussed that those underage are in fact drinking but she does not support as to why keeping the twenty-one age is safest. 

Those who support this MLDA make two main arguments as to why the current laws are protecting those eighteen to twenty years old. The first being, the reduction of fatalities and injuries regarding alcohol on the roads.  Many studies have been done to show the direct correlation between a lower drinking age and fatalities. The National Institute of Health recorded that “drunk-driving accidents have dropped by fifty percent among sixteen to twenty year olds: approximately thirty-seven percent of traffic fatalities in this age group were alcohol related in 2013 compared to more than seventy-five percent in the 1970’s” (Tietjen). This is the central argument made by my opposition because there is undisputable evidence in their favor. These studies have been done for years and there is certainly a correlation between these two factors. This evidence is not biased nor is it cherry picked because there is tangible support which makes these facts difficult to argue. Though this point is very sound, there are outside factors that are never brought up. Drunk driving rates have significantly decreased since this amendment was ratified, but there is no proof that teenagers have been drinking less, only that the amount of drunk teenagers driving has lessened. Teenagers have learned to use designated drivers or transportation services such as Uber, Lyft, etc. instead of driving themselves. These services have helped in the movement of keeping those who are intoxicated off the roads. My opposition is trying to make their followers come to the conclusion that a high MLDA is the safest bet by using logical data and findings by the government to support their proposal. Their views on the solution to decreasing highway fatalities differ from mine because I believe that increasing education on the dangers of drinking and driving would be more efficient than trying to keep people from drinking all together. The second argument that my opposition focuses on is the effect that alcohol has on brain development. According to an article published by USA News, “during this period (eighteen to twenty years old), alcohol negatively effects all parts of the brain, including cognitive and decision-making abilities as well as coordination and memory” (Dean-Mooney). This is also a substantial argument because it cannot be refuted for there is evidence supporting these claims. Alcohol is classified as a neurotoxin because of the negative effects it has on the brain and these symptoms are going to be worse in adolescents since their brains are less developed. If a young brain is introduced to too much alcohol at an early age there are many negative side effects that cannot be overlooked such as the increased risk of becoming addicted. Those who are in line with keeping the legislation regarding the MLDA believe that preventing those whose brains have not fully matured from being able to purchase alcohol and legally consume it is the best way to prevent addiction and abuse (Dean-Mooney). They have come to this conclusion because there is scientific evidence and studies that clearly show the linkage between early alcohol exposure, the withering of the brain, and increased risk of dependency on this substance later in life. These sources are credible and unbiased because they have been repeated by several people who are experts in this field. Once again, my opposition is appealing to their audience’s logos because those who are supporting this argument are looking for sensible reasons why. With this argument, I agree with my opposition. Alcohol can have incredibly bad effects on young brains, and this is a very real problem. Even though we both agree that excessive amounts of alcohol are harmful to young brains, my opposition believes in trying to keep alcohol out of the reach of young adults while I think that giving them alcohol is a better solution even as it sounds counterintuitive. Giving young adults alcohol would prevent them from feeling the need to hide their drinking, which leads to more abuse of the drink because it is underground. If all young adults were allowed to drink publically, it would show them appropriate drinking behaviors and the importance of moderation. 

In an article written by Traci Toomey, a professor at the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health, the pros and potential cons of the argument in favor of a lowered MLDA are presented. Dr. John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College, is quoted in this argument for he is a well-known advocate for a lower MLDA. He started a non-profit called Choose Responsibility (CR) that has been pushing for a lowered drinking age. This organization fights that there should be an education course with a test at the end that all 18 year olds should take an alcohol education course and when they successfully pass the course they get a license allowing them to purchase alcohol. Since most of the problem with underage drinking occurs on college campuses, a group by the name of Amethyst Initiative has come into play “recruiting chancellors and presidents of universities and colleges to support … an informed and unimpeded debate on the 21-year-old drinking age” (Toomey). Though this group focuses more on the ethical side of the debate such as being legally an adult, being able to die in the military, and being able to vote, they still push that “Twenty-one is not working” (Amethyst Initiative). Another major contributor rallying behind this movement to lower the MLDA is Mark Beckner, the chief of police in Boulder, Colorado. As someone who is fighting on the front lines of this problem claims that “We’re not in a situation where we can stop it, the best we can do is try and contain it” (Beckner on CBS). He is fighting for an eighteen-year-old MLDA because he believes that these laws only further push the problem underground. Beckner when asked what the overall advantage of lowering the age limit responds with “We’re not trying to enforce a law that is unenforceable”. He believes we should be focusing on prevention in ways that are obtainable rather than trying to eradicate underage drinking. 

After doing research on why the MLDA is twenty-one and seeing both sides of the argument of keeping the laws or replacing them, I have come to the conclusion that a lower MLDA is in fact what is going to be safest for people between the age of eighteen and twenty-one. If eighteen year olds are able to drink publically then they will be around others who are drinking and they can see how to drink in moderation. Also, most eighteen-year-olds live at home and this way parents can help influence drinking patterns while they still have authority over their children. With an eighteen-year-old limit, I think the government should mandate an alcohol education course similar to the one in place for driving for high schoolers across the nation. Dr. John McCardell’s plan to have a forty-hour education course with an exam at the end of the course would ensure to educate young adults on the potential dangers of alcohol. When one passes the exam, they will be given a license that they can use to purchase alcohol. Like the driver’s education course, the alcohol education course will not totally illuminate the problem of binge drinking or driving under the influence but it would certainly have more of an effect than no education on alcohol whatsoever but just having an older MLDA. Since the issue with drunk driving was the main driving factor for a higher MLDA, one way to combat this problem is to heavily advertise for services such as Uber and Lyft that will help keep anyone, not matter the age, off the roads when they are drunk. Making alcohol a social norm, as seen in Europe, will help detain this society built around partying before one is twenty-one and save many lives. Since alcohol is illegal, it is treated like a forbidden fruit only glorifying those who dare to drink it. With the help of education on this problem, advertisement for ways to keep those who are intoxicated from driving, and making drinking a societal norm then having an eighteen MLDA will save lives in the United States. 
