Imagine you’re at your first high school party. It’s sophomore year and your parents finally let you go after a lot of begging and persuading. You are nervous but excited and don’t really know what to expect. Will there be music? Dancing? Will it be like the parties you see in the movies? Will people be drinking? You get to the party and it is not exactly what you expected. Yes, there’s music but no dancing, not even much talking. All you see is people drinking; some are drinking beer, some are drinking Vodka they stole from their parent’s liquor cabinet, and there’s a select few who are in the corner of the room not drinking. You have never drank before but almost everyone else is: people at the party, people in movies, your older sister did it as a teenager, all your friends. It seems like the normal thing to do so you grab a cup and make yourself a drink. One drink leads to another and the next thing you know you’re drunk along with the rest of the people at the party. The next day you feel guilty and a little bit concerned. You lied to your parents, you feel sick, and you drank alcohol 5 years before you were supposed to. 

This is a common situation for many young teenagers in America today. Alcohol is becoming available to teenagers at a younger and younger age and the decision to start drinking socially has become a decision of much importance. Drinking alcohol has almost always been a part of American culture: a way to celebrate, to relax, to socialize, to enjoy. It is a societal norm and is accepted by many as a “rite of passage” or simply a part of growing up and maturing. However, the debate on this topic arises as it is questioned when this “growing up” is supposed to or legally permitted to happen.  Teenagers are faced with the decision to drink almost every week and the question arises how to reduce the normalcy and the dangerous reality of underage drinking. Many people are now debating if the drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 18 in order to reduce this problem. Personally, I believe that lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 would be beneficial and more safe for the teenagers of the United States due to its many different benefits. If the drinking age changed from 21 to 18, alcohol would be seen less as a “forbidden fruit” and more as a normalcy, causing it to be less enticing to underage teenagers. Instead, it would be seen as normal and expected to drink alcohol at a younger age, causing it to be consumed in a safer and less threatening way. This would not only make the lives of many teenagers safer but it would also promote a safer society and a society, specifically the modern generation, less focused on “getting drunk” and more focused on things such as forming personal relationships, personal success, and education.

The discussion on whether the drinking age should be 21 or 18 is one that has existed for decades. After the repeal of the 21st amendment, the prohibition law, in 1933, states were allowed to individually decide alcohol consumption laws, specifically the age at which it was legal to do so. At this point, most states made the legal drinking age 21. However, in 1971, the legal age to vote was changed from 21 to 18 causing many states to also change the legal drinking age to 18. By 1982, the legal drinking age remained at 21 in only 14 states. However, according to Procon.org, a non-profit public charity, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the startling number of drinking involved automobile accidents caused the government to examine and evaluate the drinking laws and decide what needed to be revised to lessen the number of traffic fatalities involving alcohol. After much debate and many suggestions, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was passed and called for all states to raise the legal drinking age, for possession and purchase, to 21. Finally, by 1988, all states changed the legal drinking age to 21 (ProCon.org). 

The previous legislative debate on the legal drinking age makes it very obvious that there are many who believe that the legal drinking age should remain at 21 and that this is the safer and smarter decision. Those who oppose lowering the drinking age argue that the health of teenagers and the safety of the roads is at risk if the drinking age is 18. Jennifer Parker, a journalist for ABC news, describes the many organizations, such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), the American Medical Association, and the National Transportation Safety Board, who firmly believe that lowering the drinking age to 18 has serious consequences and would not only be harmful to teenagers but to society as a whole. Glynn Birch, the president of MADD states that “science speaks for itself" and that "the 21 law saves lives on the road and keeps countless youth from starting to drink at early ages." These groups have formed a coalition known as “Support 21” which “highlights scientific studies that say fatalities have decreased since the legal drinking age was raised to 21” (Parker). 

Traffic fatalities are a main concern of those who wish to maintain a legal drinking age of 21. Many believe that there is a negative correlation between lowering the legal drinking age and the number of traffic incidents and fatalities, meaning that as the legal drinking age lowers, the number of traffic incidents rises. According to a study conducted in New Zealand, where the legal drinking age was lowered from 21 to 18, in the span of 4 years, “400 serious injuries and 12 deaths a year among 15-19 year olds could have been avoided by raising the drinking age” (Pacific Institute for Research). Alcohol-impaired driving is the largest cause of traffic crashes and fatalities among teenagers in New Zealand and the study found “that the rate of alcohol-related traffic crashes with injuries among males increased 12 percent for 18- to 19-year-olds and 14 percent among 15- to 17-year-olds in the four years before and after the law changed and for females, the rate increased 51 percent for 18- to 19-year-olds and 24 percent for 15- to 17-year-olds” (Pacific Institute of Research). Though these statistics relate to New Zealand, similar data is found in the United States. After the Uniform Drinking Age Act in 1984, a study in 17 states that had a drinking age of 21 demonstrated that there was a 16% reduction in crashes involving underage adolescents, proving that there was in fact a correlation between the drinking age and traffic fatalities. Due to these statistics and studies, many groups, especially the MADD and National Transportation Safety Board argue strongly for the drinking age to remain at 21 as it will keep the roads and those on them safe and alive. Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, believes that "if we lower the drinking age we will be killing more children on the highways” (Parker). 

Though traffic fatalities serve as one of the main arguments of those who support the legal drinking age of 21, other arguments focus more on the long-term effects of underage drinking and include adolescent brain development and future alcohol-related issues such as alcoholism. Many people, specifically medical professionals, are concerned about the high level of drinking among adolescents as a “tremendous amount of structural and functional brain development takes place during the teenage years” (White and Swartzwelder). This time of development is critical to adolescents’ brains and their cognitive ability and evidence shows that alcohol has the ability to impact the brain function of adults much differently than it affects the brain function of adolescents and that the brain of adolescents is much more vulnerable to brain impairments such as memory and attention issues (White and Swartzwlder). The adolescent brain and its development is something to take very seriously and those who support the drinking age of 21 argue that if the drinking age is lowered, the adolescent brain will suffer. 

The debate on whether the drinking age should remain at 21 or be lowered to 18 is a highly controversial topic. Many statistics support the idea that a drinking age of 21 does benefit the safety of adolescents physically, on the roads, and mentally, in brain development and cognitive ability and cause many to completely rule out the idea that a legal drinking age of 18 would actually be beneficial and safer. However, personally, I believe that lowering the drinking age to 18 would reduce the occurrence of underage drinking and binge drinking which would therefore lower the underage drinking involved fatalities. In my opinion, a drinking age of 18 would cause there to be a lesser emphasis on getting drunk and partying and promote a society that includes stronger values. 

Many researchers and professionals also agree that a drinking age of 18 would be proactive and help improve the safety of adolescents and those affected by underage drinking and therefore help improve society. John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College, says it perfectly: “This law has been an abysmal failure, it hasn't reduced or eliminated drinking. It has simply driven it underground, behind closed doors, into the riskiest and least manageable of settings" (60 Minutes). Though the decision to change the drinking age to 21 seemed proactive and necessary at the time, this law is simply working against the issue. Many believe that history is repeating itself and compare the new drinking age laws to the “old days of prohibition” and believe that the stricter laws are counterproductive as they cause teenagers to find different, more dangerous ways to drink in order to avoid punishment not only with their parents but with the law (60 Minutes). Just as those who drank during the times of Prohibition in speakeasies and in an “underground” manner, teenagers today are finding ways to avoid the law and the risk of getting in trouble. However, these ways to avoid the law, often include dangerous settings such as a friend’s basement or a fraternity party and lead to more problems than expected. Because teenagers fear getting in trouble with the authority or with parents, they often are finding secret ways to drink most of which include dangerous levels of drinking. The law, instead of encouraging teenagers to not drink underage, “has created a dangerous culture of irresponsible and reckless behavior, unsupervised binge and extreme drinking” (60 Minutes). Teenagers are participating in activities such as pregaming and drinking games, in an attempt to get as drunk as possible in the shortest amount of time without getting in trouble often leading to teenagers who are not just tipsy, but extremely intoxicated, many times at dangerous levels. Because alcohol is seen as a “forbidden fruit” it is more enticing to teenagers and is commonly seen as a symbol of “adulthood” (Engs.). 

In an attempt to persuade the government to lower the legal drinking age, the President of Middlebury College, John McCardell, proposed a public statement called “The Amethyst Initiative” which asks government officials to reevaluate and reconsider the drinking age laws (Main). This statement, though not widely accepted by the general public, has been “signed by 135 college presidents and chancellors at schools from Duke to Bennington” who are surrounded by an atmosphere of underage binge drinking daily (Main). The statement calls for those in power, government officials, to reevaluate the legal drinking age and questions why we have not learned from the prohibition laws that forbidding alcohol consumption does not eliminate drinking but instead causes it to happen in a more secretive, dangerous way. Being that the signers of the Amethyst Initiative are the people surrounded by binge drinking, their opinion speaks louder when it comes to this cause. They have seen first-hand the dangers of binge drinking and how it affects not only students’ health but their academics, relationships, and futures. For this reason, lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 proves to be especially beneficial for the health and safety of college students who most commonly consume alcohol in dangerous ways and amounts. 

Though many people believe that lowering the drinking age to 18 would simply cause the age that people begin to drink to get lower and lower, the way in which the law is enacted and carried out could easily prevent this. In 2007, John McCardell, founded a non-profit organization called Choose Responsibility which “advocates lowering the drinking age to 18 and licensing alcohol use for young people in much the same manner as driving — following coursework and an exam” (Main). I believe that if the legal drinking age was lowered and the law was put in place as described, drinking underage would be far less of a problem. Compare a drinking license to a driving license. Before a teenager gets their driver’s license, driving a car is seen as dangerous and something that requires practice and supervision. Most teenagers would never consider getting behind the wheel of a car, even with supervision, without their driver’s license. In the same way, if one was required to receive a drinking license before being able to purchase, possess, or consume alcohol it would be viewed in the same light as the car: dangerous and something that requires practice and supervision. In addition, I believe that if the required drinking license course was informative and interesting, the eyes of many teenagers would be opened to the dangers and issues involved with drinking. Many teenagers do not consider the risks of drinking when doing so, such as health problems and dangers to others around them, and simply drink with the goal of getting drunk. However, I believe that the course could change this. For example, many teenagers do not think before they drink at a party but then get behind the wheel of a car under the influence because they have a curfew. However, if the course emphasized drunk driving in an effective and serious way, the teenager intoxicated at the party may reconsider the decision to get behind the wheel as he or she has directly been taught the dangers of drunk driving not only personally but to those around him or herself as well. This law, in addition to the required course, would cause alcohol to be seen less as a “forbidden fruit” and more as a privilege meaning it would be abused and taken for granted for much less (Main).

To compare the laws and effect of lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, it is important to evaluate underage drinking and binge drinking data from countries where the drinking age is 18, such as many places in Europe, and countries where the drinking age is 21, such as the United States. According to the World Health Organization, in European countries where the drinking age is 18 and often not enforced, 15 and 16 year-olds reported drinking on more occasions than American 15 and 16-year olds. However, the World Health Organization also reported that though European teenagers drank on more occasions, American teenagers, where the legal drinking age of 21 is strictly enforced, drink on less occasions but report higher accounts of dangerous levels of intoxication due to binge drinking (Choose Responsibility). It is also reported that in European countries, “roughly one in ten of all drinking occasions results in intoxications” in comparison to the United States, where “almost half of all drinking occasions result in intoxication” most often at dangerous levels (Choose Responsibility). This evidence proves that a direct correlation exists between the legal drinking age, whether it be 21 or 18, and the amount of binge drinking that occurs among those underage. In Europe, where drinking alcohol is often introduced by parents as a normal and accepted thing to do, teenagers are taught how to do so in a safe and proper way. In Europe, because drinking is viewed as a normalcy and expected, “there is a societal consensus on what constitutes responsible drinking” and binge drinking is much less of a problem (Engs). However, in the United States, because the drinking age is 21 parents do not have the opportunity to teach their children how to properly drink and therefore teenagers begin drinking in unsafe amounts and in unsafe ways such as pregaming, playing drinking games, and taking shots (Choose Responsibility). If the drinking age was lowered, many of these dangerous binge drinking habits would be eliminated as teenagers would know how to drink in a safe way due to proper education. 

Pregaming, playing drinking games, and taking shots are common tactics that teenagers use to get drunk in a fast way in order to avoid getting in trouble with both the law and with their parents. These methods of drinking, though they seem extreme, have become very common and almost normal among teenagers today. This is often due to the desire and necessity to drink in a fast and hidden way but is promoted by the media, specifically social media and television today. According to the BMC Public Health, evidence shows that “an increased awareness of alcohol messages amongst young people might lead to earlier drinking, higher consumption and increased harm” caused by alcohol (Smith). When evaluating social media and television in my own life today, I believe this is true. Social media accounts such as Old Row, Total Fraternity Move, and I’m Schmacked do not only advertise underage drinking and drinking in dangerous ways but glorify it. These accounts have millions of followers some of whom are under the age of fifteen, including my little brother. By viewing these accounts at a lower and lower age, the idea of underage and binge drinking becomes more glorified and more normal in the minds of underage children and teenagers. In addition, the fact that drinking underage is illegal becomes more insignificant and irrelevant with each post. However, if the drinking age was lowered to 18, accounts like these would not exist as drinking in this reckless manner would be far less common and much less glorified and desired. Therefore, less underage teenagers would view these accounts and the idea of underage drinking would not be taking shots or playing drinking games but instead drinking in a responsible manner as everyone allowed to drink would be educated on how to do so. 

Now, take yourself back to the first party you went to. This time the legal drinking age is not 21 but now it is 18. Yes, there are still people drinking but in a much different way. There is no one hiding in the corner, no one taking shots of their parent’s vodka, and no one gets overly intoxicated. Overall, the party is supervised by parents and everyone behaves in an acceptable and respectable way, even when consuming alcohol. Though this may seem impossible in your head, with a drinking age of 18, parties would no longer be out of control. Teenagers would no longer feel obligated to hide their alcohol. They would no longer feel the need to participate in drinking games. They would consume alcohol in a much more responsible and safe way which would not only help keep teenagers across the country safe but keep the United States as a whole much more safe and less consumed with the idea of getting drunk. Instead, the focus can shift to things such as forming relationships, personal success and achievement, and education. A shift, that in my opinion, is very necessary. 
