
I am the third and final child in my family to go to college, the second child to attend a university in the state of South Carolina, but I am the very first child in my family to make it through the first semester of college without receiving a minor in possession charge and wake up in jail or be taken to the hospital due to over-intoxication. My oldest sister graduated from the University of Indiana with a degree in Telecommunications and a minor in Spanish and my brother is a junior at Clemson University and is majoring in Environmental Engineering with a focus in water treatment and solutions. This is all to say that my siblings are very well educated young adults, who arrived to their freshman year unprepared for the culture they were about to face. Neither one of them had ever been in trouble with the law before, yet after their incidents had to go through extensive lengths to get this mistake off their permanent record. This is not to say they shouldn’t have to the consequences of breaking the law. But I know that my siblings are not a danger to our society, yet got in large amounts of trouble for following the culture of our country. Underage drinking is an issue that is not going to be stopped by laws, so it is important to understand drinking behaviors and educate those who are part of the target age groups that are affected by this drinking culture. If the drinking age were lowered cops would be allowed to focus on creating safer roads rather trying to enforce a law that will never fully enforceable. Each side values safety. Everyone wants the safer roads and drinking safer drinking habits, we can all agree on that fact. By regulating the minimum drinking age with drinking permits and licensees alcohol will no longer be looked at as a taboo, which will insure safe drinking rather than binge drinking. 

In the 1920’s there was prohibition, where all alcohol was considered entirely illegal. Drinking was no longer regulated, so it moved underground where it only became more dangerous. And like raising the drinking age to 21, it did not stop people from drinking, it only made it considerably more dangerous. People did not only disagree with the law, but they broke it regularly. In response to the violence and danger, alcohol became legal again, in 1933 when the 21st Amendment was passed, which ended prohibition. Then, in the 1980’s the government raised the drinking age from 18 to 21 (Staff). It seems that in the past few years many people have been wondering whether this is solving the issue of underage drinking or if it is only making situations more dangerous, like the prohibition days.

There was a boy named Gordy, he was an 18-year-old freshman at the University of Colorado, Boulder and had been in school for one month, when he began the initiation processes into the fraternity Chi Psi. His parents explain how one weekend he was forced to chug wine and hard liquor, the exact amount is unknown, due to the fact no one was measuring drink sizes, because they were drinking straight from the bottle. Some older brothers then took Gordie back to the fraternity house because he was incapacitated.  They said his eyes were rolling back in his head, he couldn’t walk, and was clearly in a very dangerous situation. His fraternity brother proceeded to put Gordy on library couches to sleep it off. He was left alone on the couch for nine hours and no one called for help. Gordy died that night in a room alone, yet in a house full of his friends(Drinking Age Debate). This is just one of the many stories in the news about college students who go too far with alcohol. Many students, either end up in the hospital, have been in a car accident, or worse, like in Gordy’s story have died due to over consumption. Gordy’s parents explain how this situation was 100% preventable. Lesley Stahl asks his parents, “if the drinking age had been 18, instead of 21, would the kids have called for help?” and his mother replied, “I believe so” (Drinking Age Debate). So many underage young adults are more worried about the legal consequences rather than the safety of their friends and loved ones. This is just one of the many stories that show the taboo and fear that is surrounding alcohol. Those boys were all under 21, which did not stop them from drinking, it only made them do it in high quantities, then fear the repercussions of what may happen if they were to call for help. 

Technically each state determines their own drinking laws, so the national government technically did not force each state to raise their drinking age. Although the national government didn’t force the new law, they cut all federal highway funding by 10 percent for all states who failed to raise the drinking age to 21. These laws were created to stop underage drinking, yet that may not be the truth. In the state of Pennsylvania studies have shown that “zero-tolerance juvenile drunk driving laws” have not helped the decrease in number of fatal juvenile traffic accidents (Lewis 134). Although this only focuses on one state’s issue, this can easily be transferred to any other state in the US. This shows that although there is a law in place to attempt to solve the issue of drunk driving and underage drinking, the laws have failed. Underage teenagers are still going to drink. 

 Now comes a new question what is the ideal drinking age? If the drinking age is lowered to 18 won’t the underage drinking just have a trickle effect and then even younger children will start to hide their alcohol consumption? In an article by Brandon Griggs, he interviews a Brown University anthropology professor about the situation at hand. 

 He asks what he thinks the minimum drinking age should be, and Dwight B. Heath responds, “8, or maybe even 6”. Griggs is not advocating for young children to go and get drunk, but he is refereeing to other developed countries. Countries like Italy and France. In these countries parents give their children alcohol, like wine and beer, with meals and are by doing so are showing children at a young age that alcohol is not good nor bad, but just a drink with dinner. By doing this it takes the taboo away from drinking. In these cultures, drinking is not rebellious or dangerous, teenagers do not have to hide, lie, and steal their way to a good time, yet they can do it safely and responsibly where everyone can see. And if an issue were to arise, legal repercussions would not be a concern, but the safety of their friend would be. Although lowering the drinking age to 8 or even 6 is completely unrealistic, this shows that there is a large cultural divide between America and other countries. There is a difference in the ways alcohol is viewed,  “The World Health Organization cites the U.S. as one of only a handful of developed countries with a minimum drinking age over 18. Several countries, including Belgium, Denmark and Germany, even allow 16-year-olds to buy beer and wine” (Griggs). This goes to show that America is a part of a small minority of developed countries that differentiate from normal drinking cultures around the world. 

"Alcohol is seen more as a drug, and not something that's integrated into everyday life” (Griggs). Alcohol is used for partying and going as crazy as possible, which is fun, until you get to the point where the United States is. We are past the point of fun and games and are now into dangerous territory, where there needs to be a culture change. Other countries do not have the binge drinking or black-out culture that we have here. Griggs also adds in another interview with Marjana Martinic, deputy president of the International Center for Alcohol Policies or ICAP , "I think 18 is viewed (by most countries) pretty much as a reasonable age limit” (Griggs). She continues to explain how the United States originally developed its image of alcohol stating, "The Puritan ethic has really shaped the way alcohol is regulated in the U.S."(Griggs). The issue isn’t the alcohol itself, but the way in which we as a society look at it.  Times have changed and the way America views alcohol need to as well. As long as alcohol is seen as something that is taboo and not a normal aspect of society, people will over use and abuse it. Once society is able to normalize the use of alcohol the many issues that come with it will begin to lower, because it will not be seen as a partying activity that needs to be done in an out of control manner, but at a moderate level, to simply have fun.

Although it sounds nice to have alcohol integrated into part of culture, that is not to say that just lowering it will fix all the problems. There were real issues that needed to be fixed back in the 1980’s when states raised their drinking ages. "Research shows that it saves lives, agreed MADD National President Jan Withers. In fact, it is one of the most researched public health laws on the books. When the law was raised to 21, alcohol-related deaths for young people decreased; when the drinking age was lowered, deaths increased" (Griggs). It is great to see that raising the drinking age has helped save lives on the road, however it has shown other things on college campuses. In an article by Megan Downs she states, “The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism estimates that 1,700 college students between ages 18 and 24 die of alcohol-related causes each year, while about 600,000 suffer from alcohol-related injuries” (Downs). That is 601,700 people between the ages of 18-24 who are either dying or being affected because of alcohol. This shows that although there are a couple hundred lives being saved on the roads, there are thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of injuries due to the culture that our country due to a higher drinking age. This is a ridiculously high number and goes to show that this law is not saving any lives. This law is only creating a more dangerous environment. There are always unpredictable outcomes when creating a new law, but now that we have had time to research and examine the side effects and outcomes of this law it is time to reevaluate if this law is making the roads and our culture safer.

We are point where we can look back and see if this law in place is effective or not. Everyone on either side of the argument is looking for the same thing, which is safety for the greatest number of people. It is rare that in argument people want the same outcome, but it is very common that everyone wants a different way to get there. There are many different ways to meet in the middle when in regards to the safest way to drink and they need to be discussed to change the culture we have in America today. There have been many changes since the new law has been enacted, “Since the law changed in 1984, fewer young adults are consuming alcohol (of course, under an effective law, none should), but 45 percent of those who do drink, drink excessively. Binge drinking is as widespread now as it was before the age was raised” (McCardell). Vice-chancellor and president of the University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee explains that the law in place now is not effective. Being that 0% of people under the age of 21 should be drinking, yet 45% of underage people who do drink, drink to excess or binge drink (McCardell). Many people believe that when this law was created it was the most successful law, due to the amount of traffic accidents related to drunk driving was reduced, but McCardell has a different idea, he states “at the same time, alcohol-related traffic fatalities have declined drastically, but not because of the change in drinking age. Fatalities have dropped in all age groups, and have declined by the same percentage in Canada, where the age is 18. A successful public education campaign pointing out the risks of drinking and driving deserves much of the credit” (McCardell). Education had a very large role in the decrease of drinking and driving fatalities. People currently against lowering the drinking age would say that the raising of the drinking age was the cause of lowered highway fatalities, yet studies have shown that education was also a huge factor in lowering these numbers. Canada is a great mirror to look at and see that although they did not change their drinking age, their highway fatalities also decreased. This goes to show the power of education. Take cigarettes for example, anyone 18 and older can buy cigarettes. Not even 50 years ago almost everyone smoked cigarettes, but rather than making them illegal the government started an educational campaign to teach and warn about the harmful effects cigarettes can have on the body. This made an extreme difference in the usage of cigarettes over time and goes to show the power that education has. Educating is much more effective than banning and making illegal.

Changing a culture begins with a leap of faith and people who are willing to continue to persistently work hard to achieve the end goal. The system we have now is failing. It is a huge issue that is concerning highly ranked officials in many departments that work with young adults who currently struggle with the law at hand. The way the laws are currently promote secrecy and rebellious behavior. In 2008 100 college presidents from the most well-known and prestigious universities, including Duke, Dartmouth, and Ohio State, all signed a petition, to have lawmakers discuss the issue and consider lowering the drinking age. One president states, “Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students” (Thompkins). 

 To think that the situation can be resolved over night or by the changing of one law is naive, but something must change. Some professors have come up with a solution that would promote safe drinking while understanding and addressing the needs and concerns of groups against lowering the drinking age, such a Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Their proposal suggests allowing those to drink, like how we allow people to drive. When someone turns sixteen society doesn’t throw a pair of car keys into the hands of a newly legal teenager and expect them to know how to drive a car safely. Instead, we spend a year teaching them how to drive with supervision, then have a test in which they must pass to then get a license, that legally allows them to operate a car. Many people think that we should think of drinking in a similar way. By introducing safe drinking as a privilege, and a normal permitted activity that can be monitored.

By introducing a drinking license, this allows for the government to educate and inform potential drinkers on the pros, cons, legal requirements, consequences, and every other aspect that is missing from the current education of alcohol now. At the moment, the teaching is abstinence, which is not being practiced in the United States. McCardell explains it perfectly saying, “licensing would work like drivers’ education — it would involve a permit, perhaps graduated, allowing the holder the privilege of purchasing, possessing and consuming alcohol, as each state determined, so long as the holder had passed an alcohol education course and observed the alcohol laws of the issuing state” (McCardell). This sets up clear and reasonable boundaries that make drinking a privilege rather than “outlawing” it outright. 

 Colleges and universities may have an alcohol education program in place, but having the government teach a zero-tolerance policy does no justice for a generation that obviously drinks, and drinks to excess at that. There is a greater need for higher education and positive results will follow. By increasing education on drinking issues this also allows for law enforcement to focus on the true root of the issue, which is safety. Law enforcement could help inform the public, but also more strictly enforce drunk driving cases, which was the main intention of raising minimum legal drinking age. They could also devote more of their time to saving the lives that need to be saved, because the fear of getting in trouble would be gone and the main concern would be each other’s safety.

“Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer” (Thompkins). We trust young adults with great responsibilities, yet we don’t trust them with making the decision on how to responsibly use alcohol. Yes, alcohol can have negative effects on the body, the mind, but isn’t that the decision of the person who decided to consume it? If we as a country present, all the possible consequences through education and tests, as we do with driving, shouldn’t we allow young adults, who are able to enlist in the military, vote, serve on juries, sign contracts, live on their own, attend college, pay for college, and many other adult responsibilities, make this decision on their own. A writer for TIME Magazine puts it like this: “Congress was stampeded into this puritanical law by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who with all good intentions were wrongly intruding into an area of personal choice exactly as did the hymn-singing 19th century temperance crusaders” (Paglia).  This law took away the right for young adults to make a choice on how to consume alcohol, yet they can make so many other important decisions.

 Everyone is looking for one common thread, safety. It is the kindest and most pure intention, but it is no longer working for our culture. The United States has a drinking problem and we need to normalize the way alcohol is consumed. So many people are being injured or even worse dying due to the culture that has resulted from raising the drinking age.  By returning our minimum legal drinking age back to where it was in the 1980’s, but permitting it like a driver’s license, as a culture we will learn that alcohol is not a taboo topic, but normal in our culture and many other cultures around the world.  
