Before the 1980s, the legal drinking age was set at 18, which is the age where a person becomes a legal adult, earning the ability to vote in elections, join the military, and serve in a jury. Most countries around the world have a legal drinking age of 18 years old and do not have as much of a problem with that age group and their drinking habits as the United States does. In today’s drinking culture, there is a tremendous problem surrounding underage drinking, especially among underage college students, which must be stopped. Lowering the minimum legal drinking age has been a highly contested subject for years. Even though the drinking age is 21, many youths drink alcohol in excess and they do this in secret. This leads to many injuries that go untreated due to the illegality of underage drinking. One major factor to these injuries and binge drinking is that there is not a strong enough alcohol education program. One way that this can be fixed is by establishing a program called the Amethyst Initiative that promotes lowering the national drinking age to 18 but calls for stronger alcohol education. 

Prior to the 1980s, it was legal to drink at the age of eighteen years of age. This ended during Ronald Reagan’s presidential administration when he signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act into law in 1984. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act came to fruition at the urging of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), a nonprofit organization whose goal is to prevent underage drinking and drunk driving. Reagan gave states an ultimatum—either raise the legal drinking age to the age 21, or receive less federal funding for highways, meaning that states “could lose more than $30 million unless they comply” (Associated Press 1). Prior to this law, it was a state right to choose the drinking age, and some states chose to raise it to 21, while others maintained the drinking ages at 18. This led to a rise in 18 to 20 year olds driving across state borders to drink alcohol, leading to many drunk driving accidents as those adolescents drove back to their home states while intoxicated. Reagan originally was for the states’ rights to choose the minimum drinking age, but after listening from pleas from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, President Reagan changed his stance on the issue and signed the bill into law, with the backing of “Vice President, George Bush, Transportation Secretary, Elizabeth Dole, the president of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, Candy Lightner, and Sen. Frank Lautenberg” (Associated Press 1). Although the minimum drinking age was raised, 18 to 20 year olds continued to drink alcohol, causing more problems, such as binge drinking. 

Binge drinking, especially underage binge drinking, has become a popular occurrence in the American drinking culture since the enactment of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, especially on college campuses. Binge drinking can be defined as a “pattern of drinking that brings blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels to 0.08 g/dL. This typically occurs after 4 drinks for women and 5 drinks for men—in about 2 hours” (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 1). Binge drinking is prominent on college campuses where there is a majority of 18 to 20 year olds in one area, where most are away from their parents or legal guardians for the first time and given more freedom than they had been given before. The new taste of freedom that new college students get allows students to do things that they would never do around their parents, and what they mostly choose to do is party and binge drink. Although college campuses have police forces, they have not been able to prevent drinking among their underage students. These excessive drinking habits can be contributed to the party culture surrounding teenage America. There is no question that our society praises excessive partying and underage drinking, as it is often seen in movies such as Project X, Neighbors, and Spring Breakers and even in classic movies such as Animal House. In almost any high school drama TV show, such as One Tree Hill, Gossip Girl, Friday Night Lights all normalize the concept of drinking while underage. It is not a surprise that studies show that adolescents who watch movies and TV shows that do normalize binge drinking and underage drinking are more likely to drink while underage themselves. According to research studying the drinking habits of teens who are exposed to alcohol through television and movies, “the proportion of teens who started drinking alcohol more than doubled from 11 to 25 per cent, while the proportion who began binge-drinking more than tripled from 4 to 13 per cent” (Daily Mail Reporter, Daily Mail). According to the BMJ Open, an online medical research journal, “‘Product placement in movies is forbidden for cigarettes in the U.S., but is legal and commonplace for the alcohol industry, with half of Hollywood films containing at least one alcohol brand appearance, regardless of film rating,’” which shows how easy it is for Hollywood to normalize the drinking culture within America (Daily Mail Reporter, Daily Mail). So the real question is, why do we as a society normalize underage drinking when we know it is illegal? It is a known fact that the media plays a large role in influencing its audiences, so why is the media normalizing underage drinking? This can be stopped if lawmakers lower the drinking age and decriminalize teenagers for this since it is already considered normal.

At age 18, teenagers become legal adults who can vote for the people who will govern our country. 18 year olds can join the military, which means they can fight and die in combat at this age, but it is still illegal to drink alcohol because 18 year olds are considered too young. So what makes drinking alcohol more dangerous than a war zone? At this age, 18 year olds can be tried as an adult in court. This means that committing a crime at this age can lead to a possible death sentence or a lifetime sentence. So why is an 18-year-old considered an adult, but still not old enough to have a beer? 18 year olds can also serve in a jury. So we give 18 year olds the opportunity to make a decision about the life of another, but we cannot give them the choice to drink alcohol? At the age of 18, teenagers are given many responsibilities legally, but alcohol is still considered illegal, so why are things as dangerous as dying for one’s country legal, but having a beer is deemed illegal?

There are some organizations that support lowering the minimum legal drinking age, such as the Amethyst Initiative. In 2008, the Amethyst Initiative was created by John McCardell, a former president at Middlebury College, who realized that there is no way of stopping students from drinking while underage. According to the Amethyst Initiative website, alcohol education “that mandates abstinence as the only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral change among our students” (Amethyst Initiative). McCardell, who is also the founder of the pro-18 year drinking age organization Choose Responsibility, believes that in order to prevent alcohol related injuries or deaths among underage students, the legal minimum drinking age should be lowered to age 18, but he does not believe that the legal drinking age should be lowered without any restrictions. McCardell proposes to strengthen alcohol education and make 18 year olds go through a course on alcohol education and then take a test. If the student passes, they receive a license to legally drink alcohol. This alcohol education program has a better chance of teaching students how to drink responsibly opposed to alcohol education now that teaches abstinence. With this program, it would still hold 18 year olds accountable for drinking and would make them be responsible since the license could be revoked at any time if the student does not comply with the rules. This program would be the most effective way to minimize alcohol related injuries among this age group, since they would have to be more responsible. 

To add to what McCardell proposes, there should still be a limit on what 18 to 20 year olds can and cannot purchase. 18 to 20 year olds should legally be able to purchase beer and wine, while 21 year olds would be able to legally purchase liquor. There is less alcohol content within beer and wine then there is in liquor. The percentage of alcohol by volume (ABV) within beer is 4.5 percent, within wine it is 11.6 percent, and within liquor it is 37 percent (Bryner). Liquor has 3 times more ABV than wine and 8 times more ABV than beer, which shows that liquor is much stronger than both wine and beer by a huge amount. McCardell proposed that there should be a “permit to drink” and compared it to a driver’s permit, but permits have limits, and the “permit to drink” should also have limits (“Drinking Age Debate”). This would benefit 18-20 year olds who want to drink by allowing them to drink alcohol that is not as strong or dangerous as liquor. In a study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “6 ounces of pure alcohol” is “about equal to the alcoholic content of 12 bottles of beer or 8 mixed drinks” (Greenfield 1). This shows that liquor will get someone more drunk much quicker than beer can, which is dangerous because there is a higher risk of alcohol poisoning by consuming less drinks. If 18-20 year olds are taught at this age to drink more responsibly while being given a small amount of responsibility to drink legally, then the drinking age should be lowered.

Many studies have shown that alcohol is dangerous to the brain’s development, but at age 18, adolescents can purchase cigarettes which are just as bad or worse than alcohol. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), cigarette smoking “is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Cigarette smoking causes “more than 480,000 deaths each year in the United States”, while excessive “alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths” per year (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). It is legal for 18 year olds to purchase cigarettes, which do more damage annually than alcohol does. Smoking has also caused more deaths than “motor vehicle injuries”, so if lawmakers were looking at the statistics and can see that cigarettes cause more deaths than alcohol and the reason the drinking age was raised was due to the amount of alcohol related motor vehicle accidents, why are cigarettes still legal to buy at age 18 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)? 18 year olds are seen as adults in most aspects of the law and can legally purchase something that is the leading cause of death in the United States, but are seen as too immature to purchase and consume alcohol. This shows the unfairness of the minimum legal drinking age being 21 instead of 18.

To add, most countries around the world have a legal drinking age of 18, and in some countries the drinking age is even lower. The reason why countries in other parts of the world do not have as many issues with underage drinking as the United States is because they teach safe drinking habits. The organization Choose Responsibility, which supports lowering the minimum drinking age to age 18, states that “European countries where the drinking age is 18 or younger (and often not enforced), 15 and 16 year-old teens have more drinking occasions per month, but fewer occasions of dangerous intoxication than their American counterparts”. This shows that the drinking culture within European countries does not promote binge drinking. An article written by Choose Responsibility also adds that in “many southern European countries roughly one in ten of all drinking occasions results in intoxication, while in the United States almost half of all drinking occasions result in intoxication” (Choose Responsibility). This shows the giant disparity between the drinking habits of Europeans and Americans. Europeans do not have as many cases of highly intoxicated youths as the United States because they are taught to drink responsibly and in a family setting at young ages. This is due to the European’s more responsible alcohol consumption approach. It “is asserted that alcohol is more integrated into European, and especially southern European, culture and that young people there learn to drink at younger ages within the context of the family”, which allows them to also learn how to drink responsibly (Room 2004). Through the context of family, European youths learn how to drink casually and socially while growing up, while American youth choose to drink in excess since they do not learn to drink casually due to the age restriction enforced by the law. If Americans try to emulate the Europeans in this aspect and teach their children to drink in a casual manner, binge drinking would not be as bad in the United States as it is now. 

In addition, underage drinking is currently a huge and dangerous issue in the United States of America. Underage drinking is unlawful in all 50 states, but youth still drink alcohol with no regard to the law. Consequences for drinking while underage normally result in a Minor in Possession of Alcohol, known as an MIP, or a fake identification charge since most youths purchase fake driver’s licenses to purchase alcohol or get into bars. In the state of South Carolina, a Minor in Possession is classified as a “misdemeanor criminal offense” with a fine of between $100 and $200 dollars for the first offense (Masella Law). If an underage youth were convicted of this misdemeanor, they could have a “sentence including 30 days in jail, as well as being required to complete an alcohol education or prevention program that is approved by the Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services” (Masella Law). With a false ID charge, a youth “can face up to $100 in fines or 30 days imprisonment and a 3-month suspension of their driver’s license” (The Law Office of H. Chase Harbin). Even though these charges are serious, many teenagers choose to take the risk and drink while underage. The problem is that since Americans binge drink, they have a higher probability of getting alcohol poisoning or other alcohol related injuries. Since it is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to drink, these underage students do not seek help when they or others are injured due to alcohol related causes. In a 60 Minutes interview, Lesley Stahl talks about a case at the Chi Psi fraternity in the University of Colorado at Boulder, where Gordy Bailey, a freshman, died from alcohol poisoning since his fraternity brothers did not want to call the ambulance since he was underage and it was illegal (“Drinking Age Debate”). Also in the same 60 Minutes segment, Lesley Stahl interviews Boulder, Colorado chief of police, Mark Beckner, who agrees with John McCardell that the drinking age should be lowered. Beckner says that with the implementation of the lower drinking age that police “are not trying to enforce a law that is unenforceable”, and says that he does not see the benefits of “trying to give a kid a ticket for having a beer in their hand” (“Drinking Age Debate”). If the Amethyst Initiative was implemented, youths would not have to worry about legal repercussions and since some law enforcement officials do not want to criminalize underage drinking because it is a waste of resources, both parties would be satisfied. 

While the main reason that the minimum legal drinking age was raised to age 21 was from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) lobbying for a higher drinking age to prevent drunk driving, studies show that the improvement of safety in cars and stricter seatbelt laws have played a bigger role in the decrease of automotive deaths among 18 to 20 year olds than the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. In a 60 Minutes segment about lowering the national minimum drinking age, Lesley Stahl cites the Surgeon General, saying that “‘more than 3,000 Americans under the age of 21 are dying every year of alcohol related causes other than driving’” (“Drinking Age Debate”). This shows that now more people who are not 21 are dying from the effects of binge drinking than those who die in drunk driving cases. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that in “fatal crashes in 2011, the highest percentage of drunk drivers was for drivers ages 21 to 24 (32%), followed by ages 25 to 34 (30%) and 35 to 44 (24%)” (Intoxalock). From these statistics, one can clearly see that underage drunk drivers are not the problem when it comes to driving while intoxicated, the problem lies with the drivers who are legally of age to drink. In a press release from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “alcohol impaired driving fatalities declined by 7.4 percent in 2009” (NHTSA). If the Amethyst Initiative was implemented, there should be harsher punishments for youths with the “permit to drink”, like a complete revocation of the permit until they reach 21 along with the suspension of their driver’s license. 

In conclusion, the Amethyst Initiative would benefit those 18 to 20 years olds who want the right to drink, but also teach them responsibility. This is the best way to lower the drinking age that would satisfy both parties who are for and against this topic. The Amethyst Initiative allows youths to learn responsibility while still being limited on some aspects of alcohol consumption. With the implementation of a program like this, there would be healthy ways for adolescents to enjoy themselves legally.  
