Should The Legal Drinking Age in America be Lowered?

 

Should the Legal Drinking Age in America be Lowered?

Image from Google

          Drinking is often a way for people to celebrate or relax, but some also use alcohol in a negative way, that not only affects them negatively but sometimes others. There is an ongoing argument of lowering the drinking age has been a big argument between Americans for years. Many think if someone can vote, gamble, and enlist into the military at 18, if they must go through things typical adults go through, then why can’t they also drink. But others may think by lowering the drinking age from 21 it will possibly lead to negative health and safety. When the drinking age was set to 21 many thoughts this would be a solution to motor accidents, which could be true, but no matter what minors will still get their hands on alcohol and continue to drink and drive. Some may think that people who are under 21 are not mature or emotionally intelligent enough for alcohol, which could lead to negative behavior and actions. Schools could teach kids the negatives of using alcohol and risks that follow it to help ensure that they don’t fall down that rabbit hole. But there’s also the argument of kids binge drinking whenever they can get their hands on alcohol because of the drinking age being 21. Some may think by lowering the drinking age people under 21 will get bored of drinking or get it out of their system. Those who think about the argument of lowering the drinking age in America should consider both negatives and positives that have been set in-place before settling on a final decision.

Viewpoint #1: Yes, the legal age in America should be lowered

            Advocates for lowering the drinking age believe by lowering the drinking age gives kids time to know how the consumption of alcohol affects your body. In her article, “The Legal Drinking Age Should be Lowered to 18.” Audrey Harkaway argues that Europeans introduce alcohol to teens at a young age to reduce binge-drinking or any type of alcohol violence. She also goes on to say, “If college students had the right to consume alcohol, campuses would be a safer place where students wouldn’t have the need to “hide” or “run” or fear getting help from adults when needed (Harkaway para. 3).” By lowering the legal drinking age, it could reduce the stigma of being scared to go to a trusted adult or ask for help from someone else without having the fear of getting into trouble. 18-year-olds can vote, gamble, receive life sentences, and serve in the military, many people believe if you must go through adult things then you can have a drink. If responsible drinking is taught at a younger age the chance of risk will decline (Harkaway para.4). This claim summarizes if alcohol violence is talked about more, it would teach teens to be aware of the effects of alcohol and how it can affect your body and the way some may perceive you. In his article, “Three-Quarters of Americans Started Drinking Alcohol Before Age 21”. Hoang Nguyen, a data journalist goes on to say, “. . . three-quarters of Americans (77%) say they drank for the first time before reaching 21 and six in ten (60%) say they had their first drink while still considered a minor. (Nguyen, para.1)”  By looking back, Advocates believe that teens will still find a way to get a hold of alcohol, with or without permission, and that it would be a safer and smarter decision to inform teens about the dangers that may come from the consumption of alcohol, and by doing this lowering the drinking age wouldn’t cause teens to look at alcohol as this “forbidden fruit”. Advocates believe if they can handle the responsibilities of being an adult they can have a drink.

Viewpoint #2: No, the legal age in America should be lowered

            Advocates for keeping the legal age 21 believe that it’s better for not only the public but for health reasons. In his article, “Sorry, College Students, but The Drinking Age Should Stay 21”, German Lopez goes on to say argues that studies been shown that there has been a reduced number of traffic fatalities among young drives since raising the drinking age (Lopez, para. 9). German Lopez goes on to say that, “The review pointed to one study after the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which raised the legal drinking age from 18 to 21: It found that the number of fatally injured drivers with a positive blood alcohol concentration decreased by 57 percent among ages 16 to 20, compared with a 39 percent decrease for those 21 to 24 and 9 percent for those 25 and older. (Lopez, para. 9)” And that’s not even considering other deadly circumstances from drinking like organ failure or violent behavior. Many advocates also believe if the drinking age is lowered to 18 the chances of freshmen and sophomores in high school will be able to access alcohol a lot easier compared to a 21-year-old. Drinking can damage your hippocampus, which is a part of your brain that helps with learning, memory, and awareness, and if this is damaged at a young age it could have some serious health and mental issues in the future. In her article, “Does Alcohol Kill Brain Cells?” Adrienne Santos-Longhurst argues that drinking doesn’t specifically target the individual brain cell, but your neurogenesis (Santos-Longhurst, para.19). Adrienne Santos-Longhurst goes on and says, “Heavy drinking can also lead to a thiamine deficiency, which can cause a neurological disorder called Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome. The syndrome — not the alcohol — results in a loss of neurons in the brain, causing confusion, memory loss, and loss of muscle coordination. (Santos-Longhurst, para.20)”

Similarities and Differences:

Looking back, there are similarities and differences that come from both arguments. A major difference between the two arguments is the public health and safety concerns, “Introducing alcohol at an earlier age demystifies the allure of alcohol and could prevent overindulgence in high school and collegiate environments (Harkaway, para. 4)” Whereas Santos-Longhurst argues that the consumptions alcohol at an earlier age can interfere with the brain’s prefrontal lobe, “The prefrontal lobe is the part of the brain that undergoes the most change during the teen years and is responsible for judgment, planning, decision making, language, and impulse control. Drinking during this time can affect all of these functions and impair memory and learning. (Santos-Longhurst, para. 27)” Overall, Harkaway believe by introducing alcohol at a younger age can prevent young people from having that urge to drink so much they collapse, but Santos brings up the fact that by introducing alcohol before their frontal lobe fully develops; it can interfere with their brain in a negative way that will haunt them later down the road. A major similarity between both arguments is social norms, “These feel-good hormones are the reason light-to-moderate drinkers feel more relaxed, sociable, and happy when drinking. (Santos-Longhurst, para.7)” Harkaway brings up that some of this generation’s parents drank to socialize with each other, or “let lose” while in college. “The students drank responsibly and if a student was in trouble or getting out of hand, friends weren’t afraid to ask for help because they weren’t doing anything illegal. (Harkaway, para.3)” While both authors aim to point out their believe in totally different fonts, it’s easy to find the similarities even if their opinions are opposite.

Strengths and Weaknesses:

 All the articles used have their own strengths and weaknesses when it comes to the argument around drinking age. Audrey Harkaway shows strength when it comes to a younger point of view of the topic, which makes her writing feel more emotional. She points out that those who are 18 can do things that can be considered life changing, like enlisting in the military, voting, and doing taxes, so why can’t they drink which is a solid point overall. Although Harkaway has an emotional construct behind her writing it lacks logistics when it comes to her writing. For example, she could dive into how we can incorporate a safe way to introduce teens to alcohol, by finding solutions or theories to help introduce teens to alcohol it would help her case. German Lopez article is a strong, well formatted article which makes it easy to follow along to. Lopez does a great job explaining his reasoning against lowering the legal drinking age and gives logistics on why. All though, German Lopez gives great reasonings he lacks some emotion in his writing. If he were to add information about how someone has been affected by a drinking accident, it would help his work.

Compromise:

            Both advocates for each argument do well explaining why they believe in the way they do. They all bring great reasons that make sense for their argument. These reasons include statistics, health, and social aspects revolving such arguments.

            After reading all of these articles, and being around those who partake in drinking, I believe that the drinking age should be lowered. The argument about 18-year-olds being able to enlist in the military and do things considered to be adult consequences but cannot drink has always been a valid claim to me. Throughout my years I have seen those under the legal age handle their liquor better than most who are over the legal age, which I feel like says a lot. Lowering the legal drinking age may not be the best for everybody, but through saving exposure to alcohol, I believe lowering the drinking age will be beneficial.