Introduction
The debate over the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) has been ongoing for several decades in the United States. The proponents of both views have strong and valid points about whether the MLDA should remain 21 or be lowered to 18 or 16. Henry Wechsler and Nelson F. Toben say that the supporters of retaining the MLDA at 21 argue that introducing children to alcohol early on leads to many adverse health, safety, and financial risks (990).
Furthermore, introduction to alcohol at a young age may result in significant drinking problems in adulthood. However, supporters of lowering the MLDA state that decreasing the drinking age might lessen excessive drinking and foster greater personal accountability. Prohibiting drinking after the age of 18 only drives young adults to secret drinking in unsafe or unsupervised spaces and could contribute to excessive drinking (Wechsler and Nelson 990). This topic is essential because of the possible effects of drinking on individual safety, public health, and financial expenses. Based on the negative consequences associated with underage drinking, such as reduced productivity, increased economic costs, and negative impacts on an individual’s emotional and overall well-being, it is strongly recommended that the minimum legal drinking age of 21 be maintained and not lowered.
Health, Safety, and Legal Justification for MLDA 21
The minimum drinking age should remain at 21 because lowering it causes harmful effects linked to underage drinking. Under 21, drinking is associated with consequences such as alcohol-related falls and injuries, road accidents, and deaths. For example, a drunken 17-year-old is less likely to check the level of traffic before crossing the road, hence may easily be hit by a fast-moving car or cause a car collision due to making sudden stops. In 1984, the national government established the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which requires states to prohibit people under 21 from purchasing or consuming alcoholic beverages (Wechsler and Nelson 986).
The minimum legal drinking age has critically minimized underage drinking cases and associated impacts such as fatalities, alcohol-related injuries, and automobile accidents (Wechsler and Nelson 986). The minimum legal drinking age law has been in practice for over seven decades and has significantly helped reduce alcohol-related deaths and accidents. The law provides that young adults be patient until they are 21 before they can consume alcohol to prevent alcohol-use disorders and other long-term harmful effects of drinking at an early age. A study by Wechsler and Nelson showed a significant reduction in alcohol-related accidents when the MLDA was raised to 21 from when it was lower (986). Therefore, the minimum legal drinking age law should be maintained to curb alcohol-related accidents, injuries, and deaths.
Economic Impacts of Lowering the Drinking Age
According to Traci L. Toomey et al., lowering the minimum legal drinking age would reduce young people’s productivity and increase economic expenses. Allowing people under 21 to drink would reduce their capacity to learn, work, or do other essential duties. For example, intoxicated college students will likely skip classes to sleep or nurse their intoxicated friends, thus proving unproductive. Economic growth requires the participation of people below 21, as it requires those above this age.
The young people and their families would also incur additional expenses in treating them for injuries due to falls and alcohol-related diseases such as heart disease, digestive problems, high blood pressure, and cancers. Such expenses reduce individual financial growth and may lead some to debt and poverty. Indeed, alcohol has been linked to high poverty because when people become addicted, they may go to extreme lengths to obtain alcohol, including selling personal items. Therefore, keeping the legal drinking age at 21 is critical in preserving underage productivity while saving on unexpected medical expenses to foster economic growth and a healthy society (Toomey et al., 1959).
Emotional and Mental Health Risks of Early Alcohol Use
According to Toomey et al., consumption of alcohol before the age of 21 is proven to be irresponsible and dangerous because it interferes with an individual’s emotional and general well-being. Drinking alcohol interferes with the developmental process of young people’s frontal lobes. This part of the brain is vital for emotional organization, planning, and regulation, without which it could increase the risk of chronic problems such as depression, violence, memory loss, reduced decision-making ability, and suicide. The brains of intoxicated teenagers may lead them to long-term consequential acts such as premature sexual activities that could result in regrets and depression.
Intoxicated teenagers who engage in premature sexual activities may be exposed to early pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. For example, a teenager may engage in sexual activities with a person with HIV, forget the incident, and may not get an appropriate medical check-up on time to prevent an infection. The study indicates that alcohol consumption is closely connected with domestic violence, in which drunk individuals beat their partners and regret it when sober. Therefore, retaining the MLDA at 21 will save the young youth from making poor and life-changing decisions when intoxicated and preserve their general well-being (Toomey et al., 1961).
Alcohol and Gateway Drug Use Among Underage Drinkers
MLDA 21 law is crucial because it prevents young adults from accessing and abusing other drugs. The study by Wechsler and Nelson shows that people who use alcohol are also likely to use other drugs, such as cigarettes, cocaine, and marijuana, because they are sold in the same areas or by the same people (989). Individuals under 21 are curious, and their curiosity barely ends at tasting alcohol and other available drugs.
Intoxicated underage boys and girls with reduced ability to make proper decisions may be easily swayed to use other drugs (“Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered”). For example, while drinking beer with friends, teenagers could also share cigars and marijuana. Alcohol users can take a shorter time to recover from a hangover if they only drink beer than when beer is consumed along with other drugs (“Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered”). Illicit drugs are addictive, and their overdoses cause critical health issues and, at times, death.
Early Drinking and Long-Term Addiction Risks
Introducing the underage to alcohol early may adversely affect their adulthood. People who are introduced to alcohol at the age of 21 or later will drink less throughout their lives. However, when people start drinking early, they are more likely to drink more in adulthood.
Alcohol drinking is closely connected with individual experiences and a person’s maturity. If people have long experience in drinking, they will likely drink more and for a long time. Before age 21, the children have not matured to know the drinking limit and may drink uncontrollably. For example, an excited teenager at a party may drink more than five beers, while someone over 21 will take at most two.
The primary difference between these two people is that while one enjoys a drink they cannot afford, the other knows that drinking too much can affect their functioning. Heavy episodic drinking at an early age can continue into adulthood, thus becoming an addiction. Adults with drinking problems become a problem in society instead of growing to contribute to national growth. Consequently, MLDA should remain at 21 to prevent possible addiction in adulthood that was contributed by an early introduction to alcohol (“Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered”).
Rebuttal
The proponents of lowering the MLDA argue it would encourage individual responsibility and lessen the stigma of underage drinking. They contend that young youths should be trusted to make responsible decisions concerning alcohol use (“Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered”). According to Wechsler and Nelson, lawmakers have denied youths a chance to be held accountable for their lives only when it concerns alcohol (988). In most countries, people aged 18 are considered adults and given accountability for their actions, including those who drink. For example, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, China, and Austria have set their MLDA at 18.
Ironically, the American government would trust an 18-year-old to elect their leaders and join the military, yet cannot be trusted with alcohol (“Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered”). Wechsler and Nelson state that if an American can die fighting for the nation, they should be allowed to enjoy some refreshment to complement their hard work (986). Furthermore, the government has legal control over the MLDA 21 law because underage drinkers are still drinking in hiding. Lowering the MLDA will reduce the underage drinking stigma by proving that they can assume responsibility for intoxication as adults.
Although promoting individual responsibility is essential, the risks of exposing young people to alcohol ingestion exceed the potential advantages. A study by Toomey et al. shows that lowering MLDA would adversely affect public health and safety by increasing the prevalence of underage drinking and other adverse outcomes (1959). Assuming that people under 21 can drink responsibly could lead to heavy episodic drinking, addiction, and other alcohol-related consequences that could interfere with an individual’s public health and normal functioning. For example, alcohol addiction increases the financial costs of rehabilitating patients in public health facilities, which the government pays.
Lowering the MLDA does not allow young adults to be responsible but creates room for making grave mistakes (“Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered”). For example, when teenagers cannot access alcohol, they cannot miss classes because of a hangover.
Modern parenting is not designed to monitor how many beers an underage person drinks at a time. Current parents are often busy working, and even though underage individuals will drink in public bars, they will not have a guide to control their level of intoxication. Consequently, the introduction to early drinking will prove that young adults cannot be responsible for making the right decisions when intoxicated. To preserve public health and personal safety, the MLDA should remain at 21.
Conclusion
The best decision regarding MLDA is to preserve the restricting law because it reduces the harmful effects of underage drinking. The analyzed research has proven that there are undeniable hazards for people under 21 consuming alcohol. Furthermore, the disadvantages of retaining this law are outweighed by the benefits. Introducing alcohol to people at 21 years allows them to enjoy drinking while being accountable.
Encouraging underage responsibility or accountability is essential, but when it involves alcohol, it poses many dangers. Therefore, the best action regarding this debate is to maintain the MLDA at 21 to show love and care for the underage and to indicate responsible young people. American policymakers must stand firm in defending the law of MLDA because it has proven successful, and as a way to continue protecting young adults from the dangers associated with underage drinking. That way, they will help maintain a socially responsible community where children can contribute to the growth of an economy.
Works Cited
“Should The Drinking Age Be Lowered in the US? 13 Pros and Cons.” ProCon, 2022. Web.
Toomey, Traci L. et al. “The Age‐21 Minimum Legal Drinking Age: A Case Study Linking Past and Current Debates.” Addiction, vol. 104, no. 12, 2009, pp. 1958-1965. Web.
Wechsler, Henry, and Toben F. Nelson. “Will Increasing Alcohol Availability by Lowering the Minimum Legal Drinking Age Decrease Drinking and Related Consequences Among Youths? ” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 100, no. 6, 2010, pp. 986-992. Web.