Opinions

No more prohibition: Time to lower drinking age

In light of recreational marijuana use being legalized in Washington, I thought now would be a good time to discuss the drinking age. Personally, I’m not a fan of drinking. I don’t even like rum balls, and you can barely taste the alcohol in them. But the idea of raising the drinking age or lowering it has been one that I’ve pondered time and time again.

I found on procon.org that the majority of countries have a minimum drinking age between 16 and 19 and that the United States is one of only six countries whose drinking age is 21. There are definitely pros and cons to both raising and lowering the age. I however think that lowering the age would most likely provide more benefits than raising it would.

As for lowering the drinking age to somewhere between 16 and 19, there could be some positive consequences. Nearly three-quarters of the population have drunk before their high school graduation. According to the CDC, in 2010 alone there were nearly 200,000 trips to the emergency room for underage drinking.

One possible reason for drinking (and one I saw frequently growing up) is rebellion. If the country were to lower the age to 16, as it is in England, the rebellion aspect of drinking could potentially disappear, or at least be lessened. Because of the drinking age alcohol is seen as a sort of “forbidden fruit,” so to speak (Ruth Engs).

Were the drinking age to be lowered, that aspect would not be as great. Later on in the same article, Engs says “the 21 year old drinking age law is not working, and is counterproductive; it behooves us as a nation to change our current prohibition law and to teach responsible drinking techniques for those who chose to consume alcoholic beverages.”

However, there are some downsides to lowering the drinking age. Were the country to lower the legal age to drink, there is the possibility that more teenagers will start drinking. The earlier you start drinking, the more likely you are to abuse it throughout your life (cdc.gov). And if you abuse it, your children are three times are likely to abuse it as well.

If alcohol was more accessible for minors, we might still see an increase in consumption regardless of any rebellion motivations.

My experience, even though it might be different than yours, is that teenagers tend to be irresponsible and have bad judgment. I know I have made plenty of bad decisions. If alcohol is easier to get a hold of, then they’ll have even more opportunities to be irresponsible.

There’s the chance that drunk driving accidents will increase and teenage deaths or abuse will increase due to alcohol. We could potentially avoid that by educating teenagers more on the subject of alcohol.

Raising the drinking age to 25 would be a good idea too, though. The brain is fully developed by age 25, so if people didn’t start drinking until then, they wouldn’t be inhibiting brain development and damaging their futures. According to a study published by Duke University, people between the ages of 21 and 24 average about 16 homicides and 30 vehicle deaths for every 100,000 people, while people age 25 average 6 homicides and 16 motor vehicle accidents. Raising the drinking age could lower the amount of death in people less than 25 years of age. There is also the possibility of more revenue earned from alcohol by raising the age. By age 25, people are more likely to have a stable job or even career, therefore they can probably afford more alcohol than your average 21-year-old who’s probably still in college. And with the new higher taxes on alcohol in Washington, that makes an even bigger difference.

While in Europe alcohol consumption is not a very controversial issue, it remains one here in the United States.

Pleasing both those for drinking and against drinking is difficult, as it is with any issue. Marijuana being legalized for recreational use was a large step in what I think is the right direction. Lowering the drinking age could have some bad effects, but I feel the positives outweigh them.