Drinking Age in the United States

When an individual reaches the age of 18 in the United States he or she is legally recognized as
an adult. Whether or not the person is mature enough to handle this distinction is irrelevant to the law.
When one becomes an adult, and in entering this stage of a person's life is faced with many new
responsibilities and freedoms. One can enlist in the military without parental consent (minimum age is
17 with parental consent). One can vote, get involved with the political processes of the country. The
age of sexual consent in the United States is on a state level; for most it is 16 years, while the rest are
split between 17 and 18 years.
These are some major new responsibilities for a person. However, the legal consumption of
alcohol is conspicuously absent. While some states have exceptions to the rule such as religious
reasons, medical purposes, and parental consent, many do not allow an individual to consume alcohol
until he or she is 21 years of age. The United States is one of six other countries in the world with their
drinking age set at 21. We share this distinction with Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Oman, Pakistan, Palau,
and Sri Lanka. Meanwhile, the average drinking age in the world is 15.9 with a majority of countries
setting it at 18.i How is it that a man or woman can enlist in the military and likely end up killing
another person but is NOT allowed to have a drink? How is it that one can vote and have a say in the
future of this country but one cannot drink? It seems ridiculous when put in this context but proponents
of the current drinking age have there reasons. This paper will examine the many reasons for and
against lowering the legal drinking age in the United States regarding adulthood, safety, smoking, and
teenage rebelliousness.
One of the reasons for lowering the drinking age is the very fact 18 year-olds are adults and are
now responsible for themselves. As mentioned turning 18 and becoming an adult makes an individual
eligible for many rights and responsibilities. These include voting, smoking, jury duty, marriage,
military enlistment, and being tried as an adult.ii These are big responsibilities yet with all this an 18

year-old can still not drink a beer or a glass of wine. It does not seem reasonable that someone can
smoke a cigarette or put his or her life at risk in the military yet cannot freely drink.
Proponents of lowering the drinking age also believe that lowering the drinking age would
actually make it safer for everyone. They believe that prohibiting 18-20 year olds from drinking in
restaurants, bars, and other locations leads to them drinking in other less controlled ares such as house
parties or fraternities where they are prone to binge drinking.iii They also state that there are fewer
alcohol related traffic accidents in many countries whose drinking age is 18. Proponents go on to state
that while the US increased its MLDA (minimum legal drinking age) to 21 in 1984, its traffic accidents
and fatalities decreased at a lesser rate than that of European countries with an MDLA of 18. ivv
Furthermore proponents state that a decline in drunk driving accidents has occurred since 1982, two
years prior to the MLDA being raised to 21 and so any correlation between said decline and the MLDA
is rendered moot.vi They also state that lowering the MLDA would reduce the amount of alcohol related
injuries as a result of neglecting to seek medical aid for fear of legal repercussions.vii
Opponents to lowering the drinking age believe in the opposite. They state that alcohol
consumption can interfere with the still developing brain particularly with the frontal lobe which is
responsible for emotional regulation, planning, and organization. Opponents argue that the interference
that alcohol can have on this part of the brain can lead to a vulnerability to addiction, reduced decision
making process, violent behavior, memory loss, depression, and even suicide. viii However, Proponents
of a lower MLDA state that there is no correlation between an MLDA of 21 and lower psychological
issues. In a 2002 study of the legal drinking age and health/social problems, 72% of the studies found
no statistical relation between the two despite claims to the contrary.ix
Opponents continue the belief in safety by stating that because of the dangers imposed by
alcohol consumption, that it should be at a higher age. They cite other rights and responsibilities that
can only be used once an individual has reached 21 or older. Some of these include adopting a child,
purchasing a gun, gamble in a casino (in most states), or run for President (need to be 35). Because of

the immense responsibility these rights entail, opponents believe that alcohol should be similarly
restricted.x
Alcohol consumption at a young age is not something that should taken lightly. However,
regarding alcohol as something that could be more potentially harmful than cigarettes or military
enlistment seems a little silly. Once an individual turns 18 he or she can legally purchase cigarettes, and
smoking can cause a number of respiratory health issues for both the smoker and those around them.
Since when is having a drink more life threatening than enlisting in the military and being in a conflict
zone? Not to mention the high amount of stress soldiers must go through; despite being trained to
defend themselves many are not allowed to drink when off duty. This stress adds to the adoption of
cigarettes among military personnel. This is further proven by a 2008 survey by the Department of
Defense which determined that many soldiers pick up smoking to relieve stress, calm down, or even for
boredom.xi In 2008 30.1% of active duty personnel smoked with 29.7% staring after enlistment. xii
Military personnel are in a dangerous environment and need to be ready to perform at a moments
notice, but perhaps if they had access to a limited and supervised supply of alcohol they would not
adopt this dangerous habit. Along with other smokers military personnel have reported a difficulty
quitting even after their service is complete.xiii
One of the more typical attitudes in teenagers is rebelliousness. Many proponents of a lower
MLDA feel that having it set at 21 is ineffective because many teens already go out of their way to
obtain and consume alcohol. According to the National Center on addiction and substance abuse,
underage drinking accounts for 17.5% of consumer spending for alcohol in the US with 72.2% of high
school seniors having consumed alcohol at some point in their lives (2006). xivxv Proponents also believe
that normalizing alcohol consumption as something done in moderation will reduce the rebellious
nature of underage drinking.xvi
Another point that proponents make is with regard to States rights. While states can make
exceptions to the rule, they must all adhere to the federal MLDA of 21. They feel that the federal

government has overstepped its boundaries in the implementation of MLDA 21. When the Uniform
Drinking act was passed it compelled states to raise their MLDA to 21 or face severe cuts to highway
funding. As a result many states caved in to the pressure rather than lose millions of dollars in
funding.xvii Furthermore, many states have a culture and history all their own. Proponents believe that
states should also be allowed to have their own MLDA to reflect this.
The minimum legal drinking age is a big debate in the United States. While underage alcohol
consumption can have negative effects, viewing it as more dangerous than smoking or military
enlistment seems illogical. If alcohol is to have a higher age gate than other more dangerous activities
than perhaps the legal age of adulthood should be raised as well. The fact that one can fight and
possibly die for your country yet cannot legally drink seems oddly out of place.

David J. Hanson, Alcohol: Problems and Solutions, Minimum Drinking Age around the World,
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/LegalDrinkingAge.html#.Un_M4fmQliI

ii Amethyst Initiative, Statement, http://www.theamethystinitiative.org/statement/

iii Choose Responsibly, FAQs,
http://www.chooseresponsibility.org/frequently_asked_questions/#argumentsagainst
iv Thomas S. Dee and William N. Evans, Behavioral Policies and Teen Traffic Safety,American Economic
Review, May 2001
v Alcohol Impaired driving,National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, www.nhtsa.gov, 2009
vi 2009 Drunk Driving Statistics, www.alcoholalert.com, 2011
vii

Mark Kleiman, Of Amethysts and Fake Ids, www.samefacts.org, 2008

viiiUnited States Federal Trade Commission, Dangers of Teen Drinking, www.dontservetens.gov

ix Alexander D. Wagenaar and Tracy L. Toomey, Effects of Minimum Age Drinking Laws: Review and Analysis
from 1960-2000, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, (2002): 217-218
x James C. Fell, An Examination of the Criticisms of the minimum legal drinking age 21 laws in the United
States from a Traffic-Safety perspective, www.udetc.org, 2008
xi Department of Defense, 2008 DoD Survey of Health Related Behaviors Among Active Duty Personnel, Washington
D.C. Department of Defense, 2009
xii Ibid
xiiiIbid
xiv Joseph Caliphano Jr., The Commercial Value of Underage and Pathological drinking to the Alcohol Industry'
National Center on addiction and substance abuse at Columbia University, 2006
xv Mark Kleiman, Of Amethysts and Fake Ids, www.samefacts.org, 2008
xvi Charlie Covey, Drinking Age Requires necessary and Proper Action, www.youthfacts.org, 2007
xviiWill Wilkinson, Bottoms Up! Forbes, 2008