1.3 Lower drinking age could be step in the wrong direction

Dear De Andra Kenoly,

I recently read your article about the benefits to lower the minimum legal drinking age in The Whitworthian from February 28th 2009. I strongly disagree with this idea because I am very certain it would only turn an unhealthy drinking culture into a worse one. It has been proven that there is a major problem with minors abusing alcohol and that it is on the rise. I understand your duty as an aspiring journalist to write an interesting editorial. I also understand it’s an important issue because you’re months away from turning 21. But, I'm sure as a senior undergraduate student you've seen alcohol abuse by your peers. Something needs to be done, but lowering the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) to purchase alcohol will only create more abuse from a wider range of ages.

Your editorial mentioned the Amethyst Initiative, which has had a major role bringing this discussion into the public. According to their website, their goal is to: “…encourage moderation and responsibility as an alternative to the drunkenness and reckless decisions about alcohol that mark the experience of many young Americans” (Amethyst Initiative). John McCardell, the President Emeritus of Middlebury College, founded this group in hopes to change the law and create action. They broke news because of their petition signed by over 100 college presidents all agreeing to the benefits of lowering the MLDA.

These presidents believe lowering the drinking age will create a new culture of drinking in moderation. As good as that idea sounds in theory, I only see this creating a younger age group for binge drinking. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey said, “This small minority of college administrators wants to undo years of success – that defies common sense. We need to do all we can to protect the national drinking age – a law that saves the lives of drivers, passengers and pedestrians across the country each year” (MADD). Many benefits have come from raising the drinking age to 21 in 1985. I think it's safe to say most people, other than young adults counting down to their 21st birthdays, will object to this proposal.
Since the drinking age has been raised to 21, drinking related accidents have decreased by a significant amount. The Department of Transportation has estimated that the 21-year-old drinking age has saved 25,000 lives since 1985 (MADD). It doesn’t make sense to lower the legal drinking age and risk 1,000 lives per year.

College students have easy access to alcohol and often binge drink on the weekends. This is becoming more and more of an issue because of the health risks that are associated with drinking so heavily and in such short time frames, often causing blackouts and regrettable decisions. By college presidents signing petitions to lower the age to 18, they will only be passing the problem down to high school principals. Ruth Engs a professor of Health Applied Science at Indiana University believes drinking is a problem in minors because it is rebellious, she says, “[Binge drinking] is seen as an enticing "forbidden fruit," a "badge of rebellion against authority" and a symbol of 'adulthood'” (Engs, paragraph 2). If the drinking age is lowered to 18, then 16 year old high school students will just be wanting to drink because it’s forbidden and rebellious. Ronald M. Davis, Immediate Past President of the American Medical Association, has a strong opinion on lowering the drinking age. Davis states, “If we lower the age at which young adults are legally allowed to purchase alcohol, we are lowering the age of those who have easy access to alcohol and shifting responsibility to high school educators. The science simply does not support lowering the drinking age” (MADD). This will become a never ending cycle; changing the age to 18 would be irresponsible and would brush the problem under the rug.

You also give evidence that many other European countries have a younger drinking age and that they have a healthy drinking culture. Europeans’ healthier drinking habits are not only related to the actual age, there are other variables in how they are raised that affect their perceptions on drinking. The United States today would not be able to take on these mannerisms by just changing the law, our peers would not be able to adjust to this new idea of legal drinking in moderation. This change needs to be gradual, over a long period of time.

As we’ve seen in many horror stories, not all minors can handle their alcohol, and that’s the cause of the problem. I believe "responsible drinking" is not an option right now, the law needs to be used to prevent deaths and injuries in young people. We cannot lower the drinking age and hope it will work. In the past, states that lowered their drinking ages back to 18 had much higher rates of car accidents in 18- 20 year olds, states such as: Massachusetts, Michigan and Maine (Drinking Age). It makes no sense to me, to give 18-year-olds this power when they will be set up for failure.

Underage drinking is not only an issue in the United States; it’s a worldwide problem. New Zealand is also in the center of this controversy; in 1999 the drinking age was lowered from 20 to 18. According to a study in the American Journal of Public Health, the amount of traffic accidents increased significantly in young adults from ages of 15- 18, it is believed that a higher MLDA would have prevented these problems. These statistics show that lowering the drinking age was not effective and will most likely have the same outcome if this was done in the U.S.

In your editorial you bring up a very strong point, “I am considered mature enough to choose to enlist in the army and perhaps even die for my country. I am also considered wise enough to vote on issues and for politicians to run the country” (Kenoly, paragraph 21). However, we should reconsider when someone is legally considered an adult. The website Why 21? discusses the benefits of the 21 year old drinking age. Their website provides evidence that the human brain does not finish developing until the age of 25 and that, “adding alcohol to the mix is a recipe for disaster” (Alcohol and the Teen Brain). Because scientists agree of the detrimental effects of alcohol on the brain, why would we allow teenagers to have access to something that we know is poisoning them? As you said in your editorial, “Judgment can be clouded when drinking” (paragraph 26). I can’t imagine the increase of bad decisions if the age is lowered to include younger, less mature teenagers.

By lowering the drinking age, alcohol abuse by teenagers would be increased. We should continue to examine and look for better options or solutions to underage alcohol abuse. As you said, “The consumption of alcohol is not the dangerous thing; it is the silence which shrouds the underground drinking scene” (Paragraph 15). I believe better education on alcohol should be set fourth and more conversations about drinking should take place at home and at school in order to teach adolescents to drink in moderation. I do agree that making better decisions about drinking is crucial; but I think there are other options rather than lowering the drinking age in the society we live in today. I think lowering the drinking age to 18 will only cause more abuse of alcohol and send the future of our society in the wrong direction.


Apprehensive College Student,
Danielle Guy



Works Cited

Amethyst Initiative. Amethyst Initiative. 2010. Web. 2 February 2010.

Engs, Ruth. Forbidden Fruit. University of Indiana. Web. 2 February 2010.

Kenoly, De Andra. The Whitworthian. Whitworth University. 28 February 2009. Web. 1 February 2010.

Kypri, Kypros. Voas, Robert. Langley, John. Stephenson, Shaun. Begg, Dorthy. Tippetts, Scott. Davie, Gabrielle. “Minimum Purchasing Age for Alcohol and Traffic Crash Injuries Among 15- to 19-Year-Olds in New Zealand.” American Journal of Public Health 96. 1 (2005): 126-131. Print. 2 February 2010.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 2010. MADD. Web. 12 February 2010.

Procon. Web. 3 February 2010.

Why 21?. 2007. Web. 2 February 2010.