18 is a crucial age for anyone in the United States of America. Immediately upon an individual’s birthday, they receive an extreme amount of responsibilities of which they did not previously have at the age of 17. At the age of 18, people can legally buy cigarettes, fly an airplane, rent a home without the consent of a guardian, vote for political leaders, buy marijuana and even enlist in the country’s military. But, however, at the age of 18, citizens of the U.S. cannot legally consume alcoholic beverages. Why? If someone is responsible enough at 18 to decide their own future and even their country’s future, shouldn’t they have the right to have a drink when they deem appropriate?
Currently, the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) is 21 in our country. The notion that 21 year olds’ bodies are most “accepting” or more “tolerant” than an 18 year olds’ is incorrect. Tolerance to alcohol is formed due to a history of drinking. So, when an 18 year old starts to drink, their body will react just in the same way as it would if they were 21. This proves that the thought that age makes you more “ready” for alcohol consumption is false. Also, the responsibilities shared between 18 year olds and 21 year olds are the same. The majority of individuals at or between these ages are living on their own, or about to be living on their own, and making their own life decisions, whether it be attending college or taking another career path. These individuals are bestowed with the same responsibilities and are living very similar lives. This shows that the 21 year old is no more responsible than the 18 year old when it comes to living situations.
When citizens of the United States become adults, they are deemed as much more mature than a minor. If at the age of 18 someone can legally put others’ lives in their hands by handling an airplane, abuse cigarettes, which show zero health benefits, smoke marijuana recreationally, vote for the potential leader of our country, and also put their life and even others’ life at risk while fighting for the military, they should be able to have an alcoholic beverage. When you compare the maturity level that someone must possess to do these tasks, it’s much greater, and some more dangerous, than the level of maturity needed to consume an alcoholic beverage. For example, marijuana was illegal in the United States until the past few years. Alcohol has been legal since the end of Prohibition in 1933. So now, why are individuals 18 and above allowed to abuse a substance that has been completely banned in the United States until recently, but cannot consume a substance that has been legal to sell and consume for 80 years?
One may argue that allowing individuals of 18 years or older to consume alcohol would make it easier for underage children to obtain the substance. This is incorrect. In today’s day and age, 71% of eighth graders reported that it was relatively easy to get alcoholic beverages. This is a very large percentage of children who can get alcohol illegally already. So by lowering the drinking age to 18, it really isn’t making it any easier than it currently is for minors to acquire alcohol. It is not correcting that problem, but giving legal adults the right they deserve.
While you make strong points and a logical argument, I must disagree. Alcoholic beverages also have zero health benefits, so it's not as though they're all that much better than cigarettes. And while I respect your use of it, I have always found the argument of "x thing that is bad for you is legal, so y thing that is bad for you should be legal to," or any variants thereof, to be a little lacking. As to your argument involving marijuana, there have been a great deal of studies done revealing alcohol as far worse for you. Indeed, it is now believed that alcohol is more of a gateway drug than marijuana ever was. Furthermore, a small critique on your second paragraph: I do not personally think that 18 and 21 having the same or similar responsibilities can be used to prove that they are equally responsible. Two people having the same amount of homework doesn't always mean they'll both complete the same amount. Indeed, using the same evidence I would rather make an argument of an even higher legal drinking age, making the claim that neither 18 nor 21 year-olds are yet responsible enough to be trusted. Take into account, of course, that I do not like alcohol in the first place, as it is incredibly harmful to the body and brain. However, it is far ingrained in our culture, with the dangers of alcoholism ignored in favor of the Hollywood branding of booze as absolutely vital in order to have a good time.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that just because it's illegal doesn't mean that underaged non-minors will refrain from drinking. Reducing the drinking age to 18 would reduce the number of people arrested for drinking underaged.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Tyler. It is despicable that when I turn 18 I can kill and die for my country, but can't have a beer with my dinner. I would argue that we need to do more than lowering the drinking age to 18. I'm sure all of us have been told repeatedly not to drink and "just say no". Then, when young adults start drinking, whether in college or afterwards as 21-year olds, they do not know how to drink responsibly. This is the reason why the United States has higher drunk, alcohol poisoning, and on-campus rape rates than European countries with 18 or even 16 year old drinking ages(Italy, Ireland, and Germany drinking age is 16 for beer). The stigma around alcohol must change if we are to improve in these and other areas.
ReplyDeleteYou need to consider the effect that lowering the drinking age would have on society. There's a reason why the insurance premiums for a 16 year old with a drivers license are so staggeringly high. Teenagers are the highest risk drivers, and therefore will likely be the highest risk drinkers. Lowering the drinking age would only have a negative affect on society, as it would inevitably lead to more drunk driving and more alcohol related teen deaths.
ReplyDelete