Arguments for and against lowering the legal drinking age in the US include the military argument, reduced drink-driving deaths and accidents, and potential dangers of drinking in private. The US government is unlikely to change the age limit due to concerns about underage drinking.
There are a number of arguments as to why the legal drinking age in the United States, now set in most states at 21, should be lowered, stayed the same, or raised. It helps to have some historical background on the age of drinking. The current federal limits, which in some states prohibit the purchase of low-alcohol beers (about 3 percent), were set at 21 in 1984. Many states had temporarily lowered this age during the Vietnam War; many soldiers drafted into the war claimed that if they were old enough to fight or die for their country, they were certainly old enough to decide whether or not they wanted to drink alcohol.
The rejection of the legal drinking age in the United States came in 1984 largely due to groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and their leaders such as Candy Lightner, who argued that raising the minimum age could result in far fewer drink-driving cases and drink-driving-related deaths. The statistical evidence gathered after the increase in the legal drinking age shows that there was certainly, particularly initially, a great deal of merit for Lightner’s argument, and the United States has seen a reduction in drink-driving deaths and accidents since the 1984 law was introduced, especially for drivers under the age of 21. Proponents of lowering the limit say this was not due to the new restrictions, but to education about the dangers of drink driving.
The main arguments for lowering the legal drinking age in the United States, aside from the military argument, can be summarized as follows:
Lowering the drinking age means alcohol is not seen as the forbidden fruit, which would make people less tempted to try it.
Countries with a lower drinking age appear to have fewer problems with alcoholism.
People will drink in private, potentially dangerous situations, while being able to obtain alcohol legally in public settings would be less dangerous.
In addition to being able to serve in the military at the age of 18, people can also sign contracts, vote and get married. If they’re ready for these responsibilities, they’re definitely ready to drink.
There are multiple arguments, including that statistics show the benefits of a higher drinking age aren’t as strong as one assumes.
The arguments against lowering the drinking age are as follows:
Raising the minimum age has reduced drink-driving, alcohol-related crashes and deaths in people under the age of 21.
Although some underage people continue to drink, increasing age limits access to alcohol and decreases underage drinking.
People under 21 may not be mature enough to handle drinking and may be more at risk for behaviors such as binge drinking and addictions such as alcoholism.
Having laws in place prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors gives the state a way to enforce limits and provides natural consequences of drinking that may be punishable by law, discouraging underage drinking.
The US government is unlikely to change the drinking age to 18. Most people in government don’t support a change. There is further concern that lowering the age limit could entice younger people to drink earlier, as under-18s could argue that they are almost 18 and therefore entitled to drink. Strong arguments remain on both sides, with little likelihood of the laws changing in the foreseeable future.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
