Brian Bushway
Staff Writer
It is time for a new perspective to take hold across the United States. Friday nights for those under the legal drinking age should no longer be thought of as the time to participate in wild drunken debauchery, but rather the time to act in civil disobedience. With every sip of a beer and swallow of a daiquiri, those of voting age should take refuge in the fact that they are doing more then simply breaking a law. They can be demanding change. Young adults should be speaking out against age discrimination with the minimum Drinking Age Act and be engaging in civil disobedience. The change that should be called for is the legal drinking age to be lowered to the age of 19.
The lowering of the drinking age is an attempt to rid U.S. policy from hypocrisy and age discrimination. The drinking age should also be lowered in conjunction with moving the legal age of adulthood up to 19. The meeting of the two ideas under the same age will bring consistency in thought, a clear message about what is adulthood and when it begins, as well as healthier attitude toward drinking.
The current state of the nation’s drinking policy has left young adults confounded in a society of mixed messages. Upon turning 18, society tells new adults they are responsible enough to determine the fate of our country by voting, old enough to get married and old enough to kill and die for one’s country. But they are still not old enough or responsible enough to drink.
We give our young adults guns and ship them off to war where they put their own lives on the line for their country and are responsible for other human lives. In the court system, 18-year-olds can be punished to the fullest extent of the law. If a person can experience all the adult consequences, then they need to have all the adult privileges.
Without them, adults between the ages of 18 and 21 are truly second class citizens.
The National Youth’s Rights Association states on their Web site that “One thing not in dispute is the segregation effect of the drinking age, encouraging entertainment establishments to shut out people under 21. It limits where and with whom young people can spend their free time. Like other age restrictions, the drinking age makes clear that no matter how hard you work, no matter how successful you are, you are still a second-class citizen unfit for association with adults until you reach an arbitrary age.â€
In reading the legislative analysis of the national Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, it is clear that the drinking age of 21 is fairly arbitrary. During the legislative process the question arose, why the age of 21? But there was no response. The issue was not debated and there is still no rational for the age on the records.
In trying to understand the choice of 21 as the drinking age, the history of the modern minimum drinking age has to be explored, which began following the end of prohibition. The states were given the right to determine their own drinking ages be it 18, 19 or 21. Some lowered it to 18 or 19 and others kept it at 21. But during the early 1970s nearly all states lowered their legal ages of adulthood and drinking age to 18 due to the Vietnam War. Then in 1984 special interests groups, especially Mother’s Against Drunk Driving, lobbied the federal government to pass legislation that would withhold funds for state roads if the states did not comply with having the drinking age at 21. By 1988, all states had the minimum drinking age set at 21.
Many believe the passing of this law has saved thousands of lives, but independent researchers have regularly challenged that assertion. MADD is quick to point out that the number of intoxicated drivers ages 16 to 20 involved in fatal crashes dropped by 33 percent from 1988 to 1998. However, according to their own figures, the rate of fatal crashes involving all drivers dropped by 35.6 percent from 1982 to 1997. So, it seems that the relationship between the lowering of the drunk driving rate and the raising of the drinking age is a false correlation.
More important than whether or not the passing of the Minimum Drinking Age Act is statistically saving lives, there is still the issue that youths are drinking. According to the National Youths Rights Association, over the past 40 years the rate of youth drinking has remained relatively the same. About 50 percent of high school seniors have had an alcoholic drink in the past 30 days, according to a 1996 government survey.
The way the law stands, young adults are forced to drink “underground.†They cannot drink in open environments in fear of being punished, so they are left to drink in unsupervised basement parties. Parents who host parties to ensure a safe environment and no drunken driving feel threatened by laws about allowing minors to have alcohol. Underage designated drivers are also punished by law and by Pepperdine rules. Even though young adults try to take responsible measures — and they absolutely should their hands are still slapped.
Healthier attitudes toward drinking need to be encouraged and an open atmosphere to discuss drinking needs to be fostered. The United States can benefit from taking a page out of the Europeans’ book of drinking attitudes.
In Europe and almost everywhere else in the western world, drinking ages are low and it can certainly be argued that their youth are not being any more detrimentally affected by alcohol than Americans ages 18 to 21. For the drinking age to be lowered, young people still have to prove that they can act responsibly, which includes eliminating drinking and driving. But making one uniform age, 19, for all adult decisions, responsibilities and privileges makes sense for numerous reasons.
Nineteen is an age in which young adults are out of high school — and are less likely to expose younger school mates to alcohol — and mature enough to more appropriately begin participating in adult society whether by voting, serving in the military, or anything else. It would foster a more responsible drinking environment — particularly in college — for those under 21 (binge drinking is lower in nations with lower drinking ages), and it would provide a level of consistency regarding when adulthood begins that today is regrettably absent.
10-28-2004