I cannot understand why male 18-year-old US citizens can be drafted to fight for their country, but they cannot legally purchase a beer. Why does our country believe that at age 18, citizens have good enough judgment to vote for public leaders, yet 18 to 21-year-olds do not have acceptable judgment to consume alcohol?
The proponents' main focus and defense regarding the legal age of consumption is, and has been, drunk driving. There are many separate topics tied into the debate regarding the legal drinking age, but the following will demonstrate why a high drinking age is wrong.
The drinking age laws have led to segregation in society. They have driven underage drinking away from public social events and into private parties, usually with people who have little responsible drinking behavior. It is unrealistic for the law to ever be obeyed by minors who wish to consume alcohol. Not only do college students drink in an "irresponsible manner," but even high school students do the same. What society sees as a greater cost than social tension and use of public resources is the supposed cost of saved lives resulting from a higher drinking age. I use the term "supposed" because even though statistics demonstrate a decrease in the number of drunk driving accidents for people under the age of 21, it is illogical to conclude this is due to an increased drinking age. Society has established many programs and policies in an attempt to counteract drunk driving for people above and below the legal drinking age since 1986, and they have proven successful.
Statistics show that since the drinking age laws were written, there has been a decrease in the amount of drunk-driving-related deaths for people under the age of 21. Is the decrease a result of the laws or the increase in education and precautionary measures? If the decrease is due to the laws, then people must measure the costs and benefits that result from these laws.
I will use the economic concept of "cost-benefit analysis" to demonstrate what I mean. If about 17,000 lives have been saved over the 11-year time period (1985-1996), then an average of 1,550 lives have been saved per year. Is the cost of these lives worth all the other conditions that the laws burden society with? As trivial as it sounds, I do not think so. If the government can gather millions of dollars of taxes from alcoholic products and use them, for example, to stop genocide in another country, is that worth a few hundred lives. Is one life more important then the happiness of millions of others?
The politicians who wrote the laws did not write them the way the majority of the country wanted them. Presently in America, the groups that oppose a low drinking age have more political support, and that is why they have the laws in their favor. The advocates of the laws, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), have lobbyists and funding to support their views. The majority of people who oppose the drinking age laws tend to be young adults with little funding.
There exist millions of people over the age of 21 who support a lower drinking age. The problem is, they are not willing to commit the time and money into changing the laws because they are no longer directly affected by them. The present lack of a strong anti-drinking age public voice is one reason politicians tend to side with the advocates. If there were a proportional representation of the people who want and do not want the drinking laws, then drinking laws would probably be abolished.
If Europe were to be looked at as an example, many would see that young people can use alcohol like any older person in society. In Europe, drinking privileges are not abused by youths, proportionally to the amount of adults that abuse drinking.
When my brother went to Greece, he said that none of the kids there abused alcohol the way he and his friends did. When I went to Germany and Amsterdam with my hockey team, I noticed the same thing. I asked a kid my age in Europe (I was 16 at the time) about how much people our age drink. His response was that they definitely do party and drink, but that they do not participate in these activities any more than the 21-year-olds in their town. Europe is a perfect model that demonstrates that a lack of drinking laws are safe and constructive.
People of all ages will continue to drink alcohol regardless of almost any regulations. A reduction in the drinking age can increase the equity in our country, decrease social tension, and resolve a major conflict in our politically saturated society.
Oliver Garfield is a sophomore majoring in economics.
