Using a variety of research methods, at least 50 studies have examined the effects of changes in the MLDA on traffic accidents (Wagenaar, 1993). Some studies have assessed policy changes in a single state, while others have analyzed the impact of MLDA on multiple states. These studies assessed the effects of changes in the SHS on a variety of outcomes, including the total number of adolescent road fatalities; convictions for impaired driving; accidents with injuries; and nighttime deaths in individual vehicles (the accidents most likely to involve alcohol). A survey for the Center for Alcohol Policy found that 86 percent of Americans support the legal drinking age at 21. [54] Numerous state and national surveys from the 1970s (when states raised the legal drinking age) to the present have shown overwhelming public support for MLDA 21. [30] [31] [32] Despite the law, statistics and science, some people still think that teen drinking is not a serious problem. Here are some of the most common questions and statements you may hear from neighbours and friends about teen drinking – and how to answer them. Please share. In summary, the legal drinking age should be maintained as it is.

The current legal age protects teens and young adults from the harmful effects of alcohol. Many activities have an age of initiation. A person has to wait until the age of 16 to start driving, until the age of 18 to marry without parental consent, until the age of 35 to become president, and so on. The age limit for alcohol is based on research showing that young people react differently to alcohol. Adolescents get drunk twice as fast as adults,9 but have a harder time knowing when to stop. Teenagers, of course, overdo it and are more often than adults. Raising the legal drinking age of 21 reduces road accidents,4-6 protects the brains of mature youth,12,14 and ensures overall safety. References 4. Fell, J.; Minimum Legal Drinking Age Policy Knowledge Asset, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Substance Abuse Policy Research Program website; March 2009.

A restaurant that serves all these high-risk individuals would still be considered “responsible.” No one expects servers to ask you about your history of alcoholism or pregnancy because people would find these questions offensive and intrusive. And yet, all of these at-risk groups are much more likely to cause alcohol-related problems than people under the age of 21. There is no logical reason to accept questions about our age, but to be offended by more reasonable questions. There is no medical reason why alcohol should be an over-the-counter drug for people over 21, but illegal for younger people. All over-the-counter medications set a dose for adults 12 years of age and older, not for 21 years of age. The easiest way to prove this is to look inside your medicine cabinet. If the FDA recommends the same dose of Tylenol, Sudafed or Zantac for an 18-year-old as it does for a 21-year-old, why do we have a law that says people are not physically able to handle alcohol until age 21? It is clear that this is not based on biology. The drinking age also leaves inexperienced drinkers with no experienced friends and family to watch. This lack of support, combined with inexperience, increases the risk of sexual assault, unprotected sex and drunk driving. Of course, alcohol can impair judgment and make people more vulnerable.

But many of the negative consequences of drinking alcohol are less likely for a drinker who is under the supervision of responsible friends or family members — benefits we probably won`t get if we can only consume alcohol in secret. 20% of US teens aged 16 to 17 and 7.4 percent aged 14 to 15 report drinking alcohol in the past month, compared to an average of 38% of European teens aged 15 to 16. [49] [52] U.S. teens ages 16-17 also have lower rates of binge drinking (12.6%) than 15- to 16-year-olds from Europe (35%). [49] [52] Adults between the ages of 18 and 20 should not be denied this indulgence if other enjoyable activities are legal at age 18. Young people are also wrongly singled out for drunk driving. About 25% of 18-21 year olds don`t even have a driver`s license, let alone cars. Many others have a driver`s license, but choose not to drive or do not have the opportunity to drive. This means that the argument of drunk driving for drinking age does not apply to even a quarter of the population.

Many people above and below the legal drinking age are debating whether or not the legal drinking age should be changed. The facts destroy the argument for lowering the legal drinking age, and federal law sets the legal drinking age in stone. When the “forbidden fruit” is no longer prohibited, the young simply drinks more. In states where the drinking age was 18, young people drank more than in states where the minimum drinking age was 21. As adults, in their early twenties, they continued to drink more.4 References 4. Maisto, S.A. and Rachal, J.V. (1980). Evidence of the link between adolescent drinking practices, related behaviours and the Drinking Age Act: A review of data from a national sample. In H.

Wechsler (ed.), Minimum drinking age laws: An evaluation (pp. 155-176). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co. Read More Personally, I have no interest in drinking alcohol at the age of 21, and I will not get into the habit of smoking at the age of 18. However, lowering the drinking age will not make young people more responsible for alcohol, nor will it increase the drinking age. The United States also has a higher prevalence of alcohol-related problems such as alcohol use disorders, alcohol dependence, and harmful alcohol use than many European countries – all have lower drinking ages and higher rates of alcohol consumption. The United States even has a higher prevalence of “episodic excessive use” in its population than developed countries such as Australia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain.

It is clear that the world`s highest drinking age does not have the dramatic benefits prescribed by our society. It is strange that a country that values individual freedom is such an exception and yet has so little to show. Adolescents may choose not to drink or drink less frequently because social acceptance is lower or the risks are increased by parental or judicial authorities. Older teens and adults are less likely to provide liquor to minors, and licensed liquor stores are less likely to sell to minors because they think it`s illegal, morally wrong, or because they might be caught. [18] A. If this were true, alcohol consumption among teenagers would have increased after the introduction of the legal drinking age. This is not the case – teenage alcohol use has increased by 24 percentage points since 1984. And here`s another benefit of the law: the drinking habits of 18-year-olds have a huge impact on young teens between the ages of 13 and 17. The data also show a sharp decline in alcohol consumption among Grade 10 and 8 students. History says no.

When U.S. states had a lower legal drinking age, the drinking problem was worse for minors.3 For example, before the legal drinking age of 21 was introduced by all states, underage drunk drivers were involved in more than twice as many fatal motor vehicle accidents as they are today.3 References 3. Has fallen, James. Excerpted from “Chapter 2: Federalism: Resolute, the Federal Government Should Restore the Freedom of Each State to Set Its Drinking Age.” in Ellis, Richard and Nelson, Michael (eds.) Debating Reform.