The Case “For” and “Against” 21
“For” 21
Those who continue to support a 21 year-old drinking age point first, and most frequently, to its success in terms of its original intent: reduction of the number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities. A second, and secondary, argument advanced in favor of an age 21 requirement is that the adolescent brain is affected differently by alcohol. A higher drinking age, the logic goes, will lead to a healthier population. The third argument in favor of a higher drinking age is that early onset of alcohol use is associated with later alcohol abuse. A significant body of literature suggests early onset of alcohol use is correlative with alcohol abuse in later life. Lowering the drinking age would increase the availability of alcohol for younger people and exacerbate the problem of adolescent drinking. High school students, in particular, would have alcohol more readily available because their 18 year-old friends could buy and furnish it to them.
“Against” 21
The 21 year-old drinking age may have reduced drinking in the 18-20 year-old age cohort. But those still choosing to drink are drinking behind closed doors or off-campus and drinking more. If binge drinking statistics are to be believed, this is a problem of escalating seriousness. Drinking that is not out in the open, and drinking that requires one to travel to remote locations, is drinking that puts not only the drinker, but also the innocent citizen, at greater risk. Those who claim that the drinking age is itself responsible for reducing drinking must be required to explain why it is not also responsible for the increase in excessive, and unsupervised, drinking. Colleges and universities in particular are, under such circumstances, forced into becoming either arms of the law or havens from the law. Neither is appropriate. Not only does the 21 year-old drinking age limit the ability of educational institutions to go beyond exhortation in attempting to encourage responsible decisions about alcohol; it also minimizes the role of parents. Many states prohibit parents from introducing their children to alcohol in a controlled environment and in their presence, even though the law permits states to allow such practices to occur. Thus, young people are most likely to have their first exposure to alcohol in environments where there is little or no supervision or guidance
Those who continue to support a 21 year-old drinking age point first, and most frequently, to its success in terms of its original intent: reduction of the number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities. A second, and secondary, argument advanced in favor of an age 21 requirement is that the adolescent brain is affected differently by alcohol. A higher drinking age, the logic goes, will lead to a healthier population. The third argument in favor of a higher drinking age is that early onset of alcohol use is associated with later alcohol abuse. A significant body of literature suggests early onset of alcohol use is correlative with alcohol abuse in later life. Lowering the drinking age would increase the availability of alcohol for younger people and exacerbate the problem of adolescent drinking. High school students, in particular, would have alcohol more readily available because their 18 year-old friends could buy and furnish it to them.
“Against” 21
The 21 year-old drinking age may have reduced drinking in the 18-20 year-old age cohort. But those still choosing to drink are drinking behind closed doors or off-campus and drinking more. If binge drinking statistics are to be believed, this is a problem of escalating seriousness. Drinking that is not out in the open, and drinking that requires one to travel to remote locations, is drinking that puts not only the drinker, but also the innocent citizen, at greater risk. Those who claim that the drinking age is itself responsible for reducing drinking must be required to explain why it is not also responsible for the increase in excessive, and unsupervised, drinking. Colleges and universities in particular are, under such circumstances, forced into becoming either arms of the law or havens from the law. Neither is appropriate. Not only does the 21 year-old drinking age limit the ability of educational institutions to go beyond exhortation in attempting to encourage responsible decisions about alcohol; it also minimizes the role of parents. Many states prohibit parents from introducing their children to alcohol in a controlled environment and in their presence, even though the law permits states to allow such practices to occur. Thus, young people are most likely to have their first exposure to alcohol in environments where there is little or no supervision or guidance