New Comm Ave

Eric Hawkins left his Southern Californian home at eighteen to attend Boston College, and will be entering his Sophomore year in the fall of 2009 with hopes of majoring in International Studies with a Political Science concentration, and minoring in Theology. With these degrees he wishes to work on the international scene, see the world, and do whatever good that can be done. He watches more House M.D. and reads more Albert Camus than is healthy or appropriate, watches tennis (Federer) and European soccer (Chelsea) whenever possible, and spends whatever time left enjoying his youth and his health with friends and family. Eric’s iPod knows no rest, his truck has far too many miles for its age, and he finds contentment in the itinerant lifestyle: life is too short and youth too fleeting to be idle. Cheers!

Be it for better or worse, the consumption of alcohol on college campuses has been, and always will be, a significant presence. However, since the passing of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, this presence has become, for the majority of the student body, an illegal one. Currently, any state not enforcing a twenty-one year old minimum drinking age will receive a reduction of their federal highway funding, and to date, every state bans almost all consumption of alcohol by persons under the age of twenty one.

Though illegal, however, the drinking persists. The question begs to be asked then, why such a high drinking age, as compared to global standards? Is the drinking age actually reducing alcohol consumption, or just increasing criminal behavior and subjecting more people to law enforcement sanctions? Is this law really serving to benefit the general good, as all laws are meant to do? Would it really be so incredibly dangerous to reform our laws to match most nations and lower our drinking age to eighteen? It seems that if one consults both his reason and the objective facts, the overwhelming truth is that the twenty one year old drinking age does more harm than good, and that it would be in the majority’s greater interest to lower the age of consumption.

It seems logical to approach this issue by mentioning some of the arguments that are provided for maintaining the current drinking age, and then individually examine each. Firstly, some argue that at age eighteen, men and women are not mature enough to make wise decisions about alcohol. Others say that the higher legal age will delay the point at which people may tend to drink dangerously, thus protecting the overall health of the community. Some argue that lowering the drinking age would incite mayhem and chaos, as teenagers would binge and wreck havoc as they explore and indulge in what is an apparently volatile liberty.

Much of the intent behind the incredibly high drinking age is to reduce the overall underage drinking culture since, some believe, it is a catalyst to unruly, destructive, and disrespectful behavior. For these four reasons it is argued and enforced that the drinking age remains as it is, towering over the global norm.

Most countries disagree with the assessment the United States has made in regards to the maturity of its youth in relation to alcohol, and even within the U.S. the drinking age is entirely inconsistent with other age-related laws. This argument is incredibly common and perhaps slightly exhausted, but it remains nevertheless important and germane. At age eighteen, in all fifty states, the following rights are given to a newly adult citizen: the right to buy tobacco products, the right to join the military, the right to a non-provisional driver’s license, the right to adopt a child, the right to vote for the President of the United States, the right to purchase a long-stocked firearm, and the right to legally consent to sexual intercourse. In addition, at age eighteen, a citizen enjoys the right to enter legally binding contracts, and thus a citizen has the right to marry, take out a loan, and apply for credit cards which would enable independent, international travel because at this age a citizen has the right to submit an independent application for a passport.

Perhaps most importantly, an eighteen year old citizen can be legally put to death by a state without any special prosecution. At age eighteen, however, a citizen is unable to legally buy, posses, or consume alcohol in almost every circumstance. Absurd. The dangers involved with volunteering for the military, risking possible frontline warfare, far surpass the dangers of alcoholic consumption. Likewise, owning a firearm exceeds the peril of buying a beer at a bar, and the personal choice to engage in sexual intercourse may have far greater consequences than the personal decision to drink. At age eighteen, a citizen bears the weight of enormous legal and personal responsibilities, however the right to drink is not granted until three arduous years later, contradicting most global standards. If the question is one of maturity, the contradiction found amongst the laws themselves should stand alone in persuading any legislature to lower to minimum age of consumption.

Perhaps more truly the motivation behind the current drinking age is the fear of possibly disastrous repercussions of a lower limit. If the effectiveness of the current drinking law was indeed as impressive as some legislatures have falsely convinced themselves, then this argument would prove incredibly persuasive for maintaining the current law. The law, however, is not effective. Because of this ineffectiveness, to say it should be maintained because of the good it does in sobering the underage population is naïve and ignorant, for it assumes that the drinking law, as it stands, prevents young people from drinking, and then credits the current lack of chaos to the falsely supposed sobriety of the underage populace.

This is logically fallacious, for it attributes a certain fact about a situation to a false cause. The order that exists amongst teenagers does not exist because of the drinking law, but instead for a myriad of other factors including familial values and educational systems. It cannot be contested that most citizens between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, if they choose, are able to find and consume alcohol; it cannot be avoided that many do so. Given this uncontestable and unavoidable fact, one can deduce that many young people consume alcohol without introducing some aspect of anarchy into society, and this deduction is evident every weekend. Young people do in fact drink, and despite the claims from many supporters of the current drinking age, there has not been an incredible outburst of chaotic behavior. Indeed there are often arrests and legal actions taken against citizens between the ages of eighteen and twenty one, but it would be again fallacious to propose this is an argument for maintaining the drinking age, as these legal consequences are not negative results from drinking, but merely of the law itself. Moreover, many of these alcohol-related crimes are committed by those much older than twenty one, and therefore it is shown that supporting a law targeting younger people does not take every fact into account. In regards to those younger people, eliminate the law, and thus eliminate many of the supposed negative consequences of alcoholic consumption.

In a more ideological sense, the proposition that the possible initial, negative consequences of lowering the drinking age should stand to maintain the current law violates the very foundation of cultural evolution and progress. For example, the abolition of slavery had initial, negative consequences on the economy in the south, yet it was done so anyway because of the conviction that it was the right thing to do, despite the price that initially had to be paid. The choice to engage in rebellion against Britain made by the American colonists led to initial death and chaos, yet it was done anyway because of the sincere belief that the chains of despotism were a hindrance to liberty and fulfillment. If the government’s sole reason for maintaining the current drinking age is to avoid the possibility of negative, initial consequences, they are polluting the very foundation of progression, and are acting in a cowardly and shameful manner.

Finally, the attempt to diminish the underage drinking culture as a whole is perhaps the most erroneous of all the arguments for maintaining the drinking age. Not only does the current drinking age fail in its attempts to eliminate a drinking mentality, it in fact increases it. People, especially young people, are drawn to what is considered taboo: this is a statement any sociologist or anthropologist would attest to. The veil of secrecy and rebellion that is cast on the entire act of drinking by the current drinking laws works only in tempting and wooing the younger population to its lore.

Indeed, rebellion is a common theme among teenagers, and the drinking law provides an enjoyable and accessible means by which teenagers can indulge in its pleasures. As mentioned above, many credit the legal consequences of drinking as proof of the veracity and importance of the current law, but this is entirely false; the law is not only ineffective, it is in fact counterproductive.

The counterproductive nature of the current drinking age arises when a rebellious image of alcohol is created. Teenagers tend to gravitate towards this image of rebellion and lack of control not simply because it is truly what they desire, but also because it is forbidden. Moreover, because it is forbidden, young people approach drinking in an uneducated and reckless fashion, which most certainly can lead to disastrous ends. Because drinking must be kept behind closed doors, and those participating must act in secrecy like criminals, drinking teenagers fail to understand safe methods of drinking, and thus do so in a binge-like fashion, creating health problems and dependency issues. If the drinking age is lowered, citizens would learn at a younger age about safe practices of alcohol, and thus approach it in a more prudent and more enjoyable manner. This law is unhealthy for America’s youth. Of course parents should be given the responsibility to educate their children in matters such as these, but as any parent will attest, speaking to an eighteen year old rebellious son or daughter is not entirely simple or effective, and in fact many parents are absent or not involved in their children’s lives.

Therefore, instead of wasting money on drinking-age related law enforcement, funds should be diverted to promote education about alcohol, be it via the school system or mandated though any one of the many standing bureaucracies. In the end, however, experience teaches better than all. Lack of experience leads to ignorance and imprudence, and this lack of experience is perpetuated by the current drinking laws.

These tendencies of ignorance and imprudence, usually manifesting themselves by means of DUI’s, sexual assaults, destructive behavior, and physical acts of violence, are often attributed to drinking, but it is false to say they are partially prevented by the current U.S. drinking laws; they exist equally in the United States as they do in European countries, in which the drinking age ranges from twelve to eighteen, and is enforced far less strictly. These are acts that will exist as long as alcohol exists, (there is no sound argument in existence that doesn’t admit to some negative aspects of alcohol), but it is valid to argue that if the taboo of alcoholic consumption is assuaged by lowering the drinking age and lessening the legal consequences of underage drinking, then the drinking culture would be one more educated and experienced, thus waning unwise decisions. Once again, if the fear of being caught drinking was not so great due to the incredible negative connotation given to it by the current legal structure, teenagers could act with more openness, and thus the possibility of incredibly ignorant behavior could be prevented by those of greater wisdom and experience looking on. Again, inexperience is the root of imprudence.

This inexperience of safe drinking that exists because of the current drinking law is coupled by the experience young people do obtain in disrespecting and disregarding the law. Again, young people have and will always drink, however if it is illegal, there is a sewn into the emerging generation a tendency of disobedience that can spill into other aspects of their lives. The danger of eroding the respect of the law and creating a mores of actual criminal behavior in every generation as they enter adulthood far surpasses the danger of allowing eighteen year old citizens to drink legally, and this is a point rarely considered when arguments regarding this issue are made. The ill effects of the current drinking laws are not confined to drinking alone.

Many citizens, often college students, between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, will drink, despite whatever laws that are in place. No one who has visited a college campus will deny this. The point of any law is to serve the general good, for that is the theory behind law itself. If the above arguments have any validity, it seems impossible to argue that the current drinking age is serving the good of the majority of civilians subjected to the state, and thus, by means of the entire political theory of legislature, should be dissolved. Be this not the case, the motives behind the drinking law should be called into question (the fact that states only maintain their laws to maintain highway funding already touches on this issue), as can the entire nature of drinking policies as they stand now in all fifty states. It is time for this law to change.

• 2009 Fall
• Argument/Opinion