Over the past century there has been much debate on what the proper minimum drinking age should be for U.S. citizens. Clearly, the prohibition of alcohol has shown to be minimally successful in keeping our country sober regarding teenagers all the way to the elderly. In 1920, the country outlawed alcoholic beverage sale, transportation, and production completely. Consequentely, this lead to rebellious behavior towards the government, deaths attributed to faulty formula developments (known as "bath tub gin"), illegal speakeasys, and criminal misconduct. The act of depriving someone their entitlement to a given right ultimately proves to display a negative effect on the way they will begin to regard it. In this case, beer, whisky, and wine are the forbidden fruits and the government is playing the role of the devil amid the garden of U.S. soil. Prohibiting alcohol continutes to cause a problem--contradicting terms of trust in those we refer to as adults, or those who are expected to maintain mature lifestyle. Soldiers, newlyweds, tax payers and registered voters, to categorize a few, are constantly facing criminal punishment for sipping a drink during ceremonial, recreational, and various other purposes and activites. This seems ludicrous, and absolutely poposturous to be trusted amongst these responsibilities, yet a glass of wine they are not. Among young adults, it shall be considered that lowering the legel drinking age in the United States would promote more responsible alcohol consumption, an increased level of trust, and would likely lead to a declination of deviant behavior.
The first prohibition of alcohol in the United States proved to be unsuccessful with the consequence of rebellion and apathy. Much like all of the citizens of the '20s, young adults of this day and age are advised to abstain from consuming alcoholic beverages of any variety. In the article "Teach Drinking", from the Atlantic Monthly, John McCardell, a scholar who believes the law juvenilizes young adults, and founder of "Choose Responsibility", a non profit organization that raises awareness about alcohol, writes ..."state laws mandating a minimum drinking age of 21 haven't eliminated drinking by young adults -- they've simply driven it underground, where life and health are at greater risk." Students at universities and colleges of all types are finding themselves in uncontrolled, dangerous environments in an attempt to avoid legal ramifications. For example, recently at a large university fraternity induction, a young man was told to drink, in essence, as much liquor as he possibly could which lead to a loss of consciousness, a nervous system break down, and tragically his untimely death. The victim's parents stated in a nationally broadcasted interview that they believe had the partiers been of legal age, they would have called an ambulance to help their son assuming that they were too afraid of the trouble they would be in possessing alcohol. Bars and taverns are required by law to refuse service to intoxicated patrons, and also generally try to stay within a "two drink per hour maximum" per customer as well. In an environment in which heavy drinking is encouraged, perhaps because getting ahold of booze is difficult, those under 21 will binge and binge until their lives are nearly on the line. This will seldomly happen as often in public settings, as the drunkard will display belligerence and will inevitably be cut off by the more responsible bartender. Is the drinking age one giant contradiction to the term adulthood? Age of Majority? What's going on here? Does adulthood at 18 constitute as being too low? Should the age of majority be 21? Thats debatable also, but a different issue nonetheless. Lets explore a few avenues. In the Memphis Commercial Appeal, Batholomew Sullivan writes about Johnnie B. Watson, a college professor and previous superintendent of Memphis City Schools. Watson has been an advocate of the drinking age being set at 18 since the Vietnam era. He believes that if you can vote for the president that sends you to war, those military personell are more than justified to have a drink on the right side of the law. Among voting and fighting and for ones' country, wedding, buying a house, signing off on medical treatment, purchasing tobacco, and interestingly enough, selling alcohol! Each of these motions require a significant amount of trust whether it be towards ones own health, society, a spouse, or a family member.
The Mothers Against Drunk Driving organization (MADD), who have also began pushing for a "zero tolerance" policy even off the roads for those under 21, hold strong on their point that they have nothing to discuss regarding the lowering of the drinking age. In fact, the 1984 Uniform Drinking Age Act which cut highway funds to states that did not bump their drinking age to 21, was extremely supported by MADD. This sounds like corruption, to John McCardell. He states:
Merely adjusting the legal age up or down doesn't work -- we've tried that and failed. Federal law has stifled the ability to conceive of more creative solutions in the only place where the Constitution says such debate should happen -- in the state house -- because any state that sets its drinking age lower than 21 forfeits 10 percent of its federal highway funds. This is called 'incentive'.
This raises debate of why the drinking age is what it is. It appears, that initially it was a bullying tactic used by the Federal Government to withhold money and punish states that did not do what they asked. William G. Durden, president of Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA is quoted in Eric Hoover's For MADD the Legal Drinking Age is Not Up for Debate that "Debate is part of democracy...We should not accept things as immutable or say that 21 is a magic age, and if you challenge it, you will be cursed." But money talks, MADD's annual budget of $50-million, heavily outweighs any sector of the advocates of lowering the age. Also quoted in the aforementioned article, was David J. Hanson, a sociology professor at the State University of New York at Potsdam. He states that "Criticizing MADD...puts you in the category of criticizing motherhood and apple pie." Although, in the late 1970s and early '80s, the lowered drinking age led to an increase in alcohol related traffic fatalities, it also reduced injuries and deaths in underground and uncontrolled basements and garages.
What do Mongolia, Palau, and Indonesia have in common with the United States? They are the only countries to enforce a legal drinking age of 21. Countries in Europe have adopted many different methods of assessing the issue of alcohol and young folks. Denmark allows sixteen year olds to purchase beer and wine with an alcoholic content of 16.5% or lower, but have to reach eighteen before buying from bars and restaurants. France also has an interesting stipulation to the legal age; 18 is the legal age for alcohol of any content, but drinking is permitted to minors -- provided it does not result in intoxication. Nations such as these two, clearly show that they trust alcohol consumption in their citizens who are even five years younger than 21. This infantilization among young American adults must feel very insulting, especially while travelling abroad and seeing folks three or four years their junior enjoying beers and cocktails. Adolescents and young adults are given relativly no education regarding alcohol consumption in moderation; only abstinence is encouraged and demanded. As this is the case, of course their will be rebellion and careless behavior towards the law. It is human nature to want what we can't have, and when adding feelings of being treated unfairly as an adult, surely there will be a problem. This idea of giving adults some rights and withholding some, seems like a larger problem within itself. But students will do just about anything when it comes to getting their hands on some booze. Common practices are paying and burdening those over 21 to buy them alcohol, stealing from family members, and counterfeiting identification cards. These are all legally and morally negative procedures that could easily be avoided by trusting the young adults of America with some simple education towards being more responsible with age-old medium of recreation.
There will continue to be "pro twentyoners" as long as it is in the debate for the appropriate age to drink, but there has yet to be sufficient evidence to show that it is an efficient answer to fatalities and irresponisble behavior among America's young adults. The support system for lowering the drinking age will have to grow significantly to combat the power of a money hungry and stubborn Congress backed by the worldwide MADD.
No comments:
Post a Comment