Should the U.S. lower its drinking age to 18?

Should the U.S. lower its drinking age to 18?

The continuing current debate in the United States concerning the age limit of alcohol consumption has not found a new dimension. The argument is whether the drinking age should be reduced to eighteen to match most countries globally or whether to remain at twenty-one. Teenage consumption of liquor has been a debatable topic over the past years, yet why is it still uncontrollable? Underage constantly buys liquor from uncertified joints with fake identification cards, alcohol, and access entry into bars and consume drinks illegally. As a good observant, this type of trends are not only practiced in colleges but also in high schools. There are a lot of factors that are coined in the many reasons why the drinking age should be lowered to eighteen years. The most obvious one which establishes the basis of this argument is that too many teenagers are drinking before are twenty-one. Reducing the alcohol consuming age particularly in the modern world will assist teens to become accountable for their behaviors as well as aid them to make sound judgments; because a reduced alcohol drinking age will significantly encourage more responsibilities towards underage adults and provide healthy ways with which they act as good examples to children who looks at them as role models.

There would be a lot of advantages that comes when drinking age is reduced to eighteen years. The quantity of binge of consumption would decrease, and the out borderline of drinking will lessen as well (Ogilvie 1). Basing on reports of a binge, Ogilvie (1) says, consumption hails from all kinds of college through the globe. In 1992 scholars reported how most campus learners who indulged in alcohol only get drunk than their colleagues of previous years back (Ogilvie 1). Another report conducted back in 1994 postulates that, a large number of students drink intentionally to get drunk (Ogilvie 1). If the state is armed and willing to authorize its people to perish in battles protecting the country, although abruptly, a liquor exposes huge risks to the same citizens. Then, if the state cares about her civilians’ security, they need to choose and deliberately certify licenses to legalize liquor at eighteen years would let eighteen to twenty-year-olds to consume liquor securely in controlled settings with management. Because prohibiting this eighteen young adults; causes them to drink in unsubstantiated environments where they are disposed to splurge consumption plus many other dangerous habits.

Consuming liquor can be greatly a barred topic in several individuals’ lives at times regarding belief, plus others are deliberately infringing the rule. Basing my reference, providing education on the health dangers of alcohol intake plus conducting conversations on matters concerning drinks would help everybody. The reports of leading anthropologist Dr. Dwight says that teaching safe drinking in colleges bounds teen (Allen, David and Patrick 36). Either parents or educators turn a blind eye to the underage and employ mechanisms to curb children drinking habits. Drinking has been associated with a tag of being bad, and this contributes to more teenagers have the urge to drink further (Allen, David and Patrick 37). A better practical method would be to hold a discussion and make alcohol abusers more enlightened instead of forbidding the consumption. If the consuming group is eighteen years, children behaviors would be understood better by their parents. A sociologist who has provided reports concerning college drinking issues, he comprehensively claims that greater weight is supposed to be directed towards encouraging proper alcohol intake with a goal to reduce more damage but not to lessen the stigmatization of alcohol it brings (Allen, David and Patrick 39).

Alcohol consumption age is indiscriminate, why twenty one and not twenty or even twenty-five, why does twenty one make you more responsible? Johnson (1) says, handle teenagers as adults: limit the drinking age at eighteen, not twenty-one. In our everyday activities, we treat teenagers as adults. They have rights of citizenship of voting, kill someone using a gun, practice real estate business as well as raising families under their care. It is deliberately unrealistic and hypocritical to inhibit eighteen years people to take liquor and allow twenty-one-year-old peoples (Johnson 1). Simply it is vague to handle these teenagers as mature people in some cases while others not. Rainforth who is vying for a U.S Congress posted on a website backing up a statement that an individual turns to be an adult at the age of eighteen according to the state (Johnson 2). I support his argument to make certain that adults’ rights are extended to persons reaching this age. The state trust eighteen teenagers to vote for who rules the country why not treat underage like full adults?

A drinking age of twenty-one only pushes alcohol drinking in secret joints (“Pros and Cons of Controversial Issues 1”). Always unmonitored, taken behind closed doors and in most cases in excess. This habit of consumption among teenagers has considerably contributed to the increased rates of unsafe splurge consumption at universities. Dropping the drinking age to eighteen years, unavoidable teenage alcohol taking can just be controlled, creating conditions not dangerous for alcoholics. The allowed age to drink in U.S should be for those who have reached eighteen years for the advantage of citizens’ security since adults can make better judgments concerning liquor, and since it is unlawful not to grant them an opportunity to attempt (“Pros and Cons of Controversial Issues 1”).

The disagreeing dispute towards the discussion is that the legalized consuming age of alcohol should remain at twenty-one without changing it. Drawing reference from a study conducted by Griggs, he says a greater legal consuming group was linked with a lesser side of liquor dangers amongst young people (Griggs 1). Not only does Griggs believes this but he further continues to state, the least allowed consuming group of twenty-one saves the number of accidents for young people annually (Griggs 1). Such factors ring in my attention the moment am backing up the contrary of this, although it is critical to understand the reality of many underages who are consuming aimlessly jumping every place, plus there are no hopes curbing it.

In conclusion, I have gathered enough evidence that backs up my side for this contentious topic. I strongly have faith in the number of least years for alcohol consumers to be institutionalized at the age of eighteen and not twenty-one. Teenage alcohol consumption is running across all cities, and apparently, it is being restrained. If an individual can elect a leader, also go to battles at eighteen, why is it hard for them to go for a dinner while taking a glass of Champaign? The concern is predominantly instigated, although if some countries do not work in joint very soon as well as initiate talks about the enormous threat of teenagers taking alcohol, the danger exposed to this underage will continue to widen and later become worse.


Works Cited

Allen, Daniel N., David G. Sprenkel, and Patrick A. Vitale. “Reactance theory and alcohol consumption laws: further confirmation among collegiate alcohol consumers.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 55.1 (1994): 34-40.

Griggs, Brandon. “Should the U.S. lower its drinking age?” CNN, 4 Jan. 2015, Accessed 17 February 2017.

Johnson, Alex. “Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up.” MSNBC. Com, 14 Aug. 2007. Accessed 17 February 2017.

Ogilvie, Jessica P. Is lowering the drinking age a good idea? Los Angeles Times, 30 May 2011, Accessed 17 February 2017.

Pros and Cons of Controversial Issues. “Should the drinking age be lowered from 21 to a younger age?”, 5 Nov. 2016, Accessed 17 February 2017.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?