Fall

Michael Tran
March 21, 2015
Instructor Diaz
ENGL 120-060
Turn Down for What
In 1984, President Ronald Reagan signed a bill that coerced states to adopt a
minimum drinking age of 21. Prior to President Reagans bill, the national legal drinking
age was 18. Naturally in time, people began to protest or argue against the bill to return
the minimum drinking age to 18. However, American culture has adapted to President
Reagans bill and to revert back to having a drinking age of 18 poses many risks and
consequences. I believe the United States should maintain the legal drinking age at 21
rather than lowering back to 18.
America, as well as a handful of other nations, is unique in its drinking age.
While the U.S. has a drinking age of 21, the majority of countries have a minimum
drinking age of 16 through 18. In doing so, many people in America believe that the U.S
should no longer become an outlier and follow the models other countries have set.
Although the U.S. does have a higher drinking age then the majority, the government
does this to allow its citizens to feel safer and more protected to enjoy the privileges and
rights that they are entitled to as a U.S. resident. By maintaining the current legal
drinking age it would benefit the overall health of Americans and promote academic
excellence by reducing distractions. I believe the benefits and consequences of
maintaining the legal drinking age outweigh the benefits and consequences of reducing it.
The opposition believes that reducing the drinking age would result in lessened
temptation to drink because it would be more available. Alcohol would no longer be
considered a forbidden fruit. The decreased temptation to drink alcohol could reduce
the amount of drunk driving accidents and potential for alcohol abuse. However, this is

08

Michael Tran
March 21, 2015
Instructor Diaz
ENGL 120-060
the opposite of what might happen. For example, with the recent marijuana legalization
in Colorado, people over the age of 18 are now allowed to legal purchase and use
marijuana. The change in legal status has encouraged people, who were once dissuaded
by the legality of it, to try the product. You can apply the McDonald or Advertising
model to this scenario. When driving down the street or watching TV a person sees many
advertisements for foods, services, and products. The more they see a certain something
the more tempted they are to go out and buy it. Therefore, the increased in availability
for alcohol would increase the likelihood of someone wanting to buy it. Also, a trickledown effect would take place moving the temptation of alcohol to younger populations of
high school students and even middle school students.
European countries have a lower drinking age than the U.S and whenever people
travel to other nations, people may notice a child having a drink with some parents. They
may think this is odd and wondering how the parents can let the child do something so
irresponsible. However, these other countries have built a culture where alcohol is
something they consume on a regular basis. This also reduces the temptation to abuse the
substance and demonstrates the responsibility of other nations attitudes towards alcohol.
Seeing their model, the opposition culture could be replicated in the U.S if the minimum
drinking age was lowered. However, the U.S. has a different culture and attitude towards
alcohol. Americans view alcohol more as a drug and substance rather than the casual
food and drink with meals. The increased availability would lead to a higher potential for
alcoholism and substance abuse. Also, the belief that European countries treat alcohol
more responsibly then the U.S. is also false. A study conducted by Joel Grube of the

Michael Tran
March 21, 2015
Instructor Diaz
ENGL 120-060
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation showed that most European countries have
higher intoxication rates among young people than in the U.S. This early onset of heavy
drinking is highly associated with greater risks for drinking and driving, suicidal
thoughts, and alcohol dependency later in life. (Grube, 7)
The number 18 represents many things in the U.S. This number symbolizes the
age when a person becomes a legal adult and assumes the responsibilities that comes with
it. When a person becomes 18 they are given rights that entitle them to vote, join the
military, marry without consent, be prosecuted in a court, and enter binding contracts. If
these people are able to accept all these responsibilities then they should have the
privilege to make their own decisions towards alcohol consumption without having to be
prosecuted. However, these are legal rights whereas alcohol consumption is more of a
privilege. The rights a person obtains when theyre 18 only affect themselves and the
consequences of their choices. Alcohol consumption and abuse affects themselves and
others around them. By maintaining the legal drinking age and allowing a person more
time to mature they would make have better decision making skills and a better sense of
responsibility when consuming the substance.
Alcohol ranks the highest as the most harmful drug, even higher than heroin or
cocain. Alcohol has the highest rates of death, injuries, and abuse. Exposing this drug to
people at an earlier age would only be doing them a disservice and hindering their
development later in life. Not only would lowering the drinking age be medically
irresponsible by obstructing a young adults brain development it also would increase the
number of vehicle related deaths and injuries and decrease their academic performance

Michael Tran
March 21, 2015
Instructor Diaz
ENGL 120-060
while increasing the number of dropouts and failures. Another factor in reducing the
drinking age includes the increase in availability to even younger populations through the
trickle-down effect.
The human brain isnt fully developed until a person is in their mid 20s. The risk
for alcoholism and abuse increases the earlier one starts drinking and promotes poor
behavior and attitudes. There becomes an increased vulnerability for addiction, high
chances of dangerous risk taking, increased violence, and reduced decision making.
(Glassman, 2) So why would you want to give them a substance known to affect the brain
detrimentally even earlier in life? The opposition may state that when introduced to
alcohol earlier in life they would learn to control their intake and thus have less chances
for abuse. However, when New Zealand changed their legal minimum drinking age from
20 to 18 in 1999, there were harmful effects. There were increases in drunk driving rates,
alcohol related car crashes, and disorderly conduct. They concluded that it would be
appropriate to raise the drinking age. (Huckle and Parker 4)
Academics are hard enough as is without alcohol becoming a distraction. With a
reduced drinking age it is more likely that people are going to drink with peers and fall
under peer pressure to drink with them. The National Institute of Alcoholism and Abuse
estimates that 25% of college students reported academic difficulties caused by alcohol
use. These included earning lower grades, doing poorly on tests and papers, and falling
behind. There was a negative correlation in the amount of drinks a student had and the
lower their grades were. Typically A students had 0-4 drinks per week, B students
consumed six drinks a week, C students consumed eight drinks a week, and students who

Michael Tran
March 21, 2015
Instructor Diaz
ENGL 120-060
received Ds or Fs averaged almost 10 drinks a week. (Glassman 1) The opposition may
state that students should take responsibility in the drinking and know the negative side
effects. Yet, these are students who are overwhelmed with many things changing and
happening in their lives. Lowering the drinking age would just give them more
accessibility to a distraction that they dont need. Lowering the drinking age would not
increase academic performance and only hinder it.
As kids, everyone looked up to their elder siblings or peers and tried to emulate
them. Lowering the drinking age would encourage a younger population to partake in
detrimental behaviors through the trickle-down effect. If the drinking age were 18, some
high school students would be able to get their hands on some and maybe share with
peers. These peers would then share with their peers and so on. This would affect the high
school and middle school populations. In time this would harmfully affect their future
and increase likelihood of alcoholism when theyre older. The opposition may state that
although the drinking age is reduced, the purchasing age could remain the same age.
This wouldnt make much sense, its like when you were little and too short to ride the
roller coaster but big enough to ride with your parents. The people who could drink
would just get them from their friends or others who can purchase them.
In order to protect the young adults and people in the U.S., the minimum drinking
age needs to be maintained at 21. The negative effects of lowering the age are too
detrimental to the people. Increases in injuries and deaths, declining academic
performance, increased risk for abuse, and hindered brain development are too high of a
cost to society for the drinking age to be lowered. For the young adults who are eager to

Michael Tran
March 21, 2015
Instructor Diaz
ENGL 120-060
start drinking, they should know that the 1984 bill on raising the drinking age wasnt the
end all be all. There were exceptions in bill permitting alcohol consumption with
parental consent in private premises and consumption for religious or medical purposes.
Works Cited
1. Glassman, Tavis, PhD. "Is the Glass Half Empty, Half Full or Dry?" The Journal
Of Global Drug Policy and Practice (2010): 1-3. Web. 25 Feb. 2015
2. Taisia, Huckle, and Karl Parker. "Long-Term Impact On Alcohol-Involved
Crashes Of Lowering The Minimum Purchase Age In New Zealand." American
Journal Of Public Health 104.6 (2014): 1087-1091. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 25 Feb. 2015.
3. Grube, Joel W., and Bettina Friese. Youth Drinking Rates and Problems: A
Comparison of European Countries and the United States (n.d.): n. pag. United
States Department of Justice. Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. Web.
18 Mar. 2015.