Society and the Legal Drinking Age

Why a Healthy Society Hinges on Keeping the Drinking Age at Twenty-One

The current legal age for drinking alcohol is twenty-one years old, in fifty states. There continues to be a campaign to lower the age to eighteen. The law has swayed back and forth several times and with enough lobbying—the legal age for drinking issue—could require our consideration once again. It is imperative that we keep informed about our state’s laws and proposed bills to keep the drinking age from being lowered. There will always be cases of alcohol abuse in adults that didn’t begin drinking before their twenty-first birthday. However, the chances for a teenager (13–17) or young adult (18–21) to have alcohol related problems, in adulthood, is much greater than an adult that starts drinking at age twenty-one. If the legal age for drinking is lowered to eighteen, the next generation may be facing mental and physical health issues, social issues such as alcohol related traffic fatalities, and a threshold to self-destruction.

It has been proven that the brain is not fully developed until a person is in his or her mid-twenties. The active drug in alcohol is ethanol, which is highly toxic. Ethanol kills brain cells—another proven fact. To argue this point, the opposition contends that our brain will replace the dead cells; and even at old age, a major portion of the brain is never used. The problem that exists is that our body needs time to replace the dead brain-cells. Researchers have estimated the rebuilding time at approximately thirty days. For example, an eighteen-year old college student has six drinks on Saturday night. The recovery begins on Sunday but the following Friday night, he or she has another few drinks so the thirty-day countdown begins again. The amount of brain-cells destroyed will vary according to the amount of alcohol consumed. If the student-drinker has just one episode of heavy drinking (in a thirty-day period) his or her brain-cells will never be completely replaced. A young drinker can rest assured that his or her brain will repair itself; but, if existent brain-cells lose this toxic battle, what chance do embryonic brain-cells have?

Repeated and/or excessive alcohol consumption comes with dire physiological consequences. Supporters—of lowering the legal drinking age—argue that educating teenagers (about the dangers of drinking) reduces heavy drinking episodes, frequency of drinking, and binge drinking between the ages thirteen to eighteen. This is an excellent point on their behalf; education speaks for itself. Instead of learning how to control their drinking, teenagers should be taught how their reaction to alcohol depends on their genetic make-up, the circumstances of their lives, and their unique stage in developmental growth. The teachings should include that any amount of alcohol consumed on a regular basis has a detrimental effect on the neurological system. Alcoholic neuropathy is the paralysation of nerve endings that typically begin in the feet or hands. Another lesson could describe how the liver is an organ that acts as a filter to remove toxins from the body. Everybody’s liver processes these toxins at different rates. Even a person that controls his or her alcohol intake could be over-loading their liver with lethal toxins. Eventually, this could lead to liver disease; a body cannot survive without the liver. Several more lessons could be taught about the relation to alcohol and unhealthy eating which could lead to high cholesterol, hypertension, and diabetes. Additionally, a youthful student should be taught that his or her bone structure is still developing and that alcohol slows its growth—resulting in weaker bones. Yes, there are certainly benefits to teaching a teenager how to drink responsibly. Society—enthusiastically—invites responsibility. However, an individual’s well-being should not be neglected in an effort to tailor society.

Supporters of the effort to lower the legal drinking age to eighteen ask the question: If a person is old enough to vote and old enough to serve in the military, shouldn’t he or she be old enough to drink? The answer to this question lies in one’s level of responsibility. Different dimensions would have to be considered. At eighteen, a person is just entering adulthood—a stage in life that fields more questions than answers. A twenty-one year old person is afforded three more years to process what direction he or she will go with such things as education, vocation, relationships, and personal choices. If one chooses to drink, not only is mental and physical health at stake; but searching for answers to questions become less important. The thought process is clouded and consequences are not considered as seriously. More risky behavior is displayed: getting behind the wheel after a few drinks, unprotected sex, and (often) criminal activity. Voting and military service are civil and patriotic duties, respectively. Building mental, physical, and spiritual health are duties owed to oneself. A sober, young adult can be trusted to exercise these duties and make responsible choices with a clear and rational mind.

Let’s not turn our heads from our obligation to future generations. If the opportunity to lower the legal drinking age is brought forward once again; then we owe it to society to stop it in its tracks. When we are young, we feel invincible. An unlimited supply of brain-cells doesn’t give us the right to exterminate the ones we have, especially at a time in our lives that is critical to intellectual growth. Efforts to protect society, through education, are well-intended. Nonetheless, let’s not squander time in our education systems teaching our youth how to become responsible drinkers. Instead, let’s encourage them to take care of their health, empower them with essential knowledge, and depend on them to make responsible choices. If we focus on individualism in education, wouldn’t the runoff be a service to society? Does it make sense to ask an eighteen year old private in the armed services to behave responsibly when going out to clubs or social gatherings? We can thrash this issue out every time we are faced with changes in our laws. But if we issue social responsibility to wet-behind-the-ears, breaking-out adults; then, we lack the fortitude required to build a better society. At that, who (then) will be the irresponsible ones?