The Great Alcohol Debate: 18 or 21?

In light of the increased drinking regulations here on the Providence College campus, it is interesting to note the increased debate concerning the national drinking age. A group called Choose Responsibly has started a project called the Amethyst Initiative which debates the 21 year-old drinking age. So far 100 university and college presidents have signed on in support of the initiative.

As a result of the initiative, national organizations such as MADD and Adolescent Substance Abuse Prevention Coalitions are mobilizing to counteract this movement and preserve the current age. Michelle Hamilton, a coordinator of a local coalition in Connecticut, wrote an article in The New London Day summarizing the arguments against lowering the drinking age.

Hamilton immediately dismisses the typical arguments in favor of lowering the drinking age, such as "If one can fight for his country, why not be able to drink a beer?" and "If we could make drinking alcohol less of a 'rite of passage,' maybe kids would drink less." The issue, Hamilton claims, is much more complex than that, and it is imperative that the drinking age stay as is for several reasons. Developmental concerns are central to the issue, according to Hamilton, who cites many scientific studies. For example, she claims that an adolescent's brain "is not fully developed until the early to mid-20s," and "Youth who begin drinking before the age of 15 are four times more likely to develop alcohol dependence as an adult than those who wait until age 21."

The most troubling aspect of these claims is not their content, but rather the ambiguous context in which Hamilton places them. If what she claims is true, it may in fact be reasonable to keep the drinking age where it is. However, the study would also dictate raising the age of eligibility for gambling, purchasing tobacco, and also, it is reasonable to argue, entering the military. If the adolescent brain is incapable of making responsible choices concerning drinking at age 18, what makes it so capable and responsible regarding the military? Personal responsibility comes at different ages depending on the individual, and no legal age-whether 18 or 21-will fit every person's maturity perfectly. However, it is absurd to single out drinking in such a case; the ability to make any of these decisions must come with the others.

As far as the second statistic that Hamilton quotes, concerning drinking before age 15, that too must be scrutinized. It would be reasonable to assume that those in favor of lowering the drinking age are not in favor of allowing 15 year-olds to drink regularly, and it is ridiculous to imply a connection between the two. It is also reasonable to argue that people who drink before age 15 do so in response to profound personal issues. These issues would naturally carry over into adulthood, which would explain why those individuals develop alcohol-dependence as adults.

It is obvious that no matter what the drinking age may be, there will inevitably be people who abuse alcohol before and after that age, and that there will be a small minority who unfortunately develop an alcohol dependency early on in life. What is also obvious is that America stands out among most other nations in a bizarre way by having such a high drinking age. Lowering the age may not necessarily benefit the nation's youth, but it is also safe to say that it will not adversely affect the youth in the way that Hamilton claims. If she insists on relating poor academic performance and drinking among youths-as she does throughout her article -I will insist all the more on lowering the drinking age. It is clear from Europe's example that an 18 year-old drinking age means better academic performance on average when compared to American students. It is futile to argue either way, as the two are at most loosely related.

As I personally await my 21st birthday, it is difficult to say on a societal level whether or not the drinking age should be lowered or kept where it is now. Most people I talk to, however, generally agree that lowering the drinking age will offset the excitement, and therefore, abuse, that surrounds drinking before the legal age. Although Hamilton discounted this very basic argument right away, my personal experience and general consensus seems to verify the benefit of lowering the drinking age for that reason. At any rate, Hamilton's arguments are extremely unconvincing, and do a disservice to any movement that would retain the current drinking age.