LETTERS: Lower drinking age may be good idea years ago
To the Editor:
Any adult in America over the age of 18 can legally marry, adopt children, serve on juries, enter into legally binding contracts, own and operate businesses, go to prison, be executed, have abortions, gamble, fly airplanes, drive automobiles and other vehicles, purchase pornography, vote, and risk their lives by serving in the United States military. However, despite the extensive list of actions an 18-year-old American adult can lawfully perform, they can't legally consume a beer or glass of wine.
By definition, the legal drinking age is a limit assigned by the government to restrict the access of children and teenagers to alcohol and alcoholic beverages.
In most countries this drinking age is 16, however there are many exceptions (China, Nigeria, Poland, Portugal, and Thailand are just a few of several countries that have no drinking limit at all). The legal drinking age of 21, as set by the U.S., is the highest drinking age in the entire world, and puts the U.S. in a category of only four countries that enforce a legal drinking age above 18.
Despite our stern laws, underage drinking, drunk driving, and alcoholism are on the rise. This would prompt many to ask if our high legal drinking age is having an adverse effect.
A recent study conducted by the World Heath Organization, or WHO, found one in 10 American teenagers ages 12 to 17 consumes alcohol on a regular basis (more than five drinks a week). While some believe underage drinking is mostly limited to males, the evidence shows little variance for males over females, with 11.4 percent of males ages 12-17 who drink on a regular basis, and 9.9 percent of females ages 12-17 who drink on a regular basis. These statistics, along with other evidence, rank the U.S. as the country with the 14th highest underage drinking population percentage.
However, despite our own share of rising alcohol-related problems, many conservative groups are quick to point at other countries, such as Poland or Ireland, with lower drinking age restrictions and higher percentages of alcoholism and underage drinking.
Poland ranked number one on the list of highest underage drinking population percentage; nearly 40 percent of Poland's teenagers drink on a regular basis according to WHO's studies.
Ireland, ranked second on WHO's underage drinking list, has a legal drinking age of 18, yet nearly 33 percent of Ireland's teenagers drink on a regular basis.
Of course, lower legal drinking ages do not correlate directly with higher underage drinking percentages. Neither China nor Nigeria impose any form of age-related alcohol restriction, and neither country has an underage drinking percentage above 2 percent, a fifth of our country's percentage. China and Nigeria are both excellent examples that society, culture, and education are vital in keeping alcohol-related problems to a minimum in any country.
These factors both worry and encourage those on either side of the debate regarding our own legal drinking age.
Some worry our television programs, movies, and other forms of media glamorize alcohol and intoxication, proving we are not mature enough as a society to appropriately handle a lower legal drinking age.
Others believe we are ignoring our current underage drinking problems and that because it is illegal, we are forcing our educators into a corner by allowing them to only promote abstinence, an erroneous and non-realistic approach to the problem, thus the reason underage drinking has become glamorized.
These groups point to the decline of underage smokers since we began educating our youth about the risks of smoking, and many believe the same effects could be achieved when the light is pointed at drinking.
In any case, the issue has begun to gain some ground, and many proposals are currently being heard in Congress. One bill capitalizes on the fact the United States military recognizes 18, 19, and 20-year-olds as adults. The military grants them great responsibility, including the command of others, the operation of complex and dangerous weapons, and the ability to make major split-second decisions. As such, it is only fair to allow these individuals the right to consume alcohol legally.
While this is a worthy attempt, and deserves credit for dodging the otherwise blinding hypocrisy of denying those serving in our military the legal recognition that they are, indeed, mature enough to drink a beer, it creates far too much of a slippery slope for those not serving in the military.
Should exceptions be allowed for religious purposes? Should exceptions be made in the company of a legal adult?
In fact, our own laws regarding these matters are not even clear, as they vary greatly from state to state.
Religion, medical reasons, education reasons (i.e. culinary schools), private property, and being in the company of an adult are justifiable exemptions in 23 states. Kansas is one of seven states that provide no exceptions for underage drinking. The remaining 20 states do not have a set policy on the matter, leaving such potential exemptions to be handled liberally on a case-by-case nature.
Whether you are for or against a change to the legal drinking age, it is without question there is sufficient evidence on either side of this debate to support your cause. However, the inconsistencies from one state to the next are rather unsettling for many, especially for an issue some many feel so strongly about.
While few would argue our young adults can be mature enough to risk their lives for our country and still be too immature to consume alcohol, ultimately it remains to be seen if our current population of immature adults could be mature enough to handle a drop in age restriction.
Michael Yates
Mario
