Arguments Against Lowering The Drinking Age

In 1984, the Uniform Drinking Age Act, a law which would severely penalize states who failed to restrict the drinking age to 21 or higher, was signed into law (Hoover). It is odd to think, in today’s day and age, that 35 years ago the drinking age was below 21 in over 70% of US states (“Minimum Legal Drinking Age…”), however, this all changed when the federal government took away highway funds and dangled them in front of these states like a carrot, waiting for them all to raise their legal age for consumption of alcohol. For a law that is broken by over 70% of those to whom it is applicable (Muhlenfeld), this age has been given relatively little debate, mostly because it has been so engrained in our culture that underage alcohol is wrong. The national de facto drinking age of
Those arguing to keep the drinking age argue that drunk driving fatalities have decreased. This is a statistical principle called confounding, where an effect is pinpointed to one cause when it could be attributed to many. Indeed, this same effect of decreased accidents due to drunk driving, which is supposedly attributed to underage drinking, has occurred in other nations where underage drinking is legal. One example of this is Canada, where the drinking age is 18 or 19 depending on province (Chafetz). Chafetz, the former chairman of the Education and Prevention Committee of the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving who ultimately voted to raise the drinking age to 21, argues that the higher limit has not succeeded in its goal. He argues that, while on the surface the problem is fixed, there are many issues with the higher drinking age, including “assaults…, date rapes…, property damage…, [and] emergency room calls.” Since young adults don’t accept that they are not old enough to drink, the law is