Is There the Prospect of Lowering the Minimum Drinking Age to 18?Essay Preview: Is There the Prospect of Lowering the Minimum Drinking Age to 18?Report this essayIs there the prospect of lowering the minimum drinking age to 18?Hella BekeleChadron State CollegeFall, 2010Table of ContentsAbstractIntroductionStatement of the ProblemReview of literatureBrief History and IntroductionThe Amethyst InitiativeAlcohol and Brain DevelopmentDrinking PatternsQualitative AnalysisConclusionReferencesAbstract“Alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of death in the United States, a major contributing factor to unintentional injuries, the leading cause of death for youths and young adults, and accounts for an estimated 75,000 or more total deaths in the United States annually.” (Wechsler, 2010 p. 986) In addition to injuries and accidents, other alcohol related problems include but are not limited to assault, sexually transmitted diseases, vandalism crime and so on (p. 986). Although efforts for controlling alcohol is not a phenomenon of the 21st century, the National Drinking Minimum Age Act was the first piece of legislation to be put into place, in the United States, making it illegal for anyone under the Age of 21 to purchase or consume alcohol. The National Drinking Minimum Age Act of 1984 requires all states to set the minimum age to purchase and consume to be 21, those states that fail to comply with the act face reduction of their highway funds. Congress threat of reducing highway funds was not to pass without protest. In South Dakota v. Dole (1987), the US Supreme Court decided that Congress threat of reduction of highway funds was not coercive enough to be considered unconstitutional; it was merely an incentive (Miron and Tetelbaum, 2009). Even though the Minimum Legal Drinking Age has been in effect for over thirty years, over the past couple of years there has been much debate towards lowering it, the purpose of these research is to see if there is enough movement towards that direction.
Is there the possibility of lowering the minimum drinking age to 18?Introduction“Alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of death in the United States, a major contributing factor to unintentional injuries, the leading cause of death for youths and young adults, and accounts for an estimated 75,000 or more total deaths in the United States annually.” (Wechsler, 2010 p. 986) In addition to injuries and accidents, other alcohol related problems include but are not limited to assault, sexually transmitted diseases, vandalism crime and so on (p. 986). Although efforts for controlling alcohol is not a phenomenon of the 21st century, the National Drinking Minimum Age Act was the first piece of legislation to be put into place, in the United States, making it illegal for anyone under the Age of 21 to purchase or consume alcohol. The National Drinking Minimum Age Act of 1984 requires all states to set the minimum age to purchase and consume to be 21, those states that fail to comply with the act face reduction of their highway funds. Congress threat of reducing highway funds was not to pass without protest. In South Dakota v. Dole (1987), the US Supreme Court decided that Congress threat of reduction of highway funds was not coercive enough to be considered unconstitutional; it was merely an incentive (Miron and Tetelbaum, 2009). Even though the Minimum Legal Drinking Age has been in effect for over thirty years, over the past couple of years there has been much debate towards lowering it, the purpose of these research is to see if there is enough movement towards that direction.
Statement of the ProblemWhile most Americans would argue the minimum drinking age has made alcohol easily available for those younger than 21 and increased binge drinking, and it should therefore be lowered to 18, there is compelling evidence that proves otherwise Although relentless efforts have been made in decreasing the number of casualties of drunk driving, it is still apparent these efforts are not enough. For a person to be considered driving under the influence (DUI), he or she has to have a blood alcohol level (BAC) of 0.08: if above the age of 21 and 0.02 if under the age of 21. A DUI may be considered as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances surrounding the particular case (Washington State Department of Licensing, 2010). Therefore, with the overwhelming number of fatalities and injuries, should the drinking age be lowered to 18?
[…]
On top of this, the “safety” of the drink has been emphasized as extremely important in policy. And of course, in that regard, we do know that the effects of drunk driving, particularly to underage drinkers, are highly damaging to public health, and must include both those benefits and the risks that it does in the long run. We have known for years that the effects of intoxicated driving have long-term effects on children, including damage to the brain and lung capacity, developmental disabilities, reduced levels of mental energy and motivation, increased cardiovascular disease, obesity, impaired development of emotional functioning, and an increase in blood pressure (Washington State Department of Licensing, 2010). In fact, children from states that lowered their drinking level to 18 have a significantly higher risk of developing a blood pressure that is less than twice the normal range. These children are, as the authors conclude, “overdiagnosed and forgotten” in a way that could have serious adverse implications.
[…]
We do not believe this is an adequate way to go about addressing the issue of drinking and drinking related harm. To date, the literature suggests that increased blood pressure, impaired emotional function, and a reduced risk of stroke over the next 10 years are much lesser harms than increased drinking and alcohol consumption, especially in older persons. Moreover, there is no evidence that increased drinking and/or excess consumption of alcohol is significantly associated with the development of these conditions. The findings presented here, however to date, are in no way definitive. In all likelihood, they may not be, and there is a growing body of literature that suggests that increased blood pressure, impaired emotional function, improved learning and motivation (such as the one presented here), and high alcohol consumption are not associated with the development of drinking and/or excessive drinking. A further question is whether these problems include lower levels of motor vehicle accident risk, nor are they present in younger persons.
[…]
The evidence clearly shows that any increased drinking and/or excessive drinking is detrimental to health and the lives of those involved. This includes, among others, impaired emotional functioning (including impaired cognition, memory, and attention), impaired performance of attention (such as thinking, attention-seeking, or reason), reduced health benefits, and risk to health and the health of others. These outcomes are far less serious than their lower benefits associated with higher drinking and/or alcohol use and other risk factors. However, the benefits would appear to be less. More importantly, the consequences of increased drinking and/or excessive drinking would be more drastic and would require an aggressive public health effort, as shown in several years ago (i.e., here with the results presented here)—not one that most people would support such a policy changes.
Although the issue of lowering the drinking and drinking related harm levels has been raised in the past, it appears that the issue of reducing drinking and/or excessive drinking has not fully become popular. It seems to me that it is time for the public to ask where the funding goes for these proposed recommendations. The only possible answer would be for policy makers to use the funding available while at the same meeting—and by a public policy meeting, as the public would have a right to know when funds for these recommendations are going to be used, that they do not actually make decisions about funding in a wasteful way and that funding would provide the impetus to use more resources. In addition, the public should question what is needed to
The recommendation to allow alcohol and other tobacco-related use within the current national drinking limit is supported by numerous studies that support the link between consumption, health-related harms, and alcohol use. However, while that is consistent with existing evidence, it does not provide information that the public should rely on to determine which health risks are in fact caused or could be prevented.
As well as the proposed recommendation not to increase alcohol and/or tobacco use, other recommendations also have been proposed that address a substantial portion of the health harm associated with smoking for the poor as well as high-risk people. These recommendations also have the strong support of one member of the United Kingdom House of Lords that stated:
For some people, tobacco exposure may be a major cause. Those with higher levels of alcohol use are at a higher risk than their peers for other conditions, such as chronic disease. Smoking can be very disabling in people who are at a high risk for some conditions such as those associated with liver disease, certain infectious diseases, certain infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and a host of other conditions. But there are still people who use tobacco for a variety of health reasons, and a relatively small number of people on any given level who smoke for other health reasons. We recognise one important question about whether people use alcohol or other tobacco products to cope with these health problems: what about tobacco as a means of preventing the use of tobacco? Some of the many recent studies by the Royal Family Health and Human Subjects Research Initiative.
Although some of the health harms caused by tobacco use for the poor have been well documented, the vast majority of people who have not used tobacco are now using prescription drugs for chronic liver disease, and the majority of those who do smoke only for a short period of time for alcohol are now continuing to use tobacco. This is not to say that smoking only for short periods of time for a limited amount of time would mean no health problem, as chronic liver disease is still very common among people who smoke. It is just that one aspect of smoking that is particularly harmful is consumption of cannabis or other illicit substances. Furthermore, smoking cannabis or other illicit substances for a short time does not seem to have had its greatest impact on the health outcomes of those with liver disease, particularly with higher levels of smoking and in some cases alcohol use. Some of the problems associated with smoking for high smokers (for example, alcohol abuse) are simply not being addressed in any of the existing guidelines for people to control. There may be a lack of knowledge about the effects of chronic liver disease on the liver to which such people may be exposed if a person continues to smoke. Smoking for a short time does not seem to have had its greatest impact on the health outcomes of those who would actually smoke.
Furthermore, in the wake of several public consultations (that included several members of the public) in 2015 when the government announced the creation of the National Smoking Policy as part of its national smoking strategy, many of these recommendations were seen as having not
Review of literatureThe purpose of this research is to look at both sides of the argument in maintaining or lowering the drinking age at 21. This section research examines the history of minimum drinking age, data supporting and rejecting