Should the drinking age be 18?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Should the drinking age be 18?
Position‹2 of 4›: No, the drinking age should be 21.
Argument‹2 of 3›: Younger people are too immature to drink

There are too many risks associated with drinking alcohol to trust young adults to drink responsibly. A higher minimum age is consistent with standards for other weighty responsibilities.

The argument

Drinking responsibly and making responsible decisions even while intoxicated require a greater degree of maturity than most young adults possess. Statistics show that young adults have higher than average rates of driving accidents, risky sexual activity, substance abuse, and many other harmful behaviors. Several legal rights other than drinking are also restricted to higher ages based on the the potential dangers. In some jurisdictions, these restricted rights include owning firearms, holding certain public offices, adopting children, and other mature responsibilities. Remaining consistent with such restrictions, the dangers posed by immature behavior under the influence of alcohol justify a higher drinking age.

Premises

[P1]Drinking responsibly requires a level of maturity that most people under 21 have not yet developed, as evidenced by higher rates of risky behavior among young adults. [P2] Society already restricts other consequential rights — like firearm ownership, holding office, and adopting children — to older ages based on the maturity those activities demand. [C] Therefore, consistent with how we treat other mature responsibilities, the drinking age should remain at 21 rather than be lowered to 18.

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that the maturity argument struggles with consistency, since the same societies grant 18-year-olds the vote, military service and full legal responsibility — decisions at least as consequential as drinking — which sits awkwardly with calling them too immature for alcohol. They argue the risky behaviours cited are not evidence that a higher age instils maturity, and point to countries with lower or no drinking ages where young people are introduced to alcohol earlier yet show lower rates of binge drinking, suggesting that supervised, legal access can foster responsibility better than prohibition. On this view a higher age may push drinking underground rather than delay the immaturity it blames.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Higher rates of risky behaviour among the young do not show that denying legal alcohol until 21 produces maturity; the correlation may reflect development a drinking ban does not change. [Rejecting P2] The comparison to firearms or adoption is selective, since society grants 18-year-olds voting, military service and full legal liability, undercutting the claim that they are categorically too immature. [Rejecting C] Many countries with lower drinking ages report less binge drinking, suggesting earlier legal access can build responsibility better than a higher age.

Proponents cited

Mercury News
“We do crazy things when we are drunk. We do crazy things when we are young. What if we were young and drunk at the same time? [...] Though there is only a three-year difference between 18 and 21, there’s a world of difference in maturity level. At 21 or older, with a few years of college and independent living under their belts, young adults have enough sense and maturity to think thoroughly before making decisions.”
James Fell
“The age limit for alcohol is based on research which shows that young people react differently to alcohol. Teens get drunk twice as fast as adults, but have more trouble knowing when to stop. Teens naturally overdo it and binge more often than adults.”
Ruth Sanchez-Way
“Teen drinking ... involves serious issues of emotional and physical maturity. Alcoholism is a brain disease and the earlier people start drinking, the worse the effects on the brain. Besides, research has shown that the earlier people start drinking, the more likely they are to develop alcohol problems later in life.”