The debate over whether the current drinking age of 18 is the correct age, or the 'best age', has been raging almost non stop since it was lowered from 20 to 18 in 1999. For every argument for keeping the age at 18 there is a counter argument for raising the age back to 20. Almost everyone has a strong opinion on the subject and usually several reasons backing their opinion. In the USA where the drinking age is currently 21 and has been so since the government of Ronald Reagan in 1984, 77% of Americans are opposed to lowering the drinking age, this is in line with a TV1 survey showing that currently 74% of New Zealander's are in favour of raising the drinking age in NZ to 20. This begs the question, why does the majority of the public believe when you are of legal age to do almost anything, you are not mature enough to purchase alcohol for yourself?
The drinking age in New Zealand was originally 20 years of age and remained 20 for a long time. In 1999 after much debate a law was narrowly passed lowering the drinking age to 18, after 11 years of the drinking age remaining 18, 74% of New Zealanders are now in favour of it being raised back to 20, and there is a large amount of statistical information to back the proposed change.
Raising the drinking age back to 21 in America lowered the percentage of fatal car accidents for people aged between 18 and 20 by 13% and saved approximately 21,887 lives from 1975-2002.Raising the drinking age or keeping it high obviously has a very far reaching and positive impact on older teenagers that are more prone to drink and drive. Although can't this be said for any age group? I'm sure raising the drinking age from 21 to 25 would greatly decrease the amount of fatal accidents occurring in that age group. You could keep going as high as you wanted and I am positive you would see a decrease in car accidents in every age group that it became illegal to drink in. But the number of fatalities due to drink driving is only one aspect of alcohol related deaths, there is alcohol related suicide/homicide, alcohol poisoning, as well as as illnesses caused from excessive alcohol consumption. Yet the biggest argument for the opposition of leaving the drinking age at 18 years old is trying to lower the road toll of alcohol related deaths. So when the topic of raising the drinking age is brought to our attention, why is the sole argument point usually about the road toll?
From 1994 to 2002 the number of apprehensions and arrests of 18-20 year olds in New Zealand almost doubled which at a glance would seem to be a result of the drinking age being lowered. But the total number of apprehensions and arrests for all age groups also increased dramatically. 18-20 year olds still represented the same percentage of total apprehensions and arrests, staying at around 17% over the 8 year period. This points to a different reason for the increase, most probably something to do with policing or population increase, and other things unrelated to the drinking age.So 18 and 19 year olds only account for around 17% of arrests for disorderly, offensive or threatening behaviour and fighting in public. Is it really fair to punish the masses of 18 and 19 year olds for the indiscretions of a few?
In America there is a growing argument that having the drinking age at 21 does nothing but force 18-21 year olds to drink 'underground', increasing the likelihood of injuries and even fatalities in that age group as they are scared to call for help because they will be punished for drinking in the first place. There are a number of leading academics taking
on this point of view including David J. Hanson, an alcohol policy expert at the State University of New York-Potsdam. Do we really want to force 18 year olds to drink underground where they are to scared to call an ambulance if something gets out of hand, ultimately leading to deaths solely caused by raising the drinking age. This is exactly what happened to an 18 year old in America going through a frat house initiation.
At 18 years of age in New Zealand you can join the army, get married, adopt a child, buy a gun, drive a car, serve on a jury, and will be trialed in court as an adult. Yet the government is trying to raise the drinking age to 20, they are effectively saying at 18 you are an adult but not mature enough to be able to drink.
In my opinion, if I am not mature enough to drink at 18, then you must also raise the age at which I am able to vote, go to war and serve on a jury. If i cannot drink surely I am not mature enough to decide who is best to run our country, defend our country in war, let alone mature enough to decide if someone is innocent or guilty in a court of law.
References:
Ministry of Justice, New Zealand. 4 Indicators of alcohol-related offending by those under 20 years old and all ages-disorderly behaviour. Retrieved September 26th 2010
http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/publications-archived/2002/young-people-and-alcohol-some-statistics-to-2002-on-possible-effects-of-lowering-the-drinking-age/4-indicators-of-alcohol-related-offending-by-those-under-20-years-old-and-all-ages-disorderly-behaviour
Most Americans Oppose Lowering Legal Drinking Age to 18 Nationwide. Retrieved September 26th 2010
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28237/most-americans-oppose-lowering-legal-drinking-age-nationwide.aspx
NZ Herald. Drinking age back on the ballot. Retrieved September 26th 2010
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10123936
U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts 2002, Alcohol.
Retrieved from http://drinkingage.procon.org/sourcefiles/2002ALCFACTS.pdf
MSNBC. Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up. Retrieved September 26th 2010
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249460/
