Police tend to ignore or under-enforce LDL 21 due to resource constraints, legal barriers, the perception that sanctions are inadequate, and the time and effort required to process and paperwork. It is estimated that two out of every 1,000 cases of illegal alcohol consumption by youth under the age of 21 result in arrest. [18] According to a meta-study on MLDA, 87% of studies found a higher legal drinking age, which is associated with lower alcohol consumption. [19] Studies show that when the drinking age is 21, those under 21 drink less and drink less in their early twenties, and adolescents who do not drink before the age of 21 tend to drink less in adulthood. [42] The number of 18- to 20-year-olds who drank alcohol in the past month increased from 59% in 1985 – one year after Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act – to 39% in 2016. [49] [51] As for the article, it seems persuasive to me, but only as an argument that the current legal drinking age will NOT change, not that it SHOULD NOT change. The correlation with road deaths may be compelling enough to prevent changes in the law, but that`s not the purpose of setting the legal drinking age at 21, is it? As noted in various ways above, setting the drinking age would likely further reduce the number of victims, just as driving itself would make it illegal. This view is unduly biased against deaths resulting from drunk driving, but says very little about the college/binge drinking aspect. (Why would more than 100 university presidents support an 18-year-old age for alcohol without justification?) Yes, there is very strong evidence to support the fact that the legal drinking age of 21 has reduced the number of deaths under the influence of alcohol, and that is a great thing. However, the downward trend in alcohol-related deaths began in the 1970s, when vehicle safety and seat belt laws were passed (the law that changed the age of alcohol was passed in `84). Therefore, the actual empirical data from the 1984 Act may contain distortions arising from the previous legislation.
In addition, more alcohol-related deaths occur off-street than among adolescents (more than 3 in 5 alcohol-related deaths are off-road) [pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/AA67/AA67.htm]. I am taking a leap of faith here, but I assume that few students drive during university and, therefore, the drinking age of 21 has no real value to us. We are subject to a law that means very little to us, and we need various laws to help us prevent dangerous aspects of alcohol consumption such as excessive drinking. If we look at other countries around the world, we find that by drinking with the family at an earlier age (and introducing alcohol not as a drug, but as another form of drinking), teenagers are much less likely to abuse alcohol. Will a lower drinking age work? Who knows? But when it comes to students, there`s no evidence that it doesn`t work. The new study found that since the legal drinking age was set at 21, young people are drinking less and are less likely to have traffic accidents. The European model offers other reasons to leave MLDA at the age of 21. A recent study compared rates of alcohol use and alcohol-related problems in the United States with those in Europe and found that rates and frequency of alcohol use are higher among European adolescents than in the United States. Like the age of alcohol consumption, these guidelines will not eliminate problematic alcohol use. But in conjunction with drinking age, they can help – potentially save tens of thousands of lives in the process. Deferred drinking also reduces the risk of developing alcohol dependence or abuse later in life.xviii It is more difficult to delay the onset of alcohol consumption with a lower MLDA.
There is a “trickle-down” effect when adolescents consume alcohol; They often give it to even younger teenagers. If the legal drinking age is 18 and 19, young people 17, 16 and even younger have easier access to alcohol.xix Please join the Drug-Free Action Alliance and 77% of the public, as determined in a July 2007 Gallup poll, to maintain the legal drinking age of 21. Road accidents are not the only measure that should be used to show whether the law is effective or not. What about sexual assault, alcohol poisoning, alcohol rates, violent crime rates and anything related to alcohol that causes problems? Personally, I have no problem with Bill 21, but it bothered me compared to what they reported in the study. The study could have included more metrics, but they were not included in this article. I also think that this is a very one-sided report, with statistics that may not be entirely objective. However, from the point of view of a student studying in Madrid (18 years old), I would like to say that the drinking culture here is very different. Parents usually introduce their children to a glass of wine at the age of 16 or pick them up from clubs at a certain time. This education and support does not encourage young people to drink more.
In fact, every Spaniard I`ve met has said that it`s rare for people to drink to the point of vomiting. When they see things like that, they usually assume he`s a stupid American. What for? Because there is no good education of teenagers about alcohol. Sex education started in high school, why not alcohol education? Learning to drink responsibly saves lives, not an age limit of 21+. How is that possible when the law is being flouted to such an extent? Not surprisingly, the law discourages many young people from drinking until their 21st birthday. More importantly, many teens who choose to drink do so less often and with less intensity than they disobey the law, and they take other steps, such as using a specific driver, to avoid informing authorities. I am encouraged by the intelligent circumvention of authorities through the use of designated drivers.