ARE WE READY

FOR A DECREASE IN THE MLDA?

The Minimum Legal Drinking Age of 21 (MLDA) has been a topic of discussion since the
National Minimum Drinking Age Act was established in 1984. Whether or not we should lower
it or keep it, the question is still out there: What would be the best choice for the benefit of the
community? Lowering the MLDA will lead to different adverse effects such as health problems,
traffic fatalities, unplanned pregnancy, and crime.
According to the US Department of Human Health and Services, lowering the MLDA-21 would
be medically irresponsible because alcohol consumption at early ages can interfere with the full
development of young adults brains that can cause chronic problems such as addiction, violence,
depression, or even memory loss. For instance, having
the MLDA-21 has reduced traffic accidents.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, estimated that MLDA 21 decreased
the number of fatal traffic accidents for 18-20 years
old by 13% and saved approximately 27052 lives
during the past 2 years.
Keeping the MLDA of 21 seems to be the best option
for the community because since this act was
established it has been the best underage drinking
control. There are multiple organizations that enforce
the MLDA-21 such as Mothers Against Drunk
Driving (MADD), which is the nations largest nonprofit organization that fights for stopping drunk
driving, but they are also totally against the reduction
of the legal drinking age of 21.
People who disagree in keeping the MLDA-21 argue that the government infantilize young
adults. There is rage among young Americans because they are able to serve in the military,
marry, enter into contracts, vote, manage their own businesses, and own a property but they are
not able to purchase or consume alcohol because the government think they are not mature
enough to do such act.
Anyway, protestants should focus more on the negative sides and consequences of reducing the
drinking age. To support this, Sam Tracy from the article Is the National Drinking Age Doing
More Harm than Good? stated, Weve already tried that with alcohol, and it clearly isnt
working (2014). A possible solution to the problem is to keep firm and strong against the
reduction of the MLDA-21 and join or support organizations such as MAAD to create a voice in
the community. A new policy change that might solve the MLDA 21 problem could be educating

young adults to take an intensive course before turning 21 about the consequences of alcohol
consumption, by educating the public this way we enforce and secure their future so they can
behave in a responsible way, we just have to raise our voice to keep pushing and making the
difference for the good of the community.
The statistics are there and clearly, the only thing that is shown is the total failure in the reduction
of the MLDA-21. To reinforce the stance we are taking of not lowering the drinking age, the
authors Adam E. Barry, Michael L. Stellefson, and Conrad L. Woolsey, stated a warning from
professor Fitzpatrick stating, Lowering current MLDA represents an enormous social
experiment with potentially major consequences (2014).

References

Tracy, S. (2014, 23 January). Is the national drinking age doing more harm than good? The
Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-tracy/national
drinking age-doing-more-harm_b_4629417.html
Barry, A. E., Stellefson, M. L. and Woolsey C. L. (2014). A comparison of the
responsible
drinking dimensions among underage and legal drinkers: Examining
differences in beliefs,
motivates, self-efficacy, barriers and intentions. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention &
Policy. 9 (9), 2-10.