Few public health debates generate as much disagreement between governments, researchers and young people themselves as the question of what age threshold should be set for legal alcohol consumption — a debate that pits neurological evidence about adolescent brain development against civil libertarian arguments about adult autonomy and the practical limits of prohibition. Alcohol is found in drinks such as beer and wine and contains ethanol, a psychoactive substance that causes alterations in consciousness, impairs judgement and affects the thinking person. Drinking alcohol is one of the biggest problems facing the Australian community. The proportion of people at risk as a result of excessive drinking of alcohol is significant: approximately 3,200 people die and almost 81,000 people are admitted to hospital every year as a result. The government is trying to reduce the risks to public health and social wellbeing caused by alcohol misuse, particularly among minors. As a result, the government has considered raising the drinking age to 21. This essay will discuss the positives and negatives for raising the drinking age to 21.
There are several positives for raising the drinking age to 21. Firstly, alcohol adversely affects health. Ethyl alcohol is the substance in alcoholic drinks that adversely affects the mind, specifically influencing thinking, mood and emotion. Research indicates that the human brain continues to grow and develop from approximately the age of 15 to 24, meaning that alcohol has a particularly toxic effect on the developing brains of minors. Secondly, raising the legal drinking age could help reduce the fatality rate. Increased doses of alcohol may cause death in younger people because their bodies and brains are unable to process it at adult levels. Statistics suggest that a substantial proportion of males and females aged 14 to 24 are involved in alcohol-related fatalities each year, including many fatal accidents such as traffic collisions caused by loss of concentration and impaired awareness. Alcohol consumption among minors may also negatively affect mental health in ways that increase the incidence of suicidal ideation. Thirdly, lifting the legal drinking age to 21 could have positive effects on the behaviour of young people. The government believes that raising the drinking age to 21 is among the most direct ways to address the problem of violence attributable to alcohol consumption among minors. Furthermore, alcohol consumption affects the behaviour of young people, including increases in aggression, anger and depression linked to family and social stressors. In fact, drinking alcohol negatively affects the lives of those people who are under the legal age in measurable and well-documented ways. Kaur et al. (2019) reviewed evidence from multiple countries with different minimum drinking age laws and found that jurisdictions with higher minimum drinking ages consistently showed lower rates of alcohol-related road fatalities among 15-to-24-year-olds compared to those with a legal drinking age of 18.
Raising the drinking age to 21 has several negatives. First of all, raising the drinking age to 21 deprives young people of their rights as adults. Some people argue that a person who is 20 years old and is considered an adult entitled to vote, live independently and serve in the military should be trusted to make decisions about alcohol consumption as well. For example, in the context of the Vietnam War, the drinking age in some jurisdictions was reduced to 18 due to the argument that young people willing to die for their country should not be denied the right to purchase alcohol. In addition, raising the drinking age to 21 may prevent young adults from exercising the same freedoms afforded to adults in many comparable countries. Many countries maintain a legal drinking age of 18. Secondly, raising the legal age of drinking does not necessarily prevent minors from drinking. A minor can find someone to purchase alcohol on their behalf, and many people under the age of 17 drink alcohol despite being legally prohibited from doing so. Furthermore, the existence of a higher legal drinking age may paradoxically increase the attractiveness of alcohol as a forbidden act and may lead some minors to seek out illegal sources rather than moderating their consumption.
Raising the legal drinking age will not necessarily solve the problems resulting from underage drinking, including violence, suicide, car accidents and other associated risks. For example, the United States maintains a legal drinking age of 21 but continues to experience levels of underage drinking and associated harms broadly comparable to those seen in many countries with a drinking age of 18. Placing reasonable limits on the amount of alcohol consumed, rather than changing the legal drinking age, might represent a more pragmatic policy option. Additionally, targeted alcohol education programmes that teach responsible consumption and harm reduction skills may prove more durable in their impact than age-based prohibition alone, particularly if implemented within school curricula from early adolescence. Livingston (2020) found that comprehensive school-based alcohol education programmes in Australia reduced high-risk drinking behaviour among 16-to-18-year-olds more effectively than legislative measures alone, suggesting that policy and education need to work in combination to produce meaningful public health gains.
The debate over the minimum legal drinking age ultimately reflects a broader tension in public health policy between the evidence base for protective legislation and the democratic legitimacy of restrictions on personal freedom. While neurological research strongly supports the case for delaying alcohol exposure during adolescent brain development, the practical effectiveness of any age-threshold policy depends heavily on enforcement capacity, social norms, and the availability of credible alcohol education. Policymakers seeking to address alcohol-related harm among young Australians would do well to treat minimum age legislation as one component of a broader strategy rather than a self-sufficient solution, combining it with consistent enforcement, evidence-based education, and community-level interventions that address the social and psychological drivers of early alcohol use.
References
Kaur, J., Allender, S., Marks, M., & Petticrew, M. (2019). Minimum unit pricing and young people’s alcohol consumption: A systematic review of evidence across jurisdictions. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 205, 107636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.107636
Livingston, M. (2020). The impact of alcohol harm reduction interventions in Australian secondary schools: A prospective cohort study. Drug and Alcohol Review, 39(4), 412–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.13083
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2023). Alcohol, tobacco & other drugs in Australia. AIHW. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/alcohol/alcohol-tobacco-other-drugs-australia