Ethical Issues With Raising The MLDA

Introduction

Under the Canadian legislation, The Act Respecting Offences Relating to Alcoholic Beverages, the current minimum legal drinking age is eighteen in Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec and nineteen everywhere else in Canada (IARD, 2019). Even though turning eighteen or nineteen is considered one’s entrance into adulthood, individuals at this age tend to make poor choices as to drinking, causing harm to themselves. Drinking at eighteen and nineteen may lead to unsafe drinking activities and other poor choices. Hence, increasing the regulations on the drinking age from nineteen to twenty-one would likely result in a decrease in unsafe drinking activities. This paper aims to apply Utilitarian ethics to argue that the minimum legal drinking age limit (MLDA) in Canada should be increased to twenty-one.

Argument

The utilitarian theory focuses on the moral value of various actions that people make and attempts to determine the rightness or wrongness of these actions. Based on utilitarianism, increasing the drinking age to twenty-one maximizes good outcomes for the greatest number of people. Simply put, the action of increasing the drinking age is morally permissible as it produces the greatest utility by saving people’s lives from alcohol-related deaths. For this reason, I choose utilitarianism because it emphasizes the consequences of an act over the value of the act itself. Also, utilitarianism can be universally applied as it applies to all acts of human behavior and it is objective, meaning it can operate beyond individual thoughts and perspectives. Lastly, utilitarianism is quantifiable in terms of utility, and in this case, we want to maximize utility by saving the most lives, in simplistic terms.

My first claim supporting my argument is that increasing the age limit saves lives by preventing alcohol-related traffic fatalities, so it maximizes utility for the greatest number. According to the article “A Minimum Legal Drinking Age Limit (MLDA) of 21 saves lives and protects health” by the CDC, increasing the MLDA to twenty-one is linked to a decrease in motor vehicle accidents by sixteen percent in US states (2020). Drinking is considered a norm and a rite of passage at this age and as many eighteen-year-olds are eager to start. However, they lack a sense of responsibility making them vulnerable to the negative effects of drinking at such a young age. Excessive drinking or “binge drinking” can lead to poor decisions leading to unintentional injuries, an increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases. The consequences of binge drinking among college students may cause harm to others so laws should prohibit drinking until the age of twenty-one.

Secondly, it is well known that the earlier one starts to drink, the more likely one will become dependent on alcohol and suffer from alcohol-related problems later on in life. It has been documented that increasing regulation by reducing access to purchase or consume alcohol significantly reduces one’s risk of harm. Mothers Against Drinking and Driving (MADD) found that in 2010, 10, 228 individuals have died due to drinking and driving-related accidents (MADD, 2020; CDC, 2019). They presume that inexperience and immaturity are two major reasons why many of the fatal road injuries are caused by young drivers between the ages of eighteen to twenty and noticed a decline in drunk driving rates as one age. Because drunk driving continues to be a concern for public safety, it would be beneficial to society to increase the MLDA to twenty-one. MLDA laws have been proven to be very effective and important in reducing drunk driving among young drivers.

Lastly, alcohol consumption among youth can interfere with brain development. This article discusses the impact of physical changes in the brain and other cognitive functioning. Alcohol has known effects on the frontal lobe so when alcohol interferes with brain development at such an early age, there is potential for developing chronic conditions. Thus, increasing the chances of addiction, memory loss, depression, and risk-taking behavior and reducing one’s ability to make decisions. Simply put, the action of increasing the drinking age is morally permissible as it reduces the chance of harm to the individual by cutting off access to alcohol at a young age. Mill also contributes to this discussion as his theory is based on the result of the action and the harm it brings to others. Alcohol consumption, according to Mill’s Harm Principle, would be unethical as it brings harm to oneself but also morally wrong as it may bring harm to others, due to the majority of traffic-related deaths being caused by drunk driving.

According to rule-utilitarianism, which states that an action is right that if everyone conforms to the rule, it will lead to the greatest good. Thus, if everyone obeys the MLDA laws then it will bring the greatest good to the most people by preventing drunk driving fatalities and by reducing access to alcohol to young vulnerable adults in order to reduce other alcohol-related issues.

Counter Argument

Considering that turning nineteen is the entrance into adulthood, one has the freedom to be independent, to vote, and to make your own choices. The current law in Canada states that eighteen to nineteen-year-olds are to be given their own choices on whether they choose to drink or not. Raising the drinking age may be considered an ethical issue as it compromises one’s autonomy as it is limiting one’s choice regarding alcohol consumption. The fundamental rights of humans being able to freely choose their own way of life and what choices they would make. A liberal approach would support keeping the current MLDA as it advocates for individual freedom under the rule of law. According to this approach, eighteen to nineteen-year-olds should not be denied the right of enjoyment through such activities, and having an MLDA set at twenty-one would be ineffective because teens consume alcohol regardless. Also, increasing the MLDA would only make drinking alcohol more taboo for those entering college then it would lead to normalizing the consumption of alcohol. The liberalism principle aims to promote equal rights to freedom for all individuals. The modern-day liberalism principle tends to have egalitarian aspects, defined as believing that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Thus, the two support the idea of keeping the current MLDA as it ensures that all individuals entering adulthood have equal access. Liberalism emphasizes protecting individuals’ rights, thus, individuals who choose to consume alcohol at such a young age do so because they believe it is their freedom and right. Therefore, increasing the MLDA would be considered morally wrong in terms of the liberalism and egalitarianism perspectives.

Rebuttal

Although increasing the minimum legal drinking age limit (MLDA) to twenty-one may impinge on autonomy, it is important to consider that at the current age, individuals may become vulnerable to alcohol-related issues when starting to consume alcohol at a young age. At the age of eighteen or nineteen, with one just entering college, they may be pressured into drinking to be socially accepted. An article by Chiappetta, called it “age discrimination,” stating at the age of eighteen one has the right to vote, be independent so why is consuming alcohol illegal. This idea that individuals are being discriminated based on age supports the idea that increasing the MLDA would be an impingement on autonomy. With the MLDA set to twenty-one, older youth and adults may be more hesitant in supplying alcoholic beverages to minors due to stricter regulations. Relating to Kant’s perspectives on morality and heteronomous motivations in which people’s actions are influenced by an outside force. Licensed alcohol stores or shops may refrain or refuse selling to minors more frequently due to perceptions that it is illegal, fear of being caught, and punished or morally wrong. Overall, the major aim of increasing the MLDA to twenty-one is to reduce the number of alcohol-related road traffic fatalities. Currently, in Canada, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those aged 16-25 and alcohol plays a major factor in 55% of those crashes. In the United States where the drinking age is currently twenty-one, alcohol-related deaths account for 28% of traffic-related deaths. As we can see, there is a significant decrease in the number of alcohol-impaired motor vehicle crashes. Thus, it would be accurate to say that increasing the MLDA would in fact save lives, therefore the change in the law is just.

Conclusion

This topic of whether or not to set the MLDA to twenty-one in Canada has been hotly debated in recent years. Utilitarianism provides a basis for the consideration of what qualifies as a moral act or decision based on the act’s consequences. Using the utilitarian theory, the morality in increasing the MLDA depends on how many drunk driving accidents are prevented coupled with what the majority of the population considered right. Considering much of the research suggests that drunk driving fatalities have significantly reduced when the MLDA is twenty-one and not eighteen, the act of increasing the MLDA is morally just. As a result, I believe that the minimum legal drinking age limit (MLDA) should be increased to twenty-one as the research summarizes provides evidence on the significant reduction in road traffic fatalities due to alcohol consumption.

Works Cited:

1. Callaghan, Russell. (2014). “University of Northern British Columbia.” Canadian Drinking-Age Laws Have Significant Effect on Deaths Among Young Males | University of Northern British Columbia. www.unbc.ca/releases/11685/canadian-drinking-age-laws-have-significant-effect-on-deaths-among-young-male
2. CDC. (2020). Minimum legal drinking age of 21 saves lives. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/minimum-legal-drinking-age.htm
3. Chiappetta, A. (2006). Should Drinking Age Be 18? Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=667917&page=1
4. Grodin, M., Hingson, R., & Meyers, A. (1987). Ethical and Legal Issues in the Treatment of Alcoholism: Drunk Driving. Alcoholism Frontiers of Primary Care, 205–210. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-4786-9_25
5. Holland, S. (2014). Public health ethics. Cambridge: Polity.
6. IARD. (2019). International Alliance For Responsible Drinking. Minimum Legal Age Limits. Retrieved from https://iard.org/science-resources/detail/minimum-legal-age-limits/
7. Jones, S. N., & Lachman, V. D. (2011). Continuing the Dialogue: Reducing Minimum Legal Drinking Age Laws from 21 to 18. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 22(3), 138–143. doi: 10.3109/10884602.2011.585724
8. MADD. (2020). Mothers Against Drinking and Driving. Retrieved from https://madd.ca/pages/
9. Squeglia, L. M., Jacobus, J., & Tapert, S. F. (2014). The effect of alcohol use on human adolescent brain structures and systems. Handbook of Clinical Neurology Alcohol and the Nervous System, 501–510. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-444-62619-6.00028-8
10. Toumbourou, J. W., Kypri, K., Jones, S. C., & Hickie, I. B. (2014). Should the legal age for alcohol purchase be raised to 21? Medical Journal of Australia, 200(10), 568–570. doi: 10.5694/mja13.10465
11. White, A., & Hingson, R. (2013). The burden of alcohol use: excessive alcohol consumption and related consequences among college students. Alcohol research: current reviews