The drinking age should stay where it is at age 21 because it becomes a hazard to public safety when adolescent teens begin abusing alcohol and engage in reckless activity, such as driving under the influence, and drinking to the point of passing out.
At the age of 18 males are required by law to sign up for the draft. At the age of 18 if we are arrested, we are automatically tried as an adult. At the age of 18 we are allowed to vote in our public and local elections. But at the age of 18 we are unable to take a sip of alcohol. If 18 year old's have the right to all of these responsibilities, how is it right then to be unable to consume alcohol responsibly?
Although those statements are true, it is also true that individuals cannot do certain things until age 21 such as gambling, purchasing a handgun, and adopting a child. This is because it is known that these things take responsibility and maturity. Research has proven that many men do not fully mature until the age 23. Drinking also causes stunting to this crucial time of growth in the adolescent years.
I do see where you are coming from, but as you said men do not fully mature until the age of 23 so then why is the drinking age lower than that number? The big issue is that the drinking age comes into play when college students are mixed between 18-24 year old's (approximately), no matter what the legal drinking age may be people are still going to drink. That is why, wouldn't it just make more sense to lower the age when the majority of college students begin to drink then or even younger?
That's a good point; however, the drinking age should stay at minimum 21 years old because it is often found that teenagers experience a heightened factor of peer pressure within this time frame of 13-19 years of age. This factor of peer pressure could heighten the risk of alcohol consumption in a dangerous and unwanted manner if the drinking age is lowered. This will only reinforce this problem within the younger age groups.
I think there would be problems if the age limit was changed to 18 because countries like Italy and Germany have been exposed to adolescent teens drinking for many years. in America, people back in the day weren't raised around drinking and partying, they were raised to work and support their families.
I realize that America was founded on hard work and determination, but times have changed now. I think the drinking age should be reduced to 18 or even younger, because it will expose people to drinking at a younger age and help deal with alcohol abuse. If a person is able to be opened up to drinking at a younger age then they will be able to grow a tolerance towards it. The inevitable is that people under the age of 21 will drink no matter what the drinking age is reduced to.
I see the point you're making, but changing the law of the drinking age now will most likely create a sudden increase in reckless behavior from adolescent teens around the age 18 who are newly exposed to alcohol. The new "privilege" will encourage drinking to take place which will cause a large increase in safety issues. Since the US is a country where driving automobiles is common among teens and adults, this increases the risk of drinking and driving to occur in newer drivers on the road.
I know what you mean, but by lowering the age now it will give our country time to adjust to this. And if we were to lower the age I do believe that less drunk driving incidents would happen because the percentage of people under the age of 18 drinking is very high. By doing this it would decrease the crime rate and allow our nation to adjust. By lowering the age by 3 years I really don't think this will greatly affect the nation.