The Minimum Legal Drinking Age should be lowered to 18
Even 21 year olds get into car wreck because they drink. The alcahol tampers with any and everybody's mind. So why punish the 18 year olds? Why only allow a certain group of people to have alcohol?
If an 18 year old can drink and vote, then why can't they drink?
They lowered the voting age to 18 because they knew that when you are 18, you are an adult. The government knew that they are responsible enough to try to make the best decision for the society.
Fact Check: Many government officials, journalist and police officers believe that the age limit is not working.
Morris E. Chafetz, founder of the National Institute of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse says this about raising the drinking limit age,
"In 1982 I accepted appointment to the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving and agreed to chair its Education and Prevention Committee. The Commission met over the next 18 months and ultimately advanced 39 recommendations to President Reagan...
The most conspicuous of those recommendations, and arguably the most controversial, called for raising the minimum legal drinking age to 21 nationwide... In the interest of maintaining unanimity, I reluctantly voted yes.
It is the single most regrettable decision of my entire professional career.
Legal Age 21 has not worked. To be sure, drunk driving fatalities are lower now than they were in 1982. But they are lower in all age groups. And they have declined just as much in Canada, where the age is 18 or 19, as they have in the United States.
But even if we concede that the law has had some effect on our highways, we cannot overlook its collateral, off-road damage. The National Institute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, which I founded in 1970, estimates that 5,000 lives are lost to alcohol each year by those under 21. More than 3,000 of those fatalities occur off our roadways...
And if we broaden our look, we see a serious problem of reckless, goal-oriented, drinking to get drunk. Those at whom the law is directed disobey it routinely. Enforcement is frustratingly difficult and usually forces the behavior deeper underground, into places where life and health are put at ever greater risk. The 600,000 assaults reported annually, the date rapes, the property damage, the emergency room calls do not in general occur in places visible to the public. They are the inevitable result of what happens when laws do not reflect social or cultural reality.
The reality is that at age 18 in this country, one is a legal adult. Young people view 21 as utterly arbitrary -- which it is...
[T]here is no evidence of massive brain impairment, alcohol dependency, or underage alcohol abuse, which the 'experts' tell us will be the inevitable result of lowering the age in the United States.
"Age 18 traditionally separates minors from adults. But one can't legally buy a drink in America until age 21. Meanwhile, many states are now sending minors into the adult criminal justice system, even for nonviolent crimes...
Our society's age-specific approaches often boil down to curbing the freedoms of the young -- and increasing their punishments...
The drinking age has long been a tug-of-war. Is a 19-year-old mature enough to fight in Afghanistan but not to order beer in a bar? Almost every other country sets the drinking age at 18.
The presidents of 135 colleges have called for lowering the drinking age from 21 [see Amethyst Initiative above]. They note that the age restriction hasn't stopped binge drinking on campus and argue, not without reason, that it has turned alcohol into forbidden fruit begging to be picked. Perhaps teaching young adults how to drink in moderation is the better way to go.
In our imperfect world, the law has to draw lines, however arbitrary. But laws that only appear to address a problem by burdening young people aren't wise, and they aren't fair."
Just because people who are underage drinking doesnt mean we should make it legal. People are already selling prescription like pain killers or anti-despressants on their own outside of a hospital setting which is illegal and also very dangerous. however, just because people are already doing it, doesnt mean we should make it legal. Even if the perpitrators believe that it is their right to sell the drugs they procured legally.
The brain is completely mature at age 25. Alcohol has a unique effect on the brain; it damages its development. An 18 year old who over consumes alcohol even in the safety of his own home still runs the risk of hindering his own brain development with the substance. As you age you reduce this risk. The age is at 21 in hopes that it will reduce the amount of brain damage during development alcohol would cause. Its the difference between drinking with a developing brain for 4 years as opposed to an entire 7 year period.
Reducing the age of drinking in the United States also brings alcohol legally to a new stage; high schools. 18 year old high school seniors are now legally drinking; exposing even younger students at an earlier and earlier age. The days where you would have to get a fake ID and hope a bouncer doesnt recognize your age from your face trying to enter a bar are gone for the young 17 year old because now he can get alcohol from his friend on the football team. No more trying to sneak liquor out of their parents cabinets as hope that they wont get caught, because now they can just have their friend pick up alcohol for them after school. This whole situation actually adds more people who are drinking illegally to the system. The only difference between the demographic of illegal drinkers today versus this hypothetical is that in the hypothetical their younger amd more likely to make dangerous decisions or develop addictions at a young age
Just because accidents went down in 1982, doesn't mean that it is helping. There are more people between the ages of 21-50, legal drinkers, than 18- 20 year olds. That's just common sense.
In Canada, people drink at the age of 18 and they have the same amount of accidents as we do when the age limit is 21. It just isn't working.
Many government officials that voted for it to be passed believe that it is a terrible mistake.
All that being said the drinking age laws encompass much more than just driving. The unintended consequences of lowering the drinking age are numerous and dangerous. I have clearly stated some, and my opponent has failed to address them instead preferring to continue discussing drunk driving which regardless of drinking age will see little effects regardless of drinking age because drunk driving will remain illegal. People breaking one law, in this case drinking under age, can break a completely separate law as well, in this DUI laws. In the same way people who legally ingest alcohol can still break the completely separate law on driving under the influence of alcohol.
Moving forward we have to address the other areas of what lowering the drinking age will do in our society. Like I said lowering the drinking age to 18 legally places alcohol in the hands of high school students automatically. As I've said that also may mean that these same students may introduce alcohol illegally into the lives of younger high school students.
If my opponent is however still bent on discussing drunk driving, then he has to consider that this law actually puts the right to drink in the hands of people who at most have only 2 years of legal driving experience. Right now, as it stands, you have 5 years of space between starting to drive and starting to drink. What this means effectively is that less experienced drivers have a greater opportunity to drive under the influence under this proposed law. That, I would contend, is seriously dangerous.
Let me say this:
The separation of 18, which is a legal adult, and 21 year olds, which is a legal adult as well, on the basis of alcahol consumption is segregation against age according to the 14 and 21 ammendment.
If the consumption of alcahol is bad, then why did they repeal the 18 ammendment?
Many government officials believe the age limit being at 21 was a bad mistake.
In Canada, their drinking limit is 18 and they have the same amount of accidents as we do when our age limit is 21.
'Why do we have a law that is supposed to show a significant decrease in accidents when in fact it didn't?
Vote for me. Vote Pro.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|