15 should be the age to consume and purchase lighter liquor. However, for stronger liquors the minimum age should be around 19 or 20. 21 is a ridiculous age for drinking any kind of liquor. Studies show that on average, people have their first drink at age 15. People are responsible for their own actions, they do not need anyone dictating when they should be able to make decisions for themselves. However, and for anyone under 15 remains skeptical.
The current age of 21 years is, in all honesty, excessive. The vast majority of countries, in all continents, have 18 set as the drinking age. America however, like in most things, has to be the hipster of the world. Most states allow minors to drink in private settings anyway, so children younger than this even will generally have a drink every once in a while. We allow children to handle hulking metal deathtraps at the age of 16, but they can't have a can of cheap beer until more than half a decade later?
I don't think there should be a legal drinking age, but if there is, it should be way lower. 15 to 18 if there is one at all. The government should stay out of what I do with my body. Parents need to set good examples. But the bottom line is that government should not be involved.
I realize that this is an unpopular opinion, but I think that it is wrong for the government to make laws about who can and cannot be sold alcohol. Or any substance for that matter. Children should not be drinking alcohol, but that is an issue that parents and individual liquor sellers should address. It is not the business of the government. Parents should teach their children to drink responsibly, and individual liquor sellers should refuse to sell alcohol to children. There should be no laws on the issue.
Most countries have a drinking age of 18. Some countries have a no drinking age. All together, the average worldwide drinking age is about 15 or 16. The WHO reports that by age 15, most people regularly drink, so its not like changing the law will affect people too much, it will just make it legal.
No that's too young. They are still developing. You will be seeing a lot more deaths with that being accepted as legal. You here about 18 year old's getting in car crashes leading to deaths. What makes you think a 15 year old can be more mature to not make that happen?
The effects of alcohol on teenagers is obvious. Alcohol disrupts the nervous system by interfering with the neurotransmitters that send messages around the body, hence affecting our ability to make rational decisions. This isn't just about teenagers causing harm to themselves under the influence of alcohol, but about the negative impacts on the rest of society. Teenagers will be prone to make decisions they would not normally make whilst sober, such as the destruction of private as well as public property, or even engaging in physical fights or abuse of others.
Bordenkircher's theory about how changing the law will not affect anything simply isn't an accurate reflection of what will happen if the drinking age was lowered. A law banning alcohol consumption for teenagers under 18/16 imposes an extremely high opportunity cost of drinking, whether it be spending several days in jail or several hundred hours doing community service if you were caught, making it less likely for teenagers to consume alcohol. Lowering the drinking age and now making it legal for 15 year olds to drink means significantly lowering the opportunity cost of drinking.
In response to Victorian's argument about how it is not the role or duty of the government to intervene, this simply is not true. According to positive economics, individual liquor sellers are part of profit-making firms and businesses, and a firm's aims essentially boils down to profit-maximization. They are solely motivated by profits, and not morals. If selling liquor to a fifteen year old means more profits, then there will be nothing to stop them from doing so. Liquor store owners have no disincentive to not sell liquor, whereas if there was a law against the selling of liquor to teenagers, there would be an opportunity cost attached (in this case, potential incarceration).
Victorian's point about the role and the duty of the government does not stand. The role and the duty of the government is to ensure the well-being, safety and security of its citizens, and if the well-being of its citizens is being harmed in any way (in this case through the irrational behavior of teenagers under the influence of alcohol), then it IS the duty of the government to step in.