<p>If heightened risk of abuse is all that warrants an outright ban for a certain group, then it would only follow that we would ban alcohol for blacks as well.</p>
<p>Personally, I don't think it's fair to restrict the rights of one group of legal adults (people age 18,19, and 20) just because they tend to commit a certain crime at higher rates. It might even violate the Equal Rights Clause. I wonder if South Dakota v. Dole would've been decided the same way if the Drinking Age was argued as a violation of the 14th Amendment rather than the 10th and 21st.</p>
<p>"On April 14, 1982, President Reagan established the Presidential Commission Against Drunk Driving (PCDD). This commission established 39 recommendations to curb what was perceived to be a drunken driving epidemic. Taken together, the 39 recommendations were intended to be comprehensive approach with a goal of reducing the number of alcohol-related deaths on the nation’s highways. Recommendation number eight concerned the Minimum Legal Purchasing Age, and said that all states should raise the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) to 21, lest they lose a certain percentage of federal highway dollars. Though the target of the Commission’s recommendations was intended to be drunk driving across the adult population, the disproportionate amount of attention paid to establishing 21 as the national minimum drinking age shifted the nation’s focus to young people’s drinking. Exclusive interest in raising the drinking age marginalized the effect of the remaining 38 recommendations, among them suggestions to implement youth education programs, establish a massive public information campaign, and to increase penalties for convicted drunken drivers. Two years later, on July 17, 1984, after extensive lobbying from groups such as MADD, President Reagan signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, effectively creating a national minimum drinking age of 21. By 1987, all 50 states had legislated Legal Age 21."</p>
<p>Interesting, how that worked out. The entire site chooseresposibility.org makes great arguments in favor of returning the drinking age to the more reasonable, 18.</p>
<p>Quote:
The drinking age is 18 here, which is still too high in my opinion. A drinking age of 21 in the U.S., on the other hand, is completely ridiculous. If one is able to join the army and fight for one's country at the age of 18 (and vote), then one should be able to at least drink at that age.--Netrino</p>
<p>I've always hated this argument. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The fact is, brain cells don't finish developing until your mid-late 20's. And complaining about not being able to drink, IMO, just makes you sound younger than 18 to begin with. Wait the three years and do it responsibly if you're so "adult".</p>
<p>If the drinking age were 18, it would only encourage people to get wasted on their 18th.</p>
<p>Honestly, I don't really care. If you want to get wasted, it's fine with me. It's that most 18-year-olds (note the MOST) drink irresponsibly...driving drunk (or "buzzed", as people here call it), binge drinking, etc. As soon as other people are put into danger, that's when it bothers me. (Not that 21-year-olds don't do things like this, just that I've noticed it's higher in 18-year-olds from my own experience.)--HisGraceFillsMe</p>
<p>HisGraceFillsMe. By your argument, an 18 year old's brain is developed enough to kill and die in order to defend their country, but not to have a beer? Sure that makes a lot of sense. (sarcasm intended)</p>
<p>People choose to join the army. They can decide if they are mature enough to fight for their country. You can not decide, however, if your brain is developed enough to drink.</p>
<p>HisGraceFillsMe Quote: People choose to join the army. They can decide if they are mature enough to fight for their country. You can not decide, however, if your brain is developed enough to drink.</p>
<hr>
<p>That's just silly. One can choose if their brain is developed enough to handle the emotional strain of war, but they cannot choose if their brain is developed enough to know how much alcohol is too much? I don't see the sense in that.</p>
<p>Furthermore, "The truth is in the only study that we’ve been able to find that compares drinkers who started drinking either after 21 or before 21, but still controls for years of drinking and quantity of consumption, researchers found the two groups to be indistinguishable in terms of long-term cognitive impairments." (again from chooseresposibility.org)</p>
<p>The brain doesn't finish developing till age 25, so in actuality, setting the drinking age at 21 really doesn't correlate with brain development. Even if it did, there's no solid evidence that starting to drink at 18 leads to a more dangerous lifestyle long term than starting at 21.</p>
<p>Humm...in the army, our 18 year old troops are allowed to drink on base, legally. If the 18 year old brain is not developed enough (interesting use of word.. what's enough and who gets to rule on this?) maybe we should not let them vote, get married, drive, or obtain birth control. Then their little brains could take all the time they need to develop into an adult (21? 25? 32? years old)</p>
<p>The lack of enforced drinking laws in Europe doesn't seemed to have helped much, assuming the study (or studies) is accurate. A second prohibition could improve the drinking problem.</p>
<p>i agree that the buzzed driving has alot to do with fear of calling parents, I am afraid to get caught doing anything wrong, my parents already think I do everything wrong, and am a horrible example for my siblings because they say i am not respectful of them. I would be afraid they would be way to angry to deal with or follow through with their threats to send me away. I am 16, I actually haven't drank yet, and actually I don't plan on drinking until I am out of my house and in college, not to say I will go get drunk in college. At the same time I bet alot of people like me take the freedom of college and get drunk, and party because they can.</p>
<p>i'm from europe where the drinking age is max. 18. i've just finished my freshman year in the united states, and can easily say that my peers in my hometown are much more conscious in terms of drinking than those in the united states. the drinking age should be lowered, only to give people more responsibility. one can drive when he's 16, join the army when 18, why not drink? why is drinking so exaggerated, people?</p>
<p>What I think is even more ridiculous is that this is really a state matter according to the Constitution, yet the federal government pretty much blackmailed the states into complying, which really oversteps the boundaries outlined in the document. As much as I am for federalism, I'm not a very big fan of essentially "cheating" to get one's way. </p>
<p>Personally, I don't think the problem is 18-year-olds drinking- there's nothing immoral or unethical about it. The drinking age simply there to prevent some between the ages of 18-20 from drinking and driving. I think the bigger problem is that nobody really "trains" kids how to drink properly. It's such a different environment in Europe where one may drink a glass a wine or a pint with dinner instead of "21 shots" for one's 21st birthday here. I'm much more in favor of adopting a system like the UK's, where there's a strong difference between beer and wine with dinner and hard liquor served in nightclubs. </p>
<p>Also, I'm not really in favor of some "possession by consumption" laws in some states, where if you have greater than a .01% BAC, one "possesses" alcohol. I know that my father, for example, cooks with alcohol. If some of the alcohol doesn't cook out, I could "possess" alcohol- really very silly.</p>
<p>I live in Switzerland and the drinking age is 16 for beer and wine and 18 for hard liquor. I think that's fine and we have less drunk driving incidents per capita than you do in the states and we have fewer cases of alcohol poisoning. I agree with the poster above' statement, from my experience a lot kids in the states do not know how to handle their alcohol while in Europe heavy drinking is less common and people tend to be more responsible. Marijuana is basically legal as well you can get it wherever, even in some shops, and the police don't care.</p>
<p>I say it should just be lowered. I just came out of a graduating high school class of about 1000 and I'd say... 80% of them drank at parties at least once. Great school too.</p>
<p>Saying the drinking age should be lowered just because people will be breaking the law anyways is the worst argument you can make.</p>
<p>Can we say that since students will be drinking anyways, we should not prohibit drinking in high schools or else students will be even more encouraged to drink outside of school?</p>
<p>In countries like Vietnam, the drinking/smoking age seems inexistent and is never enforced and going into an internet cafe you often see 10 year olds holding a cigarette. Do we really want something similar to this to happen in the United States?</p>
<p>Again, saying that something should be changed because people would be encouraged to break the law anyways is the worst argument that can be made IMO.</p>
<p>That's not even the whole case... The law currently encourages acts such as binge drinking which is the problem that many colleges have to face. They're trying to lower death.</p>
<p>You cannot make a comparison of the drinking culture in the US and China because the culture of the places is completely different. In China, students have a lot less time to party, given the very high focus on academics. Chinese parents also tend to be more socially conservative (on issues pertaining to general behavior), in comparison to some parents here.</p>
<p>Personally, I do not think changing the drinking age will do much. More of it has to do with the general mindset ingrained in the society than the letter of the law.</p>
<p>The only alcohol I have ever had is from a few very small cups of wine a few times a year.</p>
<p>I cannot see why anyone would support drinking in the first place. It is harmful to yourself and potentially others around you. If you get drunk and drive, there is a great risk of getting into an accident and possibly killing yourself or another. Heavy drinking can lead to health problems in the liver such as cirrhosis, which can lead to death. Unfortunately, it does not appear that young people think about or even care about there health. =(</p>
<p>Alcohol depresses brain function. It makes it difficult to make responsible judgements in a car. It slows your reaction time making it more likely to slam into another car or a pedestrian. </p>
<p>It baffles me as to why people would want to get drunk in the first place if they are not sure they can get a ride home. And considering that an 18 year old is not as mature or as experienced as a 21 year old, it is even more baffling as to why lawmakers and university professors would even consider lowering the drinking age. </p>
<p>People present the argument that if someone can go to war at 18, then they should be able to drink at 18. The problem with this argument is that in war, people are not endangering the lives of innocent fellow citizens on the homefront. </p>
<p>Conclusion: Lawmakers SHOULD NOT reduce the drinking age. There needs to be continuing of enforcing this law for everyone's safety.</p>
<p>I posted a similar plea on this site over a year ago. They manipulate statistics and try to exercise their muscle and lobbying skills. The 18-21 year old group has no million dollar lobbying groups. MADD makes money off these issues. They appeal to the extremists.</p>
<p>There is no reason to have the drinking age at 21 period.
I see more adults drinking and driving than kids on campuses.
Deal with your target...if it is drinking and driving then--increase punishments for that....but to blame it all on the 18-21 group is ridiculous.</p>
<p>One needs to just look at arrest blogs and in my area the largest violators
are apparent illegals or immigrants. IN my area teens or even TWEENS that are between 18-21 are rarely arrested for DUI-- but daily there are 10-15 of the other group.</p>
<p>Does MADD really think that it is because of their prohibition????? no, there is no connection.</p>
<p>Really, we can buy cigarettes that kill you at age 18
smokeless tobacco at 18 that rots your mouth,
a gun that kills others at age 18,
they can vote.....pick our next president....,
MALES at age 18 MUST register for the draft,
Those that enlist can kill people at age 18 legally--handling bombs, fly ariplanes....and do other hazardous duties....but they brains aren't developed
enough to have a beer>???????</p>
<p>All this prohibition does is drive it under ground, lead to extreme drinking instead of casual and give good kids records. It is a cash cow for college towns in fines and penalties.</p>
<p>Hats off to these Presidents for speaking out loud what many of us have been thinking......we know where the brains are....not in MADD--they just rely on manipulative stats and millions of dollars spent on lobbyist, and of course FEAR tactics just like McCarthyism and other extremist groups.</p>
<p>Time for reason, lower the age back, or create a step up program, beer & wine at 18, liquor by the drink at 20, liquor by the bottle at 21. Really doesn't that make sense????</p>
<p>"Saying the drinking age should be lowered just because people will be breaking the law anyways is the worst argument you can make."</p>
<p>Some day you'll take an American history class and learn about Prohibition.</p>
<p>"And considering that an 18 year old is not as mature or as experienced as a 21 year old, it is even more baffling as to why lawmakers and university professors would even consider lowering the drinking age."</p>
<p>Most of the immature jackasses who would drink and drive from 18-20 (wait for it, it's a shocker) are still immature jackasses by the time they're 21. And as experience is currently showing, having the drinking age at 21 isn't doing terribly much to curb drinking in the 18-20 segment. I've actually heard a number of people who have turned 21 say "drinking just isn't the same now that it's actually legal". If your problem is with drunk driving, then for God's sake, just make stricter punishments for drunk driving. Just don't act like there's some magical secondary plateau of maturity beyond the level of smoking/voting/serving in combat reserved for drinking that people magically achieve between 18 and 21.</p>
<p>I see dilsky's point. Anyone who drinks and drive is immature, no matter what the age. </p>
<p>I just don't understand why people want to put their selves in the position of possibly endangering themselves and others through the use of alcohol. </p>
<p>Why must people feel that they need a drug such as alcohol or marijuana to have a good time? Is your life that miserable and depressing that you feel compelled to add toxic substances to your body to possibly make you feel even more miserable?</p>
<p>Am I the only one that believes that the world would be better(safer) if alcohol was banned? I do understand this request is not logical because there would be upheaval, riots, violence, etc... I am just sad that it is so.</p>