And also their parents and other organizations can show them how to responsibily drink and NOT drive. And it would not be in the shadows as it is now.

We should lower the drinking age, but we should also lower the legal limit to 0.01 for everybody.

(I say 0.01 so that people aren’t being prosecuted for driving home after communion. I don’t know what level communion causes, if it’s actually 0.001 I’d support that instead. Most states don’t even have 0.01 as the legal limit for under 21, usually it’s 0.02)

The reason people at any age drink and drive is because they think they haven’t had enough to go over the legal limit. Putting it that low would make it clear to anyone who has dranken enough to actually be drunk that they’re over the limit even if they think they’re still sober. It would also spur the growth of public transportation, which would create jobs and decrease gasoline usuage.

Furthermore laws against one thing (drinking) to stop people from doing another thing that is penalized more greatly (drinking and driving) doesn’t make logical sense. If a person isn’t deterred by penalties against drunk driving, which are more severe than just underaged drinking then there’s no reason they would be deterred by penalties against drinking at all, so even if the increase in drinking age lead to lower drunk driving accidents (if because correlation does not prove causation, other factors could’ve caused the decrease) it would’ve been because people who would’ve drank and drove just drank instead, because they knew if they drove and any alcohol was found in their system they’d be guilty of drunk driving. By setting the limit at 0.01 it actually increases the risk that a person who’s had even a little alcohol will be guilty of DWI, so if we did that all people including people under 21 would be more careful to avoid drinking and driving.

Next point, I love this debate. Why? Because nobody ever presents a great argument for either side, whether it be for lowering the drinking age or against. Every argument I see is flawed and unpersuasive, and in all honesty, I know that I probably cannot successfully argue this debate well enough to convince all that either the minimum age should be lowered or should stay the same. It is entertaining though to see others try and subsequently, fail.

……well if we can vote and go to war, buy pornography, why cant we drink?……..

Please thats getting old. Those are completely different issues. There are logical reasons for not bringing down the alcohol drinking age. And yes we know people of older ages dont drink responisbly however, you missed the point. underage people already get easy access to alcohol just revisit the recent ASI story but my point is that should it be bumped to lower ages, how much easier is it goin to be accessed by teenagers and then underage kids who are not teenagers?

Its a way to protect the youth that are in high school and even jr high. They should be worried about school, education and other things not about how cool it is to access alcohol and be drinking. Allowing eighteen year olds the legal right will bring alcohol that much closer to younger people and into high schools.

I am sorry to hear about the loss of you friend and his death’s repercussions on your family. I cannot possibly know what that must have felt like.

When reading your article, I notice that you do not mention the age of the drunk driver who killed your friend, only the fact that he was over the age of 21. This clearly illustrates the fact that there are people of all ages, even over 21, that make very bad choices.

But…

I disagree with your conclusion that we should keep the drinking age at 21 if it saves so much as one life. Many other regulations that abridge rights and liberties would save lives. Think of how many lives would be saved if guns were outlawed?

Since you affirm that those over the age of 21 can make the wrong choices about drinking and driving, you immediately assume that adults between the ages of 18 and 20 must make worse choices. Besides age discrimination against adults, this is inaccurate if you look at the numbers.

www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810616.PDF

The numbers of drunk driving accidents, measured by percentage and numbers, are higher for all age groups of the population aged 21-54 than for the 16-20 year old statistics. So, alcohol wise, that age group is the most responsible now.

Why is it that when an 18 year old becomes an adult, can vote, can enter into binding legal contracts, can get married, can act in and buy pornography and be held fully responsible for their actions, they are treated as juveniles when it comes to alcohol? We agree that at the age of 21 no brilliant wisdom emerges that makes you more able to make good decisions.

What we need is stricter enforcement of the drunk driving laws that are in place (since drunk driving and the age of alcohol purchase are separate issues) AND encourage a healthy drinking culture of drinking in moderation to complement social encounters and good food.

Not foster a culture where the first time people experience alcohol they form a pattern of drinking to get drunk since they cannot legally drink at all, despite being adults.

Treat ALL adults the same by giving them the same rights along with the same responsibilities. And hold them all accountable for their actions.