why the drinking age should remain 21

The youth of America are ready for change, its all about responsibility and i dont feel that the responsible youth should have to pay the price of the unjust actions of the stupid and irresponsible. You can be legally called an adult before you can legally buy alcohol. Find the balance and award the right to be called an adult, and vote with being able to legally consume and purchase alcohol
I think the reason most young teens think illegally is because our the U. S. makes it a big deal. If the U. S. just put the drinking age at 16 or something when teens drink they wouldn't be all like "oh I'm breaking the law by drinking at a young age I'm so bad for breaking the law. " Sometimes teens just want tot rebel and get attention and try to seem bad when their not. By lowering the drinking age and making drinking less of a big deal I think people wouldn't do it as much because it would jeu be like who cares if you drink. Are you or are you not a free adult at 18? In the USA, when you turn 18, you can smoke tobacco, vote, own a gun, join the army, start a family, and for some reason you have to be 21 to drink alcohol? Why? I know the usual "Your brain isn't fully developed until 21. " argument, but my question is "Are you or are you not a free adult at 18? " If you can make the choice to smoke or not to smoke, to vote or not to vote, etc. , at 18, I don't see any logical reason to stop you from drinking at 18. The only reasons are either control freak behavior or political reasons. Are you or are you not a free adult at 18? In the USA, when you turn 18, you can smoke tobacco, vote, own a gun, join the army, start a family, and for some reason you have to be 21 to drink alcohol? Why? I know the usual "Your brain isn't fully developed until 21. " argument, but my question is "Are you or are you not a free adult at 18? " If you can make the choice to smoke or not to smoke, to vote or not to vote, etc. , at 18, I don't see any logical reason to stop you from drinking at 18.


The only reasons are either control freak behavior or political reasons. The sooner you learn about it, the less likely you are to abuse it. First of all, if a person gains all of the privileges of being an adult except for one thing, they will try to find that thing which they cannot have even though they are supposedly considered an adult by that point in time. What I mean is, the term 'adult' should be consistent and if 18 is the chosen arbitrary date, then so be it - but allow them all the freedoms and all the responsibility - not just some. Only allowing certain freedoms, but not all, means that you would still be treating them like a child in that specific thing that they cannot have. Moderate drinking isn't necessarily bad. Moderate drinking is actually useful socially so long as it doesn't go to excess. Drinking in moderation and with other people is one of the most enjoyable times a person can have. Why deny it until later? The drinking age in the UK and Ireland is 18. Yes, there is an unfortunate drinking culture that has led to some accidents. However, increasing the age to 21 here would not solve these problems completely. It would actually criminalize those from the age of 18 to 21 who do look for alcohol. Black markets would be created for alcohol for those from 18 to 21. The prisons and law enforcement have a difficult time as it is. Why criminalize people who are already adults that can make up their own mind about a given situation?


Finally, Germany and Switzerland's drinking age is 16. The younger someone is exposed to a substance the more they can be educated about it. If they are educated about it, then they would probably be less likely to abuse it. If a 19-year-old can sign a contract and get married, shouldn't she be able to legally sip champagne at her own wedding? And if an 18-year-old can be sent to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, why can't he have a beer in a bar? Furthermore, teens will always find ways to drink -- why not let them do it legally? A proposed bill at the Legislature this year poses these questions, but it provides the wrong answer. Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, proposes that the state lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. She believes that the current law setting it at 21 drives younger drinkers underground and encourages more dangerous behavior. Kahn's bill places Minnesota among several states, including South Dakota and Wisconsin, that are exploring the idea. Some are considering putting the issue on the November ballot, while others are discussing exceptions for active-duty military personnel. Trouble is, nearly all the research -- from health effects to highway accidents -- is on the other side. Overwhelmingly, the evidence supports a drinking age of 21. Studies of the still-developing teenage brain show that adolescents are more vulnerable than adults to the effects of alcohol on learning, memory and judgment. And those who begin drinking in their early teens are at greater risk to become alcoholics. In addition, the lower age limit was tried before -- and it didn't work. Similar concerns were raised in the 1970s during the Vietnam War, prompting many states to lower the drinking age.


But in the following decade younger drunken drivers became a bigger issue than war or the military service. As a result, Congress said it would pull federal funds from states that did not set 21 as the drinking age. By 1988, every state was in compliance. The results speak for themselves. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration reported that the number of drunken drivers under age 21 involved in fatal crashes decreased by 61 percent from 1982 to 1998. The agency also estimated that tens of thousands of lives were saved from 1975 to 2003 by higher age limits. And five years ago, the Centers for Disease Control reviewed 49 studies on drinking age laws. Nearly all of them found that a 21-year-old drinking age saved lives. Minnesota Department of Public Safety officials oppose lowering the drinking age because of the high rates of young, inexperienced drivers in car accidents. In 2006, one in 10 drivers involved in crashes were 21 or under, and more than 600 people were killed or injured by an impaired underage driver. We admit that it seems inconsistent that young men and women who can be sent to war can be too young to drink legally. Yet that's more an argument to raise the minimum age for military service than to lower the minimum age for drinking. There's nothing wrong with the fact that a kid can get a hunting license at age 12, drive at 16 and vote at 18, but not be eligible to serve in the U. S. House of Representatives until age 25. When it comes to alcohol consumption, the health and safety issues make this an easy call for the Legislature: Minnesota should maintain 21 as the legal drinking age.

  • Views: 904

why do you have to be 21 to drink alcohol
why do you have to be 18 to drink
why do teenagers engage in binge drinking
why the legal drinking age should be lowered
why shouldn t the drinking age be lowered to 18
why should the legal drinking age be lowered to 18
why should the drinking age stay the same