Should the U.S. lower the drinking age or not?

Question

Well, I am writing a debate and I am arguring that the gov. shouldn't lower the drinking age. I need some ideas. So far, the other side has argued that people can get married, vote, and go to war and die for their country. What points can I make to these points espically for the war point? Thanks.

Answer 1

When the drinking age was 18, the fatality rate for alcohol-related incidents was much higher. Imagine how a parent would feel if one week they're sitting at the graduation ceremony watching their son or daughter give the valedictorian speech and then a week later they're sitting in a funeral home because their son or daughter got drunk and got in an accident. This would be happening CONSTANTLY if the drinking age were lowered.

See, even with a drinking age of 21 people aren't responsible with their alcohol consumption. Yes, there has been a huge push over the last decade for companies that sell alcohol to put out ads to "drink responsibly" and drunk driving is a lot less socially acceptable than it used to be, but people still get stupid and get behind the wheel when they have been drinking. Alcohol affects your judgment, and if you drink too much it doesn't matter how old you are, you're probably going to make bad decisions.

Also, studies have shown that the average teenager isn't done growing or developing at age 18, but the vast majority (99% or better) of people have matured fully at age 21. So now people want to lower the drinking age and put the growth and development of millions of teenagers in jeopardy? Again, we come back to the idea of drinking responsibly. Since most people in this country don't grow up with alcohol like they do in Europe they don't understand what it can do, so they start off by drinking until they get so drunk that they get sick or pass out.

The difference between alcohol consumption and things like marriage, voting, and going to war (and possibly dying) is you get married, vote, or sign up for the military and the only person you're really putting in harm's way is yourself. If you're talking about lowering the drinking age, every drunk between the ages of 18 and 21 (and there would be MILLIONS of them) would be putting themselves and everyone else on the road in harm's way. Add to that the fact that many states require you to be 18 before you can get a drivers' license, and you get a bunch of inexperienced drunks on the roads. That's a recipe for disaster. The number of innocent bystanders that get killed by drunk drivers would go WAY up as a result.

Does that help?

Answer 2

The evidence argues that the drinking age should be raised. The highest percentage of road accidents and fatalities are among teens who are drunk driving, a condition that theoretically should never happen. Then there is drunk driving by adults, also a scourge on society.
People voted to repeal Prohibition because they wanted the freedom to drink or not, but people are unwilling to be responsible with themselves when they do drink. Underage drinking merely means selecting the least responsible segment of the population that can drive and seeing them become even more irresponsible. The solution never is to permit the evil, but to oppose it. Of course some will find a way around the rules; think how many more would be maimed and killed if there were no rules at all.

Answer 3

There are so many other countries with No drinking age, and much less of an alcoholism problem than in the USA.
Kids learn to drink responsibly, and don;t have to hide it as a teenager. It is also just another drink, nothing special, by imposing a drinking age here, we build expectation, by making drinking seem "grown up", and taboo.
When kids from 100% non-drinking households become of age, and start drinking there is usually trouble!
I think that if drinking contol was left up to the parents, and not the government we would find many more responsible drinkers here.

Answer 4

Massachusetts lowered the drinking age to 18 in 1973. Soon there was a sharp increase in automobile accident fatalities among young drivers. As I recall Northeastern University published a study to this effect as did the insurance industry. By the end of the 70's the state legislature moved to raise the age to 20, and eventually back to 21.

Answer 5

Yes, yes, yes! The USA has the world's highest drinking age (except for Nepal, I think) and some of the worst levels of abuse and binge drinking. It should be like some countries in which the bar and off-sale age is 18 but lower than that for serving wine and beer with meals at restaurants with parent or guardian. Also, high schools should have mandatory courses about how to drink.

Answer 6

You can compare them to germans. germany has no drinking law but the people are not a bunch of drunks. If the german population was the same size America would still have the highest alcohol related accidents on the roads. Then why is the drinking problem out of control here. People drink and drug to escape their problems, and america has big big problems that they are not wanting to face. Germans have more discipline, and that's why they don't have a very high accident rate on their roads. Teenage drinking and driving is off the charts in america.. It got so bad that parents had to form a group called MADD

Answer 7

I think that they should not lower the drinking age. As a matter of fact I think they need to raise the age for driving to 18 and voting to 21 and drinking to 25. I dont think people can handle alchohol at an early age.

Answer 8

These are statstics from just 1 state Illinois.
Although 16-24 year olds comprise of only 15 percent of the licensed drivers in the state, they are involved in 29 percent of all fatal alcohol-related crashes.
In 1996, nearly 15 percent of the fatally-injured teenaged drivers were intoxicated.
214 young adult drivers between 16 and 24 years old were killed in fatal crashes in 1996. Of these, 79 had a BAC level of .08 or greater.
Nearly 24 percent of the fatally-injured teenage drivers (age 16-19) were drinking prior to their crash, with 62 percent of these at legally intoxicated levels.
Of the 359 drivers involved in fatal crashes in 1996 and found to be legally intoxicated, 28 percent were 24 years of age or younger.
Over 30 percent of the fatally-injured drivers under age 21 who were tested for BAC were drinking prior to their crash. 20 percent were at .08 BAC or greater.
In Illinois, in 1996, 118 children under the age of 16 were killed in motor vehicle crashes.
Illinois' zero tolerance law became effective January 1, 1995. Since then, there have been 5,615 zero tolerance violations recorded.
Do these answer your question.
War has nothing to do with it, when a soldier is sent to a war he is trained by experts.
You can't train anyone to be mature.
Watch the videos of college people on spring break and see if they are mature.

Answer 9

i have not had that journey. My moms and dads in reality made an social gathering, booze replaced into not large deal interior the first position accordingly I by no skill craved it at the same time as i replaced into youthful, didn't want to drink to be "cool". i do not see how reducing the bloody age requirement is going to assist or make issues worse. It comes all the way down to a individual scale.

Answer 10

As a European I have to say of course; there shouldnt even be a drinking age. I was sipping wine during family diners at age 7 and because of this, you don't abuse alcoholonce you come to college age.

We all know that if you forbid something, kids are eager to find out and will try to drink before they are allowed and will most likely abuse it.

I think the drinking age in the US has created a society where alcohol is abused and almost used as a drug to pump themselves up where in most parts of europe it is enjoyed and consumed in moderation.