Should the legal age limit for alchohol be lowered?

Question

i am currently residing in a U.S. state where the legal age limit is 21. I have been to a lot of parties, and i have seen so many kids that are on a complete mission to destroy brain cells, because they know that they can't get this drug that often, and mostly on the weekends, and then they make some insanely ignorant decisions like to drive 20 miles home. Wasted. Do you think that if the age limit was lowered they wouldn't have so much of a pressure to consume this much at once?

Answer 1

no, youth now days are way to irresponsible

Answer 2

The utilitarian arguments for a lower drinking age (or none at all) are absolutely correct. Lowering the drinking age would reduce the underage drinking problem (Prohibition never ends the prohibited activity, but just makes it more dangerous, which is why all drugs should be legalized as well). In many circumstances, I believe underage drinkers are merely doing it because it is illegal. The existence of a drinking age, by itself, is a disaster. Of course, the moral arguments are far more important than the purely utilitarian ones. Because people own their own body (to dispute this is to contradict yourself, since you cannot dispute it if you don't own your own body), they have an absolute right to do anything they want to their own body, no matter how harmful. However, nobody has any right to harm another person, because the other person also has a right to their body. Anybody has a right to drink alcohol if they choose to do so (or to do any other consensual activity). The only circumstance in which drinking is not within somebody's rights is if it interferes with somebody else's property rights (in circumstances such as if the alcohol were stolen or if you chose to drink it on somebody else's property without permission). Not only is the existence of a drinking age a stupid idea (because it makes drinking into a worse problem under that drinking age), it is also immoral because it is immoral to interfere with the consensual activities of others. Because of the fact that the drinking age should be eliminated, any attempt to raise it should be opposed and any attempt to lower or eliminate it supported.

Answer 3

The utilitarian arguments for a lower drinking age (or none at all) are absolutely correct. Lowering the drinking age would reduce the underage drinking problem (Prohibition never ends the prohibited activity, but just makes it more dangerous, which is why all drugs should be legalized as well). In many circumstances, I believe underage drinkers are merely doing it because it is illegal. The existence of a drinking age, by itself, is a disaster.

Of course, the moral arguments are far more important than the purely utilitarian ones. Because people own their own body (to dispute this is to contradict yourself, since you cannot dispute it if you don't own your own body), they have an absolute right to do anything they want to their own body, no matter how harmful. However, nobody has any right to harm another person, because the other person also has a right to their body. Anybody has a right to drink alcohol if they choose to do so (or to do any other consensual activity). The only circumstance in which drinking is not within somebody's rights is if it interferes with somebody else's property rights (in circumstances such as if the alcohol were stolen or if you chose to drink it on somebody else's property without permission).

Not only is the existence of a drinking age a stupid idea (because it makes drinking into a worse problem under that drinking age), it is also immoral because it is immoral to interfere with the consensual activities of others. Because of the fact that the drinking age should be eliminated, any attempt to raise it should be opposed and any attempt to lower or eliminate it supported.

Answer 4

Your argument is flawed. If it held true - then there would be no drinking to excess (ie getting drunk) for anyone over the age of 21 - b/c alcohol is legal for those over 21 and we have easy access to it.

Underage kids drink to excess for the same reasons that 21 + year olds drink to excess - to get drunk.

Lowering the drinking age back to 18 does not lower the number of intoxicated 18 yo's. It just takes away one of the tools that law enforcement has to control underage drinking.

Answer 5

No the age limit should not be lowered. Younger people have a tendency to succumb to peer pressure more than older adults. It's not a matter of added pressure from the laws but more so of their peers and the "cool factor" of getting hammered with friends. It's a dangerous activity to say the least.

Answer 6

Some states at one time had legal drinking at 18. The federal government forced them to change it, though, by tying any federal highway funds they got to the provision that they raise their drinking age to 21. The feds did the same with the speed limit.

That's how the feds control the states----tie it to federal dollars that they receive. For example, states do not have to participate in "No Child Left Behind", however, if they want federal funding for education, lunches at schools, etc, they have to.

Answer 7

NO! let them destroy brain cells, its not anyone else's problems. Kids are such menace to societies b/c their parents don't care about them so why should we lower the drinking limit, young kids can't even drive properly, you think you can drive better w/alcohol in your body.

Answer 8

The reason it was raised was to prevent drunk driving fatalities as that was the leading causes of death of 18-21 year olds. I think we can lower it if we put more money and time into public transit.

Answer 9

Nope, in fact the stats were just the opposite. When the age was 18, more kids died in drunk driving then ever before.

Answer 10

Your narrative clearly explains why the legal limit should not be lowered.

Answer 11

Nope, American youth have shown time and time again that they are too irresponsible to have it lowered.