The drinking age is the USA should be lowered to 19

Here are my argumentsNot allowing 19-20 year olds the freedom to drink in inconsistent with many other responsibilities given to them such as voting, smoking, joining the army, owning a gun ect.1. Not allowing 19 year olds to drink is logically inconsistent with other freedoms that are granted to young adults. At 18 kids can fight in the army, drive a car, smoke a cigarette, own a gun, vote, serve on jury duty, sign a contract, and take out a loan. Often times, people claim that the the 19 year olds are not mature enough to decide whether to drink or not. We trust 19 year olds with much greater choices and responsibilities then whether to consume alcohol. If they are mature enough to engage in lethal force against enemies and possibly die or kill others or get a mental disorder, operate a heavy vehicle where a mistake could cost lives and ruin property, smoke a highly addictive drug that causes 1 in 5 premature deaths and is detrimental to every organ in the body [1], help determine laws and choose leaders,own a weapon designed to kill could enable a death( murder, suicide accident), decide whether a peer should go to jail/face execution, enter into a binding agreement, they are responsible enough to decide whether to drink or not. The harmful effects of these other actions are worse then the harmful effects of alcohol. Furthermore, there are many benefits of drinking alcohol (argued later). It is logically inconsistent to not allow drinking for 19 year olds, when these other freedoms are allowed.2. The Law has been Ineffective at stopping drinkingThe law has been a complete failure. Not many people follow the law. 82 % of college students under 21 drink [2]. Should we really have a law that 4 out of 5 people break? Most people who do not drink choose not to do so for health or religious reasons. Almost no one chooses not to drink for the sake of being a law abiding citizen. One could object saying that everyone speeds, but having a speed limit is a necessary law. The difference is that speeding is not strictly enforced. If an officer clocks someone is going 1, 5, or even 10 over the limit it is rare that they will get a ticket. In fact, most would agree that an officer would be in the wrong for this. Tickets should only be handed out if someone is driving recklessly or going way over the limit. Same with drinking. Drinking at 19 should be regarded as going 5 over the limit, not worthy of punishment.3. The law does not greatly effect drunk driving deathsThe reason the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21 in 1984 was to decrease drunk driving deaths. Many people claim that this law is effective because drunk driving deaths decreased after the law was passed. However, the drunk driving deaths have been decreasing at a relatively constant rate since 1982. In 1982 there were about 26 thousand deaths compared to about 13 thousand in 2009. Again, it has been decreasing each year at relatively constant rate. [3] As time goes on, and people become more aware of alcohol dangers, and life saving technology improves drunk driving deaths decrease, regardless of the drinking age. 4. Punish the crime, not the derivative of the crimeIf people have a problem with drunk driving, they should increase the penalty for drunk driving. They should not punish a "derivative of the crime they are against". For example, a reasonable way to deal with drunk driving would be to make jail mandatory for DUIs, not to make it illegal to drink. Responsible drinking is a victimless crime. Those adults who drink responsibly should not be deprived of liberty for the poor actions of a few. 4. Many societal benefits for reducing the drinking age Decreasing the drinking age will create more responsible drinkers and lead to a better society. Not allowing young adults to drink is somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy. Society treats 19-21 year olds like they cannot handle responsibility, and 19-21 year olds act accordingly. In Canada ( a country with similar culture to USA), the drinking age is either 18 or 19. While more college students drink in Canada, there are less binge drinkers in Canada than in the USA [4]. If 19-20 year olds could drink, they could go out to pubs/clubs which would be more safe than frat houses, house parties. It would be more safe because there are adults around, and if someone does become too drunk, they would not be afraid to seek help or get help for a friend. For example, at University of Colorado an underage student died of alcohol poisoning after a fraternity initiation. The student passed out of the couch and did not wake up. No one got help for the student because the feared being punished for breaking underage drinking laws [5]. Every country in North/South America and Europe has a drinking age lower than the USA. The only countries that are as/more strict on underage drinking are Islamic fascist countries such as United Arab Emirates and Tajikistan[6]. There is a lot of social value in drinking. Having a drink with someone is a good way to make friends and network. Society should focus on teaching responsible drinking instead of trying to trying to eliminate 19-20 yo drinking. No one should have a problem with someone who is done high school, drinking. ConclusionI have shown that a 21 yo drinking age is logically inconsistent with other freedoms given to young adults, the law has been ineffective at stopping underage drinking, the law did not greatly affect drunk driving deaths, it is wrong to deprive responsible acting adults of their liberty to drink and their are many societal benefits of lowering the drinking age. The USA should lower the drinking age to 19. Vote Pro. [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]. http://www.alcohol101plus.org...[3]http://www.alcoholalert.com...[4]http://alcoholism.about.com...[5]http://www.thedenverchannel.com...[6] . http://en.wikipedia.org...