The DrINKING AGE should be 16 for beer and wine 18 for the hard stuff

"Surely if alcohol is so bad, We should just make it illegal for everyone" However, This isn't the argument that I am arguing. I am only staying that it should be illegal for people under 21. And even then, As I said, Most states permits underage drinking to an extent (if family is around and if it isn't a lot of alcohol). I understand why most states implement this policy and that is because there are a lot of American families who feel the way you do and would allow their kids to drink out of tradition and spirit, And that is okay. However for the families who decide not to do that, The law is beneficial for them because it helps keeps their kids stay safe from the dangers of alcoholism until they fully develop. Not only that, But even with alcohol laws, Young adults (18-20) may be even more permitted to drink with their parents if allowed by them because of their age. "Prohibition never works does it" Actually, What everyone 'knows' about Prohibition is that it was a failure. It did not eliminate drinking; it did create a black market. That in turn spawned criminal syndicates and random violence. Corruption and widespread disrespect for law were incubated and, Most tellingly, Prohibition was repealed only 14 years after it was enshrined in the Constitution. The lesson drawn by commentators is that it is fruitless to allow moralists to use criminal law to control intoxicating substances. Many now say it is equally unwise to rely on the law to solve the nation's drug problem. But the conventional view of Prohibition is not supported by the facts. First, The regime created in 1919 by the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, Which charged the Treasury Department with enforcement of the new restrictions, Was far from all-embracing. The amendment prohibited the commercial manufacture and distribution of alcoholic beverages; it did not prohibit use, Nor production for one's own consumption. Moreover, The provisions did not take effect until a year after passage (plenty of time for people to stockpile supplies). Second, Alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29. 5 per 100, 000 in 1911 and 10. 7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10. 1 per 100, 000 in 1919 to 4. 7 in 1928. Arrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, The best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent. Third, Violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition's 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, But it existed before and after. Fourth, Following the repeal of Prohibition, Alcohol consumption increased. Today, Alcohol is estimated to be the cause of more than 23, 000 motor vehicle deaths and is implicated in more than half of the nation's 20, 000 homicides. In contrast, Drugs have not yet been persuasively linked to highway fatalities and are believed to account for 10 percent to 20 percent of homicides. "Or rarlely if a group wants product bad enough they will find a way to get it, Better to regualte it in a rational way" This is not to say that society was wrong to repeal Prohibition. A democratic society may decide that recreational drinking is worth the price in traffic fatalities and other consequences. But the common claim that laws backed by morally motivated political movements cannot reduce drug use is wrong. Not only are the facts of Prohibition misunderstood, But the lessons are misapplied to the current situation. The U. S. Is in the early to middle stages of a potentially widespread cocaine epidemic. If the line is held now, We can prevent new users and increasing casualties. So this is exactly not the time to be considering a liberalization of our laws on cocaine. We need a firm stand by society against cocaine use to extend and reinforce the messages that are being learned through painful personal experience and testimony. "I think 16 is old enough for beer or wine" I believe you have said this plenty and your premises have been that people seem to be happier when underage drinking as well as believing the government should not decide for us what is right and wrong and to an extent, You're right. However, The government also decides that murdering people is wrong and can even sentence people to jail for the rest of their lives because of it. I trust the government's opinion that murdering is wrong and I also trust the government's opinion that underage drinking is wrong because of the health and addiction risks it creates as well as the impact it has on others. I suppose this debate comes down to point of view on the situation where my opponent sees underage drinking as a sign of freedom (which it is), And I see underage drinking as a health risk to society. I don't see how lowering the drinking age down to 16 for light beverages is benifical for a person anyways concidering usually persons at the age of 16 are still young adults. I don't want to offend anybody but I believe that 16 year olds are still learning how to be an adult. They don't know any better. If we give them the ability to drink alcohol whenever they please, Their judgement and decision making as well as their overall health could drastically harm the person's present and future.