The U.S. should repeal the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984

My opponent is essentially trying to define me out of the round by drawing a distinction between buying alcohol and drinking alcohol. Unfortunately for him, he does not define "minimum drinking age. " I begin this round with some definitions of my own: Drinking age: the age at which someone may purchase alcohol legally and may legally consume alcohol in public places (public places: places that are outside a private residence, such as a bar) This is underscored by: Wikipedia: "The legal drinking age refers to the earliest age that an individual is legally allowed to buy alcoholic beverages. This is often different from the age at which they may be permitted to drink alcohol. " [1] Princeton's Wordnet: "the age at which [it] is legal for a person to buy alcoholic beverages. " [2] Notice the use of the word "buy" instead of the word "drink" or "consume. " The above definitions prove that NMDAA does (according to my opponent's definitions of NMDAA) require that all states implement a minimum drinking age of 21 or risk losing their federal highway funds. Note: the end of that Associated Content quote from my previous round is: "The United States has the highest legal drinking age in the world, as established by the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. " Burden of proof: I will uphold my burden of proof by showing that NMDAA does more harm than good. My opponent does have a burden, however, to defend and justify NMDAA because I assert that the law has "no rational basis" and was implemented largely due to lobbying efforts by a new Prohibitionist-style movement. In the American court system, proving that a law has "no rational basis" is a sufficient standard for overturning the law. Therefore, if my opponent fails to defend that NMDAA has a "rational basis" for implementation, then the courts would agree that it should be overturned. Extending my case: 1. 18 years old: old enough to die, old enough to drink The Baby Boomer generation fought hard to lower the voting age from 21 years of age to 18 years of age. Their logic was that if they were old enough to be drafted into the military and sent to Vietnam to die (at age 18), then they should be old enough to vote for (or against) the same politicians who were deciding to send them to their deaths. As a result of their hard fought battles, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution was passed into law, lowering the legal voting age from 21 to 18. A similar battle was fought (and won) over alcohol. Associated Content reports that: "Many states did change legislation during the Vietnam Era to allow 18 year olds to drink" [1] However, another movement during the 80's resulted in the drinking ages being pushed back up to 21 in a few states and eventually, lobbying efforts at the federal level succeeded in forcing all states to adopt the same standard (NMDAA). My opponent claims: "[18 year olds] can drink; they simply can't purchase alcohol. " These are functionally the same thing. As a result of NMDAA, the law sees an adult purchasing alcohol and providing it to a minor (under 21) as trying to circumvent the purchasing clause of NMDAA, so it is illegal to purchase alcohol and provide it to a minor. Minors (under 21) can drink only if alcohol magically materializes out of the sky. Secondly, this ignores the other clause of NMDAA: people under 21 may not drink in public. If a military private who is 18 wants to "go out drinking" with his squad-mates, he will not be able to because a bar is considered a "public place" and thus, the bar will refuse to serve him alcohol, whether or not the alcoholic drink is purchased by someone over 21. Many bars and all clubs "card" at the door, preventing minors (under 21) from even entering the premises. 2. Students into criminals, cops into robbers Again, the drinking age (when you can PURCHASE) alcohol is 21, not 18 as my opponent suggests. In addition, most places where students would like to consume alcohol are off-limits as public spaces, such as the common areas in college dormitories or college bars. Because students cannot purchase alcohol for themselves or consume it in the places they would prefer (in public), they are forced to seek out more dangerous sources of alcohol, such as at college fraternity parties. By forcing under-21 drinking behind closed doors, away from the prying eyes of adults, NMDAA encourages riskier drinking behavior. 60 Minutes explains that the drinking age of 21 "has simply driven [drinking] underground, behind closed doors, into the most risky and least manageable of settings. Like basements, fraternity houses and locked dorm rooms, where kids go to hide from the law and from adults, including parents, who might teach them some moderation. " [4] Professor John McCardell explains that "the law has created a dangerous culture of irresponsible and reckless behavior, unsupervised binge and extreme drinking. " [5] If teenagers were out in their dorm common areas or in a public place, like a bar, binge drinking would be much more difficult because it is less socially acceptable in public to chug 5 beers in a row – a dorm RA (residential advisor) or bartender would advise them to stop. Lastly, NMDAA forces kids to pre-drink or pre-load, "downing as much of the forbidden fruit as possible before going out in order to avoid getting caught drinking in public. " [6] NMDAA encourages must riskier drinking behavior. Lastly, riskier settings are inherently riskier, mostly for girls, who need to watch out for rufis (the date rape drug). Diverts cops attention: Because police must enforce the drinking age of 21 and ensure that college students are not drinking in public, this diverts resources from more serious crimes. On a typical Friday or Saturday night at UC Berkeley, for example, response time to police calls goes way down because so many officers are focusing on "busting" underage drinking. There were three homicides near campus my senior year. The focus on underage drinking, while more serious crimes are occurring, is extremely troubling. Afraid to call for help: 60 Minutes reports that Gordie Bailey, a college freshman at the University of Colorado in 2004, died of alcohol poisoning after drinking 15 to 20 shots because his friends were too afraid to call an ambulance (since his drinking was "illegal") and instead left him passed out on a couch, where he died during the night. [7] If providing alcohol to a minor (under 21) were not a crime, Gordie would likely still be alive today. 3. Unenforceable According to 60 Minutes, "Asked what the advantage is to lowering the age to 18, Beckner [a police chief] said, ‘The overall advantage is we're not trying to enforce a law that's unenforceable. '" [8] College students are going to drink alcohol, whether or not it is legal to do so. 4. No rational basis My opponent claims that people under 21 do not have fully developed brains. However, if their brain is fully developed enough to decide to join the military or to decide who should be president, then their brain should be fully developed enough to decide whether or not to drink alcohol. 5. States rights NMDAA is an abuse of federal highway money. Each state should get to decide what its drinking age should be. NMDAA is unconstitutional by virtue of the 10th Amendment. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Wordnet 3.0 [3] . http://www.associatedcontent.com... [4] . http://www.cbsnews.com... [5] Ibid [6] Ibid [7] Ibid [8] Ibid