The drinking age in the United States should be lowered to 18 years of age.

I negate the resolution, "the drinking age be lowered within the United States to 16 years while under the supervision of a parent or guardian and 18 years without supervision. " -OBSERVATION- The goal of this debate should be to determine which solution (more relaxed policies on alcohol on the affirmative, or the status quo on the negative) will ameliorate society by effectively discouraging drinking and reducing the negative side effects associated with alcohol. If my opponent can prove that lowering the drinking age will reduce drinking, he has won. If I prove that lowering the drinking age will not improve the situation, I have won. -- CONTENTION: A lowered drinking age will encourage behavior that impedes the successful progress of society. By lowering the legal drinking age, the US government would be employing counterproductive policies. The goal of policy action with regard to the drinking age should always be to discourage and reduce drinking rates; however, it can be shown both empirically and logically that a lower drinking age will only spawn a rejuvenated and enlarged culture of drinking. This would have several dire and most concerning ramifications for the citizens of the United States. Empirically, the drinking age of 21 years old has been quite successful. The Washington Post of July 12th, 2009 cited a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry which reported that, because of the recently raised drinking age, "…young people more often have made the decision not to drink … when young people know that the law will be upheld, they adjust their behavior. " [1] This is significant because it shows that the drinking age is a successful policy. Moreover, this means that a lower drinking age would be a highly negative turn of events for society. Medline Plus, a service of the US National Library of Medicine and of the National Institutes of Health, affirmed on September 18th, 2009 that, "People who grew up in a place and time when they could legally buy alcohol before age 21 are more likely than others to be alcoholics or have a drug problem, even well into adulthood…" [2] This article cites research by Dr. Karen Norberg, a research instructor in psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. Her recent study supported the hypothesis that drinking at an early age has profound, long-term detriments: she found through careful study that, "…people who had been allowed to buy liquor legally before age 21 were 33 percent more likely to have suffered from alcoholism in the year before they were surveyed. Drinking at a younger age also was found to increase the risk of abusing other drugs. Those allowed to drink legally before age 21 were 70 percent more likely to have had a problem with drugs than were those who had to wait until 21 to drink legally…" [2] Dr. Marc Galanter, director of the division of alcoholism and drug abuse at New York University School of Medicine, makes clear how serious this impact really is: "Even in [people's] 40s and 50s, this impact was felt. " [2] On top of the highly dangerous alcohol and drug problems set in motion by drinking at a young age, early use of alcohol makes teenagers more prone to activities resulting in unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. A study conducted by Angela Fertig of the University of Georgia found this year that, "…a lower drinking age increases risky sexual behavior among young people, and that leads to more unplanned pregnancies that result in premature birth and low birth weight … when it's easier for young people to get alcohol, birth outcomes are worse. " [3] This is detrimental to the prosperity and high quality of life held dear by all Americans. This is significant because, "Teenagers who get pregnant unexpectedly are less likely to receive good prenatal care and may not take as much interest in the child as someone who tried to get pregnant … As a result of these behaviors on the mom's part, the child ends up with worse outcomes. " [3] The use of alcohol by young Americans is a serious problem that must be addressed; however, as I have shown, the drinking age of 21 is the best way we currently have to combat substance abuse and teenage pregnancy. -REFUTATIONS- I. My opponent's first contention is that Americans who are old enough to serve in the armed forces should similarly be allowed to use alcohol. He seems to believe that it would be beneficial to our servicemen and women to be allowed to drink. I have two responses to this argument: A. There are unique harms associated with drinking at an early age that are not present in military service at a young age. That is, military service is equally dangerous whether a soldier is 18 or 25 years old; on the other hand, drinking at age 18 is much more harmful than drinking at age 25. This is shown quite clearly in the Norberg and Fertig studies I cited in my argument. Therefore, it is logically reasonable to prevent teenagers from consuming harmful substances while not impeding their service to our country. B. If there is indeed a problem, it is not a problem with the drinking age, but rather with the minimum age of eligibility for military service. If my opponent is so concerned with the safety of our young ones, I ask him, why is it acceptable for teenagers to serve in the military? - II. My opponent's second contention is that teens feel a sense of rebellion when they secretively use alcohol, and that they would not feel the same thrill if it were legal for them to use alcohol. This argument is logically unreasonable. When an activity such as drinking is condoned and accepted by society, teenagers will certainly partake in that activity more frequently and to a greater extent. In fact, one way that many teens gain access to alcohol is through older friends. Now, that means an 18 year old getting a 22 year old friend to by him or her alcohol; but, if 18 year olds or even 16 year olds were suddenly allowed to buy alcohol, this would mean that 14 and 13 year olds would increasingly have access to such dangerous substances, which would only exacerbate the issues I presented in my contention. - III. My opponent's third contention is that responsible parents will teach responsible behavior to their children, but this rests on the assumption that responsibility comes naturally with age. Although this may be partially true, responsibility is largely taught by society's norms. After several generations of children who grow up drinking alcohol, experiencing substance abuse problems, and early pregnancies, the values we cherish today will likely be eroded to the point that parents would encourage risky behavior in their children. - IV. Finally, my opponent states that the cost to our legal system is a reason why we should change the drinking age. He is essentially arguing that we should make shoplifting legal so that we do not have to prosecute the shoplifters. -CONCLUSION- Vote CON. [1] . http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] . http://www.nlm.nih.gov... ---> Methodology of the Norberg study: "Norberg … analyzed surveys of nearly 34,000 people born in the United States between 1948 and 1970, examining their records to determine if rates of alcoholism and drug abuse differed depending on their states' liquor-buying laws at the time the participants were teens or young adults. [This was possible because] In the early 1970s, 26 states lowered the drinking age to 18 after the federal voting age was lowered to 18, Norberg said. After passage in 1984 of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, the federal government pressured states to increase the drinking age or forfeit highway funds. " [3] . http://www.uga.edu...