The United States Should Lower the Drinking Age to 18

I will respond to your arguing points in Round 3. First off, I just want to provide some perspective to how drinking policy is handled globally. Below is a list of countries that have their drinking at a minimum of 21 years old:Côte d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Iraq, Kiribati, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Samoa, Sri Lanka, & United States...none of our peers [5].All other first world countries and most developing countries have their drinking age corrisponding with legal voting age.I'm going to make three arguments against the USA minimum drinking age of 21.Federal Coercion Drinking age is state mandated...but federally manipulated. The traditional democratic process was completely robbed from you!In 1971, Congress passed the 26th amendment [1], which changed the voting age to 18. In response, most states dropped the drinking age from 21 to 18. This was pushed by a wave of youth activists in the wake of the Vietnam War with the idea that if 18 is old enough to die, they should be able to vote and drink. Seems sensible. Due to reports that concluded an increase in alcohol related traffic deaths of young adults after the lowered drinking age, Ronald Regan bypassed traditional State control and passed the federally imposed National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. Because Congress or the Executive branch lack the actual power to change the drinking age, Regan directs the Secretary of Transportation to withhold a percentage of otherwise allocable federal highway funds from States "in which the purchase or public possession . . . of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful." [2] Whether or not a State"s accident rate is effected by 18-21 drinking, this situation currently stands. A State can legally change its minimum drinking age below 21, but would suffer a withholding of 10% of its federal highway funding. Several states sued the government (see South Dakota vs. Dole) on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, breaking the 21st Amendment [3], the States right to control intoxicating liquors. Something that was put into place after "lessons learned" from Prohibition. SCOTUS acknowledged the federally imposed workaround, but let the indirect minimum drinking law stand on the ground that it couldn"t interfere with Congress"s right "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises." [2]Some might say the democratic process to change the age still exists. A State could legally lower to 18, take the funding hit, and be completely within their rights. But this doesn"t happen. Generally, people care less about the rights of our youth, due to adultism, and embrace the idea of the police handling their parenting for the first couple years their children leave the nest. Unethical The 18-21 year old range is a small minority of our population. Apart from being one of the least experienced groups in influencing politics, they do not have the representation to affect their legal circumstances. The decision to "protect" under 21"s from alcohol is made by an outside majority that used the reasoning of keeping young adults out of harm. Ironically, that same majority has decided not to spare them, war or execution based on the fact that they are considered competent adults. This is the definition of hypocrisy. Saying one thing, while doing another. As of December 31, 2004, 71 persons were on death row for juvenile crimes. This means the crimes were committed while the offender was 16 or 17 [4]. If protecting our youth is our main concern, why does it only extend to their right to drink? Answer: self-interest. For the majority of our population is fills two needs. The legal extension of parenting and adult disdane for youth culture. There is not an ethnic/racial minority today that our country would treat in the same way. They have full responsibility, up to the point of being trusted and allowed to kill in other countries on our behalf, but deny them simple access to alcohol. Criminalizing Social Norms Creates Unnecessary CriminalsNot only is there inconsistency in how to protect young adults, but also our cultural norms in relation to the law. For example, marijuana is a federally illegal substance, but our last three presidents have admitted to using it. Why don"t we care? Why do we care more about where Obama was born than the fact that he willingly broke the law? Because it is socially acceptable to try pot. In the same vein, a certain amount of underage drinking is expected from most kids. On one hand you have a culture that fully embraces and lionizes alcohol in media, and then you try to counter act this by heavy penalty for certain groups of people that are deemed too irresponsible to use it properly. Who does this protect? Most of these penalties are financial, which this group of people really can"t supply. An underage drinking charge will affect your car insurance rates for 10 years in most states!1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. http://constitutioncenter.org...2. https://supreme.justia.com...3. Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. http://constitution.findlaw.com...4. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...5. http://drinkingage.procon.org...