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

I was amused mostly at the unexpected nature of the argument, as well as the imagery of drunk 13 year-olds fighting in the U. S. Army. Definitional debate: My opponent doesn't answer my argument that "not prohibiting" something and "allowing" (making it legal) are not the same. Remember, if your parents fail to prohibit you from doing heroin, that doesn't mean they are allowing you to do heroin. In addition, I agree that minors (under 21) can drink in private residences, assuming the alcohol materializes out of thin air (meaning no one purchased it for them – which is a crime) and provided that they do not leave the private residence ever, while intoxicated. This, however, functionally makes the consumption age in the U. S. 21, since alcohol generally does not materialize out of thin air and most young adults enjoy leaving their homes while intoxicated. Back to my case: 1. Age of maturity I believe that each country should develop an age of maturity, at which time young people are considered mature enough to make all of their own decisions. I agree with the United States' age of maturity, generally considered to be 18. I do not think we should lower the age of maturity in regards to our military. I do, however, believe that if the age of maturity is 18 for making decisions regarding the army, smoking, voting, sex, and marriage, then it should be the same for purchasing alcohol. How does it make sense that you can decide to get married at 18, a decision that will affect the rest of your life, but you cannot decide to purchase a 6-pack of Budweiser? 2. Students into criminals I appreciate my opponent clarifying his argument here. His argument seems to be: children under 18 will still break the law. I agree. However, this is not a reason to keep the drinking age at 21. If the smoking age in the U. S. were 30, and I proposed lowering it to 18, pointing out that people under 18 will still smoke is not a justification for keeping the smoking age at 30. In addition, my opponent needs to understand the unique experience at college campuses. Most students in college see drinking and partying as a "God-given right" and as an integral part of the "college experience. " For this reason, drinking on college campuses is widespread, and legalizing that drinking could have a number of positive benefits: college students would drink in safer venues (dormitories, bars), would be less likely to engage in risky drinking behavior (such as pre-drinking), and would be more likely to call for help if someone has alcohol poisoning. Drinking in college is much more widespread, occurs more frequently (every week, not once or twice a year), and is more dangerous than my opponent's example: 14 year-olds sampling daddy's liquor cabinet at a slumber party. At the end of the day, my opponent has no refutation to the fact that college students would be safer if their drinking was legalized. 3. Diverts police attention Ibid means "the same place" in Latin. It is used in footnoting to denote that the source comes from the most previously cited footnote. . http://en.wikipedia.org.... Sorry for the confusion, but it's a commonly used technique. My opponent could have tried to answer my argument's basic logical premise: that it makes no sense to divert police resources away from serious crimes (murders, rapes, burglaries) to "bust" underage drinking, when college students will continue drinking "illegally," whether or not they receive one or two police citations (fines). I felt much less safe at UC Berkeley knowing that so many campus police resources were going towards cracking down on underage drinking, instead of on securing the areas around the campus from more serious crimes. 4. No rational basis My opponent's brain development argument was: 18 year olds do not have fully developed brains and thus cannot make the decision to drink. My question was: if my opponent (looking at the issue through Western standards) thinks it's okay for 18 year olds to drink (since this was his basic strategy from the beginning – to argue that they can drink alcohol but not purchase alcohol), then how does that make even a modicum of sense? Why should we be okay with them drinking a substance, but draw the line at purchasing the substance? If the law's intent was to allow 18 year olds to drink, but prevent them from purchasing alcohol, then the law truly has "no rational basis. " It would be like saying "cocaine is now legal in the United States – you can use it, you just can't buy it from anywhere. " The law contains an internal contradiction and should be overturned by the courts for being illogical and self-contradictory. I refer you back to two quotes from my opponent's first round: "The drinking age is 18" and "They can drink; they simply can't purchase alcohol. " If my opponent is right, then there is truly no "rational basis" for allowing drinking, but drawing the line at purchasing. 5. States' rights I did not "make up" the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, as my opponent claims. He can Google the 10th Amendment if he thinks I'm lying. And I do provide analysis as to how, during the Vietnam Era, the drinking age was a state's rights issue. The Associated Content article specifically talks about how NMDAA was a reaction to state laws that had implemented a drinking age of 18 and was implemented largely due to lobbying efforts. NMDAA, thus, usurped the state's power to set their own drinking ages. The following scenario is an accurate description of what Congress was telling the states when it passed NMDAA (based on the Associated Content article): "We, of the United States Congress, know many of you have passed laws to make the drinking age 18, but anti-alcohol lobbyists in Washington D. C. convinced us that these laws are ‘wrong,' so we're going to let your highways fall into disrepair unless you change these laws. " Again, this is an abuse of both the elastic clause and federal highway funding. I'd like to agree with my opponent that no new arguments should be made in the last speeches. I hope that he holds himself to the same standard. Round summary: NMDAA criminalizes something that we all know college students are going to do anyway: drink alcohol. If their drinking were legal, college drinking would be much safer in a variety of ways: a) safer venues Naï¿½ve college freshmen girls would not be as likely to ingest rufis (the date rape drug) at a bar, as they are at other more dangerous, underground venues. b) regulated drinking In public, like at a bar, young adults are under the more watchful eyes of older adults, a bartender, and bouncers who are going to look down upon and prevent acts of dangerous drinking. In addition, if over-18 drinking were legal, colleges could hold sponsored parties aimed at teaching college students more responsible drinking behavior (like Stanford does illegally now). c. pre-drinking College students are forced to quickly drink a great deal of alcohol before going out "to party" because they do not know if they will be able to acquire alcohol at their next venue. Allowing them to purchase alcohol obviates the need for them to take 8 shots in a row before venturing out during a "party night. " d. calling for help Because NMDAA criminalizes "providing alcohol to a minor" (under 21), college students are afraid of calling an ambulance if they provided alcohol to a minor (under 21) who now has alcohol poisoning. Countless lives could be saved at college campuses if college students were not so afraid to call for help (60 Minutes). Lastly, police have more important crimes to pursue (rape, murder) than spending their Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights writing "drunk in public" and "minor in possession" citation tickets.