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

To begin, let's define the only phrase that needs defining: "the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984". This act has the sole purpose of raising the age of purchasing and publicly possessing alcohol. Here's the definition of a few sources. Definitions of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (Hereby referred to as NMDAA) _________________________________________________________________________________________________ "The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 U. S. C. ï¿½ 158), also called the Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act, was passed on July 17, 1984 by the United States Congress as a mechanism whereby all states would become thereafter required to legislate and enforce the age of 21 years as a minimum age for purchasing and publicly possessing alcoholic beverages. Under the Federal Aid Highway Act, a state not enforcing the minimum age would be subjected to a ten percent decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment. .. this act did not outlaw the consumption of alcoholic beverages by those under 21 years of age" . http://en.wikipedia.org... ""The legal age for alcohol in the USA is 21 years old. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. States that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act. The U. S. Department of Transportation has determined that all states are in compliance with this act. The national law specifically prohibits purchase and public possession of alcoholic beverages. It does not prohibit persons under 21 (also called youth or minors) from drinking. " . http://www2.potsdam.edu... "The 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, [23 U. S. C. ï¿½ 158], requires that States prohibit persons under 21 years of age from purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages as a condition of receiving State highway funds. A Federal regulation that interprets the Act excludes from the definition of "public possession," possession "for an established religious purpose; when accompanied by a parent, spouse or legal guardian age 21 or older; for medical purposes when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital or medical institution; in private clubs or establishments; or to the sale, handling, transport, or service in dispensing of any alcoholic beverage pursuant to lawful employment of a person under the age of twenty-one years by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of alcoholic beverages" . http://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov... _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Next we have to establish the burden of proof. It rests on my opponent for the following reason(s); he is the instigator and wishes to alter the law of the status quo. In other words, he has to provide the reasoning as to why we should in fact repeal the NMDAA. My opponents first round can be totally dropped because nothing he talked about was resolutional. "The drinking age of 21 makes no sense. If 18 year olds are old enough to fight and die for this country, how are they not old enough to drink? " They can drink; they simply can't purchase alcohol. "The drinking age of 21 merely turns most college students into criminals and diverts police focus away from more serious crimes. " The drinking age is 18. "According to Associated Content, "The United States has the highest legal drinking age in the world. " [1] Other countries have much less Puritanical views towards alcohol; the U. S. needs to follow suit. " What's popular isn't always right; and it would seem that, in an attempt to reduce alcohol consumption, we are serving our country well. Again, though, my opponent has the burden of proof. But to put forth a few arguments from my side in defense of the act, here are a few. c1) People under the age of 21 are generally less developed mentally and less mature than those who are 21 or over. According to the Washington Post, the brain will continue to mature until age 21 or 22 [1]. Thus, my argument is that as you mature, you can make more rational decisions regarding alcohol consumption. Who's to stop a legal teen from drinking themselves to death out of immaturity, in a vain attempt to look cool? If only those with more mature brains can possess alcohol, then the less mature would need to get their alcohol through a middleman who can regulate them. I'm sure that they find ways around it, but at the end of the day we're debating the law, and the law has good intentions and generally good results. c2) There is no need to repeal the act; it is not harming anyone. Basically, this argument is stressing my opponent's burden of proof. Good luck to my opponent. _____________ Sources _____________ [1] . http://www.washingtonpost.com...