The US should lower the legal drinking age to 18

== My Case == (1) The Problem Despite its illegality, people under 21 account for 17.5 percent of all alcohol consumption in the United States. [1] Ninety percent of that alcohol consumption is binge drinking. [1] Three-fourths of high school seniors manage to drink alcohol, despite its illegality. [2] Because college students under 21 cannot legally buy alcohol once they leave their home, they are more likely to binge drink or "pre-game" before they go out. [1] In addition, because they cannot frequent legal establishments (like bars), college students (under 21) are more likely to consume alcohol in dangerous, unsupervised locations like fraternity houses. [3] Both factors contribute to rape and violence. Women who pre-drink by taking numerous shots in a row are more likely to black out or pass out, putting them at increased risk of rape. Additionally, fraternity houses are hotbeds for rape, with a woman being three times more likely to be raped in fraternity house than anywhere else on campus. [4] Yet, fraternities -- for many college students -- are the only practical source of alcohol because they cannot go to bars or clubs. In addition, studies have found that pre-gaming contributes to increased violence once people go out for the night. [5] People who pre-drink (and start the night very drunk) consume more alcohol over the course of the night and are more likely to get in fights than people who do not pre-drink. [5] Each year, 1,700 college students die from alcohol-related incidents, 599,000 more are injured, and 97,000 fall victim to alcohol-related sexual assault. [6] The problems associated with illicit underage drinking on college campuses has led "130 exasperated college presidents, many from the country"s most prestigious institutions" to argue for the drinking age to be lowered to eighteen because the current drinking age has led to "a culture of dangerous, clandestine "binge-drinking" " often conducted off campus." [6] (2) The solution: lower the drinking age to 18 John M. McCardell Jr., the former president of Middlebury College, has stated that years upon years of evidence has shown us that college students are not going to stop drinking. [6] As a result, we have two choices: (1) continue to punish students for underage drinking, driving it further underground, or (2) ensure that they have a safe environment in which they can drink and learn responsible behavior around alcohol. [6] The latter is obviously preferable. Barrett Seaman, a veteran Time Magazine correspondent, explains a visit he had to McGill College in Canada, where the legal drinking age is 18. [7] He said that a lot of Americans are also enrolled there, and he wanted to see how different they acted at McGill versus an American university. [7] Seaman says, "I was really struck by the relative civility I found up at McGill. It just wasn"t a big deal. They could go down to the bars in Montreal and drink or go to the clubs or they could have a case of beer delivered to their dorm rooms. It was an open culture. The other piece that really struck me was that at McGill the students and faculty and other adults intermingled around alcohol, whereas in American universities and colleges, there was a total separation of adults from young people. I think the lack of somebody around to demonstrate moderate drinking, to just having a professor or parent or somebody around who could say, "I think three beers is enough. You"re beginning to act like a jerk." That sort of moderating behavior is totally absent. So here"s a whole generation of young people learning to drink from themselves, instead of from people who"ve had some experience with it." [7] Anecdotally, I can also say that Stanford University has a much healthier approach to underage drinking. Because it is a private school, Stanford is granted some leeway to allow its underage students to drink on campus. In its dormitories, the Resident Advisors will often get kegs for their underage students and tell them that they can drink, as long as they do so openly (so the RA"s can supervise them) and come to the RA"s with any problems. In this way, Stanford allows older students to teach younger students responsible drinking behavior. This is how it should be nationwide. Furthermore, allowing people to drink in bars instead of fraternity houses and not need to pre-drink will decrease rape. In the US, 26% of women in college will experience rape or sexual assault. [8] In contrast, the number in Canada is below 9%. [9] == Rebuttal == R1) Medically dangerous Heavy alcohol use in adults is also medically dangerous. [10] The problem is that underage individuals are *already* drinking now and doing so in an irresponsible manner, with 90% binge drinking. To the extent that lowering the drinking age would allow these individuals to drink more responsibly (e.g. pre-drink less) and in more responsible settings (e.g. bars, where a a bartender will cut you off, instead of a fraternity, where the bartender might try to get you to pass out and rape you), lowering the drinking age reduces the medical problems by teaching kids responsible drinking at a younger age. They"re going to drink anyway, the question is only in what setting. Binge drinking behavior in the US currently peaks at age 21 and declines every year thereafter [8], suggesting that people start to become more responsible drinkers as soon as they can do so legally. R2) Violence in bars A 2002 meta-study found that the vast super-majority of studies found no relationship between lowering the drinking age and increased rates of violence or criminal activity by under-21-year-olds. [11] Las Vegas has a lot of crime because -- besides Las Vegas casino owners -- a lot of its population is relatively poor. I can tell you anecdotally that "The Strip" (where all the bars are) is *much* safer than "off The Strip" (where the seedy motels are). A lot of people prey on tourists if they wander too far away from where all the security guards are (at the nice casinos). R3) Responsibility My opponent claims that 18 is too young because you can"t gamble until age 21 (among other things). First, this isn"t true: the gambling age in most states is 18. [12] Second, you can *die* for your country in the military at age 18. You can leave your parents house and get married, have kids, rent your own place, move to a different country, take out a crushing amount of debt to start your own business or your education, etc. We trust 18-year-olds to be responsible in pretty much every other regard. There is no principled reason why the decision to drink is less momentous than the decision to get married or enter the military. R4) Traffic fatalities First, drunk driving fatalities were already decreasing long before the drinking age was lowered to 18 in 1984. [1] In fact, drunk driving fatalities have been falling since the 1970"s. [1] Among the reasons are: more awareness of the need for a designated driver (started by a very smart campaign by an individual who was well-connected in Hollywood and got the concept showcased on Cheers) and the installation of seatbelts and airbags in every car. [1] Considering that drunk driving fatalities were already falling before the adoption of the drinking age law *and* that drunk driving fatalities fell in *other countries* that did not lower their drinking ages, no correlation has ever been proven between a lower drinking age and reduced drunk driving fatalities. [1] Second, my opponent must prove that drunk driving fatalities are more common in Europe and Canada because they have lower drinking ages. R5) Healthier The meta-study my opponent cites says, "The magnitude of effects of the age-21 policy . . . appear small." [11] His other point is subsumed under R4. Fewer people drive drunk because of public education campaigns and greater availability of alternatives. My opponent"s statistics here are for *all* drivers; why would the drinking age (of 21) reduce drunk driving among the 30-50 year-old demographic? R6) Trickle down At least in my experience, there"s a lot more social interaction in college between older and younger students than there is in high school, where each class year tends to keep to themselves. The social connections are just not there. Furthermore, high school age students are heavily supervised by parents, and it"s hard to even find a *place* where they can drink. Lastly, if they really wanted to drink, fake ID"s can be purchased easily online [see, e.g., http://www.reallygoodfakes.com...]. My opponent fails to quantify how much more underage drinking this would encourage. R7) Drug use Correlation is not causation. The personality of the risk-seeker co-correlates with a lot of risky behavior. Furthermore, the study my opponent cites says that *now* (when underage drinking is illegal), underage drinking correlates with drug use. This is because kids who manage to break the law at 18 and get access to alcohol lose respect for the law and wonder what other "illegal" things are worth trying. Furthermore, does "drugs" mean marijuana (which is less harmful than alcohol) or cocaine/heroin? Lastly, my opponent must show that drug use is more common among youth in countries where the drinking age is lower. Otherwise, he is merely engaging in fear-mongering. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... [10] http://tinyurl.com... [11] Wagenaar et al, "Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws: Review and Analyses of the Literature from 1960 to 2000," Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 2002. [12] http://tinyurl.com... [13] Asch et al, "Young Driver Fatalities: The Roles of Drinking Age and Drinking Experience," Southern Economic Journal, Oct. 1990