The American Drinking Age Should be Lowered

The Legal drinking age should be lowered to 18. Firstly, my opponent's argument, insofar as it relates to teenagers, has a very limited application to the subject of this debate. That is because she defines "teenager" as someone between the ages of 13 and 19 and the proposed legal drinking age is 18. Thus, her "teenager" argument only covers 1 year of the 3 years in issue. The fact that alcohol is generally harmful is not relevant to the issue as the question is at what age people should be allowed to use that harmful substance and not whether people should be allowed to use it at all. For example, using my opponent's logic we might as well increase the legal drinking age to 30 so that even less people get affected by this dangerous substance. Alcohol is an addictive drug and it has harmful effects on people of all ages. If you start drinking at 40, you may become dependent on alcohol and suffer some, most or even all of the negative effects it can have on a person's life. The question for this debate is simply this: at what age is a person mature enough to be allowed to make decisions about their own body, mind and life. We allow youths to drive cars at 16. We allow them to fly planes at 17. We allow them to marry at 18 (in most jurisdictions). We allow them to be parents at 16 (again, in most jurisdictions) or, at the most, 18. In effect, we are saying that a 16 or 18 year old is mature enough to entrust him/her with the life of another person; the life of a baby. It is of no small consequence here that babies are completely vulnerable and therefore to entrust someone with the life of a baby is the ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY possible. And yet few would argue that an 18 year old mother should, simply due to her age, have her child taken off her by Welfare. How does my opponent reconcile this with saying that the same 18 year old mother is not mature enough to make decisions about her own body? We send 18 year olds to war and entrust them with not only their own lives but the lives of their co-combatants. We give them the responsibility to decide about the life and death of an enemy combatant. We entrust them with the task of protecting our country and our way of life. And yet my opponent suggests that an 18 year old is not mature enough to make decisions about alcohol consumption. Interestingly enough, the legal drinking age in the armed forces is in fact 18. Most countries (by far) allow people to drink alcohol at 18. I would suggest that my opponent look at some statistics and see if there's anything to suggest that young people in countries such as Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Germany or France (to name a few) are on average less intelligent (damaged pre-frontal cortex) than those in the USA. I would be surprised if she found that to be the case. I also challenge her to show that youth crime is higher in those countries than it is in the USA. I would be equally surprised if she found that to be the case. And yet, those countries allow 18 year olds to consume alcohol whereas in the USA that age is 21. My opponent's argument focuses on countering the enforceability argument. She says that the fact that people do not obey a law is not enough of a reason to abolish that law. That much is true. However, let us look at this a little deeper. Kids who cannot buy alcohol legally will usually get an older friend to buy it for them. Sometimes, they will have a fake ID. Some may turn to a black market dealer and thus become exposed to other illicit drugs. It is a known fact that through prohibiting something we encourage a black market for it and thus we create crime. Just consider the implication that Prohibition had. It made for a spread of organised crime (mafia). Allowing younger people to drink and to do it legally would mean they could do so openly. It would enable them to openly discuss their problems, should such problems (drink-related) arise. My opponent claims that the youth of America is not mature enough to drink alcohol. However, she fails to show any evidence of this. She fails to show that the youth of USA is less mature than that in a country where the legal drinking age is 18. I contend that she is not correct on this point. I believe that people mature around the same age worldwide. I do not have any evidence for it and neither do I need to produce any. We can argue this point on our respective say-so's. My opponent's citation from "Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research" was of little assistance. I could not locate the article she referred to. "Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research" is the name of a journal and not of a particular study. However, for the purposes of this debate, I will assume that the article exists and that the experiment in it had the results as put by my opponent and that it was scientifically sound (eg, had a control group). This does not further my opponent's argument, however. The only question for us to answer is whether people at 18 years of age are responsible enough to make decisions about their own body. As above, I contend that they are. In conclusion, the legal drinking age in the USA should be lowered to 18. We already recognise 18 year olds as responsible adults and we entrust them with humongous responsibilities, including the ultimate responsibility (raising a child). People at 18 are mature enough to decide about their own bodies and their own lives. Additionally, by lowering the legal drinking age to 18, the USA would be consistent with by far most countries of the world. The present legal drinking age in the USA is a hypocrisy. While maintaining that the legal drinking age is 21, most states allow minors or young adults to consume alcohol in private settings. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). This does not directly address my opponent's argument, of course, as she will simply respond that two wrongs do not make a right and that these laws should be changed so as to prohibit private consumption as well. My opponent claims that 18 is too irresponsible to consume alcohol.