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

Definitional Debate: 1. Most of my arguments stem directly from my opponent's definition of NMDAA: that people under 21 may not purchase alcohol or drink it in a public place (a nightclub, bar, dorm common area, etc). As a result of NMDAA, it is also illegal for a minor to be drunk in public (DIP), even if they are not currently consuming alcohol. 2. My opponent is just being silly: the age of consumption in the U.S. is not 18. According to the International Center for Alcohol Policies, both the alcohol purchase age and alcohol consumption age are 21 in the United States. I can personally attest to this fact. A few states allow 18 year olds to drink in a private residence (and usually only if their parents bought the alcohol for them), but if they step outside the premises they can be cited for "Drunk in Public" (under NMDAA). It's not a very useful exception for college students. 3. Unlike what my opponent claims, the text of the act never says: "states must allow 18 year olds to drink alcohol, just not to purchase it." "Not prohibiting" something is not the same as allowing it. This is the same logical fallacy as saying: "My parents never explicitly told me not to shoot up on heroin; therefore, my parents allow me to do heroin." In addition, my opponent never answers my analysis that since purchasing alcohol for a minor (under 21) is seen as trying to circumvent the purchasing clause of NMDAA, states have all made it illegal to provide alcohol to a minor. So a minor can drink in a private residence only if the alcohol magically materializes out of thin air. This "you may not purchase and provide alcohol to a person under 21" law has resulted from NMDAA and has effectively made the "consumption age" in the United States 21. I don't really want to argue about whether a definition can be brought up later in the debate round because it's irrelevant to this particular debate. The name of the act is the "Minimum Drinking Age Act" and it sets a minimum purchase age and sets a minimum age for drinking in public. The act itself acts as my definition of "drinking age." I honestly don't know why I'm pushing my definitions so much, since my opponent's definition is actually a reason to vote for me. If it were currently legal for 18 year olds to drink in the United States, then there really would be "no rational basis" for not letting them purchase alcohol as well. That 3-year gap would make no sense at all. Burden of Proof: My opponent says he doesn't need to offer a case. I'm fine with that – it makes it easier for me to win. All I need to prove is that there are harms to having a drinking age of 21 and that some of these harms would be mitigated by lowering the age to 18. Defending my case: 1. Old enough to die (for your country); old enough to drink My opponent's argument about Uganda is highly amusing. I think he, however, misunderstands my argument: if a country deems someone mature enough to sign their life away to the army, then that country should also deem that person old enough to drink alcohol. The same applies to many other things: old enough to decide who should be president, old enough to decide to start smoking, old enough to consent to sex with anyone, and old enough to decide to get married. All of these are major decisions that 18 year-olds are deemed old enough to make (in this country). The United States DOES NOT deem a 13 year-old "old enough" to enter the army. In fact, all Western news organizations deplore Uganda's practice of conscripting child soldiers and are not afraid to say as much. I do, however, believe that if Uganda continues this deplorable practice that they have "no rational basis" to deny these child soldiers the right to drink alcohol. 2. Students into criminals I'm not sure what my opponent's argument is here. He seems to be suggesting that the problem of underage drinking is "insignificant" but then he cites statistics showing that the problem is widespread. And he leaves most of my arguments here untouched, meaning he has conceded them: NMDAA's purchasing clause and prohibition about drinking in public places (bars, clubs, etc) force college students and other minors (under 21) to: a) seek out more dangerous sources of alcohol When girls drink from sources of alcohol that they do not directly control, they are increasing their chance of getting rufied (date raped) b) engage in riskier drinking behavior Unsupervised drinking results in riskier drinking behavior, like downing multiple shots in a row. For this reason, some campuses, like Stanford, purposely subvert the law and sponsor underage parties so that RA's (residential advisors) can oversee the drinking. This practice should be legalized. In addition, when minors (under 21) are "going out" to parties, they often pre-drink, which involves downing multiple drinks immediately before "going out," in case alcohol is not readily available at the next venue. A purchase age of 21 would make this practice unnecessary. c) fear calling for help Since providing alcohol to a minor (under 21) is illegal under NMDAA, people are afraid to call an ambulance when someone under 21 drinks too much alcohol and gets alcohol poisoning (because the over 21 alcohol provider might "get in trouble"). Making the drinking age 21 would mean people like Gordie Bailey would still be alive (60 Minutes). 3. Diverts police attention My opponent is not very specific on why my source from the police chief that the law is effectively unenforceable is not a valid source, so I'm not sure how to defend it. My point here is simple: diverting police resources on college campuses from more serious crimes (like murder, rape, burglary and theft) to bust "underage drinking" makes little sense, is a waste of money and resources, and is dangerous since these more serious crimes need to be addressed first. USC police ignore underage drinking to go after more serious crimes; however, this is not true of all campus police, such as those at UC Berkeley. If the law is effectively unenforceable, and college students are going to drink anyway (whether or not it is "legal"), then why divert so many police resources to trying to enforce this particular law? 4. No rational basis If my opponent is okay with 18 year olds drinking (since he thinks the drinking age is 18), then what is the rational basis for denying purchasing? The courts would overturn the law if it had no rational basis. 5. States' rights States should be able to pass state laws based on local values and cultural norms. The 10th Amendment guarantees this power: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Telling states: "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" – that is my definition of an "abuse" of federal highway money.