As an 18-year-old, I am now able to sign up to die for the people of my country and vote to elect one of the most powerful leaders in the world. And yet, I am not legally allowed to have a glass of wine with my family at dinner.
But if you will trust me enough to fight for you and elect the president of the U.S., then why should you not trust me to buy and consume an alcoholic beverage?
I’ll tell you why. When you put an already inexperienced driver, who now comes equipped with a cell phone fit for text messaging and a stereo that plays music loud enough to blow an eardrum, who wants to add the extra temptation of driving under the influence of alcohol?
M.E. Tillmon
Kansas City
The legal drinking age should be moved back to 18. If people over the age of 21 did not drink and drive then we would not need DUI check points. Kid who go out today and drink before being 21 usually have a DD. I know people if they can not find a ride home a lot of the time stay the night where they are, or even call their parents to come pick them up. Thinking if they changed the legal drinking age to 18 that all kids would drink and drive is not resonable. In more case I think kids would not go as crazy when they drink because they would be allowed to, and they would not have that extra thrill of getting caught or being cool.
Posted by: david | September 13, 2010 at 09:34 AM
I personally think it doesnt matter what age you put on things, people under that age limit will still get access to it. Ya im 18 and i drink, but i dont drink and drive. i am very aware of surrounding when i am drunk i always make sure i have a DD to pick me up whether its my parents or a friend who wasnt drinking. Parents need to let up on their kids drinking because its bound to happen someday so dont get so mad at them and just have a sit down talk with them and make sure they know you are willing to pick them up at anytime after they have been drinking. Would you rather have them catch a ride with a stranger or a friend who has been drinking or drive themselves?! i think not!
Posted by: Jordan | May 20, 2010 at 12:02 PM
18 is the age of majority. It means you're an adult who can be held legally responsible for your actions.
The traffic fatalities statistic can be used on any age group. If you raised the legal limit to 35 you would probably lower the alcohol-related fatalities for the under 35 age group.
Posted by: repete | December 18, 2008 at 03:53 PM
IMO, if you can vote and serve in the Armed Forces then you should have the same rights as any other adult.
Posted by: Engineer | December 18, 2008 at 03:26 PM
"come on. I expect more from you. The legal drinking age has not been 18 for a long time."
Yeah, about 20 years (since the fed tied highway funds to "21 and over" laws). And yes, the push then, as it is now, is largely from MADD.
Posted by: Marctnts | December 18, 2008 at 12:33 PM
"The legal drinking age is 18 for the same reason that all states are moving towards a 0.08 limit for DUI. That reason is MADD, an extremely powerful lobby."
~marctnts
come on. I expect more from you. The legal drinking age has not been 18 for a long time
Posted by: stone | December 18, 2008 at 12:23 PM
JUNIOR?
Posted by: thrudavitals | December 18, 2008 at 11:07 AM
One of the arguments I recall for raising the drinking age from 18 to 21 was to get it out of high school. With seniors able to purchase alcohol, it lead to an increase in drinking among 15, 16 adn 17 year olds.
Posted by: Casady | December 18, 2008 at 08:48 AM
If the argument is that "the ends always justify the means", shouldn't we also outlaw unhealthy foods, since obesity-related disease kills WAY more people every year than alcohol?
At the age of 18, the law considers you an adult, with the same responsibilities as any other adult, regardless of age. There is no reason alcohol should be any different.
Posted by: Marctnts | December 18, 2008 at 08:12 AM
I know this won't change the minds of a few but here is the offical study.
"Based on statistics compiled by The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (NHSTA) "alcoholrelated"
1 traffic fatalities for people under 21 dropped by 43% (from 5,062 alcohol-related fatalities to
2,883) during the years 1987 through 1996.2 This should be seen in context of a 28% drop in alcoholrelated
traffic fatalities in the general population. From 1982 through 1986 when minimum purchasing and
public possession age laws varied from 18 to 21, alcohol-related traffic fatalities for people under 21
dropped by 14% (from 6,329 alcohol-related fatalities to 5,455).3 Alcohol-related traffic fatalities for the
general population during this period dropped by 4%. In NHSTA's view, the minimum 21 age laws "have
had greater impact over the years as the drinking ages in the states have increased, affecting more drivers
aged 18 to 20."4"
Sorry for the cut and paste, but still a good read.
(http://www.grsproadsafety.org/themes/default/pdfs/Drinking%20Age%20Limits.pdf)
Posted by: T. Hanson | December 18, 2008 at 07:43 AM
The legal drinking age is 18 for the same reason that all states are moving towards a 0.08 limit for DUI. That reason is MADD, an extremely powerful lobby.
Posted by: Marctnts | December 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM
18 year olds drink anyways. It would just make it safer for them to drink to legalize it at that age. DUI's for 18 year olds happen now anyways.
If you're old enough to vote and serve in the military, you are old enough to drink.
However, the ultimate ending for this issue I don't give a crap about. I can drink regardless,
Posted by: stone | December 18, 2008 at 12:32 AM