CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
yes it should be lowered to 18, if you are old enough to have sex you should be old enough to drink, if you are old enough to fight for your country, you should be old enough to drink. if you are old enough to smoke, you should be old enough to drink, if you are considered an adult, you should be considered old enough to drink. our priorities are all mixed up, 18 years old allows a lot of freedom yet alcohol wouldn't be very extreme compared to those.
The United States of America has approximately 4 million 18 year-olds who must enlist in the draft. Among these honorable men and women none are legally allowed to drink. All, though, are given the responsibility of defending our nation. How can we allow any 18 year-old the burden and responsibility of defending our nation, yet we do not give them the right to consume alcohol? Insane. Also, if they go off to war and give there lives in order to protect the union, we should at least be able to give them the right to drink an alcoholic beverage.
Oh and one more thing, because you vote down somebody that challenges you on your debate and brings up some interesting rights does not mean that that person does not know what he or she is talking about.
Soldiers who serve in wars are already depressed and stressed. I know that because my best friend served in the war in Iraq. Do you want to recommend them to use alcohol to make matters worse?
Your best friends depression cannot be used to reflect all the people in Iraq. The majority are excited to serve for our country and to protect our people (as told to me by my older brothers friend who is currently serving.) Therefore alcohol will not make matters worse rather improve the situation for the majority. Not only that but I said that alcohol should be a privilege among those who may never have a chance to drink it (referencing the military as the optimal example). So are you proposing that we take this privilege away from them? And is that our place to be the ones to steal a luxury from them?
My best friend's depression cannot be accounted for all the people in Iraq, i agree but here is the other study that reflects the depression faced by other soldiers serving their country. A Rand Corp. study found that nearly one in five soldiers will suffer from mental health problems caused by the trauma of war and the stress of multiple deployments (Barnes, Greg. Fay Observer. September,26,2010. Retrived on 5th December,2010 from http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2010/09/26/1031258). .
I conclude that giving these soldiers alcohol will actually make matters worse by encouraging addiction amongst soldiers to get rid of their depression or stress. What priviledge? Alcohol? Alcohol has never been a priviledge or a luxury, it has been a cause of crime and addiciton in the United States. And finally, your friend cannot be held accountable for other soldiers who are happy to serve for their country, which i would not dispute, but many soldiers join the military also for the major purpose of achieving benefits and later join college to earn the tuition benefits.
You bring up a very interesting point....PTSD. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is according to your source a common disorder among returning military combatants. I will agree with that. But what you also state is that by putting alcohol in the armed forces it would encourage addiction among the soldiers. This however is untrue. Because in excess, alcohol makes one drunk, and when drunk one is unable to carry out the basic necessities of war, the military would regulate the amount given to each individual soldier. By doing this nobody would even have the opportunity to become drunk.
(https://health.google.com/health/ref/Alcoholism) I advise you to scroll down to the bottom and read the section on prevention. There you will notice that there are limits to drinking alcohol which would prevent such addictions from occurring.
Therefore allowing alcohol into the military would lead to no addiction and provide no opportunity for problem assuming quantities are regulated. So I will conclude by saying if the soldiers want it they should be able to get it, no matter their age by excluding soldiers of ages younger then 21 the moral of the army will just be damaged.
Alcohol can lead to addiction in any individual who engages in the compulsive use of it. The page you sent me explains that so i will not provide you with my source since it explains the same thing. However, it will not be an easy task for the military to control addiction and alcoholism. Treatment invloves several phases that takes time. It does not happen instantly. Also, lets compare the assumption you made with my theory. Many people especially those who drive have a legal limit that is supervised by the state but how many of these people pay attention to the legal limit that is imposed by the state? Many people who engage in the use of alcohol would act agressively sometimes and this can contribute to criminal or risky behavior.
Soldier under the age of 21 prohibitted to use alcohol seems to be doing fine in the military with no issues so why should we introduce something based on the moral that if they want it they should be able to have it?
Alcohol can lead to addiction but only when abused. If the military were to have control over the amount given to each person (not an impossible task) then they would be able to effectively prevent alcoholism. So any point you made on treatment is not valid because nobody will be "infected". Also the point I made about the younger soldiers is that to exclude them from the norm would hurt the moral of the whole army. It would create seperation oumung the troops. That is a terrible thing for an army to experience.
And how accrurate are you that alcohol will not be abused in the military? What makes you so sure that the military will have control over the amount given to each person? Even if the military tries to control it, dont you think teenagers can also get it from other members of the army? Why would the point i made on treatment not be valid when the very page you forwarded to me talks about treatment for alcohol addiction? Its not infection but addiction which requires rehabilitative treatment. But excluding them has not hurt the moral of the army, so why should it hurt the moral of the army even, presently that has not taken place? It has not even created separation unless you have statistics to prove your opinion.
Actually what you have said does not pertain to the debate. You say that excluding them has not hurt the present moral of the army, when in fact they have not been excluded because alcohol is not allowed in the armed forces. Also you say that treatment should be taken into consideration when in reality you will only be treated after you become addicted and because nobody is becoming addicted through the armed forces there is no point is arguing over treatment. Finally you challenge the accuracy of the statement I made by saying that alcohol will not be abused in the military and in doing so you have doubted the innovation of the American citizens. There could easily be a system that would be created which would prevent the abuse of alcohol. It does not have to be given everyday and it may only be served to troops based on there size. It is not that challenging. Besides you are saying that you are fine with denying and 18 year-old the right to drink alcohol for the rest of there life. Based on the side you have taken am I correct by saying you are fine with that?
When i said excluding them i was referring to the fact that excluding them from alcohol has not hurt the moral of the army so i dont understand where you are going. They have been excluded from the use of alcohol in the military. To say that they are not excluded is saying that they are permitted to use alcohol. There is a point in arguing about addiction and treatment because if i remember you were the one arguing for teenagers in the military to be allowed to use alcohol and i was the one portraying to you that addiction will likely be the result after which they will be put into treatment programs. I have not doubted the innovation of american citizens when i challenged you. How many Americans think of innovation when they commit crimes or acts of violence under the influence of alcohol? Alcohol does not have to be given everyday i agree but what you are failing to realize that it will no longer be upto the military to give it to them when they have friends or buddies they can have it from. You seem to be having a tough time understandind the point i am trying to make. No one is denying 18 years old for the rest of their lives as you are claiming. It is until they attain the age of 21. I am fine with an 18 year old not using alcohol because i am 19 and i have seen many 18 and 19 years old committing crimes and acts of violence including accidents under the influence of alcohol.
Them dying before 21 is another topic by itself and is a weak argument to even say that they should be given alcohol to drink because they may die before they attain the age of 21.
Yes, by the time you leave your parent's house, you are old enough to make that decision on your own. I am in no way saying that 18-year-old's should drink, but that they should decide themselves
I am not sure if you were referring to me but if you were, i would say, in every society. As you are aware, not only America but every third world country is also faced with this controversy on the legal drinking age for teenagers. I say this, because i am from a third world country.
The minimum drinking age should be lowered to 14 if not 12. The main problem with alcohol is drinking habits, non-safe drinking habits are encouraged by a high age of license due to how alcohol is more likely to be consumed in bulk and away from proper supervision for those underage. Laws prohibiting underage drinking fail to do such, and actually end up causing some of the situations they are meant to avoid. Rather then alcohol being another part of life, used in moderation around family and good friends well supporting the economy by actualizing more of the demand for it. it is given the allure of the forbidden fruit, consumed as fully as possible whenever possible because its seen as a rare item to behold, and often consumed around shady suppliers or swigged from stolen bottles.
14 or 12... That is a ridiculous statement. Drinking can affect the brain growth, and it goes through it most radical transformation at that age. Oh yeah let's all stuff up the new generations brains and crap.. Smart idea.
If they were able to dink legally at that age it would encourage more to drink. many around that age aren't able to find alcohol really. It would make the situation worse than making it better..
The increase of binge drinking would also increase, it is at where it now because usually a person of that age, if they are able, cannot acquire a high amount of alcohol.
Only in large quantities may it effect brain development.
Alcohol is in the majority of fridges in America, and most gas stations, retail outlets, etc. Me and my friends never had problems acquiring it when we were younger, only in finding the proper situation to drink it. When that situation came, we had a stash and the rarity of the moment encouraged larger quantities to be consumed. I could point you to statistics of high school students who say they drink often, occasionally etc and you'll see every one of your points empirically shown false. or you could save me the time and google it yourself.
It really depends on where you live. In Australia we have a harder time to acquire the amount of liquor in which you talk about.
Also if they were able to get the alcohol easy then wouldn't that just encourage younger people to drink?
You say that you had a hard time to find the place to drink, well when it is legal for you drink at the age of 12 or 14 then you could just drink anywhere. Which means that the brain development argument is still valid.
First of all, alcohol is a toxin. I do not say this as an exaggerated term, but in the definition of a toxic substance. The liver must break it down in order to detoxify the body. in fact, according to the cited articles, memory can be impaired after only a few drinks- which is hardly a "large quantity" that you seem to have pulled from thin air.
This is especially true for those under age 25, not even 21, while the brain is undergoing a phase known as pruning, by which synapses are being restructured into a mature form, leaving the brain in a vulnerable state.
Also, the body will become physically addicted to alcohol. Even if one were to drink small quantities at first, with frequent drinks any person (of age or under age) will usually drink ever more alcohol.
Since detrimental effects of alcohol are often based on history of alcohol consumption, starting at a younger age will make it easier to contract alcohol damages later in life.
In effect, your one misguided anecdote and unverified pseudo-fact are contradicting findings from the National Institute of Health. Perhaps you should "point [me] to statistics of high school students", as well as provide evidence for how much alcohol is enough to affect brain development. After all, this is a debate- I should not have to take your word for such outlandish statements of unproven belief.
In fact, the only point of yours that I find plausible is that the majority of fridges in America contain alcohol- although while you are taking the time to turn your statements into arguments you may as well look up those statistics as well.
everything is a toxin... literally. Even water if you have too much. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication)
Have you ever been drunk? The memory impairment that might occur from a few drinks disappears. Blacking out, happens only when one has consumed a large quantity in a short amount of time...as your source states.
The brain is always growing, with many of the new cells dying(aka, pruning) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenesis. The brain is a resilient thing, not vulnerable. It can even have parts of it removed, be cut in half, etc and still function.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy). The brain is MORE capable of recovery from injury at a young age as well, Its in a greater period of learning, neurons, interconnecting etc.
It is unusual for the body to become physically addicted to alcohol before one becomes psychologically "addicted" or socially dependent on the substance. Those two precursors are greatly influenced by/are consumption habits, which are defined by the environment you drink in with the laws having a great effect on that environment.
Alcohol consumption begins early in life regardless of the laws, So shouldn't those laws be designed so that a persons history of alcohol consumption is such that they are unlikely to contract alcohol damages later in life?
check again, its in accordance with the national institute of health.
The amount of alcohol to effect brain development depends on many factors, and alcohol actually has positive effects in the long term if the amount consumed at one sitting is low but frequent.
As for statistics on how many homes has alcohol in them, Google is just bringing up junk. I know this is weak but From personal experience and from the personal experience of my friends(its been discussed) it is in the majority of homes. It is also apparently in your own personal experience that it is such.
Are you suggesting that abstinence from alcohol is the best thing to teach young people? If so that is an approach that has been tried for years and failed, majorly so when it was implemented on a large scale(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). Is it not better to teach youth safe drinking habits?
moving on. Yes, anything has the potential to be a toxin in a high enough quantity. The quantity of alcohol needed to impair the body is around 0.3 grams per liter (.03% BAC) of blood versus water which requires 120 grams per liter of blood (water required to dilute 140M of potassium solution to 125M of potassium solution) which, for those of you here to debate rather than do math, is 400 times as much.
The two can hardly be comparable.
Second, the brain is in fact NOT always growing. Yes, Neurogenesis is the division of new cells, but, in adult neurogenesis, "Many of the newborn cells die shortly after they are born". The neurogenesis that does occur is primarily linked to the subventricular zone and the subgranular zone, whereas brain damage is primarily in the amygdala and prefrontal cortex.
Yes, one may become psychologically addicted before becoming physically addicted, because according to the biopsychosocial model of medicine they are all correlated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial. However, addiction is addiction, in that it will impel a person to drink less reasonably.
You state that alcohol consumption should be conducted in a way that prevents them from contracting alcohol damages later in life.
How does allowing them to drink legally do this in any way? Making underage drinking legal does not change the physiological effects of drinking. In Germany, for example, has a legal drinking age of 16. In Germany, hospital diagnosis of alcohol-related disorders are second only to heart disease. Lowering the legal age in America will result in a similar trend.
Alcohol does not have positive effects in the long term in small, frequent intakes.
the 18th amendment did not make alcohol illegal. The Prohibition Act made importing to the United States or exporting alcohol from the United States illegal
Marijuana, and it is illegal. Cocaine is a drug, and it is illegal. Why, then, should alcohol be legal at all, let alone legal for children and teenagers!
Its amusing to me how people's experiences and little facts about them implicitly reveal themselves. Its a fun game to play, sometimes its like I have premonition by the same mechanism. But yea moving on.
The point is, if anything is a toxin, then something being a toxin is irrelevant. What is important is how that substance is used. The mere fact of it being "a toxin" isn't important.
So long as the rate of death doesn't match or exceed the rate of cell production, the brain is growing. "many" is not "all", suggesting a net cell increase. If i remember correctly the brain is also capable of re-purposing different areas and many functions are not very localized if at all. This should mean it is possible for cell growth in one part of the brain to compensate for minor damages in another part. The damage will still have a effect, but it will be offset. For example in many people who lack one of the 5 senses a heightened ability in the others is experienced. This may be because more processing is free to analyze the remaining 4 and because of such things as "pruning". Point being is that the brain is a resilient thing, especially during youth. It may be true that High levels of any substance will negativly effect it in the long term, low levels tend to be safer, especially during a period when the brain is at its most resilient. The basic premise of my argument is that having the age of license at 21 encourages binge drinking, encourages unsafe levels of alcohol . It is important that people learn safe drinking habits young, since many do indeed drink despite the laws against it. If we can not stop it from happening, then shouldn't we encourage it happening safely, responsibly, etc by allowing parents to legally watch over their children and control their alcohol intake similar to how they would control their soda or sugar intake rather then encourage the kid to keep a stash of candy for when the parents aren't looking?
Addiction does compel a person to drink less reasonably, that is why I propose amending the laws so that addiction is less likely. Many youth view smoking, drinking etc as mature practices, forbidden, and cool, this is directly because of the illegality of it. Drinking would lose much of it's allure to youth if it wasn't forbidden, it would become just another facet of life, thus decreasing the likelihood of alcohol abuse.
Making it legal would change the psychological outlook on it, and through that the resulting physiological effects that are often experienced.
I wonder how many more cardiovascular problems Germany would have if it had less alcohol problems. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/6/1066.abstract. I tried looking up some comparisons between Germany and the US on alcohol and its effects but once again, Google wasn't working quickly and I don't feel like putting the time into it.
Alcohol does have benefits according to a few of the websites I cited previously.
The 18th amendment made it very difficult to legally obtain, its aim was a defacto illegality of its presence in hopes that a force alcoholic abstinence through out the nation might be obtained.
Not all drugs are equal, and technically all medications are drugs. To argue that all things labeled as drugs should be illegal is a result of a over-generalization. Why should alcohol be legal? well, we already tried to eliminate it and that caused worse problems(high organized crime and such), and laws must be made for the people. The best thing then is to make the laws such that they encourage the best habits of consumption, So that the best possible result is attained.
Since both of my previous calculations were in liters of blood, i need to use a conversion of 1.06 kg per liter, 8kg blood per 100kg person (blood is 8% of body weight)
category one toxins are the most lethal. Category five toxins are the least lethal. Therefore, empirically, alcohol is a toxin of reasonable strength, and that although everything may have a measurable level of toxicity it does not make all toxic substances safe.
So, please do not drink arsenic to quench your thirst: unless you happen to be the newly discovered species of bacteria it will kill you, because it is TOXIC.
Also, despite your arguments for natural neurogenesis, the fact of the matter is that the brain does not remain resilient even in a healthy specimen. As the brain is incapable of active regeneration, neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimers, Parkinsons, and Huntingtons result.
so I would imagine that, unless alcohol increases capacity of neurogenesis and brain resilience, the brain will degenerate no matter what. Therefore, with a toxin that kills brain cells, the brain will not be able to recover as it cannot recover from even aging alone.
And though I would agree that learning safe drinking habits would be helpful, drinking at all during developmental teenage years is detrimental to overall health because of the aforementioned reasons.
the law does not change the physiological results of a substance. alcohol does not know or care if it is legal, it simply acts on the body.
It is a shame that you could not find any information comparing US and germany. I would suggest CIA world factbook.
As I discussed in my previous statement, it was discovered that red win is healthy because of antioxidants- not because of any alcohol.
Please cite a source for your information on the 18th amendment- I cited one that states the primary purpose was for anti-immigration purposes, and I expect that it is from a more reliable source than your history class.
I agree that marijuana is not necessarily bad for you. I suppose if all of those illicit drugs were legal, then alcohol should be legal. I was simply using it as precedent, to say that there are many drugs that are illegal.
You are correct in saying that not all drugs are equal, and that all medications are drugs. For instance, if I were undergoing painful surgery, I might have vicodin. Otherwise, I would not. Because medications are dosed, whereas illicit drugs are often not, leading to problems such as overdose.
Although learning healthy habits of consumption would be the best option, by actually using alcohol at a young age one destroys their health. In an ideal world, one could learn healthy consumption, but in this world the alcohol would STILL have detrimental effects on youth.
Although everything may have a measurable level of toxicity, it does not make all toxic substances unsafe.
The important thing is how the body reacts to the level of the substance. Binge drinking, rather than moderate drinking, is encouraged by the age of license being 21. This is due to how a minor in possession would like to quickly use all the substance so the time available to get caught with it is less. It is also due to a mentality that alcohol is a maturating, forbidden, "cool" embedding potion caused by the high age of license. This mentality drives youth to show off by drinking games.
For most toxins there is a amount that is better to have in your system, then not have. In general, that amount is very low though. So in general we should aim for lower levels of the majority of toxins people take in during recreational drug usage. Since higher levels of alcohol intake is encouraged by the laws, the laws should be changed to better serve the people.
The brain, as with most if not all organic things degrades with time. Since the brain remains perfectly functional for many years despite this degeneration, a few cells that would die anyways and not effect brain function can do so sooner. Also any damage alcohol might do, will be considered in the pruning process, the ample number of nerves will simply connect around the few damaged cells. The pruning process is more active in youth, meaning damage from alcohol in youth is more likely to be even less significant.
The law effects what levels of a "toxin" enters the body, changing the laws would then change which effect the toxin would have and to what degree.
I'm lazy with research, I didn't think about the CIA factbook.
The prohibition/Temperance movement, the 18th amendments child, clearly were more concerned with abstinence from alcohol then with immigration .
Yes, but alcohol has a measured, unsafe level of toxicity.
There are other ways to address preventing binge drinking rather than allowing drinking, specifically tighter alcohol regulation and increasing penalties for selling/providing alcohol to minors
Higher intake is not served by the laws. It would appear you have misread my article entirely.
In my article, it is explained how it is the antioxidants, not the alcohol, that provide benefits. Since this was relatively new information (2010), rather than your articles (first alcohol article cites up to 2009, second article is from 2008), and so would be misinformed.
Also, the prohibition movement: this historic anti-immigrant slogan was actually posted on your article
Most things have a measured, unsafe level of toxicity. It is one of the guides to how it should be used.
If we consider today youth as a microcosm of society, and consider that todays society has roughly a similar attitude towards alcohol as during the prohibition period( that they will do it irregardless of the laws) then tighter regulations will result in similar results as prohibition.
Along with increasing penalties, there would have to be a increase in the ability to enforce the laws and catch those who break it, or else it would fail to be a stronger deterrent.
Which article do you believe I misread?
Red wine has a its benefits over other alcoholic beverages, likely due to its higher content of resveratrol as your article states, however the articles I cited stated that alcohol has benefits irregardless of its type. This can be due to how alcohol acts as a blood thinning agent similar to aspirin: http://alcoholism.about.com/od/health/a/ blacer051015.htm The resveratrol is only one way that some alcohol may benefit people. Moderate drinkers have been found to have a lower mortality rate as well.
If you want scholarly articles here are some from(I havn't read these but the titles look promosing, I'm busy with finals but wanted a break before my lab final so thought i'll write something up.):http://www.meadmadecomplicated.org/society/health.html
"
The consumption of one or two glasses of alcohol a day would lower the risk of heart attack [National Institute on Alcohol abuse and Alcoholism 2000]. But other studies did not find any difference between moderate drinkers and non-drinkers [Tsubono 2001, Fillmore 2000, Hart et al. 1999, Takker 1998, Andreasson 1998].
A glass a day lowers the stiffness of arteries [Fleg 2002]
The consumption of three glasses per week reduces hypertension by 15 % [Thadhani 2002].
Alcohol protects post-menopausal women against bone problems [Mukherjee S. and Sorrell M. F. : "Effects of alcohol consumption on bone metabolism in elderly women", American journal of clinical nutrition 72, 1206 (2000)]
A moderate consumption of alcohol protects older people against loss of hearing [Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 48, 1273 (2000)]
Alcohol consumption protects against type II diabetes [Wannamethee S. G., Shaper A. G., Perry I. J. and Alberti K. G. M. M. : "Alcohol consumption and the incidence of type II diabetes", Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56, 542 (2002)]
A moderate consumption of alcohol reduces risks of madness amongst people more than 55 of age [The quarterly Review of Alcohol Research 10(2) (2002)]
A moderate consumption of alcohol may reduce risks of eye-related diseases (cataract, macula degenerating, diabetes retinopathy) [Journal of studies on alcohol 62, 397 (2001)]
* Moderate drinkers have gallstones less often than the overall population [Caroli-Bosc F-X et al. : "Cholelithiasis and dietary risk factors: an epidemiological investigation in Vidauban, southeast France" Digestive diseases and sciences 43 2131 (1998)]
"
En, wikipedia said it was a "vigorous assertion of cultural values of German-American immigrants" rather then a historical anti-immigrant slogan.
Wikipedia tends to be a self-correcting system and typically sites scholarly articles when they are available.
Have you even considered about the harmful effects of alcohol on young people? How many young people are behind bars for committing crimes under the influence of alcohol? I agree with you that even though the laws are there many people still use it but my question to you is if the laws were not there then how many more young people would have been using it?
What about alcohol addiction in young people? Do you think that giving alcohol to young people will solve any of the issues we are already facing in society? Do you think that is a good example for young people? You mentioned in one of your later arguments that you and your buddies use alcohol but all of you do not create problems so my question to you is; do you think that every teenager or majority of teenagers is like you and your buddies?
Have you even considered about the harmful effects of alcohol on young people? How many young people are behind bars for committing crimes under the influence of alcohol? I agree with you that even though the laws are there many people still use it but my question to you is if the laws were not there then how many more young people would have been using it?
What about alcohol addiction in young people? Do you think that giving alcohol to young people will solve any of the issues we are already facing in society? Do you think that is a good example for young people? You mentioned in one of your later arguments that you and your buddies use alcohol but all of you do not create problems so my question to you is; do you think that every teenager or majority of teenagers is like you and your buddies?
Have you even considered about the harmful effects of alcohol on young people? How many young people are behind bars for committing crimes under the influence of alcohol? I agree with you that even though the laws are there many people still use it but my question to you is if the laws were not there then how many more young people would have been using it?
What about alcohol addiction in young people? Do you think that giving alcohol to young people will solve any of the issues we are already facing in society? Do you think that is a good example for young people? You mentioned in one of your later arguments that you and your buddies use alcohol but all of you do not create problems so my question to you is; do you think that every teenager or majority of teenagers is like you and your buddies?
That would merely shift a stage in a alcohol user life up 4 years and prolong a stage that generally should be minimized by the laws. Being able to legally drink around mature drinkers is a important modeling opportunity. Pushing the age up would decrease the modeling opportunity and cause a further gap between teachers of responsible drinking and their students, resulting in a even greater degree of irresponsibility among new drinkers and a longer learning period.
I believe that drinking age shouldn't be changed from 21 to 18. One of the reasons is that lower drinking age can increase fatal accidents. According to a study from United States, lowering the drinking age increases car crashes among youth. Researchers show that the rate of traffic crashes and injuries increased 12% for 18-19 year old males and 14% among 15-17 year old males comparing the four years before and after the United State's legislature lowered the drinking age to 18. I take the view that drinking age shouldn't be changed, because it would have very bad negative consequences.
I don't really feel really strongly one way or another, but since most are posting on the other side, I'll go ahead and make a different case.
The brain, namely the prefrontal cortex, is not fully developed by age 18, this region of the brain is responsible for planning and impulse control, and probably doesn't finish developing until age 25. Does this mean that other privileges and responsibilities could be also questioned on the same basis? Probably. At least there is a logical order put behind this.
