The Debate

Main Page

History Health Effects Effectiveness

Enforcement Debate

Watch the following CBS News video on the Drinking Age Debate:

Or visit the website below to explore the pros and cons of lowering the MLDA:

Now that you have all the information you need to make your own argument about whether or not to lower the drinking age, here is

OUR ARGUMENT:

We believe that while ...

Lowering MLDA 21 would be good economically.

Allowing people under 18 to purchase alcohol would mean a massive influx of consumers to an already massive industry. The money, however, would be made from the sacrificing of our children's health and well being.

Many teens continue to consume alcohol despite the MLDA 21.

While it is true that the many teens still regularly consume alcohol, the MLDA 21 has decreased the number. Also, legalizing something solely because it happens is not a rational legal argument.

MLDA 21 enforcement is not a priority for many law enforcement agencies.

As shown in our Enforcing the MLDA 21 page, the real failure of enforcement is not lack of punishment towards the drinkers, but instead the lack of punishment towards the establishments that sell alcohol to minors.

18-year-olds are adults and have the rights to vote, smoke cigarettes, serve on juries, get married, sign contracts, be prosecuted as adults, and join the military, which includes risking one's life.

As an american citizen people have the right to vote, while the ability to consume alcohol is a privilege. Because alcohol is a privilege, states can regulate it when they feel there is a compiling state interest to do so. After lowering the drinking age to 18 before, as seen in our History of The Drinking Age page, states decided that enforcing an MLDA 21 was a compelling state interest.

Lowering the drinking age would reduce the number of underage drinkers who suffer alcohol-related injuries due to fear of legal consequences if they sought medical attention.

Though many more drinkers may come out of the shadows if the drinking age was lowered, it would not out weigh the massive amounts of new drinkers the reduction would cause. Additionally the issues with minors hiding their drinking would still be relevant, only now with an age group of 14-17 year old people, where the long term health effects are much worse.

The MLDA should remain 21 BECAUSE...

Lowering MLDA 21 would be medically irresponsible.

As seen in our Health Effects page, the effects of alcohol on the developing brain are drastic and long lasting.

The American public overwhelmingly supports MLDA 21.

While the debate is often shown as having two equal sides, over 70% of american feel that lowering the MLDA would have little to no significant benefit

MLDA 21 reduces traffic accidents and fatalities.

The National Highway Traffic safety association estimates over 1,000 crashes are prevented every year due to the MLDA 21

Lowering MLDA 21 to 18 will irresponsibly allow a greater segment of the population to drink alcohol in bars and nightclubs, which are not safe environments.

The idea that teenagers drinking in bars and nightclubs would be safer is simply a myth. Over 75% of bars have sold alcohol to obviously intoxicated persons and over half of all DUI arrests are made for people who are leaving bars.

Lowering MLDA 21 would give high schoolers and even middle schoolers easier access to alcohol.

Where the current MLDA 21 forces underage drinkers (specifically high school students) to look for suppliers over the age of 21, a MLDA 18 would not only allow 18 to purchase for themselves, but also become a supplier for even younger drinkers.