I DON̢۪T DRINK AND I ALSO DON̢۪T AGREE IN CHANGING the legal drinking age from 21 to 18. I̢۪ve heard it before; people ask me why I care if the legal drinking age changes given that I don̢۪t drink.
The truth is that before, I wasn̢۪t opposed to reducing the legal drinking age. I thought it wouldn̢۪t affect me because I didn̢۪t drink.
But I was wrong. Three years ago, my thoughts about drinking changed drastically.
My friend, who I called ‘Calde,’ was killed by a drunk driver.
Calde was only 22 years old and was engaged to be married to my cousin Elizabeth. But he was killed two months before their wedding. Calde was on his way to visit my cousin Elizabeth when he was hit by the drunk driver.
Instead of Elizabeth welcoming her fiancé into her home, she received the worst news of her life.
I remember my cousin locking herself in her room for weeks, not being able to do anything but cry. It was hard for everyone to lose such a close friend.
Calde was a son, a fiancé, a brother of seven and a friend to many. He was the class clown and he always made everyone laugh.
Yet, it was much more difficult for my cousin to accept that her fiancé was killed — especially when she had to sell her wedding dress to get money for her fiancé’s funeral.
This incident affected my cousin a lot, but it also affected the way I saw drinking.
The driver, who killed Calde, was over 21 but he still didn̢۪t have the common sense to not drive drunk.
How much more will an 18 year-old who just got a license?
Of course, I understand not all people are irresponsible, but I prefer to keep all possible threats off the road, where they might be a danger to others.
President John Welty recently made it very clear that he would not support the Amethyst Initiative and he rejected the invitation in September.
The Amethyst Initiative is an organization comprised of U.S. college presidents and chancellors that are calling for the reconsideration of U.S. drinking age laws, particularly the minimum age of 21, which was established in 1984 by the National Minimum Purchase Age Act.
Although many may not agree, I support President Welty̢۪s decision to not support the Amethyst Initiative. I believe the legal drinking age should stay at age 21.
I̢۪ve heard many people say that we should reduce the drinking age to 18 because teenagers drink more as an act of rebellion.
While others say that keeping the drinking age at 21 saves lives, I prefer to save lives rather then giving into a teenager̢۪s rebellion.
Because, one day the life saved might be my family, my friend or my fiancé.
There is no way to prove how many lives will be saved from potential car accidents if the legal drinking age is kept at age 21, but we can show how many lives might be lost if we change the drinking age to 18.
An Arizona Department of Public Safety report found that traffic fatalities increased more than 35 percent after the state̢۪s legal alcohol purchase age was lowered from age 21 to 19.
Statistics show that lowering the legal drinking age is fatal.
But, personal experience makes one feel the pain of losing a loved one to a drunk driver.
And there is no way that allowing a teenager to drink before age 21 is worth a person̢۪s life.
At least not in my book.
Harrydog • Apr 16, 2013 at 7:20 am
That is very true drunk driveing is very dangerous.
tron • Aug 24, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Sock dat foo
kim • Nov 9, 2011 at 5:10 am
Many of our teens are now engaged in drugs and alcohol. Changing the legal age for drinking will not matter that much because no matter what age is the legal age for drinking many of our teens will still drink regardless of the age limit. I think the best way to stop the under aged teens from consuming alcoholic beverages is through discipline of parents and institutions.
antonio esparza • Nov 3, 2010 at 1:30 pm
hellow my name is antoni o
antonio esparza • Nov 3, 2010 at 1:30 pm
hellow my name is antoni o
josh. • Oct 26, 2010 at 3:52 pm
I will agree with you that many arent mature enough at the age of 18 to drink because they dont think of what they are doing or the consequences, though you dont look at the other side that there are just as many people of the 21 year old age group and the 50 year old age group that are just as immature, when you turn 21 you dont have a magical force come upon you and give you full maturity and responsibility, though at age of 18 you get ALMOST obtain full maturity by law for all the reasons we already know about. Yes we would be giving in to a teeneagers rebellion if we lower the drinking age but that means it wont be a rebellion and parents and faculty of college student would be able to monitor drinking and reduce the amount of drunk drivers, instead of it being snuck under their noses.
Josh • Oct 26, 2010 at 3:20 pm
if the drink age was lowered though then it could be more monitored by parents and faculty of campuses, instead of being snuck into dorms. They also feel that they have to drink as much as possible because they do not know when they can drink again. If the age is lowered to 18 ie. there is a party at a house, the parents could know and keys could be taken away instead of alcohol being snuck under the parents nose thus reducing the amount of drinking and driving teens.
Anonymous • Oct 7, 2010 at 3:51 am
My argument would be for personal freedom. What right does the majority of legal adults have to limit what a smaller segment of legal adults can purchase? For safety? The OVERWHELMING majority of young adults who drink DO NOT kill people, yet we are going to take away this freedom from ALL of them? I would suggest instead of making it illegal for them to purchase alcohol, we just invest more resources into education and prevention of drunk driving (instead of the billions we spend on defense contractors to make weapons and battle overseas). Like Benjamin Franklin once said “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
sno • Oct 7, 2010 at 12:55 am
Why not raise the legal drinking age to 30 or 40? Surely individuals of this age are more mature than 21 year olds. At what point does logic fade and opinion take over?
Anonymous • Apr 21, 2010 at 3:24 am
i would agree with your statistic above, if it were for the fact that the reason why the drunk driving statistic is lower for 16-20 is because they don’t have the same accesibility to alcohol that 21+ has. Really, use your brain Aaron
tsbradley0 • Apr 20, 2010 at 7:24 pm
i would agree with your statistic above, if it were for the fact that the reason why the drunk driving statistic is lower for 16-20 is because they don't have the same accesibility to alcohol that 21+ has. Really, use your brain Aaron
jessica • Nov 18, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Wats up yall im jessica and im 17 and i feel the legal age should stay 21 cause at 18 wat do u knw about alchol?nothing they are babies still but hit me up on my email.
jessica • Nov 19, 2009 at 1:32 am
Wats up yall im jessica and im 17 and i feel the legal age should stay 21 cause at 18 wat do u knw about alchol?nothing they are babies still but hit me up on my email.
jessica • Nov 19, 2009 at 1:32 am
Wats up yall im jessica and im 17 and i feel the legal age should stay 21 cause at 18 wat do u knw about alchol?nothing they are babies still but hit me up on my email.
wayne • Nov 12, 2009 at 10:12 am
yall are missing the point that if the legal age was 18 then it would make them feel more mature and not want to drink every oppornuity they get and when little kids in jr. high and young high schoolers want alcohol then the 18 year olds will be like just wait a couple of years …i did…
And also their parents and other organizations can show them how to responsibily drink and NOT drive. And it would not be in the shadows as it is now.
wayne • Nov 12, 2009 at 6:12 pm
yall are missing the point that if the legal age was 18 then it would make them feel more mature and not want to drink every oppornuity they get and when little kids in jr. high and young high schoolers want alcohol then the 18 year olds will be like just wait a couple of years …i did…
And also their parents and other organizations can show them how to responsibily drink and NOT drive. And it would not be in the shadows as it is now.
wayne • Nov 12, 2009 at 6:12 pm
yall are missing the point that if the legal age was 18 then it would make them feel more mature and not want to drink every oppornuity they get and when little kids in jr. high and young high schoolers want alcohol then the 18 year olds will be like just wait a couple of years …i did…
And also their parents and other organizations can show them how to responsibily drink and NOT drive. And it would not be in the shadows as it is now.
shaquana • Mar 18, 2009 at 10:46 am
i totaly think dat the age shold be lowerd
shaquana • Mar 18, 2009 at 5:46 pm
i totaly think dat the age shold be lowerd
shaquana • Mar 18, 2009 at 5:46 pm
i totaly think dat the age shold be lowerd
chandlyr • Feb 24, 2009 at 8:01 am
iam soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo sorry! this is terrible ;(
chandlyr • Feb 24, 2009 at 3:01 pm
iam soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo sorry! this is terrible ;(
chandlyr • Feb 24, 2009 at 3:01 pm
iam soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo sorry! this is terrible ;(
Ralph • Feb 5, 2009 at 12:32 am
I can see the points of both sides and I have an innovative idea.
We should lower the drinking age, but we should also lower the legal limit to 0.01 for everybody.
(I say 0.01 so that people aren’t being prosecuted for driving home after communion. I don’t know what level communion causes, if it’s actually 0.001 I’d support that instead. Most states don’t even have 0.01 as the legal limit for under 21, usually it’s 0.02)
The reason people at any age drink and drive is because they think they haven’t had enough to go over the legal limit. Putting it that low would make it clear to anyone who has dranken enough to actually be drunk that they’re over the limit even if they think they’re still sober. It would also spur the growth of public transportation, which would create jobs and decrease gasoline usuage.
Furthermore laws against one thing (drinking) to stop people from doing another thing that is penalized more greatly (drinking and driving) doesn’t make logical sense. If a person isn’t deterred by penalties against drunk driving, which are more severe than just underaged drinking then there’s no reason they would be deterred by penalties against drinking at all, so even if the increase in drinking age lead to lower drunk driving accidents (if because correlation does not prove causation, other factors could’ve caused the decrease) it would’ve been because people who would’ve drank and drove just drank instead, because they knew if they drove and any alcohol was found in their system they’d be guilty of drunk driving. By setting the limit at 0.01 it actually increases the risk that a person who’s had even a little alcohol will be guilty of DWI, so if we did that all people including people under 21 would be more careful to avoid drinking and driving.
Ralph • Feb 5, 2009 at 7:32 am
I can see the points of both sides and I have an innovative idea.
We should lower the drinking age, but we should also lower the legal limit to 0.01 for everybody.
(I say 0.01 so that people aren’t being prosecuted for driving home after communion. I don’t know what level communion causes, if it’s actually 0.001 I’d support that instead. Most states don’t even have 0.01 as the legal limit for under 21, usually it’s 0.02)
The reason people at any age drink and drive is because they think they haven’t had enough to go over the legal limit. Putting it that low would make it clear to anyone who has dranken enough to actually be drunk that they’re over the limit even if they think they’re still sober. It would also spur the growth of public transportation, which would create jobs and decrease gasoline usuage.
Furthermore laws against one thing (drinking) to stop people from doing another thing that is penalized more greatly (drinking and driving) doesn’t make logical sense. If a person isn’t deterred by penalties against drunk driving, which are more severe than just underaged drinking then there’s no reason they would be deterred by penalties against drinking at all, so even if the increase in drinking age lead to lower drunk driving accidents (if because correlation does not prove causation, other factors could’ve caused the decrease) it would’ve been because people who would’ve drank and drove just drank instead, because they knew if they drove and any alcohol was found in their system they’d be guilty of drunk driving. By setting the limit at 0.01 it actually increases the risk that a person who’s had even a little alcohol will be guilty of DWI, so if we did that all people including people under 21 would be more careful to avoid drinking and driving.
Ralph • Feb 5, 2009 at 7:32 am
I can see the points of both sides and I have an innovative idea.
We should lower the drinking age, but we should also lower the legal limit to 0.01 for everybody.
(I say 0.01 so that people aren’t being prosecuted for driving home after communion. I don’t know what level communion causes, if it’s actually 0.001 I’d support that instead. Most states don’t even have 0.01 as the legal limit for under 21, usually it’s 0.02)
The reason people at any age drink and drive is because they think they haven’t had enough to go over the legal limit. Putting it that low would make it clear to anyone who has dranken enough to actually be drunk that they’re over the limit even if they think they’re still sober. It would also spur the growth of public transportation, which would create jobs and decrease gasoline usuage.
Furthermore laws against one thing (drinking) to stop people from doing another thing that is penalized more greatly (drinking and driving) doesn’t make logical sense. If a person isn’t deterred by penalties against drunk driving, which are more severe than just underaged drinking then there’s no reason they would be deterred by penalties against drinking at all, so even if the increase in drinking age lead to lower drunk driving accidents (if because correlation does not prove causation, other factors could’ve caused the decrease) it would’ve been because people who would’ve drank and drove just drank instead, because they knew if they drove and any alcohol was found in their system they’d be guilty of drunk driving. By setting the limit at 0.01 it actually increases the risk that a person who’s had even a little alcohol will be guilty of DWI, so if we did that all people including people under 21 would be more careful to avoid drinking and driving.
Monica • Jan 28, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I think that the drinking age should be up to age 25 and not 21. To me at age 21 you are not consious of what you are doing. The maturinty level to drink in my view should be age 25. Same with smoking, I think people should smoke at age 23 and not 18 years old. If I could change these laws I would do it in a heart beat.
Monica • Jan 28, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I think that the drinking age should be up to age 25 and not 21. To me at age 21 you are not consious of what you are doing. The maturinty level to drink in my view should be age 25. Same with smoking, I think people should smoke at age 23 and not 18 years old. If I could change these laws I would do it in a heart beat.
Monica • Jan 28, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I think that the drinking age should be up to age 25 and not 21. To me at age 21 you are not consious of what you are doing. The maturinty level to drink in my view should be age 25. Same with smoking, I think people should smoke at age 23 and not 18 years old. If I could change these laws I would do it in a heart beat.
Mcrmy • Jan 28, 2009 at 1:20 pm
well blake then your a nub and your a dee dee dee
Mcrmy • Jan 28, 2009 at 8:20 pm
well blake then your a nub and your a dee dee dee
Mcrmy • Jan 28, 2009 at 8:20 pm
well blake then your a nub and your a dee dee dee
blake • Jan 28, 2009 at 10:05 am
here’s how i see it, if you are old enough to hold a gun and get shot at over seas then you are old enough to hold a beer in your hand.
blake • Jan 28, 2009 at 5:05 pm
here’s how i see it, if you are old enough to hold a gun and get shot at over seas then you are old enough to hold a beer in your hand.
blake • Jan 28, 2009 at 5:05 pm
here’s how i see it, if you are old enough to hold a gun and get shot at over seas then you are old enough to hold a beer in your hand.
trisha • Nov 3, 2008 at 8:50 am
i think that the drinking age should stay at 21 because if you are under 21 you still are’nt mature enough to drink they just think it’s cool to drink and don’t think about the consiquenis
trisha • Nov 3, 2008 at 3:50 pm
i think that the drinking age should stay at 21 because if you are under 21 you still are’nt mature enough to drink they just think it’s cool to drink and don’t think about the consiquenis
trisha • Nov 3, 2008 at 3:50 pm
i think that the drinking age should stay at 21 because if you are under 21 you still are’nt mature enough to drink they just think it’s cool to drink and don’t think about the consiquenis
Educated • Oct 14, 2010 at 2:18 pm
why should we listen to you if you cant even spell “consiquenis”?
mike • Oct 17, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Miss, you can only scapegoat the age of the person who drank and drove that killed your friend, now you have laid blame to all 18-20 year-old’s, this is what lead to prohibition. You are just a later-day Carrie Nation. Do you like sequels? “Emancipation Day II” is at hand!! It’s time to let freedom reign!!!
mike • Oct 18, 2008 at 2:00 am
Miss, you can only scapegoat the age of the person who drank and drove that killed your friend, now you have laid blame to all 18-20 year-old’s, this is what lead to prohibition. You are just a later-day Carrie Nation. Do you like sequels? “Emancipation Day II” is at hand!! It’s time to let freedom reign!!!
mike • Oct 18, 2008 at 2:00 am
Miss, you can only scapegoat the age of the person who drank and drove that killed your friend, now you have laid blame to all 18-20 year-old’s, this is what lead to prohibition. You are just a later-day Carrie Nation. Do you like sequels? “Emancipation Day II” is at hand!! It’s time to let freedom reign!!!
Laura. • Oct 6, 2010 at 6:52 am
If you would have acctually paid attention to her story you would know that the drunk driver that killed her cousin was over the age of 21, and that she did not “lay blaim to all 18-20 year olds” but simply stated that if someone of that age did not have the sense to not drink and drive then why allow the priviledge to younger individuals providing more possible vehicular threats.
kp • Oct 13, 2008 at 11:43 am
First, Sarai Armenta, sorry about the loss of your cousin’s fiance. That is such a tragedy.
Next point, I love this debate. Why? Because nobody ever presents a great argument for either side, whether it be for lowering the drinking age or against. Every argument I see is flawed and unpersuasive, and in all honesty, I know that I probably cannot successfully argue this debate well enough to convince all that either the minimum age should be lowered or should stay the same. It is entertaining though to see others try and subsequently, fail.
kp • Oct 13, 2008 at 6:43 pm
First, Sarai Armenta, sorry about the loss of your cousin’s fiance. That is such a tragedy.
Next point, I love this debate. Why? Because nobody ever presents a great argument for either side, whether it be for lowering the drinking age or against. Every argument I see is flawed and unpersuasive, and in all honesty, I know that I probably cannot successfully argue this debate well enough to convince all that either the minimum age should be lowered or should stay the same. It is entertaining though to see others try and subsequently, fail.
kp • Oct 13, 2008 at 6:43 pm
First, Sarai Armenta, sorry about the loss of your cousin’s fiance. That is such a tragedy.
Next point, I love this debate. Why? Because nobody ever presents a great argument for either side, whether it be for lowering the drinking age or against. Every argument I see is flawed and unpersuasive, and in all honesty, I know that I probably cannot successfully argue this debate well enough to convince all that either the minimum age should be lowered or should stay the same. It is entertaining though to see others try and subsequently, fail.
Abraham • Oct 13, 2008 at 8:22 am
AARON you should be more rational, When reading this story i knew someone would bring up the same old comparison about age 18
……well if we can vote and go to war, buy pornography, why cant we drink?……..
Please thats getting old. Those are completely different issues. There are logical reasons for not bringing down the alcohol drinking age. And yes we know people of older ages dont drink responisbly however, you missed the point. underage people already get easy access to alcohol just revisit the recent ASI story but my point is that should it be bumped to lower ages, how much easier is it goin to be accessed by teenagers and then underage kids who are not teenagers?
Its a way to protect the youth that are in high school and even jr high. They should be worried about school, education and other things not about how cool it is to access alcohol and be drinking. Allowing eighteen year olds the legal right will bring alcohol that much closer to younger people and into high schools.
Abraham • Oct 13, 2008 at 3:22 pm
AARON you should be more rational, When reading this story i knew someone would bring up the same old comparison about age 18
……well if we can vote and go to war, buy pornography, why cant we drink?……..
Please thats getting old. Those are completely different issues. There are logical reasons for not bringing down the alcohol drinking age. And yes we know people of older ages dont drink responisbly however, you missed the point. underage people already get easy access to alcohol just revisit the recent ASI story but my point is that should it be bumped to lower ages, how much easier is it goin to be accessed by teenagers and then underage kids who are not teenagers?
Its a way to protect the youth that are in high school and even jr high. They should be worried about school, education and other things not about how cool it is to access alcohol and be drinking. Allowing eighteen year olds the legal right will bring alcohol that much closer to younger people and into high schools.
Abraham • Oct 13, 2008 at 3:22 pm
AARON you should be more rational, When reading this story i knew someone would bring up the same old comparison about age 18
……well if we can vote and go to war, buy pornography, why cant we drink?……..
Please thats getting old. Those are completely different issues. There are logical reasons for not bringing down the alcohol drinking age. And yes we know people of older ages dont drink responisbly however, you missed the point. underage people already get easy access to alcohol just revisit the recent ASI story but my point is that should it be bumped to lower ages, how much easier is it goin to be accessed by teenagers and then underage kids who are not teenagers?
Its a way to protect the youth that are in high school and even jr high. They should be worried about school, education and other things not about how cool it is to access alcohol and be drinking. Allowing eighteen year olds the legal right will bring alcohol that much closer to younger people and into high schools.
wacko • Oct 13, 2008 at 8:19 am
The problem with letting 18 year olds make these type of decisions (getting married, sex, alcohol, joining the military, etc) is most (not all) arent mature enough or ready for the responsibility. THats why there is a 50% divorce ratio. Have you ever gone to a party with 18-21 most of them are drunk out of their minds and do not have the common sense to pace themselves. This is a major problem, considering the deaths and things that have occured near campus in recent years. As far as the statistics of 21-54 year olds getting in accidents, well duh, of course their numbers are higher they can purchase alcohol leagally. If you give a bunch of 18 year olds that opportunity, i bet you anything there will be more deaths in that age group.
wacko • Oct 13, 2008 at 3:19 pm
The problem with letting 18 year olds make these type of decisions (getting married, sex, alcohol, joining the military, etc) is most (not all) arent mature enough or ready for the responsibility. THats why there is a 50% divorce ratio. Have you ever gone to a party with 18-21 most of them are drunk out of their minds and do not have the common sense to pace themselves. This is a major problem, considering the deaths and things that have occured near campus in recent years. As far as the statistics of 21-54 year olds getting in accidents, well duh, of course their numbers are higher they can purchase alcohol leagally. If you give a bunch of 18 year olds that opportunity, i bet you anything there will be more deaths in that age group.
wacko • Oct 13, 2008 at 3:19 pm
The problem with letting 18 year olds make these type of decisions (getting married, sex, alcohol, joining the military, etc) is most (not all) arent mature enough or ready for the responsibility. THats why there is a 50% divorce ratio. Have you ever gone to a party with 18-21 most of them are drunk out of their minds and do not have the common sense to pace themselves. This is a major problem, considering the deaths and things that have occured near campus in recent years. As far as the statistics of 21-54 year olds getting in accidents, well duh, of course their numbers are higher they can purchase alcohol leagally. If you give a bunch of 18 year olds that opportunity, i bet you anything there will be more deaths in that age group.
Aaron M • Oct 13, 2008 at 2:15 am
Dear Sir,
I am sorry to hear about the loss of you friend and his death̢۪s repercussions on your family. I cannot possibly know what that must have felt like.
When reading your article, I notice that you do not mention the age of the drunk driver who killed your friend, only the fact that he was over the age of 21. This clearly illustrates the fact that there are people of all ages, even over 21, that make very bad choices.
But…
I disagree with your conclusion that we should keep the drinking age at 21 if it saves so much as one life. Many other regulations that abridge rights and liberties would save lives. Think of how many lives would be saved if guns were outlawed?
Since you affirm that those over the age of 21 can make the wrong choices about drinking and driving, you immediately assume that adults between the ages of 18 and 20 must make worse choices. Besides age discrimination against adults, this is inaccurate if you look at the numbers.
www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810616.PDF
The numbers of drunk driving accidents, measured by percentage and numbers, are higher for all age groups of the population aged 21-54 than for the 16-20 year old statistics. So, alcohol wise, that age group is the most responsible now.
Why is it that when an 18 year old becomes an adult, can vote, can enter into binding legal contracts, can get married, can act in and buy pornography and be held fully responsible for their actions, they are treated as juveniles when it comes to alcohol? We agree that at the age of 21 no brilliant wisdom emerges that makes you more able to make good decisions.
What we need is stricter enforcement of the drunk driving laws that are in place (since drunk driving and the age of alcohol purchase are separate issues) AND encourage a healthy drinking culture of drinking in moderation to complement social encounters and good food.
Not foster a culture where the first time people experience alcohol they form a pattern of drinking to get drunk since they cannot legally drink at all, despite being adults.
Treat ALL adults the same by giving them the same rights along with the same responsibilities. And hold them all accountable for their actions.
Aaron M • Oct 13, 2008 at 9:15 am
Dear Sir,
I am sorry to hear about the loss of you friend and his death’s repercussions on your family. I cannot possibly know what that must have felt like.
When reading your article, I notice that you do not mention the age of the drunk driver who killed your friend, only the fact that he was over the age of 21. This clearly illustrates the fact that there are people of all ages, even over 21, that make very bad choices.
But…
I disagree with your conclusion that we should keep the drinking age at 21 if it saves so much as one life. Many other regulations that abridge rights and liberties would save lives. Think of how many lives would be saved if guns were outlawed?
Since you affirm that those over the age of 21 can make the wrong choices about drinking and driving, you immediately assume that adults between the ages of 18 and 20 must make worse choices. Besides age discrimination against adults, this is inaccurate if you look at the numbers.
www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810616.PDF
The numbers of drunk driving accidents, measured by percentage and numbers, are higher for all age groups of the population aged 21-54 than for the 16-20 year old statistics. So, alcohol wise, that age group is the most responsible now.
Why is it that when an 18 year old becomes an adult, can vote, can enter into binding legal contracts, can get married, can act in and buy pornography and be held fully responsible for their actions, they are treated as juveniles when it comes to alcohol? We agree that at the age of 21 no brilliant wisdom emerges that makes you more able to make good decisions.
What we need is stricter enforcement of the drunk driving laws that are in place (since drunk driving and the age of alcohol purchase are separate issues) AND encourage a healthy drinking culture of drinking in moderation to complement social encounters and good food.
Not foster a culture where the first time people experience alcohol they form a pattern of drinking to get drunk since they cannot legally drink at all, despite being adults.
Treat ALL adults the same by giving them the same rights along with the same responsibilities. And hold them all accountable for their actions.
Aaron M • Oct 13, 2008 at 9:15 am
Dear Sir,
I am sorry to hear about the loss of you friend and his death’s repercussions on your family. I cannot possibly know what that must have felt like.
When reading your article, I notice that you do not mention the age of the drunk driver who killed your friend, only the fact that he was over the age of 21. This clearly illustrates the fact that there are people of all ages, even over 21, that make very bad choices.
But…
I disagree with your conclusion that we should keep the drinking age at 21 if it saves so much as one life. Many other regulations that abridge rights and liberties would save lives. Think of how many lives would be saved if guns were outlawed?
Since you affirm that those over the age of 21 can make the wrong choices about drinking and driving, you immediately assume that adults between the ages of 18 and 20 must make worse choices. Besides age discrimination against adults, this is inaccurate if you look at the numbers.
www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810616.PDF
The numbers of drunk driving accidents, measured by percentage and numbers, are higher for all age groups of the population aged 21-54 than for the 16-20 year old statistics. So, alcohol wise, that age group is the most responsible now.
Why is it that when an 18 year old becomes an adult, can vote, can enter into binding legal contracts, can get married, can act in and buy pornography and be held fully responsible for their actions, they are treated as juveniles when it comes to alcohol? We agree that at the age of 21 no brilliant wisdom emerges that makes you more able to make good decisions.
What we need is stricter enforcement of the drunk driving laws that are in place (since drunk driving and the age of alcohol purchase are separate issues) AND encourage a healthy drinking culture of drinking in moderation to complement social encounters and good food.
Not foster a culture where the first time people experience alcohol they form a pattern of drinking to get drunk since they cannot legally drink at all, despite being adults.
Treat ALL adults the same by giving them the same rights along with the same responsibilities. And hold them all accountable for their actions.