drinking
...of the doubt and lower the drinking age to 18. Our opponent Steve Chapman feels that different responsibilities should be given for different ages that 18 should be treated differently when it comes to alcohol. He argues that no one obtains fake ID’s to illegally enter the Navy before the law allows, When the voting age was lowered to 18 there wasn’t an out break of 15 year olds trying to vote. He fails to mention that At 18 it is legal to have an abortion and there are a massive number of underage girls who obtain them illegally every day. Also, it is an American epidemic, Teen pregnancy. Many teenagers are married and having children or even just having children before age 18 when they are deemed to be emotionally mature and financially ready to have them. He fails to mention these points because they weaken his “teenagers only care about drinking earlier” argument. He touches on issues that not many people (even those of legal age) care to participate in. Among those eligible to legally vote, vast amounts choose not to. And few people in the United States want to enter the military at all. Drinking is a social, not a governmental issue, just as an age of consent (which, We might add varies from state to state) As such The responsibility lies with the parents and the community to teach and guide their youth as to the perils and the pleasures of alcohol consumption; If children are educated early, and alcohol is not portrayed as an enemy, then they are more likely to treat alcohol responsibly. It looses its allure as the proverbial “forbidden fruit” and is more likely to be consumed and enjoyed in a judicious manner. “What about Teens and drunk driving?” Chapman might say; “what about MADD and the thousands of people who die each year in alcohol-related automobile accidents?” He would argue that since states have raised the minimum drinking age to 21 there has been a marked decrease in DUI related accidents. To that we would counter that there has been a decrease in DUI offenses in all age groups not just teenagers, and that these numbers do not necessarily coincide with the implementation of the law. According to http://www.ncadd.com/statistics.cfm “21-35 year olds. The drivers, able to drink legally, are responsible for nearly 60% of all alcohol-related traffic crashes…Underage drinkers. As an age group, they are over-represented in alcohol-related traffic crashes compared to the proportion of licensed drivers.” The alcohol-relatedness of these collisions is based on police impressions and is therefore purely subjective and higher accident rates may also be due to factors other than young people’s drinking behavior. Changes in economy, freedom to drive at an earlier age, changes in the price of gasoline, and more young people owning cars could account for increases in car accidents. He would argue that a national drinking age decreases the occurrence of accidents on state lines between states with different drinking ages (known as “blood boarders”).That it does, changing the drinking age to 18 uniformly keeps the current federally mandated equilibrium. To make matters worse this law is practically unenforceable, other than banning teens from bars and liquor stores , this law has done little to reduce teen drinking. It has shifted what should be open and accepted to an underground and defiant thrilling act of rebellion. It has made alcohol a rite of passage by way of binge drinking at 21, Rather than a half glass of wine at the dinner table at 12. Steve Chapman fails to see that when the drinking age was raised to 21 it made it extremely taboo and attractive to people under 21 which leads to abuse. Lowering the drinking age has showed little or no impact according to studies. A longitudinal study of the effect of a...