The Reflector

I am 18, I live in Starkville, and I think it is a horrible idea to lower the drinking age. If it were up to me, nobody would drink at all. I've been hit by a drunk driver, I've had friends that have died because of drunk drivers. I understand that there is no way to get college kids to not drink and I'm not saying I ever expect that to happen. Somebody, though, please tell me what GOOD lowering the drinking age will do.

Many people would be outraged if the state lowered the drinking age to 18. And yet we are usually told adulthood starts at 18.

My aunt died drinking and driving. I have zero tolerance for drinking and driving, however I do occasionally like to have a drink. My sisters, none of which have made 21, occasionally like to have a drink too.
With a lowered drinking age comes more responsibility for the 18 year old, true, but at the same time it gives parents the opportunity to teach their children about safe drinking instead of sending them out on their own to sneak beer and liquor. In my experience with people, children of parents who teach their children about alcohol have a likelihood to have children who don't go off on their own and binge drink. Children raised to think drinking is evil and wrong sometimes turn out like good little children, but the tendency for teens is to rebel. If they aren't rebelling by drinking, suddenly getting as much as possible in your system isn't as fun. It's just one of those rights that gets denied to an "adult" (18 year old) and it has never made since to me.

At 16 (or even 15, with a learner's permit in some states) kids are entrusted to operate potentially lethal vehicles. With a hunting license they are allowed to carry a loaded gun at younger ages. At 18 they can enlist in the military. These require the same amount of responsibility and self-restraint as deciding whether or not to drink, do they not? The new driver *could* decide to run traffic lights and drive on the wrong side of the road; the young hunter *could* shoot game out of season, destroy other people's property, or take the life of another person; the enlisted man *could* open fire on civilians while on a tour of duty.

I have reached the current legal drinking age, so I *could* drink myself blind every night. However, I also have the responsibility of making sure I go to work and school sober and on time; I have a household budget that does not allow me to maintain a constant flow of liquor; I have also been exposed to just as many public service messages as the rest of the student population regarding drunk driving, alcohol poisoning, etc., so I drink in moderation and have a backup plan if I run into more potent potables than I had expected. I have peers at 21 who are not "responsible enough" to drink, but the law allows them to do so anyway. I agree that taking away the rebellion aspect will reduce some of the appeal of drinking to young adults. There will always be exceptions, but the law can only take so much into account.

My website, linked from this post, offers rebuttals to all the lame arguments for the drinking age. Enemies of liberty offer scientific studies on human brain development to establish that the United States of America ought not to be a free country, with liberty and justice for all.

Relying on nonviolent means does not mean you won't be effective. On my website is a video, consisting of TV news segments in a sequence calculated to make students make better choices than some have made.