Recently a movement to lower the drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen has begun to gain credence. In fact, seven states — Kentucky, Wisconsin, South Carolina, South Dakota, Missouri, Vermont, and Minnesota — are seriously considering it.
One of the arguments for this is that if a man or woman can enlist in the military and possibly die for our country, isn’t he or she old enough to have a legal drink? I understand this argument, but it flies in the face of statistics that indicate the current drinking age saves lives.
Another argument is that teenagers are binge drinking regardless of the legal age, so why not lower it so they won’t be breaking the law. I understand this argument too, but it seems to me that the teenage lunatics are running the asylum if we lower the drinking age to prevent binging. What will probably happen is that younger teenagers will binge and break the law. What do we do then?
What I’d like to propose instead is that we raise the age at which a person can serve in the military to twenty-one. This would equalize the fact that one can die for one’s country without drinking in one of its bar legally. It would also allow many young people to finish their college educations, rather than interrupt them.
As for the bingers, it doesn’t matter what age the law says one can drink legally. There will always be those who won’t comply, who think they can drink and get away with it. Some of them will get into accidents and possibly die. As cold hearted as it sounds, this isn’t the result of a faulty law; it’s the result of people pushing boundaries they believe don’t pertain to them.
Leave a Reply