In a society filled with an insurmountable amount of differences, one thing most people have in common is that they want what they believe is best for society. This social norm continues when talking about the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA), whether one believes that an eighteen or a twenty-one-age limit is best, the safety of young adults is the driving factor behind the argument. In the United States, approximately two and a half million people die a year and five thousand of those deaths correlate to consumption of alcohol by those who are not legally old enough to drink. Is the solution to have law enforcement crack down on underage drinking or is it to lower the legal drinking age to eighteen? Common sense seems to dictate that keeping the twenty first amendment will prevent the mortality rate from increasing amongst those twenty and younger but in reality, those who are under the age of twenty-one find outlets to drink even if it is not legal and the way that they do that is more of a death risk factor than if it were legal. If the government were to provide more education on the effects of alcohol, then lowering the age of buying and consuming alcohol would decrease the amount of alcohol related deaths relating both to road incidents and excessive drinking.

Ever since prohibition, the laws concerning the legal drinking age have changed several times over the course of eighty years. Post prohibition, most states had set a twenty-one MLDA but it was not federally mandated therefore in the 1960’s most states lowered the age limit to eighteen. When the MLDA was lowered it “led to a huge increase in alcohol-related car accidents and drunk driving was deemed a public health crisis” (Tietjen). It was found that most drunk driving accidents involved people between the ages of sixteen and twenty thus Ronald Reagan put into place the National Minimum Drinking Age Act requiring states to raise their MLDA to twenty-one or experience cuts in federal funding for highways. All fifty states complied with this law therefore the MLDA became twenty-one nationwide. (insert contributing factors to the continuum of this MLDA – MADD, etc) 

Those who support this MLDA make two main arguments as to why the current laws are protecting those eighteen to twenty years old. The first being, the reduction of fatalities and injuries regarding alcohol on the roads.  Many studies have been done to show the direct correlation between a lower drinking age and fatalities, the National Institute of Health recorded that “drunk-driving accidents have dropped by fifty percent among sixteen to twenty year olds: approximately thirty-seven percent of traffic fatalities in this age group were alcohol related in 2013 compared to more than seventy-five percent in the 1970’s” (Tietjen). This is the largest argument made by my opposition because there is disputable evidence in their favor, these studies have been done for years and there is certainly a correlation between these two factors. This evidence is not biased nor is it cherry picking because there is tangible support which makes these facts difficult to argue. Though this point is sound, there are outside factors that are never brought up. Drunk driving rates have significantly decreased since this amendment was ratified but there is no proof that teenagers have been drinking less only that the amount of drunk teenagers driving have lessened. Teenagers have learned to use designated drivers or transportation such as Uber, Lyft, etc. instead of driving themselves. These services have helped in the movement of keeping those who are intoxicated off the roads. These factors are overlooked therefore their solution of not giving these young adults to keep them off the roads appeals to their supporters’ logos. Those who are providing this information are trying to make their followers come to the conclusion that this is the safest bet by using data and findings by the government that are logical. Their views on the solution to decreasing highway fatalities differ than mine because I believe that increasing education on the dangers of drinking and driving would be more efficient than trying to keep people from drinking all together. The second argument that my opposition focuses on is the effect that alcohol has on brain development. According to an article published by USA News, “during this period (eighteen to twenty years old), alcohol negatively effects all parts of the brain, including cognitive and decision-making abilities as well as coordination and memory” (Dean-Mooney). This is also a substantial argument because it cannot be refuted for there is evidence supporting these claims. Alcohol is classified as a neurotoxin because of the negative effects it has on the brain and these symptoms are going to be worse in adolescents since their brains are less developed. If a young brain is introduced to too much alcohol at an early age there are many negative side effects that cannot be overlooked such as the increased risk of becoming addicted. Those who are in line with keeping the legislation regarding the MLDA believe that preventing those whose brains have not fully matured from being able to purchase alcohol and legally consume it is the best way to prevent addiction and abuse. They have come to this conclusion because there is scientific evidence and studies that clearly show the linkage between early alcohol exposure, the withering of the brain and increased risk of dependency on this substance later in life. These sources are credible and unbiased because they have been repeated by several people who are experts in this field. My opposition is using logos again because this is a scientific debate and those who are supporting this argument are looking for sensible reasons why. With this argument, I agree with my opposition. Alcohol can have incredibly bad effects on young brains and this is a very real problem. Even though we both agree that excessive alcohol is harmful to young brains, my opposition believes that trying to keep alcohol out of the reach of young adults while I think that giving them alcohol is a better solution though it sounds counterintuitive. Giving young adults alcohol would prevent them from feeling the need to hide their drinking leading to more abuse of the drink because it is underground. If all young adults were allowed to drink publically it would show them appropriate drinking behaviors and the importance of moderation. 

 