The question of lowering the drinking age has been up in the air for a while now and is now a legitimate question to consider. An eighteen-year-old in US has the right to vote, and serve in the military. If an eighteen-year-old can make up their mind as to who the potential leader of the country should be and take a bullet for their country, they should have every right to purchase and drink alcohol (Cognac). Even though there may be some cons to lowering the drinking age, like there is to anything we do, there is a lot of evidence that show the pros outweigh those. Before federal law mandated that 21 only laws be passed or funding would be pulled from states, there were several areas that had made it legal to drink as a teenager (HRF).
Since people are technically considered adults at 18, why can’t they consume alcohol and be given the chance to be responsible for their actions as well? Turning 18 includes receiving the rights and responsibilities of adulthood to vote, smoke cigarettes, serve on juries, get married, sign contracts, be prosecuted as adults, and join the military - which includes risking one's life. The government is basically
…show more content…
Many states have been lowering and raising their drinking ages since the early 70s. Between 1970-1976, 30 states lowered their Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) from 21 to 18, 19, or 20 (HRF). In the United States, when a citizen reaches the age of eighteen, they are considered an adult by law. Therefore, they should be treated as such and be allowed to make their own decisions. If an eighteen-year-old can be prosecuted as an adult in court, they should also be able to decide whether or not they choose to consume alcohol. It is not fair for eighteen to twenty-year-old individuals to be forced to face the harsher sides of being an adult, but not be permitted to even have the option to the upsides of being a legal