Turning 18 entails receiving the rights and responsibilities of adulthood to vote, serve on juries, get married, sign contracts, join the military--which includes taking on the responsibilities of life and death--and be prosecuted as adults. Adults from the age of 18 should therefore also be trusted to make decisions about alcohol consumption. [10]


When adolescents are not taught to drink in moderation, they end up binge drinking when they do consume alcohol. It is better to teach youth to learn how to drink responsibly and hold them accountable for their actions as we do with driving. [16]


Although the United States increased the MLDA to 21, its rate of traffic fatalities in the 1980s decreased less than that of European countries whose legal drinking ages are lower than 21 (54 KB) , [4] proving that establishing an MLDA at 21 is not necessarily an effective way to reduce traffic fatalities.


Lowering the drinking age will make alcohol less of a taboo, take away the thrill that many young people get from breaking the law, and make alcohol consumption a more normalized activity done in moderation. [17]


Prohibiting teens from drinking in bars, restaurants, and public locations has the effect of forcing them to drink in unsupervised places such as fraternity houses or house parties. When teens get hurt from alcohol-related injuries or accidents, they are sometimes afraid of seeking medical help for fear of legal consequences. Lowering the drinking age will allow teens to drink alcohol in regulated environments with supervision. [9]


Keeping the drinking age at 21 sends the wrong message that alcohol consumption represents maturity, which leads teens to want to consume alcohol to appear mature. Lowering the drinking age would help dispel this misconception. [23]


National alcohol prohibition from 1920 to 1933 failed, which shows that strict regulation of drinking is counterproductive, unenforceable, and can lead to an increase in illegal and underground activities. [8]


Moving the MLDA to 21 has simply shifted the risk of fatal accidents from teens to young adults (86 KB) . [5]
No matter what the MLDA is, anyone can suffer the adverse effects of alcohol if they do not drink responsibly.


Enforcing an MLDA of 21 is expensive and inefficient. Drinking is still a major problem among teens. It would be more effective to spend money on educating youth about alcohol than to spend it on enforcement of drinking laws for 18 to 20 year olds. [21][22]


Drinking in moderation is good for one's health, including people aged 18 to 20. [20]


Setting the MLDA at 21 is unconstitutional because it is discrimination against the particular age group of 18 to 20 year olds. [19]