In all seriousness, and I know this has been used to troll before but let's bring it out of that context:<p>I feel that if you are old enough to go to war and risk your life, you are old enough to have a few beers. Now what that arbitrary age is, who knows. But you shouldn't be able to join the military before you can drink in my opinion.<p>Now from experience, with the drinking age between 18-19, there is little difference at parties compared to the US despite the difference in drinking age. At 16-17 a lot of kids start drinking and are quite irresponsible with it. At 18-20 people begin to mature and handle drinking a bit better, with a few going to the extreme and drinking excessively regularly. At 21+ people tend to lose interest in drinking and gain interest in socializing at parties.<p>(Anecdotal evidence obviously)
Yes, it is time. Lowering the drinking age would make 21 years olds behave like 21 years olds, and not like 16 or 18 years olds. It is astonishing how much effect the drinking age has on maturity.
Probably not.<p>Keeping the drinking age at 21 doesn't deter minors from drinking, but keeps the legal ramifications severe, especially for minors who drink and drive. Besides, 18 year-olds typically have just 2 years or less of legal driving experience. May be a good reason the driving and drinking ages are separated so far.<p>The article does make me wonder . . which special-interest group might <i>really</i> behind this movement? Society as a whole doesn't stand to benefit a whole lot by lowering the drinking age. However, I can't help but think of a certain Republican presidential candidate's Anheuser-Busch distributor owning wife and cronies who would benefit quite a bit from the increase in potential drinking population.<p>Just an observation.
Well if every (almost?) other country has a lower drinking age and the US claims to be the most democratic country, I'd think having the drinking age at 21 is a bit hypocritical.<p>But as the article says, if you want to drink under 21 you can easily do it so like most things, it's up the parents to raise the child well and stop blaming society.
The most interesting part:<p>"MADD is heading the opposition, .. arguing that the 21 law has saved more than 20,000 lives. Choose Responsibility disputes that figure. Other factors, it says, have also contributed to the decline in deaths, and fatalities among under-age drunk drivers have fallen by only 13%."<p>And those factors are? I'm not saying the 21 law is responsible but what is the debate here?