Can anyone logically defend the 21 drinking age law?

Agree

If you're old enough to die for old glory, you're old enough to take a damn shot of whiskey.

Drinking age is a giant arse farce.

On moral grounds, no it cannot be defended.

On medical grounds, there might be evidence that alcohol to an immature brain might cause harm (though I don't remember specifics or have any studies to cite, but Google can probably help here). The brain doesn't fully develop until the mid 20's.

This is a tough one for me. Think about how stupid you were at 21, double that, and you get 18.

The libertarian in me is also conflicted. If we were to change it to 18, why not just abolish the age restriction completely. Why 18?

I think 19 or 20 is a reasonable change because that excludes HS kids.

A physiological argument: it could be hypothesized that those close to the legal age are more likely to think themselves ready to drink and are more likely to drink underage. If we were to move the age to 18 15-17 year olds would then be the ones more likely to underage drink. Drinking alcohol to get drunk at an age where you are still developing your body and brain is not a good thing to do..

Maybe, but that's irrelevant. Why not raise it to 30? Save more lives. Outlaw alcohol. Save more lives.

This whole "but it saves XXX lives" is ridiculous.

15 years or so from now, when driverless cars are ubiquitous, there will be zero argument.

I think some stats show that drunk driving deaths decreased, but that coincided with safer cars...

quote:

---

The real question is "How is weed still illegal for any age in most states?"

---

Recently spent time in Denver and Keystone. I seriously do not understand why weed is illegal in most states still.

quote:

---

No, it should be 25 if you ask me

---

I am asking you. Defend your statement in light of the other thresholds to adulthood.