[fantASTic]

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

Age restrictions on drinking are often viewed as arbitrary. "Most kids drink anyway", "If you can vote and die for your country, then you should be able to drink". The other side argues that the lower the legal age, the lower the age group of kids with fake IDs or sneaking into bars hoping that they don't get carded. Both sides' arguments are valid, but the first one is based on emotion, while the second is a logical assumption.

I don't have an answer, but I my biggest question is, if an 18 year old's brain is still developing, as are their level of maturity, responsibility, and worldliness, wouldn't handing them something that all but absolutely can/will skew their judgment only increases the lieklihood of impulsiveness that is more prevalent in younger people?

Yes, there are many "kids" out there who are capable of drinking in moderation, driving responsibly, and managing their lives productively, but even the most savvy, intelligent, world-traveled 18 or 19 year olds still have so much to learn. Presumably, then, giving them something that decreases their judgment (as more than one drink can) has no merits other than to satisfy emotional reasoning.

So to those who advocate lowering the drinking age, how would you respond to my last few paragraphs?

*Some of my points were inspired/triggered from http://www.asfar.org/zine/6th/cover.html with additional citations I found. The rest (in green) are my own thoughts.

I would respond by saying that since the National Institute of Health believes that the brain is not fully developed until 25, why do you think the drinking age of 21 is high enough? Maybe we should move it to 25 - maybe even 30 just to be sure. That would be ideal, so 25 year olds can't sneak into bars with fake IDs. Then people would feel better knowing that 'minors' with underdeveloped brains aren't drinking. Right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan31.html