All 50 US states have set their minimum drinking age to 21 although exceptions do exist on a state-by-state basis.

Considering health risks, accidents, DUI, analyses found higher legal drinking ages associated with lower alcohol consumption, 18 is the age of adulthood and more.

Would you support reducing the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) from 21 to 18?

Lawyers help resolve DUI cases and doctors save lives but they all hope to see less of those. Keeping the roads safe is a goal we all share. Can we reduce this problem by changing the legal age of alcohol consumption?

Los Angeles DUI Attorney

 is a

Phone Call Away 855-977-1212

Here are some 14 pros and cons details with various statistics put together by ProCon.  It will help you learn about aspects of this subject that you might not have considered before.

Pro Arguments

18 is the age of adulthood in the United States, and adults should have the right to make their own decisions about alcohol consumption.

Turning 18 entails 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

Con Arguments

Lowering MLDA 21 would be medically irresponsible.

Alcohol consumption can interfere with development of the young adult brain’s frontal lobes, essential for functions such as emotional regulation, planning, and organization. When alcohol consumption interferes with this early adult brain development, the potential for chronic problems such as greater vulnerability to addiction, dangerous risk-taking behavior, reduced decision-making ability, memory loss, depression, violence, and suicide is greater

Allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to drink alcohol in regulated environments with supervision would decrease unsafe drinking activity.

Prohibiting this age group from drinking in bars, restaurants, and other licensed locations causes them to drink in unsupervised places such as fraternity houses or house parties where they may be more prone to binge drinking and other unsafe behavior.

Lowering MLDA 21 to 18 will irresponsibly allow a greater segment of the population to drink alcohol in bars and nightclubs, which are not safe environments.

76% of bars have sold alcohol to obviously intoxicated patrons, and about half of drivers arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) or killed as alcohol-involved drivers in traffic crashes did their drinking at licensed establishments. Neighborhoods with higher densities of bars, nightclubs, and other alcohol-selling locations suffer more frequent assaults and other violent crimes.

Traffic accidents and fatalities are most common among newly-legal drinkers, regardless of the MLDA.

In 2009, the 21- to 24-year-old age group had the highest percentage of drivers in fatal crashes with blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) levels of .08 or higher – 35 percent.  Any increase in traffic accidents or fatalities in 18- to 20-year-olds would be offset by a decrease for those 21 and older.

The right to drink should have a higher age of initiation because of the dangers posed by drinking.

Many rights in the United States are conferred on citizens at age 21 or older. A person cannot legally purchase a handgun, gamble in a casino (in most states), or adopt a child until age 21, rent a car (for most companies) at age 25, or run for President until age 35. Drinking should be similarly restricted due to the responsibility required to self and others.

There are fewer drunk driving traffic accidents and fatalities in many countries with MLDA of 18.

Although the United States increased the MLDA to 21 in 1984, its rate of traffic accidents and fatalities in the 1980s decreased less than that of European countries whose legal drinking ages are lower than 21.

MLDA 21 reduces traffic accidents and fatalities.

100 of the 102 analyses (98%) in a 2002 meta-study of the legal drinking age and traffic accidents found higher legal drinking ages associated with lower rates of traffic accidents. [19] The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated that MLDA 21 decreased the number of fatal traffic accidents for 18- to 20-year-olds by 13% and saved approximately 27,052 lives from 1975-2008.

The decrease in drunk driving fatalities as a percentage of total traffic fatalities in the United States does not correlate to the MLDA.

Since 1982, two years prior to the Uniform Drinking Age Act establishing an MLDA of 21, a decline of drunk driving fatalities occurred across all age groups and demographic categories, and therefore cannot be reliably attributed to MLDA 21.

MLDA 21 reduces alcohol consumption.

In a 2002 meta-study, 87% of the analyses found higher legal drinking ages associated with lower alcohol consumption.  In 2009, the NHTSA found that the percentage of weekend nighttime drivers with a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or higher declined from 5.4% in 1986 (two years after the MLDA was raised to 21) to 2.2% in 2007.

Lowering MLDA from 21 to 18 would diminish the thrill of breaking the law to get a drink.

Normalizing alcohol consumption as something done responsibly in moderation will make drinking alcohol less of a taboo for young adults entering college and the workforce.

MLDA 21 should not be lowered to mirror European drinking age limits because the rate of drinking among US teenagers is lower than most European countries.

US teenagers also show equal or lower rates of intoxication/binge drinking than do adolescents from most European countries, and most European countries report higher rates of intoxication and binge drinking for youth under 13.

MLDA 21 is largely ineffective because the majority of teens continue to consume alcohol.

According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, underage drinking accounts for 17.5% ($22.5 billion) of consumer spending for alcohol in the United States. In 2006, 72.2% of twelfth graders reported drinking alcohol at some point in their lives.

MLDA 21 laws reduce the number of underage drinkers.

The percentage of underage drinkers has decreased since 1984 when most MLDA 21 laws came into effect.  Studies indicate that when the drinking age is 21, those younger than 21 drink less and continue to drink less through their early 20s, and that youth who do not drink until they are 21 tend to drink less as adults.

High non-compliance with MLDA 21 promotes general disrespect and non-compliance with other areas of US law.

MLDA 21 encourages young adults to acquire and use false identification documents to procure alcohol. In this era of national security concerns, including terrorism, illegal immigration, and other threats, it would be better to have fewer fake IDs in circulation and more respect for the law.

MLDA 18 is not a right.

A US district court ruled on Dec. 22, 1978 that MLDA 21 is “reasonably related to a state objective of reducing highway crashes,” and that MLDA 21 withstands a constitutional challenge on three key legal issues: (1) drinking alcohol is not a “fundamental” right guaranteed by the Constitution, (2) age is not inherently a “suspect” criteria for discrimination (in contrast to race or ethnicity, for example) and (3) using the drinking age to prevent highway crashes has a “rational basis” in available scientific evidence.

MLDA 21 enforcement is not a priority for many law enforcement agencies.

Police are inclined to ignore or under-enforce MLDA 21 because of resource limitations, statutory obstacles, perceptions that punishments are inadequate, and the time and effort required for processing and paperwork. An estimated two of every 1,000 occasions of illegal drinking by youth under 21 results in an arrest.

The American public overwhelmingly supports MLDA 21.

A 2007 Gallup poll found that 77% of Americans would oppose a federal law that lowers the drinking age in all states to age 18.   Numerous state and national surveys dating from the 1970s (when states were raising the legal drinking age) through the present have shown overwhelming public support for MLDA 21.

MLDA 21 is not statistically associated with lower rates of suicide, homicide, or vandalism.

In a 2002 meta-study of the legal drinking age and health and social problems, 72% of the studies found no statistically significant relationship despite claims that lowering the MLDA to 18 would increase suicide and criminal activities by adolescents.

Lowering MLDA 21 would give high schoolers and even middle schoolers easier access to alcohol.

Newly-legal drinkers often purchase alcohol for their underage peers, creating a “trickle-down” effect. Surveys show that the most common source of alcohol among 18- to 20-year olds is their 21- to 24-year-old peers.

Drinking alcohol is an enjoyable activity.

18- to 20-year-old adults should not be denied that enjoyment when other pleasurable activities are legal at age 18.

MLDA 21 helps prevent underage binge drinking.

Binge drinking peaks among 21- to 25-year-olds at 45.9%, while the binge drinking rates of those aged 12-13, 14-15, 16-17, and 18-20 are 1.5%, 7.8%, 19.4%, and 35.7% respectively.

Lowering MLDA 21 would reduce the number of underage people who are hurt from alcohol-related injuries or accidents due to fear of legal consequences if they sought medical attention.

MLDA 21 exerts valuable social pressure on potential underage drinkers and those who may serve them.

Youth may choose not to drink, or to drink less often, because of decreased social acceptability or increased risks from parental or legal authorities. Older youth and adults may furnish alcoholic beverages to minors less frequently, and licensed alcohol outlets may sell to minors less frequently, because of their perceptions that it is illegal, morally wrong, or because they might be caught.

State governments should have the right to establish a lower legal drinking age that reflects their unique demographics, legal context, and history.

The Uniform Drinking Act, which compelled states to set the legal drinking age at 21 by withholding ten percent of highway funding from states that kept the minimum legal drinking age at 18, is an example of federal government overreach into state affairs. Many states that were happy with their MLDA 18 bowed to federal pressure rather than lose millions in annual highway funds.

The MLDA should stay at 21 because people tend to be more mature and responsible at 21 than 18.

18-year-olds are typically entering a new phase of independence from their parents through college or the workforce, and are more susceptible to binge drinking, risky sexual activity, and other irresponsible behavior due to lack of maturity.

Lowering MLDA 21 would be good for the economy.

More people would legally be able to drink in bars, restaurants, and other licensed establishments. Revenue would increase for private business owners, and greater amounts of tax revenue would be collected by the government.

Lowering the drinking age will invite more use of illicit drugs among 18-21 year olds.

A peer-reviewed study from the Journal of Studies of Alcohol and Drugs found that the younger a person begins to drink alcohol the more likely it is that they will use other illicit drugs. Lowering MLDA 21 would increase the number of teens who drink and therefore the number of teens who use other drugs.

13 + 5 =