Back to 18?

http://reason.com/archives/2007/04/12/back-to-18/1

The drinking age has been at age 21 since the 1980’s when the mothers against drunk driving put it on the legislative agenda. By 1984 it won majority of congress. For the next three years every state had the choice to choose between adopting the standard or getting federal highway funding. Almost all states went with the standard of having the drinking age raised to 21 besides Vermont and fought it all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. The U.S has the highest drinking age in the world and most countries don’t have a minimum age or set it at 16 or 17 years of age. Supporters of the federal minimum argue that the brain continues to develop till age 21. High school students in countries who have the lowered the drinking age do better than U.S students on standardized test. Another drawback of this is an 18-year-old is mature enough to marry, to sign a contract, to go to war and vote but not mature enough to drink a beer. Supporters seem to think that the law has worked. Their main argument for this is that there has been a dramatic drop in alcohol related accidents since 1984.

This article is right in where it says that most 18 year olds can do major things like voting, going to war, and marry but can’t have a beer. I also believe that keeping the drinking age at 21 would lower alcohol related accidents but kids are still going to drink under age no matter what. They can also still be in the car with a parent who is drinking and driving and get in an accident. This article states that high school students in other countries that don’t have a requirement on drinking age do better on standardized test. That is shocking to me. If in one country the law is age 17 to drink, which would have teenagers still in high school taking the test but allowed to drink compared to in another country where teens aren’t suppose to be drinking I would think the higher test scores would be in the country of the drinking age at 21.