Back in the 1970's and early 1980's, drinking age laws in most states in the US were generally set at 18. For a variety of reasons, the drinking age was raised throughout the nation to 21 by the mid to late 80's. When you consider that at the age of 18, young adults in the US are legally allowed to vote, marry, and even join the military to fight for and possibly die for their country, it makes n
o sense at all to set the minimum drinking age at 21. How can you seriously tell an 18-year-old infantryman in the US army that he needs to wait another three years before he can legally have a beer? How can you tell someone who is voting for president at the age of 18 that we trust them enough to make a wise political decision, but we don't trust them to have a beer or glass of wine for three more years. You know, if you take a look at the drinking age laws on the books in most other countries, you will see that a full 77% of the other countries on this planet set their minimum drinking age at 18, or in some cases even lower. Are they all insane? Or is there possibly something that they know that we just don't seem to know. I can assure you that the latter is exactly the case. Many people here in the US make the argument that setting the minimum drinking age at 21 promotes traffic safety and reduces drunk driving, and thus drunk driving accidents, fatalities, and injuries. Well, that argument does not hold any water. If you really want to know what reduces drunk driving accidents and fatalities, it is the following: 1) Increased public recognition of the problem, 2) Increased police focus on the problem, 3) increased judicial prosecution and penalties for those found guilty of drunk driving, and 4) cars that are much safer than those that were built 30 years ago, and which now include shoulder harness seat belts, anti-lock brakes, and airbags as standard equipment.
