The age to legally drink has been argued that it should be changed from 21 down to 18 because when you are technically an adult when you are 18 and should be able to make your own decisions. In the past we have tried to lower the drinking age in the Vietnam war era, this time resulted in a spike in the alcohol and vehicle accidents. Basically having the higher required drinking age means that the roads and everyone will be safer. People argue the other side because they believe if You can fight in our army at 18 you should be able to have a drink. Both sides have strong arguments and make it hard to change but I don’t think it will change because of the failed attempt before.
Lowering the drinking age to 18 had many consequences but the most obvious one was the increase in road accidents linked to drinking. Another consequence that was shown when the US tried lowering the age to 18 was an increase in unplanned pregnancies. Also the babies as a result of these unplanned pregnancies mixed with alcohol use often resulted in worse infant health. In the New York times they said “Lowering the drinking age will only succeed as part of a comprehensive set of policies that address the unintended consequences.” Changing it to 18 from 21 could have many consequences like shown already when attempted in the time of the vietnam war.
Underage drinking is a common occurrence in colleges and other young adults which argue that the drinking age should be changed to 18. Plenty of people argue that if you are old enough to decide to fight and die for this country you should be able to decide for yourself if you can drink or not. Also arguments have been made that claim that lowering the required age could result in less binge drinking in young adults, because now when kids have less access to it they drink as much as they can when they can get their hands on it. Most arguments say that the ways we have combated underage drinking have not been successful for the most part so now it is time to try something new to make a change.