State Drinking Age

After reading the pros and cons regarding the states having the power to change the drinking age, I agree with John McCardells argument that the states should be able to set the legal drinking age. The federal government initially passed it into law that the legal drinking age for all states would be twenty-one after many drunk driving accidents were taking place from underage drinkers crossing borders to be able to legally drink in another state and then return home. To prevent these drunk drivers, they would raise the legal age so to prevent border crossing to drink and also make sure adults who could make responsible decisions would be in possession rights. However, McCardells argument states that if you are eighteen and old enough to serve for your country you should also be considered adult enough to be in possession of alcohol which is something I strongly agree with.

The government giving states the “initiative” to not lower the age below twenty-one is manipulative in the way that they give them the option to raise the drinking age, but not lower it without losing the highway funding. With the new technology we have today though, why does the law need to be in place? If cars can now have locks on them to prevent drunk driving, do we need to be twenty-one to have alcohol? Couldn’t you simply be a legal adult of eighteen, which is still old enough to serve your country and vote, and be in possession of alcohol? With the new technology as a safety measure, I believe the states should be in power of making that decision for themselves as long as they enforced the car lock to prevent drunk driving which is an argument McCardell didn’t argue enough I don’t think when listing the pros.