CNN iReport

This is for drloko, who wanted a thorough rebuttal of the arguments for Legal Age 21 when it was made law in 1984, and anybody else who blindly thinks that a legal drinking age of 21 is a good thing.  (By the way, Puerto Rico is not bound by Legal Age 21 and they have a drinking age of 18.  And for those wondering, I am 22 years old.)

There are no good arguments FOR the Legal Age 21. First off, nearly every argument against Legal Age 21 that you claim are invalid are indeed valid. For one, all males upon the age of 18 (adults) must sign up with the selective service, because the government essentially has said that we have no choice but to comply with draft orders if a draft was necessary. Secondly, all persons are adults in the eyes of the law when it comes to voting, choosing to enlist in the military, paying taxes, and serving jury duty. What makes you think, that an 18 year old is of sound mind to find a person guilty of murder on a jury, but not of sound mind to drink responsibly? Your quick dismissal of "Since I can do X...etc" arguments shows your hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of those who allowed the legal drinking age rise to 21 in the first place.

Please also remember that Ronald Reagan originally threatened to veto the bill, citing that the provisions that punished states that didn't comply was an infringement upon states rights. Also remember that the main purpose behind legal age 21 was to curb drunken driving. Increasing the drinking age to 21 does not effectively prevent a 35 year old person from committing vehicular homicide while under the influence of alcohol. It places an undue strain on law enforcement agencies to try to bust parties on college campuses and cite those drinking under age, rather than patrolling the roadways to keep drunk drivers off of the streets and highways. Please also accept that in college towns, a large majority of those going to parties who are under the age of 21 with the intentions of drinking WALK to these parties. Most students OVER the age of 21 who go to the bars in college towns WALK to these bars.

Please also note that Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr., R-Conn. held up Senate action on Legal Age 21 because he felt that raising the drinking age wasn't doing enough for the problem of drunk driving as a whole.

It was also argued that Legal Age 21 effectively blackmailed the states into following the national government. Please read this: June 26, taken from Thomas' Senate Vote Analysis, are as follows:

The pending Lautenberg amendment, however, which would coerce States into establishing a 21-year-old drinking age, should be rejected because it would result in Federal encroachment into areas that have been reserved to the States under the Constitution. It is clear that all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution are reserved to the States and to the people. Nowhere in the Constitution has the power to regulate the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages been delegated to the Federal Government. Those who want to expand the power of the Federal Government beyond that granted to it by the Constitution have found various mechanisms for achieving their objective. Almost every Federal tax dollar returned to the States has strings attached; the Lautenberg amendment would tighten the knot. This practice, as embodied by this amendment, is nothing short of blackmail by the Federal Government. It is inconsistent with the Constitution, contrary to sound principles of federalism, and not in the best interest of our country. Therefore, the Lautenberg amendment should be rejected.

Today, a 10% cut in federal highway funding cannot be even considered by the states because of the current state of the economy and gas prices. I contacted a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Patricia H. Vance, (R) several months ago about reduction of the drinking age in Pennsylvania (against the rules of the Federal Government) and this was one of the major things she cited.

In addition to the state's rights arguments, opponents to the legislation maintained that any attempt to deny someone the right to drink alcohol was age discrimination. "Why the magic age of 21?" asked Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt. "Why not 25? How about 30, 35, 40?"

The media played an important role in this too, much over-hyping the statistics and studies, which inflated public opinion on the issue and no doubt affected the votes of more than a few congressmen. The statistics used in this public relations battle had several problems with them as well. For example, I will dissect one set of statistics that were used to debate on the Senate floor in favor of the Lautenberg amendment.

Young drivers are involved in one of every five fatal auto accidents. Almost 60 percent of fatally injured teenagers were found to have alcohol in their blood; 43 percent of those were legally intoxicated. Five thousand of those killed on our highways each year are teenagers - a fifth of all auto fatalities - although teenagers account for only 10 percent of all drivers and travel only 9 percent of all miles driven.

These statistics, taken from Thomas' Senate Vote Analysis, said that 5000 killed on our highways are teenagers, one fifth of the total, which would mean the total is 25,000. Then look where it says that 60 percent of that number (5000) had alcohol in their blood, so that's 3000. Of that number, 43 percent were legally intoxicated. .43 * 3000 = 1290. So 1290 drunk teens out of 25,000 total accidents - that is 5 percent not 20 percent as they imply. It is unknown how many of those were actually driving. Some of those 1290 could be sitting in the back seat while their parents were driving. Therefore statistics were used by MADD and other drinking age proponents to obscure the truth in order to win their goal of further depriving youth of their liberty.