Should the drinking age be 18?

Historically, there were no drinking age laws

Question: Should the drinking age be 18?
Position‹4 of 4: There should be no drinking age.
Argument‹2 of 3›: Historically, there were no drinking age laws

The drinking age is a fairly recent invention in legal history, and there is no real need for it.

The argument

Minimum legal drinking age laws are largely an invention of the early 20th century, and still do not exist in many nations in Africa and Asia. The United Kingdom did not have a national minimum drinking age law until 1923, when the Intoxicating Liquor (Sale to Persons under Eighteen) Act was passed due to the advocacy of members of the temperance movement, which had declined by the mid-20th century. Given that drinking age laws have little effect on underage drinking, and that many nations (past and present) have gotten by without them, these relics of the legal past should be abolished.

Premises

[P1]Minimum drinking-age laws are largely a 20th-century invention and still do not exist in many nations in Africa and Asia. [P2] The UK had no national minimum drinking age until the 1923 Act, passed through a temperance movement that had itself declined by mid-century. [P3] Given that such laws have little effect on underage drinking and that many societies have managed without them, they are outdated relics. [C] Therefore, since historically there were no drinking-age laws, there should be no drinking age.

Counter-arguments

The historical premise is an appeal to tradition that carries no normative weight. That drinking-age laws were largely invented in the 20th century, or that some countries still lack them, says nothing about whether they are beneficial now — seatbelt laws, food-safety standards and child-labour restrictions are all recent inventions absent in parts of the world, and no one treats their novelty as an argument for repeal. The claim that the laws 'have little effect on underage drinking' is asserted rather than shown, and it is contested: research on minimum-age laws, particularly the US move to 21, reports measurable reductions in youth drinking and in alcohol-related traffic fatalities, which is why many jurisdictions retain them. The argument also slides from a historical observation ('there were no such laws') straight to a policy conclusion ('there should be none'), a non-sequitur that skips the question actually at issue — whether the laws do more good than harm today. Establishing that societies once managed without a rule does not establish that abolishing it now would leave people no worse off.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That drinking-age laws are a recent invention, or absent in some countries, is an appeal to tradition; seatbelt, food-safety and child-labour laws are also modern inventions absent in parts of the world yet plainly beneficial. [Rejecting P3] The claim that such laws 'have little effect on underage drinking' is contested — studies of minimum-age laws report reductions in youth drinking and alcohol-related traffic deaths — so the empirical premise is not established.

Proponents cited

Dwight Heath
“The idea of a minimum age before [which] children should be `protected' from alcohol is alien in China and France; where it is a matter of law, the mid or late teens are favored. [...] Children learn to drink early in Zambia by taking small quantities when they are sent to buy beer; children in France, Italy, and Spain are routinely given wine as part of a meal or celebration.”
David Pittman
“In sum, Spain along with other Southern European countries allows its youth early access to alcoholic beverages without the concomitant problems of rowdy behavior, vandalism, and drunk driving that Americans typically associate with youth drinking.”
Harry Levine
“[In colonial America] parents gave [alcohol] to children for many of the minor ills of childhood, and its wholesomeness for those in health, it appeared, was only surpassed by its healing properties in case of disease. No other element seemed capable of satisfying so many human needs. It contributed to the success of any festive occasion and inspirited those in sorrow and distress. It gave courage to the soldier, endurance to the traveler, foresight to the statesman, and inspiration to the preacher. It sustained the sailor and the plowman, the trader and the trapper. By it were lighted the fires of revelry and of devotion. Few doubted that it was a great boon to mankind.”