Encyclopedia of Opinion
Question
Should the drinking age be 18?
Position‹2 of 4›
No, the drinking age should be 21.
Argument‹2 of 3›

Younger people are too immature to drink

There are too many risks associated with drinking alcohol to trust young adults to drink responsibly. A higher minimum age is consistent with standards for other weighty responsibilities.

The argument

The argument turns on a claim about capacity rather than about alcohol's effects. Drinking responsibly and making responsible decisions even while intoxicated require a greater degree of maturity than most young adults possess. The second half of that claim carries the weight: the judgement a drinker needs is exercised not beforehand, in the decision to drink at all, but afterwards, in a state that has already reduced the capacity for judgement. A person must therefore be able to decide soundly from a diminished baseline, which asks more of them than most sober tasks do. The evidence offered is behavioural rather than physiological. Statistics show that young adults have higher than average rates of driving accidents, risky sexual activity, substance abuse, and many other harmful behaviors. What matters for the argument is that these are precisely the domains in which alcohol compounds risk: each already occurs more often in this age group while sober, so adding a substance that impairs judgement to an activity pattern that is already more hazardous multiplies the danger rather than merely adding to it. The final move is one of consistency with how the law already treats maturity. Several legal rights other than drinking are also restricted to higher ages based on the potential dangers. In some jurisdictions, these restricted rights include owning firearms, holding certain public offices, adopting children, and other mature responsibilities. In each case the reasoning is the same — the activity carries consequences for other people, and society has judged that the capacity to weigh those consequences arrives later than the age of majority does. Remaining consistent with such restrictions, the dangers posed by immature behavior under the influence of alcohol justify a higher drinking age rather than a lower one.

Premises

[P1]Drinking responsibly requires a level of maturity that most people under 21 have not yet developed, as evidenced by higher rates of risky behavior among young adults. [P2] Society already restricts other consequential rights — like firearm ownership, holding office, and adopting children — to older ages based on the maturity those activities demand. [C] Therefore, consistent with how we treat other mature responsibilities, the drinking age should remain at 21 rather than be lowered to 18.

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that the maturity argument struggles with consistency, since the same societies grant 18-year-olds the vote, military service and full legal responsibility — decisions at least as consequential as drinking — which sits awkwardly with calling them too immature for alcohol. They argue the risky behaviours cited are not evidence that a higher age instils maturity, and point to countries with lower or no drinking ages where young people are introduced to alcohol earlier yet show lower rates of binge drinking, suggesting that supervised, legal access can foster responsibility better than prohibition. On this view a higher age may push drinking underground rather than delay the immaturity it blames.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Higher rates of risky behaviour among the young do not show that denying legal alcohol until 21 produces maturity; the correlation may reflect development a drinking ban does not change. [Rejecting P2] The comparison to firearms or adoption is selective, since society grants 18-year-olds voting, military service and full legal liability, undercutting the claim that they are categorically too immature. [Rejecting C] Many countries with lower drinking ages report less binge drinking, suggesting earlier legal access can build responsibility better than a higher age.