Contributing to minors is another ticket given to people who buy alcohol for teens. Both of which would be lessened if the age limit was lowered. There would be fewer minors, and people that are over twenty one would no longer have to buy beer for their younger peers. This is correct because a select few kids under eighteen are tempted to drink. There is no reason because none of their friends are able to drink. In contrast, traffic fatalities are increased because the more people who can drink lead the way for more people to drive drunk (alcohol issues). But this could be stopped with better information on responsible drinking and the consequences of driving drunk. .
The age of initiation is a huge argument that strengthens the idea that the age limit should be lowered. At age eighteen, young adults are able to do many things not possible in their early teens. Men can serve their country but they cannot drink until they are three years in the service, if they choose to stay that long. You can die for your country but not get drunk? Crazy, isn't it? At age eighteen, everyone that is a citizen can vote. So once again we can't drink but we can decide our future by picking our nations leaders. Nicotine is one of the world's most addictive drugs yet we can smoke at age eighteen. Why shouldn't the drinking age be lowered? The government would rather get young adults addicted to cigarettes rather than drink a few beers at a party. What a great nation indeed. Also an eighteen year old can be tried as an adult but adults can drink all they want. How is this possible? It just doesn't add up. Lowering the legal drinking age, however, could possibly give the U.S. more money. .
If the drinking age was eighteen, alcohol industries and states would get more money than they get by only letting people over twenty one buy alcohol. This is common sense. There are many people between the ages of eighteen and twenty that would buy alcohol if possible.