It is deemed that at this age most people are responsible enough to make their own decisions and to suffer the consequences accordingly. .
In 1984, President Reagan signed legislation requiring that states that did not adopt a minimum drinking age of 21 for all alcoholic beverages by 1987 would lose 5% of their federal highway funds. States that did not comply by 1988 would lose an additional 10% of their highway funds. .
At the time he signed the bill into law, President Reagan stated, "with the problem so clear cut and the proven solution at hand, we have no misgiving about the judicious use of federal power." Regrettably raising the minimum drinking age to 21 is far from a proven solution.
There are always at least two sides to every debatable topic. In this case of whether the legal drinking age should be twenty-one there are many issues that need to be weighed. Many people solely believe that individuals are not responsible enough to consume alcohol before they are twenty-one. They feel that at this age these individuals can determine right from wrong even under the influence. They feel that with the drinking age of twenty-one the amount of motor vehicle accidents will be reduced significantly. Many people feel that people under the age of twenty-one have other issues that need to be priority like family and schooling. These points are substantial and very convincing, however they simply are not convincing enough to support the theories behind the legal drinking age of twenty-one. According to an article on the Internet called, "It's Better to Teach Safe Use of Alcohol," "The laws that are set forth could help save lives by reducing the death toll caused by drunken drivers. The statutes could also prevent some people from using alcohol before they are physically and emotionally equipped to do so intelligently.".
Proponents of a higher minimum drinking age argue that, although those under twenty one consist of only 10% of all licensed drivers, they were involved in an annual average of 24.