Argus Leader Editorial: “Drinking Age Merits Debate”

You may remember last week’s news about a legislator in South Dakota who is considering a change in the drinking age that would allow 18-20 year olds to consume alcohol in licensed establishments. One of the papers that covered the story, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, followed up with an editorial addressing the need for debate about the proposal. The editors wrote, “This country has decided that 18-year-olds can decide for themselves whether they’re willing to face possible death by choosing military service. It’s hard to say to those same youths that they can’t legally have a beer.” They agree that the idea “deserves a thorough discussion” in the state legislature.

2 Responses to “Argus Leader Editorial: “Drinking Age Merits Debate””

  1. Edwin Says:

    The drinking age must be lowered to 18 along with an alcohol education program. Although debate is needed on the issue, lowering the drinking age to 18 and comprehensive alcohol education are the core solutions to combat binge drinking among those aged 18-20. The debate on this issue usually includes traffic deaths among young adults, however with a culture of responsibility, alcohol abuse will decrease in favor of alcohol responsibility. South Dakota’s legislature should thoroughly debate the drinking age.

  2. Corey Says:

    The age should be lowered- how about to 19? Being 19 and having drank illegally and around many others who are underage I can say it is extremely easy to find someone to purchase alcohol for me and find a place to secretly drink it. People forget benefits that may come from lowering the drinking age.
    EXAMPLE 1: Almost all casinos sell alcohol thereby prohibiting persons under the age of 21 to enter and spend money gambling; imagine the extra income that is possible with maybe 3 more years of people allowed to drink and spend.
    EXAMPLE 2: The increase of constitutionally recognized adults (18 yo) that see they are being trusted with a major life decision will weight the benefits and risks more often.
    EXAMPLE 3: When the drinking age IS lowered, b/c it will happen, more income can be made by making harsher penalties associated with drinking
    – sharply increasing drunk driving, increasing the killing a human will driving under the influence from vehicular manslaughter to murder
    Also income could be made from the fact that more people are drinking. How about taxing drinkers under the age of 21? Not a lot but some.
    EXAMPLE 4: All college students like parties, by lowering the drinking age college campuses around the country could legally “throw” parties serving alcohol. By Charging a set amount to get in, and then a cost per beer like many bar parties, campuses will make money. Along this line- what if “dry” campuses became “wet”? The college could charge for a “permit” of sorts allowing students to keep a certain amount of alcohol in their dorms
    – Maybe some of these thoughts people hate but I hope some people understand what I am trying to say.

    When you drink underage, you realize, “wow, I have 3 more years before I can legally drink this, what a waste, law enforcement can’t stop me if they cant find me(which is more often than not the case), plus they have more important things to worry about, you don’t worry about the fines that occur when you have to pay for court costs, alcohol classes and so on. You essentially have not a care in the world. Until… you are caught, excuse me, IF you are caught.