A man is out on Highway 41 on his way home from a party when suddenly a car swerves out in front of him and hits him. He and the other car are in a ditch and both cars are totaled. The police and ambulances arrive and pull him and the driver of the other car out. Then, he finds out that the person who hit him is 18 and was drunk. A teenager could have killed him. How do you suppose that made him feel? This story is a perfect example of why the drinking age of 21 should not be lowered. The drinking age should not be lowered for numerous reasons: the risks of more fatalities, numerous numbers of crashes, DWI arrests, and alcohol-related problems.
             Some legislators clam the drinking age should be lowered because drinking ages as high as 21 will never come close to enforcement. That cause inflates the crime rate because the authorities often apprehend perfectly responsible individuals aged eighteen to twenty-one who drink, or attempt to purchase alcohol.
             "Although the legal purchase age is 21, a majority of young people under this age consume alcohol, and too many of them do so in an irresponsible manner. This reason is because little kids see people under the age 21 purchasing or drinking alcohol and they take it as a symbol of adulthood. The U.S. has tried prohibition twice, first at the state level in the 1850s and at the national level beginning in 1920. These efforts to prevent drinking were unenforceable and created serious social problems such as widespread disrespect for law, the growth of organized crime, and the development of immoderate consumption patterns"(Ruth Engs, Dr).
             Some state legislators say that the drinking age should be lowered because they say that teens have enough responsibility and maturely to know when enough alcohol is enough. The proportion of the American population that drinks, including young people, has been decreasing since about 1980. Then, states were required to raise th...