Don't get me wrong -- some teens are probably more than responsible enough to be trusted with controlling their own drinking. However, it's those that aren't that're the concern.
Parents generally don't want to have to worry about bars being allowed to serve their kids, either. Maybe not all parents feel that way, though I'd guess that those who'd be against their kids drinking would tend to have stronger feelings on the topic than those who'd be okay with it.
Reference: https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/minimum-legal-drinki...
I wonder how many assaults and deaths have happened due to underage drinkers being too worried about going to the police or hospital due to their illegal consumption.
If there's a perfect solution to ensuring that teens suffer no harm from alcohol, that'd be a neat thing! However broadly repealing prohibitions against teen-drinking wouldn't seem to be such a solution.
Maybe because the driving age is slightly higher, training to become a driver is usually more rigorous, and max BAC levels are around 0.05%.
Another aspect might be cultural — in my experience alcohol is much more taboo and simultaneously more likely to be abused by youth in the US than in Europe. This is probably because many grandmothers will give their grandkids a small glass of wine with dinner or a schnapps for New Years or other stuff like that. This de-stigmatizes the drug, thereby making it less edgy and cool to drink.
I remember being 14 at a wedding in Germany and everyone very jovially encouraging me to have a small schnapps shot, and getting very drunk on absinthe at maybe 16/17 in France. No one really cared, and the lesson of the hangover was plenty to whip me into shape.
[0]: https://www.statista.com/chart/5504/the-worst-countries-in-t...
Really seems like there should be research on this sorta thing already, but not immediately seeing one on Google, which is odd..
But, yeah, dunno why folks'd do it in the first place. Seems like simple self-destructive behavior.
---
[This study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3823314/) seems to use a multi-linear-regression (rather than a causative model), but still looks neat.
Overall, looks like they found that stricter regulations and beer-taxes significantly reduced drunk-driving incidents, while drivers-under-24, higher speed-limits, and unemployment had the opposite effect.
Drunk driving is a lot easier to avoid if you can get anywhere easily without driving at all.
I have no doubt war also has neurological effects, but they don't seem to be age specific.
It is challenging, if not impossible, to otherwise defend it. If someone has the possibility to choose (or be forced) to harm themselves and shorten their life in war, then why shouldn't a choice apply to alcohol?
So, this just invites the same perennial arguments frequently made in relation to drug decriminilisation.
On my part, had the drinking age been 21 where I live, I wouldn't have started drinking until I was 21.
You really don't know then. As someone who lives where it is 21, I'm qualified to tell you that you're very likely wrong.
Before the "Source? Study?" parrots show up, you're darn right this is anecdotal. The "real data" is going to be from kids who aren't telling the truth.
IMO the government should not be in the business of policing one's health, or advocating for the people's health, as the USDA and associated agencies are demonstrably corrupted.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/obesity-overweight.htm [1] https://www.usda.gov/farmbill [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12513041/#:~:text=Conclusion.... [3] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-...
1. The government does care about overweight/obesity; it comes up a lot in discussing issues with the healthcare system (https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html). A lack of regulation isn't the same thing as not caring -- for example, there's no regulation requiring Americans to get vaccinated, either.
2. Farm subsidies seem unlikely to be a problem.. it's not like access to food makes people obese -- in fact, the opposite seems to be true (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5781054/). Usually affordable-food helps folks eat better rather than more.
3. The US government's dietary recommendations not being a copy/paste of another set of recommendations isn't a meaningful observation... why would you think otherwise? For example, are you under the impression that someone following the US's nutritional guidelines would be worse off for it? (In case you're not American: the problem isn't the guidelines, but rather that most Americans don't follow them.)
4. The US government's call to regulate teen-drinking was based on a historical uptick in drunk-driving accidents when the drinking-ages were relaxed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._history_of_alcohol_minimu...). This is, the argument wasn't based on a teen's personal health but rather people were crashing cars on public roads, which is definitely a reasonable concern for a government to have.
> The US has signed an international agreement barring child soldiers. What that means in practicality is only that you are non-deployable until you turn 18. (you must be 18 to actually fight).
> If you graduate High school early yes, you can join at 17 with parental consent, you can ship, train, you can join a unit and be active duty, you are just FLAGGED as non-deployable until your 18th birthday, when the flag is lifted.
https://www.quora.com/What-happens-when-you-join-the-US-mili...