Lowering The Legal Drinking Age?

Recently in a local paper, there was an editorial that really got me thinking. They suggested that the legal drinking age be lowered in the US to the legal age in the rest of the civilized world. When you turn 18, you can vote, you can join the army, and you can smoke. In many other countries, you can also drink.

If lawmakers can trust 18 year olds to vote and to wield a gun, why can't they trust them to drink responsibly?

Let's talk pros and cons, shall we?

Pros

• Most underage drinking is done to excess simply because alcohol is a forbidden fruit. If alcohol is not forbidden to 18-20 year olds, it is less tempting. Many deans of colleges believe lowering the drinking age would be beneficial to society because the police that are usually on college-party-underage-drinking chasing could be put to use in better departements such as high-school-drug-dealer chasing or drunk-driver chasing.
• More profits for local bars, clubs, and businesses from increased market.

Cons

• More drunk driving could occur purely because of the increased number of drivers who can legally drink.
• More potential liver diseases from consuming more alcohol than is healthy in a lifetime.

If society says anyone 18 years of age is legally an adult, shouldn't the adult be trusted to make adult decisions like the decision to not drink and drive or the decision to stop when they've had enough?

Is it logical to trust an 18 year old to wield a gun and fight in the army, but not allow them to raise a beer to their lips?

The US laws state that states can do what they want with the drinking age, but if the drinking age is under 21, the US can cut off the state's funding. Obviously, change would have to come from Washington down unless every state lowered the drinking age and Washington had no choice but to change the national policy.

Should people 18 years of age be allowed to drink or should that privilege be reserved for people of the magical ages of 21 and up?You decide.