Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine both sides of the debate revolving around the issue of reducing the minimum legal drinking age law from age 21 to 18 years of age. Ethical considerations surrounding the issue are offered. The current 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act (MLDA 21) has been shown to save lives. However, in 2008 the major supporters of reducing the minimum legal drinking age laws from 21 to 18 issued a call to dialogue. The Amethyst Initiative and Choose Responsibility have spearheaded opposition to MDLA 21. They call for a public dialogue about the ineffectiveness of MLDA 21 laws; whereas proponents of MLDA 21 laws provide evidence-based data that the MLDA 21, laws save lives. The authors provide arguments in opposition to reducing the age requirements of the MLDA 21 laws and present ethical considerations that represent both sides of the issues. The authors conclude that in view of the adverse consequences of alcohol-related traffic injuries/fatalities among youth ages 15–20, continuation of the dialogue is warranted.