It will forever make me laugh about how much we argue at what age we should allow citizens to poison themselves. That being said, it remains one of the most talked about issues in American life. The most often proposed ages for legal drinking remain to be 18 and 21, but I argue that neither of these solve the entire issue. 
Sure, if you are old enough to fight in the military, it could be argued that you are old enough to drink a beer. While a logical argument, it also would be irresponsible to give any 18-year-old a fifth of whiskey and let them go. The argument remains, at what age are you mature enough to drink wherever you go?
While age can correlate to maturity, to say that it is the only factor is just wrong. The question of the drinking age should be “At what point will you make responsible decisions while intoxicated?” This is different from person to person. 
According to the CDC, six people died per day in America of alcohol poisoning in 2015. This is a number that has been steadily rising since 1984, when the age was changed from 18 to 21. Despite the age to drink being changed to a more mature age, the alcohol mortality rate has gone up. To those who grew up during the time, the answer to why is obvious. 
Once again, according to the CDC, underage drinkers are more susceptible to alcohol poisoning. This is an interesting thing to think about, considering the fact that alcohol poisoning rates were much lower back in the 1980s, when current “underage” drinkers were drinking the most. To me, this states that the maturity level of those drinkers was higher, on top of them beginning to drink even younger, at an age where it was not frowned upon to have a beer with parents. 
All of this to say, the raising of the drinking age has put a stigma on drinking before a certain age, even with parents. This has led us to send kids to college with no experience with alcohol, leading to their first experiences being dangerous ones. 
Finally, I propose this. 18 year olds are oftentimes immature and stupid, but just as often competent and mature. This, however, also goes for 21 year olds. With this, I say the drinking age should not exist. There should be no universal point to gauge a quality that is not universal. From there, I only see one solution. 
There must be a way to measure an 18-year-old’s maturity not to consume beer after a few drinks due to an aversion to carbonation. There also must be a way to measure a 21-year-old’s immaturity to sit at a poker table for three hours and not remember it the next day. With this, I say we make drinking a maturity level, not an age level. 
With an optional class and license test, not unlike driver’s ed, new drinkers could learn about the dangers and pitfalls of drinking before going into the world with an informed knowledge of their legal and physical limits. A maturity level would keep those that would put themselves and others in danger from being able to do so. A maturity level also incentivizes smart behavior and safety while alcohol is in the picture. 
At the end of the day, I feel as though we can all agree a drinking age is not a perfect solution as is. I know 21-year-old people far dumber than 14 year olds, and 18 year olds more mature than 25 year olds. It is time that we stop allowing irresponsible people to be able to drink based on age and allow only those that would be safe and responsible to do so.