The main argument of Laura Dean-Mooney is that the 21 law saves lives because the number of people killed in crashes since the law was enacted has been cut in half. The number of crashes “ has been cut in half, from more than 5,000 individuals in the early 1980s to around 2,000 in 2005”(Dean Mooney 5). Another argument made was that the effects of alcohol are magnified when a teenager’s brain is still developing, “alcohol negatively affects all parts of the brain, include cognitive and decision-making abilities as well as coordination and memory”(Dean-Mooney 9). Dean-Mooney implies that since the legal drinking age has been 21, this law is the most studied in history. She highlights that scientific studies found the 21-year-old law saves lives on and off the road.
Since the drinking age has been twenty-one it has not stopped underage teens for drinking and has actually caused more problems. Binge drinking has especially been caught in college. With the mix of ages ranging anywhere from around 17-24 years old it’s easy for teens to fall under peer pressure. The opposing side to this argument says however that lowering the drinking age would be...”Pushing the drinking problem further down to 16-and 17-year olds.” However there is another problem with the law of the drinking age being
The studies show that after implementation of this restriction, the number of drunken driving cases with lethal outcomes, the number of homicides and suicides as well as injuries among people in the category of 18-20 was reduced. This is claimed to be the result of a working law on limitations. However, even from the economical point of view, the deaths that would be caused by the removal of age restriction to the point of 18 would cost more than the benefits that would be gained from such actions. There is even more to mention. Despite the fact that the legal limitation on alcohol consumption is acting throughout the whole country, the “right to set any drinking age remains in the states' control” (Choose Responsibility) so that the age index may vary.
A stronger focus on gun control in the United States involving restriction or even an outright ban of guns could serve to help the problem greatly. In 2015, 13,286 people were killed by firearms in the United States, with 26,819 suffering from non-lethal injuries (qtd. in “Guns in the US”). Taking away guns, the means that many urban criminals have to commit their crimes, would be very beneficial to cities. Recent studies found that the most effective way of reducing gun crime is to lower the amount of guns available in circulation.
In order to increase safety and reduce death, it would be prudent to raise the minimum driving age. More crashes are caused by teens, who are more careless than older drivers. As writer Anahad O’Connor explains, teens “account for 10 times as many crashes as middle aged drivers” considering that they naturally “make simple mistakes, like failing to scan the road, misjudging driving conditions and becoming distracted” (Jago 29). Teenagers make an abundance of mistakes in their everyday lives, so it is plausible that those blunders would translate to mishaps on the road. Most people become more calm, more alert, and gain a more discerning gaze at the road as they age, making
For these issues, the literature is inconclusive at best. Concerning guns, Duggan (2001) concludes that gun ownership increases homicide while Lott and Mustard (1997) find that concealed carry reduces crime. With respect to abortion, Donohue and Levitt (2001) have shown that abortion significantly reduced crime in the second half of the 20th century – a question that economists are understandably reticent to study further. For policing and incarceration, some research has found that criminals are responsive to variations in expected punishment such as in Drago et al. (2009) and Freeman (1994) while policing efforts as shown by Chalfin and McCrary (2013) may have a relatively modest effect on crime at best.
Another study was done in China, the result shows regular beer drinkers had a 20 percent increased risk of bowel cancer when compared with non-drinkers or occasional drinkers (Department of Colorectal Surgery at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2015). Both studies show that no matter western or Chinese diet, drinking alcohol is one of the major reasons that cause bowel cancer. We can prevent suffer from bowel cancer by avoid or limit our alcohol consumption. The government should increase alcohol taxes since it is the most cost-effective way to reduce alcohol consumption and the resulting harms, particularly among young
“ [The drinking age] is unfavorable because it forces youth to consume alcohol in unsupervised places that are risky and consumption may be abused.” The idea is, if the drinking age is lowered, youth will be able to drink in open, public places that can be supervised by others. By being public, it would decrease the risky behavior seen with alcohol in private, unsupervised settings. Pomata also asserts, “The age restriction inspires undesirable activities just as the National Prohibition Act did.” Some undesirable activities that are associated with underage drinking include the making and distributing of fake ID’s. If the drinking age is decreased, then there would be no need for such
The additional money made from marijuana could be used for good purposes. Money would be saved because less arrests would be made, so the government wouldn’t have to spend so much money on U.S. prisons. Plus, more dispensaries would be opened, so more job opportunities would arise. Author states,”And [Colorado] is enjoying economic growth and the lowest unemployment rate in years.” If medical marijuana was legal all over the nation, the government would make more money than it has in
Providing these schools for students will reduce a lot of drug crime violence. “The price of marijuana would drop significantly—up to 80%—with the market price for users depending on taxes and regulation.” (American Society of Addiction Medicine) this shows the benefits of the legalization process and how it could be helpful in the future. Most Americans are aware of the drug violence that goes on in many states, and as more and more states choose to legalize marijuana, fewer people will have to be illegally getting the drug, leading to crime rates dropping significantly. Legalizing marijuana weakens big drug cartels by taking away their main source of income. In most states drug distribution rates dropped between 20% and 30%
It increases risks for “addiction”, “memory loss”, “suicide” and “depression”. This is the number 1 Con on procon.org. Lowering the drinking age will increase traffic fatalities more than they already are. In the New York Times Tara Watson say traffic fatalities will become more frequent. So many 22 year olds die due to over alcoholic consumption, so lowering the MLDA would be irresponsible to increase the chance of more fatalities.
When the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was thought of, we thought that it would help us. We thought it would take the crime rates down; however we never dreamed it would bring them up. From 1919 to 1933 the crime rates went up tremendously, prohibition helped the bootleggers, the dope sellers, the gangsters, and the racketeers. This time period became known as the great depression. Why did Americans repeal the 18th Amendment and make alcohol legal again?
This is because If marijuana were legalized, it would harm young people less, give the US a large source of tax revenue, and promote consumer safety for the drug (“Marijuana Legalization and Regulation” Why Should We Legalize? ). And by large tax revenue, I mean large, since The government could make millions of dollars every year if it were to tax and regulate marijuana (“Legalization of Marijuana” Arguments in Favor of the Legalization of Marijuana). Legalizing marijuana would also save America money too, since “A 2005 study showed that marijuana accounted for nearly half of all drug arrests in the United States, at an annual cost of approximately $4 billion
The drinking age being lowered would not be beneficial to anyone 's life. In addition, if lawmakers consider lowering the drinking age because it would lead to more violent and destructive behavior such as academic failure. Alcohol interferes with many ways of
I also believe, that a mix of the way California and Tucson handle underage drinking seems to be more successful tactics than others states mentioned. In this article, there was a lot of talk about deaths that occurred while under the influence. I believe this was a good way to write this article to really try to convince people that drinking is very dangerous for teenagers. If this article did not have so many