National Minimum Age Drinking Act: A Case Study

Congress and Presidents’ tried to prevent the abuse of alcoholism by passing a law (National Minimum Age Drinking Act) to lower the possibilities of having more accidents, but with the law being created more than a million teens around the world haven’t abided by this law. Imagine that you had a bottle of whiskey that contained seventy-five percent of alcohol and later on you were wasted trying to get to your vehicle so you can drive home, but you got caught driving drunk by a police officer. What could you have done to prevent that from happening? 1) Being responsible and 2) Have a designated driver that would drive you home and 3) Don’t drink at all! Overwhelming the results of seventy-seventy percent of the American public had disagreed with lowering the drinking age from twenty-one years old to a younger age.

Furthermore, lowering the MLDA (Minimum Legal Drinking Age) to twenty-one would be irresponsible because medically drinking under twenty-one could interfere with early development with the brain and produce chronic problems in the future, such as greater vulnerability to addiction, reduce decision-making ability, memory loss, depression, violence, and even suicide. Also cause liver disease and cancer. In 2013, 71,713 of total liver disease among individuals aged 12 and older were 46.4 percent involved in alcohol.

Theses fatal outcomes is what makes alcohol use dangerous because physical violence may include abuse of family members, assault, and homicide. Age twenty-one years old should stay because people are more responsible at that age then eighteen years old are just entering a new phase of independence from parents through workforce or college, and more susceptible to heavy drinking, risky sexual activity, and other irresponsible behavior due to the lack of