In fact, the law may increase the amount of eighteen to twenty year olds who do drink. It has been shown that, especially in college-age students, there is a tendency to not do what they are told, on the contrary, they will do the exact opposite. The problem with the drinking age being twenty-one is that some students drink purely out of defiance). The number of fatalities is down in all age groups, not just teenagers, and cars driven now are much safer than the cars that were being driven in the early 1980’s, and teenagers are much safer drivers, which can be attributed to the decreased amount of fatalities. Also, in other countries that have lower drinking ages, the number of fatalities has
If states did not comply with the act, then the federal government would cut off 10% of that state’s federal highway construction funds. So, the real debate is for the MLDA 21 to be abolished so that states are able to decide whether the legal drinking age should be lowered on a state by state basis and without the fear of dampening their federal funding. In order to keep young adults safe and drug free, the legal drinking age must be kept at 21 years of age or older. Those who fight for MLDA 21 to be abolished argue that lowering the drinking age to 18 is reasonable because at that point U.S. citizens are adults and deserve to have the right to make their own decisions, including drinking alcohol responsibly.
Controversial Argumentative Essay Many people would agree with the claim that the passing of the National Minimum Drinking Age act was the responsible and moral decision to make. Since then, it has lowered drunk driving fatalities by 51% and the total of all traffic accidents by 20%. It has even managed to help make intoxication calls for hospitals less common. However, despite these great improvements for the fight towards traffic accidents and irresponsible drinking habits, it has ironically caused more harm than good towards our society in terms of the benefit of our economy, our constitutional rights as Americans, and the safety of young adults.
In his 1924 article, John Gordon Cooper claims that Prohibition had been an overall net positive force on society. According to Cooper, this force manifests itself in three ways. The first of these is the fact that many lives that would have been lost due to alcoholism and alcohol-related incidents have been saved as the cause of death was removed before it became a threat. Secondly, Cooper observes that the crime rate had gone down by 5.8 in 100,000 since Prohibition had been enacted (p. 193). He links this decrease directly to the absence of alcohol as a contributing factor to society.
The legal age to drink alcohol should be lowered back down to eighteen, because almost every other country has a lower drinking age, people will drink more responsibly, and there will be less deaths. The United States should lower the legal drinking age because it is not a problem in other countries that have an even lower drinking age. The United States is among the few countries that have a minimum drinking age of twenty-one, which is the highest MLDA in the world except for in India where it is twenty-five or even thirty is some parts of the country ( ) . Alcohol is banned in sixteen countries, which all of them are
Seat belts do more good than they do harm, and it is illegal to drive without wearing one. Seat belts do more good than they do harm. “According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more than 15,000 lives are saved each year, because drivers and their passengers were wearing seatbelts when they were in an accident (Opposing Viewpoints)”. If passengers had not been wearing a seatbelt when they got into an accident they
Many states required that the legal drinking age be 21 although some required that a person be 18. By 1984 all US states required that the legal drinking age be 21. In conclusion, although the intention of the Prohibition Act and the age of prohibition was to improve the lives of citizens by reducing health risks, violence and crimes caused by alcoholism, it had the opposite effect. As such, the Prohibition Act and the ensuing age of prohibition did not succeed in reducing the consumption and abuse of alcohol but instead created a virtual “monster” that created more problems rather than finding
To demonstrate this point, the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation found that though several European countries lowered the legal drinking age, the percentage of teen intoxication in the United States is equal or lower than that of European teens. As a further illustration, with access to alcohol, this tactic will only encourage teens to drink more. In brief, there is little evidence to show that giving teens the right to drink alcohol will make them more responsible; in fact, the opposite seems to be
This law changed to 21 because all states would “lose a certain percentage of federal highway dollars” (“Frequently Asked”). Not only that but the rates of excessive drinking went up, along with drunk driving. Driving alone is hard enough, especially if the person is a new driver, but add alcohol and there is a very deadly mix. Being able to legally drink at the age of “21 decreased the number of fatal traffic accidents for 18- to 20-year-olds by 13% and saved approximately 27,052 lives from 1975-2008” (“Should the Drinking Age”). Since there have been less drunk driving accidents when the minimum age for drinking changed to 21, it is a safer environment if the drinking age is left at 21 instead of being
However, these good things only lasted for a short time until people began to disobey the law. During Prohibition violent domestic crime was down along with arrests for drunkenness and brawling. There were fewer cases of alcohol related crime in general. The prison population dropped and the death rate from the result of alcoholism dropped also. There were also drops in cases of diseases such as cirrhosis and other alcohol related illnesses.
Why did the legal drinking age go from 21 to 18, and back to 21 again? The legal age for alcohol consumption should be decreased back to 18 years old because this is the legal age to register for military or other armed forces, at this age we are categorized as taxpayers, and a great number of 18 year olds already have effortless means to enable alcohol consumption. The legal drinking age was originally decreased when President Roosevelt made the sensible decision to lower the age of lawful consumption. President Roosevelt reduced the minimum age under the opinion that if one could be enrolled into the military, then they should be awarded the ability to drink alcoholic beverages legally. The motive of the restoration of a drinking age of 21 was due to increased traffic fatalities.
And comparing outcomes across youths with similar income, educational levels, and other observed individual characteristic, but significant different levels of alcohol use. As the result, young adults just over 21 tend to increase their alcohol consumption more evenly by drinking on more days but consuming much less alcohol on drinking days, this effect is insignificant. The result indicates that the effect of MLDA on alcohol consumption among teens is not persistent in the long run. And after 21st birthday, the average number of drinks consumed per day starts to decrease immediately. The estimate also determines the relationship between alcohol consumption and smoking and marijuana use which complements the existing literature.
This leads to an enormous amount of illegal drinking on campus. In the end, I favor lowering the drinking age to 19, which would help solve the problem of illegal drinking on campus while still making it illegal for high school students to drink, thereby limiting the flow of legally (and easily) purchased alcohol into younger adolescents’ social networks,” (Steinberg, 5). Many may argue the amount of D.U.I related accidents this may bring forth ; However, the Health Research Fund states that in many countries around the world where they have a lower legal drinking age,” they have seen a greater reduction of drunken driving accidents than the United States, where the legal age is 21.” (“Pros and Cons of Lowering the Drinking Age”) This also states that many of those accidents are related to “thrill” drinking due to the fact that it is somewhat “thrilling” to break the law.
The ‘bottom up’ approach gives the students an opportunity to give solutions towards a problem that they may feel that needs awareness (Larimer and Cornce, 2002). The gap in this literature is the lack of knowledge of binge drinking amongst college students dealing with health issues and academic