Most people would think that lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 would be a bad idea. Giving older teens the legal privilege of drinking just doesn’t sound right, but in fact it is a good idea and should be changed. The drinking age should be lowered to 18 for various reasons because turning 18 makes a person an adult in the eyes of the law and adults should be given the choice to consume alcohol. There are many positive and negative aspects when it comes to changing the drinking age which are still in debate. Keeping the age restriction at 21 to stop teens from underage drinking is ineffective and teens are more likely to drink in excess in uncontrolled places when prohibited from the use of alcohol (Ogilvie 2).
Americans who had an assault weapon before, will still continue to have it. Banning the assault weapons is just a waste of time because society will continue to do what they do best. It is pleasant to say, the banning of assault weapons will most definitely reduce crime rates. Numbers might not make a drastic difference, but you will be able to see the difference in society. After all of our information we gathered, we can infer assault weapons are very harmful.
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. One of the most common arguments is, “If I'm old enough to die for my country, I'm old enough to drink a beer.” This is a valid argument, but allowing newly legal adults the ability to drink also gives them access into places such as bars and nightclubs.
It can be seen from different angles since many countries are determined to live in a free expression society but others want to enforce censorship in many situations. Countries that are against censorship is mainly because it can be very powerful in the sense that it can control what is shown on the news. It may present false statements and mislead the people in to believing things that are not true. If censored, everything would have to pass first through the government, and they may change some stories to please them. This can lead to only showing favoritism for certain brands or groups; companies may get to control the information that gets to the country.
Asset forfeiture can be used to fund government programs which can be a great benefit to the public and is considered necessary to thwart criminal activity. Financial incentives for asset forfeiture are the government’s way of motiving law enforcements to actively fight for anti-drug policies. There are still inherent flaws that need to be addressed with asset forfeiture laws. Innocent property owners have little protection from forfeiture. A study about plaintiffs of forfeiture cases show “the finding that most appeals are lost was not surprising as previous research examining litigation challenging police actions has found that plaintiffs have a difficult time winning” (Gabbidon 59) There are also no proper restrictions for law enforcements abusing civil forfeiture.
Over the years, there have been debates about lowering the drinking age in the United States to eighteen. People argue that if a person can fight in the military or vote in elections, then he or she should be allowed the right to drink alcohol. Others feel that it is not wise to lower the legal drinking age because the results would be dangerous. Although there are arguments for lowering the drinking age, there is also an abundance of research that proves lowering the drinking age would be destructive. The legal drinking age should not be lowered to eighteen because it will give high school and even middle school students greater access to alcohol, interfere with brain development, adult rights begin at twenty-one, and increase traffic accidents among the youth.
The developing process for your brain could be hurt or affected by heavy short term or long term alcohol effects. Studies show that increased use of alcohol at eighteen years old could increase “the risk of depression, memory loss, reduced decision-making capacity, and risk-taking behavior, such as addiction, suicide and violence.” (9 Prevailing Pros and Cons of Lowering the Drinking Age). Eighteen year olds also aren't the most responsible drinkers either. Some believe that lowering the drinking age wouldn't affect how safe or unsafe eighteen year old drinkers consume their alcohol (Should the Drinking Age Be
Seaver addresses the idea that the Coca-Cola Company came up with the ideal slogan of “the real thing” first. Seaver believes and also states in his letter to Herbert that if both companies use the slogan, then there will be confusion in the products, that will cause the customers to be misleading. Seaver complicates matters further when he describes the disadvantage of using the same slogan, which will eventually affect their merchandise. In other words, Seaver knows that if both companies keep using the same motto, customers would be confused in which product is advertised, and it can cause a downfall in their financial.
I do agree that companies who create such products that easily cause harm to people should have some sort of action taken against their use but to that extent, I say that the companies also have to specify how much to use and when the consumption of their products becomes too much. However, the precedences for more positive descriptions of that side of the topic are a lot more complicated to explain and as such my view starts to hit a wall and I will now talk about how I disagree with Coffman 's claims. First off, Coffman makes it seem that the companies who produce legal but harmful products, which in its own right can be taken multiple ways, should pay settlements for the problems caused by their products. The problem with claims like this is that when a company makes a product they have normally created it for a specific purpose and have set in place guidelines to prevent potential harm, an example of a type of product like this would be aspirin which is commonly used as a pain reliever in the form of pills but can cause harm if too many are
It was made illegal in the 1930’s for the same reasons as alcohol, because it was believed that it was going to do harm to society. As years have gone by, it is obvious that a mistake was made. The fact that marijuana was made illegal has created numerous problems for the United States that on the long run could have been easily avoided. Countries in different parts of the world and some states within the United States have already legalized marijuana and they have all shown positive outcomes out of their decisions. Although marijuana is illegal in majority of the states, legalizing marijuana for recreational use would bring about social and economical reforms that would help deter crime in the country, increase the amount of money the government makes, and also help people that are medically in need of the drug.