Mackenzie Schultz
Mrs. Hamilton
AP English Language
25 July 2014
Challenging the Legal Drinking Age The Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) has been challenged since the passing of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 that raised the drinking age to twenty-one in all fifty states (Ogilvie). Advocates for lowering the MLDA to eighteen years of age argue that this change will eliminate the thrill of breaking the law for young adults entering college and boost the national economy. Supporters continue to ask legislature what the true meaning of “adulthood” is if an eighteen year old can serve in the armed forces and vote, but cannot drink alcohol (Lowering the Legal Drinking Age: An Analysis of the Pros and Cons). Those against the alteration, a majority of Americans, argue that twenty-one year olds are medically mature and more responsible, therefore reducing the amount of fatal traffic accidents (Minimum Legal Drinking Age). Lowering the legal drinking age would eliminate the “forbidden fruit” theory, in which teenagers are more compelled to engage in underage drinking because of the thrill that arises when breaking the law (Lowering the Legal Drinking Age: An Analysis of the Pros and Cons). Accompanying this thrill is also the fear of getting caught underage drinking. This fear is a reason for teens to hide that they have been drinking, pressuring them to drive home under the influence, and makes them fearful to seek medical attention when alcohol related injuries
It has been a rising issue within the past century to have the drinking age set at 21, but many people are more in favor of having the age set at 18. For instance, “’Raising the drinking age to 21 was passed with the very best of intentions, but it’s had the very worst of outcomes,’ stated by David J. Hanson, an alcohol policy expert” (Johnson). Many people believe that having the drinking age set at 21 was a smart idea, but it has caused many more deaths and injuries over the years. Most of these fatalities are cause from people who are underage and choose to consume alcohol. Again, “Libertarian groups and some conservative economic foundations, seeing the age limits as having been extorted by Washington, have long championed lowering the drinking age” (Johnson). These groups see that keeping the drinking age set at 21 is dangerous as it causes more problems to the Untied States. If the drinking age was lowered, or set at 18, there would not be such unforgiving outcomes, like deaths and lifelong injuries, which are usually caused from people who are under the age of 21 drinking alcohol. Although there are numerous groups that are fighting to keep the age
A lower drinking age law would save even more lives and also stop minors from drinking under the limit. Having it higher will result in more traffic injuries and fatalities among youth. A lower drinking age is effective in preventing alcohol-related deaths and injuries among youth. Young people are particularly vulnerable to the effects of heavy drinking age. According to John McCardell, founder of Choose Responsibility, the legal drinking age does not eliminate consumption among young people. Instead, it only drives underage drinking underground, creating a dangerous culture of irresponsible and extreme drinking. Although the legal purchase age is 21 years of age, a majority of college students under this age consume alcohol but in an irresponsible manner. This is because drinking by these youth is seen as an enticing "forbidden fruit," a "badge of rebellion against authority" and a symbol of "adulthood."Keeping the minimum legal drinking age at 21 will not dissuade young people who want to indulge in reckless alcohol intake. If anything, the age limit encourages binge drinking. Lowering the drinking age could make it easier to regulate consumption among younger adults as well as encourage healthy drinking habits. “For example, 22% of all students under 21 compared to 18% over 21 years of age are heavy drinkers.” “Among drinkers only, 32% of underage compared to 24% of legal age are heavy drinkers.”
When it comes to an alcohol safety policy, the United States has never attracted more research and public attention than the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA). In the U.S., the legal drinking age is one of the highest worldwide. The MLDA of 21 is to control traffic fatalities, protect young teens from killing themselves while driving under the influence, and prevent damage medically to a developing brain of a young adult. Many Americans believe that the drinking age of 21 has not stopped teen binge drinking events in uncontrolled environments; however, studies have shown that teens have not yet reached an age where they can handle alcohol responsibly, thus the drinking age should remain at 21.
Every year, thousands of minors die from the use of alcohol. Many young adults abuse the drinking age policy. It is put in effect for substantial reasons, which contribute in making the safest environment for all. Drinking underage is not only illegal, but also damages one’s health tremendously. Furthermore, drinking in large amounts is extremely dangerous and can cause detrimental things to occur. There have been numerous attempts to create a law to lower the drinking age, but none have gone through. In contrast to what some people may say, the drinking age should not be lowered because it would decrease maturity, promote poor behavior, and damage reputations.
In the 1980s, the United States raised the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) to 21, from 18, in an attempt to protect the nation 's youth. This placed the USA among the few countries whose drinking age is above 18. These countries include most of Canada, the Republic of Korea, Nicaragua, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Egypt, Indonesia, Micronesia, and Palau (Jernigan). Around the world, drinking ages vary; for example, in Slovenia, Italy, Portugal, Malta and Greece, you can drink before you turn 18, and in parts of India, you cannot legally obtain alcohol until age 25 (Jernigan; Mukherjee). This leads to an important question on whether our democracy should lower the MLDA. The facts on underage drinking, international data on lower drinking ages, current enforcement of underage drinking laws, as well as proposed implications of programs coupled with a lower drinking age provides provoking data pointing towards the ethical lowering of the drinking age. The democracy of the United States of America should lower the MLDA, but also adopt a mandatory alcohol education class, and a graduated licensing system.
Lowering the drinking age will result in life and death consequences. By keeping the drinking age at 21, the rate of fatalities for drinking and driving decrease drastically. During the short period during the late 1980’s when the drinking age was lowered to 18, the number of fatal car crashes involving young adults who were under the influence dropped from 61% to 31% (Wil Fulton). By bringing the age down to 18-years-old, alcohol would be more accessible to the lower age group. For example, an 18 year old, who is still in high school, is more likely to sell alcohol to a 16 year old than a 21 year old, who is away at college. In recent studies, researchers found that 77% of the population are opposed to lowering the drinking age to 18 (Brandon Griggs). MADD is supported by influential government companies such as the American Medical Association, National Transportation Safety Board, National Safety Council, International Association Chiefs of Police, Governor's Highway Safety Association, Surgeon General of the United States, and U.S. Transportation Secretary to name a few (John H. Barnhill, PHD). Overall, young teenagers lack the proper wisdom collected to make right judgments about alcohol. The 3 years between the age 18 and 21 are filled with change and responsibilities, making one more suitable to make appropriate
According to Alexis Aguirre in The University Star, “Keeping the minimum legal drinking age at 21 will not dissuade young people who want to indulge in reckless alcohol intake. If anything, the age limit encourages binge drinking. Lowering the drinking age could make it easier to regulate consumption among younger adults as well as encourage healthy drinking habits” (Aguirre). Sure enough, if the drinking age were lowered to 18 it would avoid the illegal, abused intake of alcohol by 18 year olds. According to the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, “Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking” (U.S Department of Health and Human Services). A way of avoiding such tragedies is lowering the drinking age to 18, teaching younger
In the United States a large topic of discussion is the drinking age, should it stay at 21 or should the age be dropped. Somewhat recently the age has been changed from 18 to 21 and a lot of people want to be changed back. By 1988, all 50 U.S. states and the federal government had set the drinking age at 21 years of age, but is it time to lower the MLDA (minimum legal drinking age) to 18 years of age? Those who argue against lowering the MLDA claim that teens have yet to reach an age of maturity in which they can responsibly drink alcohol, and thus are more likely to develop binge drinking habits and endangerment of themselves and others by drinking prior to the age of 21. Those in favor of lowering the MLDA argue that the current MLDA doesn’t stop underage drinking and promotes binge drinking into private less controlled environments. Not only this, but lowering the MLDA strengthens the economy and can gradually expose people to drinking without overdoing it.
There has always been a big controversy on the legal drinking age and what it should be. The consumption of alcohol can be seen has dangerous or has a medicine. The legal drinking age should be raised due to violent crime, domestic abuse, and DUI all related to abusing alcohol. Raising the legal drinking age will decrease the amount of violent crime, domestic abuse, and DUI related deaths.
"Adults under 21 are able to vote, sign contracts, serve on juries, and enlist in the military, but are told that they are not mature enough to have a beer?," said Ruth C. Engs, a professor of Applied Health Sciences at Indiana University (Engs). No matter what is done, teenagers and young adults all over America are going to drink if they want to. The question is, why can 't they start legally drinking when they enter adulthood? An alternative to simply lowering the minimum legal drinking age could be thought of, such as, having a learner 's permit for responsible drinking for people between the ages of 18-21. In other cultures where the minimum legal drinking age is lower, there is not as large of a problem with drinking. Lowering the minimum legal drinking age would stop criminalizing a large amount of people for the minor crime of underage drinking, which on your record makes it hard for young people to apply for jobs or apply to colleges.
In over 100 countries across the world, the act of legally possessing and consuming alcohol is permissible below the age of 21, most often within the age range of 18-20. Nevertheless, there are many additional countries such as Spain and Haiti, which enforce a minimum age of 16 years among citizens. With the ratification of the controversial 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, the United States federal government now requires each state to conform to the drinking age restriction of 21, or otherwise endure a penalty, encompassing a 10% reduction of federal highway transportation funds, attributed to the state in violation. Unfortunately, despite the conviction that a higher minimum drinking age prevents destructive, irrational actions conducted as a product of holding an underdeveloped brain, this federal ruling not only increases the seductive temptation of underage drinking, but additionally and equally promotes organized crime within the United States-a toxic societal conflict which would effectively be negated by a reduction of the minimum federal drinking age.
The non for profit organization Choose Responsibility (CHOOSE RESPONSIBILITY), pro-lowering MLDA-21, openly publishes statistics that on the surface would validate the current prohibition stance, however when analyzed by removing any cognitive biases those who genuinely care can see that despite the MLDA-21 law, an alarming number of underage Americans are drinking, and many are drinking worryingly. “Alcohol is a reality in the lives of young Americans. It cannot be denied, ignored, or legislated away” (CHOOSE
Without a doubt, the United States has been facing serious national problems with underage drinking. Depending on personal ideologies, some people might not agree that the current minimum drinking age of twenty-one is based on scientific facts rather then ideology of prohibitionism. For example, since 1975 over seventeen thousand lives have been saved since the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) was changed to age twenty-one (Balkin 167). This shows that even over a short amount of time, a higher MLDA helps decrease the risk of teen suicides, accidents and overdose deaths. However, this widely debated topic has inevitably brought attention to the plethora of supporting and opposing viewpoints. The minimum legal drinking age of twenty-one
The United States’ minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) of twenty one is almost a perfect example of a policy with unrealistic expectations and serious unintended consequences. The current policy that the United States has in effect criminalizes youth who consume alcohol at less than twenty one years of age. Young adults are going to drink under twenty one, so why shouldn’t the United States lower the MLDA to eighteen? Following Prohibition in 1933, many states made their MLDA twenty one. During the 1960’s and 1970’s, many states lowered it to eighteen to match the drafting age (Alcohol Policy MD). President Reagan passed The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 which required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public
Many under the age of 21 are getting in trouble with the law in alcohol related incidents, which wouldn?t take place if the drinking age was lowered. Many underage drinkers drink in more dangerous places in order to avoid law enforcement. "... when these young adults ?drink on the sly in unsupervised settings, they are