Example Of A Public Order Advocate

In 1984 Ronald Reagan proposed a new law that declared that the legal drinking age must raised up to 21 instead of the age of 18. The law was forced upon the states by threatening them by stating that the government will reduce their highway funding until the states passed the law. Of course all the states eventually change their legal drinking age to 21. Some critics believe that this law’s results have been very successful, however the law possesses many insecurities, but certain programs can be arranged to help educate teenagers on alcohol.

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

To understand individual rights and public order there must be an understanding on what the advantages and disadvantages are. Many individuals don’t understand the power these two topics hold. They are also at times misinterpreted; some don’t now what their rights are and some think they know. On occasion some may try to abuse them when public order is in forced for example when making an arrest an officer reads you your rights, some individuals think if your rights are not read to you they may not make an arrest. This is were they feel as though their individual rights have been violated. Many are confused as to what they mean, and is why their needs to be an understanding of what the

Public order is thus necessary for the simple reason that, if order is not maintained, there will be total chaos. Society would have the freedom to do as they please in public; in turn this would put other citizens in danger. For example, the public order crime of driving while intoxicated, if not

The government is conducting an idea to whether lower the minimum legal drinking age in the United States or not. Many Americans forbid the idea of legalizing the drinking age so that it would be profitable to the businesses. Likewise, there have been many advantages and disadvantages of why should the government allow young adults drink under the age of 21. To prevent this issue, many Americans have provided reasoning that will support the idea of keeping the minimum legal drinking age where it is now. The government should maintain the minimum legal drinking age in the United States at the age of 21.

The legal drinking age in the United States is 21, while in other countries the legal age ranges from 16-18. The argument in the United States is “Should the United States lower its drinking age?” There are many sides to this argument but research has given many good points to back up both sides of the question. First thing is the difference between a teen’s brain with alcohol and an adult’s brain with alcohol. Another thing is drinking at a younger age can help teach culture. Lastly the more alcohol exposed the increase in death rate. I believe that it is a good idea to keep the legal drinking age at age 21 because in our past we have had many problems with death increases due to the drinking age being at different ages and the research used uses pathos, logos, ethos and Kairos to help persuade the reader support that 21 should stay the legal drinking age.

Throughout history drinking and the drinking age has been a controversial topic. There have been many criticisms regarding the drinking age, many of which have some valid points. Some of which believe there should be no drinking age others believe drinking should be banned. The United States government passed a law in 1984 restricting persons under the age of 21 from purchasing alcohol. Brain growth, body growth, and maturity are all factors when looking at why the drinking age is 21. We should also consider the upside of no legal drinking age less abuse, more tax revenue, tradition.

Society’s attitude towards the drinking age has been a major controversy in the United States. The attitudes regarding the drinking age have been based off statistics and society’s varying opinion. Alcohol is a toxic depressant that has a damaging effect on the human body. As a result, to prevent excessive alcoholic consumption, the ratification of the 18th amendment took place from 1919 to 1939. This established the Prohibition Act, which banned the transportation, manufacturing and selling of an alcoholic beverage. However, illegal production of alcohol continued to take place in secret. Gradually prohibition laws became difficult to enforce. As a result, the Prohibition Act was repealed in 1933. In 1984, congress mandated a law which would raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 through the National Minimum Drinking Age. Reasoning for mandating an older drinking age, was to enhance public safety and promote good health. In 1988, all 50 states enforced the drinking age to 21. The concern for the consumption of alcohol have targeted teenagers and young adults

Many believe that order should be applied by the government; though it should be allowed to a certain limit and should not interfere in a citizen’s personal life. However others believe that full freedom should be given to individuals and that nothing should be enforced as it brings along many differences between citizens. This

The national minimum drinking age in The United States is stated to be anyone under the age of 21 years can not consume or purchase any alcoholic beverage; this law was passed on July 17,1984 by President Reagan. Nearly 88,000 people die from alcohol-related causes annually making it the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Many People would agree that alcohol should not be present to children under the age of 21 years. There has been many debates on whether or not the drinking age should be lowered to 18 years of age. “Between 1970 and 1976, 29 states lowered their age for drinking alcohol. The results were catastrophic. Highway deaths among teenagers and young adults skyrocketed. Immediately, states began raising the minimum

I. Introduction: Starting in 1970 21 states reduced the minimum drinking age to 18. Another 8 reduced it to 19 or 20. However, these states noticed increases in alcohol-related fatalities among teenagers and young adults. As a result, of the 29 states that had lowered their drinking age, 24 raised the age again between 1976 and 1984. By 1984, only three states allowed 18-year-olds to drink all types of alcoholic liquor. The enactment of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 prompted states to raise their legal age for purchase or public possession of alcohol to 21 or risk losing millions in federal highway funds. The states who raised it were given highway funding by the

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.

Over the past twenty years the minimum legal drinking age has been twenty-one in all US states, but that has not stopped citizens of the United Sates from attempting to lower the age. Following the end of prohibition in the United Sates during the Great Depression, all states agreed on a set of twenty-one to be the legal drinking age. For almost forty years there was no change in the drinking age until a decrease in the age for voting occurred. This led to the gradual decrease of the minimum legal drinking age to somewhere between the ages of eighteen and twenty among twenty-one states. Recent data collected by Henry Wechsler and Toben F. Nelson, both of which obtain either a

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

There are many challenges that law enforcement agencies faces when it comes to enforcing public safety at the same time protect the rights of individuals. This paper will focus on several key topics involving the relationship between public safety and individual rights. The first topic is the statutory authority and responsibilities of government officials, security personnel, and private citizens. The next topic involves the practices or laws relating to search, seizures, and surveillance by police, corrections, private citizens, and security personnel. This paper will also compare the laws relating to the use of