For years, the debate about deciding a minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) has plagued the United States. The arguments can include that intoxicated driving accidents will increase if the MLDA was lowered or that the current MLDA is not decreasing drinking among young adults at all. The torn arguments between ages eighteen and twenty-one have not proven one age to be the right answer to the problem of deciding a drinking age, but if the MLDA was lowered to age eighteen, it would be the most beneficial choice because lowering it will benefit the economy, reduce binge drinking in colleges, decrease unsafe drinking environments, eliminate the Forbidden Fruit Syndrome, and follows through with the idea of adulthood at age eighteen. The first …show more content…
It seems like a double standard, young adults can start smoking at the age of eighteen, but cannot drink till the age of twenty-one. If one is able to use a substance like tobacco, he or she should be able to drink alcohol. Therefore, the drinking age should be lowered. Not only can one start using tobacco product at eighteen, one registers for the draft, and he or she may enlist in the armed forces. An eighteen year old may not be looked at as responsible enough to drink alcohol, but without any hesitation he or she can volunteer to risk his or her life for this country (Hirby). Each duty listed above takes a considerable amount of maturity. Some people may think that eighteen year olds are not responsible enough to drink alcohol, but they clearly have to be. At the age of eighteen, one is given the responsibility of taking care of him or herself. Eighteen is officially and legally the age of adulthood; therefore, eighteen year olds should be given their right to drink alcohol. The second reason the MLDA should be lowered to eighteen is because it will eliminate the Forbidden Fruit Syndrome for underage drinking. The Forbidden Fruit Syndrome is the process of a person engaging in an illegal act because he or she possess a feeling of rebelliousness while engaging in the act. Thirty-two percent of all drinkers are under the legal age of twenty-one. When the drinking age was raised in 1984, there was already a decrease in the number
The issue of underage drinking has become a major problem, especially on college campuses. But, underage drinking is not purely the root of all accidents related to alcohol. The real problem lies within the unsafe underage drinking habits amongst youth. There are ways that these alcohol-related accidents can be avoided. Several organizations have been created that are targeting a change in the legal drinking age laws. One key way to lower the risk of unsafe drinking is to lower the minimum legal drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen.
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.
The legal drinking age in the United States will always be a point of contention. No one can settle upon a drinking age that everyone is in agreement with; should it be 18 or 21? Ages 18 and 21 are the most popular options, yet neither one has 100% of the vote. With the current legal drinking age in America standing at 21, meaning that people under the age of 21 cannot purchase or consume alcoholic food or beverages, there is the question of whether or not to lower it to 18 or 19 years old. This paper will argue that the drinking age should be lowered, and examine its impact on State University.
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
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.
They even say there are less drinking and driving fatalities in many other countries that have the drinking age at eighteen (“Drinking Age”). It shows that the percentages of fatalities that occur have nothing to do with the MLDA (“Drinking Age”). The MLDA is having no effect because teens are are still consuming alcohol illegally. The drinking age of 21 promotes teens to get fake identification so they can get alcohol. Lowering the drinking age would decrease the number of false identifications. Especially since there is a lot of terrorism and fake identifications right now we need to get rid of that stuff (“Drinking Age”). I believe that there are a lot kids that like alcohol at the age of 18. They should have that right to have a drink and enjoy it.
The minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) has propelled national debates on the subject, primarily promoted by university students, who argument that implementing the MLDA at 21 encourages
Every year, thousands of deaths occur as a result of drunk driving, and every day people are facing the consequences of irresponsible drinking. Because of the issues caused by irresponsible drinking, the US government passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984 which raised the minimum drinking age to twenty-one to prevent drinking-related accidents and violence. Despite the intent of its passing, it was a counterproductive decision. Because of the higher age restriction, high school upperclassmen and college underclassmen see drinking as an exciting, rebellious act. Consequentially, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act resulted in an increase in dangerous and irresponsible drinking which continues to this day. Not only does the
The debate of the drinking age has been long discussed throughout America. The drinking age has been 21 for the last 22 years, and people around the country have wondered weather or not this was the right call. People say that 18 year olds may not be mature enough to drink alcohol and might not know when to stop. It isn’t that teenagers don’t know how to stop, but rather have not been properly taught when enough has been consumed or how to drink responsibly. Changing the drinking age from 21 to 18 years old will take the thrill that teens get from breaking the law while drinking, will no longer give them the idea that drinking is the final stage of adulthood and full maturity, and will no longer force teenagers to drink in unsupervised
Supporters of lowering the MLDA compared America to other countries that have a minimum drinking age of 18. Supporters of lowering the MLDA say that in countries where the drinking age 18 young people drink smarter. John McCardell points out some interesting statistic he states” in southern European countries ratios of all drinking occasions to intoxication occasions were quite low roughly one in ten while in the United States, almost half of all
Decreasing the age would possibly give less of a benefit to teenages becuase of the higher chance of risk and dangers for negative consequences. Lowering the Minimum Legal Drinking Age could give teenagers the chance to learn how to drink responsibly, but there is more likely that it would give most adolescents the chance to continue to carelessly drink, besides now they would not have consequences for their actions. Raising and lowering the MLDA both bring forth negative
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
A person cannot possibily sway towards MLDA twenty one or MLDA eighteen without reason I can only stress that the current MLDA of twenty one should be lowered to eighteen years of age. First and foremost, the United States’ legal age of adulthood is eighteen. A young adult of eighteen may do many other activities, but cannot consume alcohol. Second, the subject of the “Forbidden Fruit” comes into light over the subject. Lowering the current MLDA twenty one to eighteen would diminish the thrill of breaking the law to obtain or consume alcohol. Additionally, lowering MLDA twenty one to eighteen would reduce the number of underage people hurt from alcohol related injuries or accidents due to the fear of legal consequences if they sought medical attention. Finally, law enforcement is scarce when the subject of underage drinking comes to play.