Lowering the Drinking Age

Lowering the drinking age to eighteen would be good for supervision because the drinkers will drink in public where there everyone watching them. Likewise that will have the drinkers drinking responsibly because they will have to follow regulations for drinking in public. In addition they are adults already.

Turning 18 years means that a person has become a responsible adult. Thus one receives the rights and responsibilities of an adult which includes; taking responsible of life and death, be prosecuted as an adult, can join the army, sign contracts and the right to vote amongst others. All these shows that at 18 a person can do all the things that a 21 years person can

I believe that the drinking age should be lowered to the age of 18. I took this stance in my health class debate last year and it was a success. There are many reasons why the drinking age should be lowered that I will discuss in this paper. These reasons are very convincing and should be considered by the government. I will also look into what action is being taken on decreasing the yearly amount of DUI’s.

"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.

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 recent discussions of the drinking age limit, people have always said that the drinking age limit should be lowered. Some may argue that alcohol is not bad and that it can actually be beneficially. Many people would want the drinking age limit to be lowered so that it is legal for young adults to drink. If the drinking age limit were to be lowered there would be a drastic difference in society. In my perspective I will argue that the drinking age limit should not be lowered.

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.

Lastly, if the drinking age would be lowered to 18, everyone would benefit from it. Students would drink less, their drinking environments would be safer, and the general public's tax money would be put to better use. Even though many would say that there are many benefits to the higher drinking age, but the benefits of the lower drinking age outweigh the benefits of the higher drinking age. Because the 21-year-old drinking age is not working, they need to change the law and teach responsible drinking

According to Andrew Herman, “Each year, 14,000 die from drinking too much. 600,000 are victims of alcohol related physical assault and 17,000 are a result of drunken driving deaths, many being innocent bystanders” (470). These massive numbers bring about an important realization: alcohol is a huge issue in America today. Although the problem is evident in Americans of all ages, the biggest issue is present in young adults and teens. In fact, teens begin to feel the effects of alcohol twice as fast as adults and are more likely to participate in “binge-drinking” (Sullivan 473). The problem is evident, but the solution may be simple. Although opponents argue lowering the drinking age could make alcohol available to some teens not

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.

These statistics’ prove Engs theory that because Alcohol consumption is illegal for young adults tend to consume alcohol and abuse alcohol more often. If their theory was true the binge drinking rate for 21 to 25 years olds would not be 45.5% in 2010. Another statistic that proves Engs “forbidden fruit theory” wrong is the statistic noted by the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future study, they found that a proportion of those 19- to 22-year-olds that binged drank two weeks prior to their surveyed in 1984 was 40.7% and their current study in 2006 found that only 38.1% binged drank 2 weeks prior to the recent survey, Which; proves that the 1984 act has decreased binge drinking by 2% in America. This drop in binge drinking rates may only be a small drop in binge drinking rates. Which, convey that Americans do have a high percentage of binge drinkers. This problem brings up another argument that supporters of lowering the drinking age bring up.

In 1984, the United States’ federal government passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. Under this Act, the federal government gives highway funds to States that forbid people under the age of twenty-one years old from “purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages”(23 U.S.C. § 158). The incentive created a sense of a standardized minimum drinking age despite the fact that legally there cannot be a federal minimum drinking age. Even though this Act has been in effect for decades, there are many debates on whether or not the age should be changed. The minimum legal drinking age should stay the same because it prevents a large number of drinking and driving accidents; it reduces overall alcohol consumption; and it has very horrible health effects on youth.

In 1984, the United States’ federal government passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. Under this act, the federal government gives highway funds to States that forbid people under the age of twenty-one years old from “purchasing or publicly possessing alcoholic beverages”(23 U.S.C. § 158). The incentive created a sense of a standardized minimum drinking age when legally there cannot be a federal minimum drinking age. Even though this Act has been in effect for decades, there are many debates on whether or not the age should be changed. The minimum legal drinking age should stay the same because it prevents a large number of drinking and driving accidents; it reduces overall alcohol consumption; and it has very horrible health effects on youth.

Well, you are telling me that I can legally kill someone at the age of eighteen, while I sign up with the military and go to war but I can’t have a sip of alcohol. Due to this none senseless situation, age should be equaled. In other words, if voting and military sign up is eighteen, then drinking should also be eighteen. Besides at the age of eighteen you are legally an adult. Why can’t we drink then? Drinking age in Australia is eighteen, and in UK is as low as sixteen in restaurants. Studies have showed that those teens/adults are perfectly fine. In fact, Dr. Ruth Engs; professor of Applied Health Sciences at Indiana University in Bloomington, uses this examples to propose the following: “……the drinking age be lowered to about 18 or 19 and permit those of legal age to consume in socially controlled environment such as restaurants and official school and university functions” (direct quote from Dr. Engs).

Studies suggest that if the legal drinking age was lowered, then young adults would go about drinking safer due to it taking away the thrill of breaking the law. Binge drinking is often done at parties, but with the drinking age being lowered, parties would not be stopped. However, they would be more controlled. Lowering the drinking age would lead to young adults drinking in moderation (“Post Letter” 1). Main stated that before the drinking age was raised the drinking and driving rate among young adults skyrocketed (Main). Now with the increased awareness about drinking and driving that young adults are shown, studies have proven that the amount of people drinking and driving has decreased (“Why Colleges”