Minimum Legal Drinking Age : A Discourse Appraisal

Once the issue of lowering the minimum legal drinking age arose, many individual states began to review their drinking laws. Some chose to lower the legal age to eighteen, while others remained at twenty-one. Between 1970 and 1976, 29 states had changed their legal drinking age to eighteen (Main 35). What this caused was teenagers travelling from one state to another where they were allowed to drink at the age of eighteen. This travelling led to an increase in highway accidents due to drunk driving (Main 35). This was quickly brought to the federal government’s attention. In the article, “Turning 21 and the Associated Changes in Drinking and Driving After Drinking Among College Students” by Kim Fromme, Reagan R. Wetherill, and Dan J. Neal, the problem with alcohol related highway accidents was addressed. The states realized that the differences between legal drinking ages was causing a problem and by 1988, each state had set their legal drinking age back to twenty-one (Fromme, Neal, and Wetherill 22). Now, the question is whether or not this change has had a positive or negative effect on drinking habits amongst teenagers.

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.

Persuasion is a skill that can be acquired and utilized with a mastery of writing. Arguing against the popular belief is one of the most difficult things that one can do. The following essay rhetorically analyzes an article that is written about why the legal drinking age should stay at 21 years old in the United States. The author of the article attempts to argue against the popular opinion that the drinking age should be lowered and is successful by using appeals to one’s logos. The author is an experienced writer and knows how to convey their ideas to convince people of his argument. Understanding why someone is writing a piece, what their motivation is, and how they try to convince the reader of their argument helps gain a more comprehensive grasp of what the subject matter itself is. Personally, I look to argue against popular opinions because it enables me to critically think of a sound argument that can not easily be disputed. This essay helped me

According to Drew K. Saylor, he writes that studies from a meta-analytic review showed that "Raising the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) is associated with a 16% median decrease in alcohol-related crash outcomes while lowering the MLDA result in a 10% median increase in such crash outcomes" (332). The essence of this argument is that having the law of the drinking age to be 21 has a positive effect in the country because there is a decrease in car crashes. This is why the author Drew K. Saylor also agrees when he writes "A solution to this problem is not a simple as lowering the drinking age and asking young people to choose responsibility" (332). Saylor's point is to make the people understand that lowering the drinking age won't fix much because accidents will still happen, but with more frequency. Since in the past, the argument was deciding whether to raise or no to raise the drinking age to be 21 because of the danger youths had to live through if something happened to them. Drew K. Saylor argues that the drinking age has led to create a change in the people who are 18-20 years old because college students now a days tend to consume more alcohol than any others. When this happens among college students, it’s called binge drinking. According to Drew K. Saylor, a professor from the University of Virginia with a BA degree, he states that “Binge drinking is the consumption of an excessive amount of alcohol in a short period of time”

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.

On February 3, 2017, Tim Piazza, a sophomore here at Penn State, tragically lost his life at the Beta Theta Pi fraternity house. This horrific event was a result of irresponsible consumption of alcohol and binge drinking. Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. Around the nation, countless young adults have lost their life due to the thoughtless consumption of alcohol. Unfortunately, the common census between the majority of the average day Americans is that the most effective way to make drinking safer for young adults is enforcing a minimum drinking age of twenty one. This law, as well as the common census, are a direct result from the efforts of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) more than thirty years ago (“Drinking Culture”). MADD’s objective and goal is quite understandable; they want the young adults of today’s world to be safe and not put themselves into dangerous situations with alcohol, but they doing more harm than good. (“The Problem”). Safety is the single objective from each side in this argument, but MADD’s flawed logic and ignorance to reality has formed a belief that results in an unsafe drinking culture, resulting in more deaths, such as the tragic passing of Tim Piazza, unless the drinking age is lowered to eighteen, as well as establishing an open dialogue about drinking itself.

Consuming alcohol is considered a rite of passage for the average young individual. The minimum drinking age required to legally consume alcohol varies in each country, ranging from it always being legal to drinking being illegal at any age, but most countries have set the age at 18-19. In the United States, as of 1988, the MLDA is 21 throughout its entire territory, while the age of majority starts at 18. This paper analyzes the arguments to lower the minimum drinking age and unify it with the age of majority. The factors discussed are alcohol-related traffic accidents, encouragement of unsafe drinking habits, and inconsistency between the perception of adulthood and the MLDA.

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 MLDA21 movement cited statistics from some reports that showed a disproportionate number of crashes related to drinking and driving among young adults aged 17-21 as the reason why the MLDA should be raised. The lobbying groups were partially successful in having the MLDA lowered in some states; however they realized that they would only be truly successful if they were able to push for change at the federal level. Seeing as the MLDA could only be set at the state level under the 21st amendment, the federal government used provisions from the Federal Highway Safety Act of 1966 to hold back a percentage of the highway funds to states not in compliance with MLDA21. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02742.x/pdf)  Add to works cited

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

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 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.

Simultaneously, accidents involving automobiles without a doubt are devastating. How would one feel if a loved one was killed in a collision due to an intoxicated driver? Wouldn’t the individual want to do something about it? The death of the Candy Lightner’s daughter lead to her development of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act. This act gave full federal highway funds only to states that set the minimum age to purchase or consume alcohol at twenty-one years (Sanghavi). Once all states raised their MLDA to twenty-one years, drunk-driving accidents and deaths decreased. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the reduction in traffic fatalities due to the legal drinking age of twenty-one prevented 846 deaths in 1997 and prevented a total of 17,359 deaths since 1975 (Balkin 168). This single statistic shows that automobile accidents have substantially decreased in response to the authorization of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. In addition, the average teenager earns their drivers license at the age of seventeen. This being said, allowing a young driver with only one years experience (excluding a learners permit) to legally consume alcohol would surely be an irresponsible decision. Most people know

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