Quicker Liquor Essay

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.

In conclusion by lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 years of age, more positive outcomes exist than negative ones. A lower drinking age will allow for those of age to have a chance to learn a better sense of responsibility, decrease alcohol related incidents and provide several health benefits. As a legal adult those between the ages of 18 and 21 deserve the right to make the decision of whether they would like to participate in the consumption of alcohol or

Many Americans do not feel like adults until their 21st birthday. At age 18 an American has the ability to vote, be drafted or enlist into the military, own a weapon, request a loan, get married, buy cigarettes and many more liberties and consequences that come when a teenager becomes an adult. Nonetheless, in the United States and adult does not have the ability to legally drink until the age of 21. I find the regulation of alcohol necessary and as a protection for the citizens because, as the article “Effects of Alcohol Use” states, the abuse of alcohol contributes to liver damage, leads into driving under the influence, domestic violence and in the long term it can cause cancer and death of brain cells. However, I believe that the alcohol regulation is bias and should be at the same level of liberty as voting, joining the military, owning a weapon, buying cigarettes, requesting a loan and getting married.

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

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

There always has been controversy as to should the united states lower the drinking age to 18. Eighteen year olds should have the right to drink. By lowering the drinking age to eighteen it will give people supervision, teach responsibilities, and eighteen years olds are already considered adults; however, it may cause binge drinking, it will lead to more deaths, and drinking damages brains cells and especially the body itself.

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.

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.

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

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.

Binge drinking is known as the consumption excessive amounts of alcohol in short period of time. Therefore, we should lower the drinking age to 18 because instead of helping our youth, we are criminalizing our youth. For example, according to the article “Is Lowering the Drinking Age a Good Idea?” the author Jessica Pauline Ogilvie states, “When you prohibit drinking legally, it gets pushed further underground and into places that are out of adult control”(Ogilvie). The author follows up on her statement by also stating, “Places like fraternity houses are examples of places that promote drinking games and the rapid, excessive consumption of alcohol, which can have dangerous consequences for people, like alcohol poisoning”(Ogilvie). The author explains in these two quotes the effects of prohibiting drinking, which pushes drinking further underground and provides a perfect example of an underground place where there is binge drinking. Another example from the article is where the author states, “Underage drinking is not all fun and games, there is kids who consume excessive amounts of alcohol to the point it causes alcohol poisoning, and then there is those who underestimate the dangers of getting behind the wheel”(Ogilvie). In this quote, the author explains how underage drinking can have really bad consequences. Based on what author Jessica

This discussion has been going on for long on many forums without a decisive conclusion or agreement. This is mainly because both the arguments for lowering the age to 18 years and not lowering have some substantial facts to support them. The people who are against lowering the drinking age come up with a number of arguments which are explained below.

My experiences in high school and college have taught me that restricting young people from drinking does not stop them from consuming alcohol. However, is this a good reason to lower the drinking age? People’s actions should conform to the law, as the purpose of laws is to maintain order in society. If the community could eliminate or alter laws simply by consistently breaking them, then legislation would become obsolete. Although the “21 law” does not completely prevent underage drinking, it has helped to reduce the number of incidents of underage drinking. Research studies conducted between 1960 and 1999 have been reviewed by University of Minnesota epidemiologists Alexander Wagenaar and Traci Toomey. Their conclusion is that the law has “reduced both youth alcohol use and alcohol-related traffic crashes” (DeJong 3). Furthermore, in 1999, New Zealand lowered its legal drinking age from 20 to 18. The result was a “big increase in traffic crashes and injuries among 15- to 19-year-olds” (DeJong 3).

Reviewing these statists one may be able to analaze and see that even drivers between 21 to 24 were high at risk. What would make a person want to lower the drinking age to 18. Young adults at eighteen are new drivers and less expierenced then the 21 + drivers and logically would produce more fatal crashes.

On July of 1984, the national drinking age was changed from eighteen to twenty-one. This law was passed thanks to Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MAAD). MAAD was founded by Candy Lightner, a mother who lost her daughter to a drink driver. “In 1980, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, or MAAD, was founded by Candy Lightner after her 13-year-old daughter was killed on her way home from a school carnival by a drunk driver. The driver had three previous DUI convictions and was out on bail from a hit-and-run arrest two days earlier. When MAAD was founded in 1980, more than 21,000 people were killed in drunk driving crashes each year. Lightner and MAAD helped to change