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.
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
With the thought of drinking at a legal age, typically you will think about responsible adults. There are many reasons why raising the legal drinking age to 25 years old could help support this change. All things can change for the better.
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
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.
Alcohol is usually sought after within the adolescent community and has been an issue among young people. On July 17th 1984, congress passed The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 which enforces the legal drinking age and purchasing of alcohol in the United States to be twenty-one. Since then, the debated idea of whether or not the drinking age should be lowered to eighteen has been an ongoing topic for decades. Alcoholism affects many people in the United States but promoting it at such young age would not be such a great idea for the youths in today’s society.The drinking age should not be lowered due to the fact that it poses many dangers in the lives of teenaegers especially brain damages, underage drinking has declined since 1984, enforcing alcohol among teenagers may cause an increase in drunk driving and deaths and most importantly, teenagers who start drinking at an early age are more than three times more likely to develop alcohol dependency later on in life than those who started at the legal age of 21 or later.
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
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.
“With such compelling information, the question is why haven 't we been able to do more to prevent the crisis of underage drinking? The answer is: rising the age to 25” is what Lucille Roybal-Allard once said, a U.S. Representative for serving in Congress since 1993. This statement has brought many to speculate of issues and debates. This expression opened the eyes of American people that often struggled to make this truth into a reality. It might be easy to believe that age laws lowered the deaths of the underage but there are still signs of its dreadful company in many pieces of American life. Families who choose to educate their children about underage drinking and driving, seem to have a higher chance of getting through with the child. These underage teens can face jail or death when they give drinking a chance and even attempt to drive, having a sexual intercourse or just plain out doing something out of the teen’s element.
Studies show that keeping the drinking age at twenty-one improves lives. When the United States raised the age limit to twenty-one in 1985, a shortage of drinking occurred at a whopping 40% by 1991. As a result, fewer students drop out of high school, less motor accidents occur, and suicides rates dropped significantly. However, lowering the drinking age to eighteen will bring serious consequences on young adults by reversing these statistics. Lowering the drinking age will cause significant health problems, draw youth to poor judgment situations, before they are even old enough to handle the responsibility of drinking.
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).
Unfortunately, more than a third of these drinkers are unable to remember what happened the night of a big drinking session. The youth particularly, are vulnerable to the effects of heavy drinking. Harms include an increased risk of traffic accidents, injuries from violence, death, health problems, and some studies suggest suicide. If the legal drinking age is raised to 21 then at least one will have finished the major part of their education. Therefore if people start drinking later in life, they may be more likely to drink in moderation and not get addicted at an early
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
In 1984, president Ronald Reagan signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (McCardell 75). This set the legal drinking age officially to twenty-one. This act was put into order to reduce drunk driving and vehicle accidents. While all of this may be true, times have changed and there is more to consider. Automobiles are now safer with seat belts, airbags and other technological advances. Author John J. Miller states that “Many politicians and lobbyists find the legal drinking age of twenty-one to be a great success, praising it for reducing drunk driving fatalities without considering that other factors, such as seat belt laws and safer cars, have helped” (Miller 25). These advancements should be kept in mind when comparing
The drinking age being set to eighteen is medically irresponsible and endangers the lives of many. Keeping the drinking age at twenty-one saves about 800 lives per year (Ogilvie, 2011). The lives are saved because there is less young people that are too young and immature to handle alcohol responsibly drinking and driving . The younger a person is, the more they combine binge drinking with driving and believe they are fine to drive home and end up crashing and not only killing themselves but others with them. Drinking before the age of twenty-one may interfere with the maturing and development of a person's frontal lobes, which are responsible for self-regulation, judgement, reasoning, problem-solving, and impulse control (Health and Services,