The Debate On The Minimum Legal Drinking Age

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

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.

There has always been a big controversy on the legal drinking age and what it should be. The consumption of alcohol can be seen has dangerous or has a medicine. The legal drinking age should be raised due to violent crime, domestic abuse, and DUI all related to abusing alcohol. Raising the legal drinking age will decrease the amount of violent crime, domestic abuse, and DUI related deaths.

In the article Save Us from Youth, by Bradley R. Gitz, Gitz points out that many things in the Amethyst Initiative discussing the legal drinking age is inconsistent for an adult between the ages 18 and 21. At the age of 18 you are given many rights and is considered an adult, you are given the rights to buy cigarettes, the rights to vote, the rights to enlist in the army. an be tried as an adult in court. Buying or consuming alcohol is not one of the rights given. “Ultimately, the most important issue at stake with respect to the drinking age is not whether 18-year-olds are responsible enough to consume alcohol, or even the consequences of such consumption in legal vs. illegal circumstances, but whether those who are old enough to be sued in a court of law, carry a gun into combat on behalf of fellow citizens and participate in our democratic process by

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

The impending conclusion of the legal drinking age, whether it be lowered to 18-years of age or remain at 21-years of age, has been fiercely debated across the United States. “Since 1984, the National minimum legal drinking age in the United States has been 21 years, and during the intervening 25 years there have been periodic efforts to lower the minimum drinking age…” (Wechsler and Nelson, para. 4). As some underage teenagers still remaining in High School and young adults who are currently attending a University argue to decrease the minimal age to eighteen, most individuals believe that the drinking age limit should remain at the solid standpoint of twenty-one years old. Those who wish to lower the national drinking age are clouded

Having the legal drinking age of 21 has pushed teens to binge drink in secrecy, leading to health and life endangering moments such as accidents, falls, overdose, memory loss, and sexual assault. However, people say “Lowering MLDA 21 to 18 will irresponsibly allow a greater segment of the population to drink alcohol in bars and nightclubs, which are not safe environments”. 11 million underage kids consume alcohol in the United States alone, which is almost the same amount of people living in the state of Ohio. By the time students are graduating high school, two-thirds of youth are regular drinkers, and two-fifths are frequent binge drinkers. Underage drinking is happening all around us but it doesn't seem to be a big deal considering 2 of every 1,000 social host incidents  are arrested.