Lowering The Drinking Age A Solution Or
Lowering The Drinking Age: A Solution Or A Problem? Essay, Research Paper
Lowering the Drinking Age:
A Problem or a Solution?
Why is it that 18 twelvemonth old citizens, like myself, can lawfully obtain a driver? s licence, registry to vote, be forced into jury responsibility or a bill of exchange, can be tried as an grownup and even be put to decease, but can non purchase and devour alcoholic drinks lawfully? It is difficult for me to grok as a immature American that we can be permitted or subjected to execute actions that affect the lives of other people, but we are non allowed to hold the freedom of pick on an issue that straight involves one? s ain life. By puting the standard imbibing age at 21, a tabu was placed on intoxicant for immature people. Possibly by settling the criterion imbibing age to 18 immature grownups would no longer see alcohol as the forbidden fruit it has become, but instead as an gratifying substance that is meant to devour maturely.
Only $13.90 / page
Local functionaries in Littleton, Colorado, feel that take downing their province? s legal imbibing age would be a immense error. Colorado? s Department of the Treasury announced in October of 1997, that Representative Ron Tupa of Boulder was to present a measure to statute law for the lowering of the province? s imbibing age to 18. Many of the local functionaries at that place felt that it was a? bad thought which would be lives? ( Miret ) . Harmonizing to the article, the Colorado? s State Treasurer? s office claims that there has been many surveies that show how the elevation of the imbibing age to 21 has? resulted in fewer teen-
age alcohol-related accidents? ( Miret ) . However, other grounds suggests a different narrative. They are more alcohol-related accidents with people over the age of 21. A survey of all 50 provinces and the District of Columbia found? a positive relationship between the purchase age and single-vehicle human deaths? ( Hanson, ? The Legal Drinking Age: Science V. Ideology? ) . Therefore, single-vehicle human deaths were found to be more frequent in those provinces with high purchase ages.
Can anyone truly state that as a consequence of lifting the imbibing age to 21 that these quandaries such as accidents, consumption, and desire has mostly decreased? There has likely been equal if non more accidents with the imbibing age at 21. For case, college pupils have ever been blamed to hold excessively many alcohol related incidents and jobs. With this repute no 1 truly trusts the people of my age to be able to imbibe responsibly. ? A comparing of college pupils go toing schools in provinces that had maintained, for a period of at least ten old ages, a minimal imbibing age of 21 with those in provinces that had likewise maintained minimal imbibing ages below 21 revealed few differences in imbibing jobs? ( Hanson, ? The Legal Drinking Age: Science vs. Ideology?
) . For illustration, a big survey of immature people between ages of 16 and 19 in Massachusetts and New York after Massachusetts raised its imbibing age revealed that? the norm, self-reported day-to-day intoxicant ingestion in Massachusetts did non worsen in comparing with New York? ( Hanson, ? The Legal Drinking Age: Science V. Ideology? ) .
College pupils, immature teens and imbibing will ever be necessarily associated with each other regardless of the fortunes or regulations. So what is the point of gestating and implementing a policy that is already failed and is doomed to neglect?
Administrations can non halt intoxicant maltreatment, but they can non disregard it either. With the college disposals disregarding it with the hopes that it will travel off is merely
unacceptable and should non even be an option. What is the point trying to convey a grade of control to something that is basically unmanageable?
Littleton? s constabulary head Gary Maas agrees with the State Treasures office that? take downing the imbibing age would intend nil, but problem? ( Miret ) . So, what can be done? If we are non old plenty to manage our intoxicant, how can we be old adequate to do determinations and take actions that will hold an impact on the endurance of our state? The authorities enforced prohibition in the 1920s and it is still non effectual for those below the 21-year-old threshold today. For one time, I believe that revoking the imbibing age would be the best solution.
Maas besides states with the lowering of the imbibing age? the liquor goes in and the suppressions go out and foolish things go on? ( Miret ) . But with the lowering of the age, so more earlier kids can be informed of jobs that are associated with intoxicant usage and abuse the better the oncoming of teenage rebellion, which is what causes many alcohol related accidents. Responsibility and moderatenesss must be stressed and zero tolerances for imbibing and drive must ever be enforced.
I merely hope that U.S. lawgivers can alter from their benign stance on this issue and follow the lead of European states and even Canada. In those states alcohol is seen more as a portion of mundane life and therefore is non abused by immature people. They grow up larning the duty involved with imbibing. If lawgivers, such as Representative Ron Tupa does of Colorado, and electors, like myself, have faith in
themselves as being proper parents and defenders, they will non fear take downing the imbibing age, as they will be able to better learn their kids how to imbibe alcoholic
drinks instead than allowing them larn elsewhere how to mistreat them. The lowering of the imbibing age to 18 is the most simple and most reasonable reply for the solution for imbibing.