Background:
All 50 US states have set their minimum drinking age to 21 although exceptions do exist on a state-by-state basis for consumption at home, under adult supervision, for medical necessity, and other reasons. Proponents of lowering the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) from 21 argue that it has not stopped teen drinking, and has instead pushed underage binge drinking into private and less controlled environments, leading to more health and life-endangering behavior by teens. Opponents of lowering the MLDA argue that teens have not yet reached an age where they can handle alcohol responsibly, and thus are more likely to harm or even kill themselves and others by drinking prior to 21. They contend that traffic fatalities decreased when the MLDA increased.
Resolution: lowering the drinking age to 18 years old.
Pros:
1. Turning 18 entails receiving the rights and responsibilities of adulthood to vote, serve on juries, get married, sign contracts, join the military--which includes taking on the responsibilities of life and death--and be prosecuted as adults. Adults from the age of 18 should therefore also be trusted to make decisions about alcohol consumption.
2. When adolescents are not taught to drink in moderation, they end up binge drinking when they do consume alcohol. It is better to teach youth to learn how to drink responsibly and hold them accountable for their actions as we do with driving.
3. Although the United States increased the MLDA to 21, its rate of traffic fatalities in the 1980s decreased less than that of European countries whose legal drinking ages are lower than 21proving that establishing an MLDA at 21 is not necessarily an effective way to reduce traffic fatalities.
4. Lowering the drinking age will make alcohol less of a taboo, take away the thrill that many young people get from breaking the law, and make alcohol consumption a more normalized activity done in moderation.
5. Prohibiting teens from drinking in bars, restaurants, and public locations has the effect of forcing them to drink in unsupervised places such as fraternity houses or house parties. When teens get hurt from alcohol-related injuries or accidents, they are sometimes afraid of seeking medical help for fear of legal consequences. Lowering the drinking age will allow teens to drink alcohol in regulated environments with supervision.
Cons:
1. States that previously lowered the drinking age to 18, such as Massachusetts, Michigan, and Maine experienced an increase in alcohol-related crashes among the 18 to 20 age group.
2. Raising the MLDA back to 21 has decreased the percentage of fatal traffic accidents for those between 18 to 20 by 13% and has saved approximately 21,887 lives from 1975-2002.
3. Because teens are simultaneously undergoing physical changes, peer pressure, and new situations and urges, allowing them to consume alcohol can make them more vulnerable to drug and substance abuse, unplanned and unprotected sex, depression, violence, and other social ills.
4. Current MLDA laws set at 21 are working because the percentage of underage drinkers has decreased since 1984.
5. When teens drink alcohol, they are more likely to binge drink than people above the age of 21, thus demonstrating that teens are more prone to alcohol abuse than older demographics and should not be allowed to consume alcohol.
6. Lower drinking ages to 16, 17, or 18 like the MLDA in some European countries is inappropriate for US standards because American teens generally start driving at earlier ages and drive more often than their European counterparts. American teens are thus much more likely to drive under the influence of alcohol if the drinking age were lowered in the US.
Reference page:
No comments:
Post a Comment