National Drinking Age Article

U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed a bill raising the national drinking age to 21 on July 17, 1984, under the watchful eye of Candy Lightner, founder of MDAD. AP Photo According to the National Center for Addiction and Drug Abuse, underage drinking accounts for 17.5 percent ($22.5 billion) of U.S. alcohol consumption spending. [16] The 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicates that 24.8% of adolescents aged 14 or 15, 46.7% aged 16 or 17 and 68.3% aged 18 to 20 drink alcohol. [49] The drinking age was lowered to 18 in many countries during the Vietnam War. The country urged thousands of its young men to fight and die for their land on foreign soil, so the popular opinion was, “How can we ask them to die for their country and not let them drink when they want one?” But the lower drinking age is starting to wreak havoc on the country`s highways. Science can play a crucial role in developing effective strategies to address health problems, including those that focus on alcohol-related problems (Gordis, 1991). In an ideal world, public policy development would be based on identifying a problem and scientific knowledge of the most effective factors in reducing it. In the real world, however, public policy results from economic and political forces that sometimes combine with good science.

Legal drinking age laws (MLDA) are an example of how scientific research can support effective public policy. This article shows how science has influenced MLDA policy in the past and summarizes the research that contributes to the ongoing debate about MLDA. When asked what the legal drinking age should be in the United States, Heath answers 8 or maybe even 6 years old. Police tend to ignore or under-enforce LDL 21 due to resource constraints, legal barriers, the perception that sanctions are inadequate, and the time and effort required to process and paperwork. It is estimated that two out of every 1,000 cases of illegal alcohol consumption by youth under the age of 21 result in arrest. [18] What Choose Responsibility doesn`t take into account is that if you look at the number of road fatalities by driver age, you see a decrease for people aged 21 to 30 and a much larger decrease for those under 21 in percentage terms. Everything they say about alcohol quotas, the use of seat belts and better car design has been taken into account. So you have no explanation as to why this decline was greater for those under 21.

The only explanation that most road safety people cite is the age of 21 law itself. New Zealand has recently moved from 20 to 18 years. Once this change was made, they not only had more deaths on the roads among 18- and 19-year-olds, but also among 15- and 16-year-olds. By the late 1970s, more than half of U.S. states had lowered their minimum drinking age, typically from 21 to 18. But when research showed an increase in road deaths in those states, state lawmakers began backtracking. I like to think that our generation, if they find themselves in elected office, could change the laws. I am surprised that the liquor companies are not behind the cause of lowering the drinking age, because their profits would certainly increase sharply. A survey for the Center for Alcohol Policy found that 86 percent of Americans support the legal drinking age at 21. [54] Numerous state and national surveys from the 1970s (when states raised the legal drinking age) to the present have shown overwhelming public support for MLDA 21.

[30] [31] [32] I think Speaker Brown`s concern about the introduction of alcohol consumption in secondary schools is significant. However, my question is: why 21 (versus 20 or 22)? And why does the whole discussion about lowering the drinking age focus on 18 instead of 19 (when most people dropped out of high school) or 20 (a less drastic reduction and the ability to test the effects of change)? 18-year-olds typically enter a new phase of independence from their parents through university or staff and are more prone to excessive drinking, risky sexual activity and other irresponsible behaviour due to lack of maturity. Normalizing alcohol consumption as something done responsibly and moderately will make alcohol consumption less taboo for young adults entering university and the workforce. [14] [15] “I think it has a lot to do with the context in which alcohol consumption takes place,” he explains. “So if you force kids — because they`re not of legal drinking age — to drink in their dormitories, where they hide it from others, or to drink at house parties, instead of going to clubs and bars where there are people watching him — a bartender isn`t supposed to serve someone who`s obviously intoxicated — I think They create a situation where excessive consumption alcohol will actually be more common, not less. The drinking age should be lowered if we are considered adults at the age of 18, meaning we have the right to make our own decision. “It is astonishing that students have accepted such a glaring shortening of the age of majority,” wrote McCardell, now a professor of history at Middlebury. “Unfortunately, this tolerance has taken the form of excessive alcohol consumption.” A 2009 study published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs found that between 1998 and 2005, the number of deaths from alcohol poisoning among 18- to 24-year-olds nearly tripled, from 779 cases to 2,290.

The study also tracks an increase in deaths from hypothermia and falls. Some reports link binge drinking to sexual assault. Reset the drinking age to 18, then enforce the law. The current system, which bans alcohol for Americans under the age of 21, is widely flouted, with disastrous consequences. Teaching people to drink responsibly before the age of 21 would significantly improve public health. Now, high school and college students consider excessive consumption of dangerous alcohol a rite of passage. Question: If states are the only entities that have the right to set a minimum age for drinking, does federal law violate state powers in this area of alcohol? In 2001, when President George W. Bush`s 19-year-old daughter was cited for minor alcohol-related offenses, the debate over lowering the legal drinking age returned to the national spotlight. I am generally a convinced libertarian and I believe that the government does not have the right to control what people put in their bodies. Let me make it clear that I am strongly opposed to drug use, excessive alcohol consumption and smoking, but the government does not have the right to control personal health decisions. With that in mind, I think 21 is the appropriate age. Many medical studies have shown that the likelihood of alcoholism increases as young people start drinking.

Yes, an “old age” will not deter people from drinking. However, this limits young people`s ability to buy, leaving them addicted to the elderly, friends and other available alcoholic beverages. If the age were lowered, it should not be 18, but perhaps 19. 18 gets most high school graduates to go to a liquor store, make a purchase. From my point of view, it is a bit dangerous. But I would also say that a person who has a valid active military ID card should be able to buy alcohol by the age of 18. If you can die in battle, you should be able to drink a beer. In this article, President Brown seems very, very one-dimensional and very, very alienated by the 18- to 20-year-old generation he governs. He is so detached from the children of our school and middle school students in general; He seems conservative and unprogressive here, not to mention the so-called “statistics.” He talks about the many presidents who have withdrawn their votes on Seaman`s campaign for an overhaul of alcohol laws, and he calls the pool of supporters “very small.” He points out that many have been extremely criticized for signing. YES, a wonderful point!!!!!!!! Imagine all the presidents who wouldn`t sign because they would undoubtedly be reprimanded by staff members who feel like Brown? Does this not demonstrate the difficulty of distinguishing between Presidents who support the proposal and those who do not? Brown is not at all willing to accept that the Mama Bear campaign data against underage drinking is not entirely credible.