Issue Date: 10/26/09
Lower the drinking age? No!
By Camilo Barrero
|
But some organizations contend that actual minimum drinking age in America is not achieving its purpose and that it isn't consistent with other age limits. Organizations such as the National Youth Rights Association and college presidents from more than 100 colleges like Duke, Dartmouth, and Ohio State, have proposed to lower the minimum drinking age - just another occurrence that generates more chaos than it solves.
In the recent debate of whether the minimum drinking age should be lowered to 18, it's been said that the current limit is not accomplishing its purpose to prevent highway deaths. In contrast, some say it's promoting underground drinking and leading to off-highway deaths.
The numbers don't lie. Since 1988 when the age limit of 21 was established nationally, approximately 1,000 lives per year are saved, and there has been a 16 percent drop in fatalities and drunk-driving accidents, according to data from Global Road Safety Partnership.
We are in a society that is used to drinking to get drunk and the thought of changing the drinking age would be a bad one for two reasons. First, we wouldn't know how to handle a transition of that kind. It would surely lead to disorganization and a complete re-arrangement nationwide. Second, lowering the drinking age would make the consumption of alcohol beverages easier for younger people, leading to more reckless acts on- and off-highway.
It isn't hard for a 16-year-old to have access to alcoholic beverages. In high school kids aren't socially exposed to others old enough to buy alcohol, but are still able to get alcohol somehow. If the minimum drinking age were lowered it would mean that seniors in high school could purchase alcohol for younger generations, causing an increase in illegal drinking.
Some studies have found that among college students the drinking rates are higher than in any other group. During college life more students drink illegally than legally because when alcohol consumption is forbidden it becomes more desirable. This increases underage drinking, and if the minimum drinking age was 18 we would be witnessing the same vicious circle but in even younger generations.
New Zealand is a prime example of what happens when the drinking age is lowered. Not only did drunk driving accidents increase, but youths started to drink earlier and wild drinking intensified. In the 12 months following the decrease in the MDA, there was a 50 percent increase in intoxicated 18- and 19-year-old patients at one emergency room, according to United Kingdom government statistics.
The debate still remains alive and some may continue to push for a lower drinking age in the U.S. Many rites have different ages of initiation in this country - some debatable, some reprehensible. Understanding this case consciously by itself, without diverting the attention in other areas that are not as important as the human life, will give a better idea of the ramifications of a lowered drinking age. In this situation, keeping the minimum drinking age at 21 for the common welfare of United States' citizens has been proven.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 2
Ajax the Great
posted 10/27/09 @ 3:19 PM PST
There are several problems with your reasoning, and I will outline them below:
1) Statistics don't lie, but liars do use statistics. NHTSA and MADD both claim that 1000 lives a year are still being saved on the highways, but that number is junk. (Continued…)
Post a Comment