SHOULD THE MINIMUM LEGAL DRINKING AGE (MLDA) BE LOWERED FROM 21 TO A YOUNGER AGE?
VIEW:
Lowering MLDA 21 would be medically irresponsible. Alcohol consumption can halt the development of the young adult brain's frontal lobes, essential for functions such as emotional regulation, planning, and organization. When alcohol consumption interferes with this early adult brain development, the potential for chronic problems such as greater vulnerability to addiction, dangerous risk-taking behaviour, reduced decision-making ability, memory loss, depression, violence, and suicide is greater.
Lowering will allow a greater segment of the young population to drink alcohol in bars and nightclubs, which are not safe environments. Neighbourhoods with higher densities of bars, nightclubs, and other alcohol-selling locations suffer more frequent assaults and other violent crimes.
MLDA 21 reduces traffic accidents and fatalities. 100 of the 102 analyses in a meta-study of the legal drinking age and traffic accidents found higher legal drinking ages associated with lower rates of traffic accidents. Lowering MLDA 21 would give high and middle schoolers easier access to alcohol. Newly-legal drinkers often purchase alcohol for children below the age of 21, creating a "trickle-down" effect.
MLDA 21 helps prevent underage binge drinking. MLDA 21 exerts social pressure on potential underage drinkers and those who may serve them. Youth may discern whether to drink or not, or to drink less often, because of decreased social acceptability or increased risks from parental or legal authorities. Older youth and adults may furnish alcohol to minors less frequently, and licensed alcohol outlets may sell to minors less frequently, because of their perceptions that it is illegal, morally wrong, and other consequences they might face.
I strongly believe that MLDA should stay at 21 because people tend to be more mature and responsible at 21 than 18. 18-year-olds are typically vulnerable and are entering a new phase of independence from their parents through college or the workforce, and are more susceptible to binge drinking, risky sexual activity, and other irresponsible behaviour due to lack of maturity.
Jason David
COUNTERVIEW:
Pros of reducing the MLDA from 21 to 18. Underage drinking the most common law broken in every country. 18 is the age of adulthood in the India and adults should have the right to make their own decisions about alcohol consumption. Turning 18 entails receiving the rights and responsibilities of adulthood to vote, smoke cigarettes , serve on juries, get married, sign contracts, be prosecuted as adults, get a driving license and join the military - which includes risking one's life.
Allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to drink alcohol in regulated environment under supervision would decrease unsafe drinking activity. Prohibiting this age group results in various other outcomes like drinking in unsupervised places such as fraternity houses or house parties where they may be more prone to binge drinking and other unsafe behaviour such as drugs etc.
There are fewer drunk driving traffic accidents and deaths in many countries with MLDA of 18. In the United States, 31% of road traffic accidents and death involve alcohol. The percentage is higher than many countries with a drinking age lower than 21 such as France (29%), Great Britain (16%), Germany (9%), China (4%), and Israel (3%). Although the US increased the MLDA to 21 in 1984, its rate of traffic accidents and deaths in the 1980s decreased less than that of European countries whose legal drinking ages are lower than 21.
Lowering MLDA from 21 to 18 would eliminate the thrill of breaking the law to get a drink. Normalizing alcohol consumption in moderation will make drinking alcohol less of a taboo for young adults entering college and the workforce.
MLDA 21 is ineffective because teens consume regardless. According to the National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse, underage drinking accounts for 17.5% ($22.5 billion) of consumer spending for alcohol in the United States. The 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health report states that 24.8% of youth aged 14 or 15, 46.7% aged 16 or 17, and 68.3% aged 18 to 20, drink alcohol.
MLDA 21 encourages young adults to acquire and use false identification documents to acquire alcohol. National security is of great concern, including terrorism, illegal immigration, and other threats, it would be better to have fewer fake IDs in circulation and more respect for the law.
MLDA 21 is not associated with lower rates of suicide, homicide, or vandalism. In the year 2002 a meta-study of the legal drinking age and health and social problems shows that 72% found no statistically significant relationship despite claims that lowering MLDA 18 would increase suicide rate and criminal activities by adolescents.
Drinking alcohol is an enjoyable activity. 18- to 20-year-old young adults should not be denied the enjoyment when other pleasurable activities are legal at age 18.
Lowering MLDA 21 would reduce the number young people who are hurt from alcohol-related injuries or accidents due to fear of legal consequences if they sought medical attention.
State governments should take right measurement to establish a lower legal drinking age that reflects their unique demographics, legal context, and history.
Lowering MLDA 21 would benefit the economy. More people would enjoy the legal benefit to drink in bars, restaurants, and other licensed establishments. Revenue would increase for sole proprietors, and greater amounts of tax revenue would be collected by the government.
Philip MC
VIEW:
Lowering MLDA 21 would be medically irresponsible. Alcohol consumption can halt the development of the young adult brain's frontal lobes, essential for functions such as emotional regulation, planning, and organization. When alcohol consumption interferes with this early adult brain development, the potential for chronic problems such as greater vulnerability to addiction, dangerous risk-taking behaviour, reduced decision-making ability, memory loss, depression, violence, and suicide is greater.
Lowering will allow a greater segment of the young population to drink alcohol in bars and nightclubs, which are not safe environments. Neighbourhoods with higher densities of bars, nightclubs, and other alcohol-selling locations suffer more frequent assaults and other violent crimes.
MLDA 21 reduces traffic accidents and fatalities. 100 of the 102 analyses in a meta-study of the legal drinking age and traffic accidents found higher legal drinking ages associated with lower rates of traffic accidents. Lowering MLDA 21 would give high and middle schoolers easier access to alcohol. Newly-legal drinkers often purchase alcohol for children below the age of 21, creating a "trickle-down" effect.
MLDA 21 helps prevent underage binge drinking. MLDA 21 exerts social pressure on potential underage drinkers and those who may serve them. Youth may discern whether to drink or not, or to drink less often, because of decreased social acceptability or increased risks from parental or legal authorities. Older youth and adults may furnish alcohol to minors less frequently, and licensed alcohol outlets may sell to minors less frequently, because of their perceptions that it is illegal, morally wrong, and other consequences they might face.
I strongly believe that MLDA should stay at 21 because people tend to be more mature and responsible at 21 than 18. 18-year-olds are typically vulnerable and are entering a new phase of independence from their parents through college or the workforce, and are more susceptible to binge drinking, risky sexual activity, and other irresponsible behaviour due to lack of maturity.
Jason David
COUNTERVIEW:
Pros of reducing the MLDA from 21 to 18. Underage drinking the most common law broken in every country. 18 is the age of adulthood in the India and adults should have the right to make their own decisions about alcohol consumption. Turning 18 entails receiving the rights and responsibilities of adulthood to vote, smoke cigarettes , serve on juries, get married, sign contracts, be prosecuted as adults, get a driving license and join the military - which includes risking one's life.
Allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to drink alcohol in regulated environment under supervision would decrease unsafe drinking activity. Prohibiting this age group results in various other outcomes like drinking in unsupervised places such as fraternity houses or house parties where they may be more prone to binge drinking and other unsafe behaviour such as drugs etc.
There are fewer drunk driving traffic accidents and deaths in many countries with MLDA of 18. In the United States, 31% of road traffic accidents and death involve alcohol. The percentage is higher than many countries with a drinking age lower than 21 such as France (29%), Great Britain (16%), Germany (9%), China (4%), and Israel (3%). Although the US increased the MLDA to 21 in 1984, its rate of traffic accidents and deaths in the 1980s decreased less than that of European countries whose legal drinking ages are lower than 21.
Lowering MLDA from 21 to 18 would eliminate the thrill of breaking the law to get a drink. Normalizing alcohol consumption in moderation will make drinking alcohol less of a taboo for young adults entering college and the workforce.
MLDA 21 is ineffective because teens consume regardless. According to the National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse, underage drinking accounts for 17.5% ($22.5 billion) of consumer spending for alcohol in the United States. The 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health report states that 24.8% of youth aged 14 or 15, 46.7% aged 16 or 17, and 68.3% aged 18 to 20, drink alcohol.
MLDA 21 encourages young adults to acquire and use false identification documents to acquire alcohol. National security is of great concern, including terrorism, illegal immigration, and other threats, it would be better to have fewer fake IDs in circulation and more respect for the law.
MLDA 21 is not associated with lower rates of suicide, homicide, or vandalism. In the year 2002 a meta-study of the legal drinking age and health and social problems shows that 72% found no statistically significant relationship despite claims that lowering MLDA 18 would increase suicide rate and criminal activities by adolescents.
Drinking alcohol is an enjoyable activity. 18- to 20-year-old young adults should not be denied the enjoyment when other pleasurable activities are legal at age 18.
Lowering MLDA 21 would reduce the number young people who are hurt from alcohol-related injuries or accidents due to fear of legal consequences if they sought medical attention.
State governments should take right measurement to establish a lower legal drinking age that reflects their unique demographics, legal context, and history.
Lowering MLDA 21 would benefit the economy. More people would enjoy the legal benefit to drink in bars, restaurants, and other licensed establishments. Revenue would increase for sole proprietors, and greater amounts of tax revenue would be collected by the government.
Philip MC
No comments:
Post a Comment