This paper looks at two opposing sides of the argument on whether the legal drinking age should remain at 21 or be lowered to 18. It is safer and more responsible for the legal age limit to remain 21. However, it is fair and economically smart to change the age to 18. This paper looks at the negative effects of a younger population having access to alcohol such as drunk driving statistics, hospitalization of young people due to alcohol, the harm alcohol does to the adolescent brain, and the irresponsible behaviors of teenagers when they have been drinking. In this paper we will also notice the positive outcomes of a lower legal drinking age such as an economic boost. The better choice however, is for the legal drinking age to remain at 21.
A Look at the Ongoing Debate as To Whether the Legal Drinking Age Should Be 21 Or 18.
The drinking age has been a controversial topic since the 1970's. Should it be 18? Should it be 21? Or somewhere in between? Should it be up to the federal government? Or should states decide? Currently the drinking age is set at 21 by the federal government. This has been the case since 1984 when the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was passed. This allows Congress to hold 10 percent of a state's federal highway funds if the drinking age is set below 21. States are still able to decide their legal drinking age as we saw in Louisiana in 1996. Its age limit was lowered to 18 for only a few short months because the law was categorized as age discrimination. The drinking age should remain 21 to prevent drunk driving and accidents involving drinking, other risky behaviors, for health and developmental purposes, to prevent even easier access to high schoolers, to keep some control on binge drinking, for maturity purposes, and the fact that drinking can be extremely dangerous. .
The legal drinking age should remain at 21 for a number of reasons. Primarily to prevent drinking and driving.