While MVAs were the original reason for the current MLDA, I would argue that MLDA is not limited to DWIs and car accidents. The earlier regular alcohol consumption is initiated, the higher the risk of future dependence. Legal alcohol for high school graduates would improve access for high school beginners. It could be argued that changing the drinking age does not lead to an increase in alcohol consumption among people under 18, but it is not that simple. For example, because of the MLDA, alcohol marketers have restrictions that prohibit advertising directly to teens. Change the MLDA, this policy will change. It is important to note that a minimum drinking age of 21 does not prevent teenagers and 20-year-olds from drinking. But this somewhat discourages alcohol consumption, which has public health benefits. 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. When the “forbidden fruit” is no longer prohibited, the young simply drinks more.
In states where the drinking age was 18, young people drank more than in states where the minimum drinking age was 21. As adults, in their early twenties, they continued to drink more.4 References 4. Maisto, S.A. and Rachal, J.V. (1980). Evidence of the link between adolescent drinking practices, related behaviours and the Drinking Age Act: A review of data from a national sample. In H. Wechsler (ed.), Minimum drinking age laws: An evaluation (pp.
155-176). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co. Maybe if parents stopped spoiling their kids and let them live a bit (i.e. stop hovering over them), drinking at a younger age wouldn`t be a problem. It is difficult to isolate this problem. Most people don`t know how to drive, there are too many drivers on the road, roads are poorly maintained and poorly lit, pedestrians run around all the time, and the police don`t enforce traffic rules, but stay there and do nothing in these unnecessary construction works. This company is. It does not make sense to compare to places like Canada, where the drinking age is lower, because it is all a mess.
New research shows that a minimum drinking age of 21 is associated with a lower rate of alcohol-related collisions among young adults, as well as a reduced risk of health problems associated with heavy drinking, including dating violence, unprotected sex and suicide. Since I come from a student who actually witnesses these problems, I have to disagree with you on this point. Of course, drunk driving deaths have decreased, but they are lower in all age groups and have decreased both in Canada (where the age is 18 or 19 years) and in the United States. Correlation is NOT a cause! We have become more aware of the dangers of drunk driving: cars are safer, seat belts and airbags are mandatory, paying higher prices for first-time offenders, etc. That`s what kept drunk drivers off the roads, not the legal age limit of 21. So laws cannot be perfect, and they can sometimes be ignored. But the overall evidence is clear: a drinking age of 21 reduces consumption and saves lives. As for the article, it seems convincing to me, but only as an argument that the current legal drinking age will not change, not that it should not change. The correlation with road deaths may be compelling enough to prevent changes in the law, but that`s not the purpose of setting the legal drinking age at 21, is it? As noted in various ways above, setting the drinking age would likely further reduce the number of victims, just as driving itself would make it illegal.
Teen alcohol use kills 4,300 people each year, more than all illegal drugs combined. References Sacks JJ, Gonzales KR, Bouchery EE, Tomedi LE, Brewer RD. 2010 National and state costs of excessive alcohol consumption. Am J Prev Med 2015; 49(5):E73 to E79. “If we decide to lower the legal drinking age, there will be consequences,” says William DeJong, lead author of the study and professor of community health sciences at Boston University School of Public Health. But there is a very convincing argument for keeping the drinking age at 21: it saves lives. This may be hard to believe, considering the number of people who don`t follow the laws and drink anyway, but it has proven true time and time again in research. RE: Drunk driving – 98% of BU students don`t bring a car on campus. Was President McCardell`s argument for lowering the minimum drinking age really structured around traffic deaths, or did he advocate a more holistic approach that included student health, substance abuse, violence, etc.? If so, it`s a bit misleading to refute his argument with evidence from the National Highway Transportation Administration. In fact, young people in Europe have higher rates of poisoning than in the United States, and less than a quarter had rates lower or equivalent to those in the United States.
In addition, a higher percentage of young people in the majority of Europe report excessive drinking more often than in the United States. 1-2 Most European adolescents have higher rates of alcohol-related problems due to heavy drinking. Perhaps the best example of fact in relation to the myth is what happened in New Zealand. In 1999, New Zealand lowered the purchasing age from 20 to 18. Not only has the number of alcohol-related accidents increased, but young people have started drinking earlier, excessive alcohol consumption has increased, and in the 12 months following the lowering of the legal drinking age, there has been a 50% increase in the number of intoxicated patients aged 18 and 19 in the emergency department of Auckland Hospital.3 References 1. ESPAD Report 2003. Substance use among students in 35 European countries. Published in 2004. Read excerpts here.
2. Johnston, L. D., O`Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2004). Monitoring the Future national results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2003 (NIH Publication No. 04-5506). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Read the overview here. 3.
Kyrpi, Kypros, et al. “Minimum purchase age for alcohol and traffic accident injuries among 15- to 19-year-olds in New Zealand.” American Journal of Public Health, January 2006, Voi 96, No. 1. Read the study here. Adults between the ages of 18 and 20 should not be denied this enjoyment if other enjoyable activities are legal by the age of 18. In the United States, 31% of road deaths are alcohol-related. [48] This percentage is higher than in many countries where the alcohol age is below 21, such as France (29%), Great Britain (16%), Germany (9%), China (4%) and Israel (3%). [48] Although the United States increased the MLDA to 21 in 1984, the rate of motor vehicle accidents and fatalities in the 1980s declined less than that of European countries with legal drinking age below 21. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] 76% of bars sold alcohol to clearly intoxicated customers [43], and about half of drivers stopped for impaired driving or drunk death in motor vehicle accidents were intoxicated in licensed establishments [44] [45] [46].
Neighborhoods with a higher density of bars, nightclubs and other alcohol outlets are more likely to suffer from assaults and other violent crime. [24] [25] A survey for the Center for Alcohol Policy found that 86% of Americans support the legal drinking age of 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] Adolescents may choose not to drink or to drink less frequently because social acceptance decreases or risks are increased by parental or judicial authorities. B@D.