USA TODAY’S VIEW ON LOWERING THE DRINKING AGE
Should the drinking age be lowered? Apparently not, according to an editorial in Monday’s USA Today. The author argues that while lower drinking age advocates – who generally agree 18 should be the legal age – have good points, the social consequences outweigh the positives.
“The pro-18 argument goes like this: If 18-year-olds are allowed to vote and serve in the military, they ought to be able to drink. The age 21 minimum simply undermines respect for the law and prevents young people from learning to drink responsibly at home before they get to college,” says the article.
Contrarily, the author claims that “about 50 major studies point to the same conclusion: On average, traffic deaths drop by 16% when the drinking age goes from 18 to 21. Since 1984, about 25,000 lives have been saved, federal highway authorities estimate.”
To read more about the pro-18 vs. the pro-21 argument, click here. They both make some interesting points.
“The pro-18 argument goes like this: If 18-year-olds are allowed to vote and serve in the military, they ought to be able to drink. The age 21 minimum simply undermines respect for the law and prevents young people from learning to drink responsibly at home before they get to college,” says the article.
Contrarily, the author claims that “about 50 major studies point to the same conclusion: On average, traffic deaths drop by 16% when the drinking age goes from 18 to 21. Since 1984, about 25,000 lives have been saved, federal highway authorities estimate.”
To read more about the pro-18 vs. the pro-21 argument, click here. They both make some interesting points.
posted at 1:39 PM
<< Home