Hello, we are Tiffany Cao and Amber Chan. Today, we would like to explain and share the reasons why we believe the drinking age should not be lowered.
Drinking age should not be lowered because our own body isn't capable of resisting alcohol. 21-year-old may not be mature enough to know their limitations on drinking and just lowering the age will have a bad cause. Another reason is that if we lower the drinking age we might be contributing to more fatal accidents. Drinking may also allow people to hurt themselves and others. Young adults may have a chance of not knowing their limits. Lowering the drinking age will just make it worse because young adults or teenagers are still under pressure with drugs, depression, violence, etc.
21 year old are more likely to have no limitations on drinking; therefore, it makes it worse if the government would lower it down. According to Mike John who wrote the article, Cons of Lowering Drinking Age, Underaged Drinking," Lower drinking ages to 16, 17, or 18 like the MLDA [the minimal legal drinking age] in some European countries is inappropriate for US standards because American teens generally start driving at earlier ages and drive more often than their European counterparts. American teens are thus much more likely to drive under the influence of alcohol if the drinking age were lowered in the US." Since teens are able to drive in America, there is a more likely chance that these teens are capable of drunk driving; which can may a fatal scenario. Teens are allowed to drive at an age much younger than the current MLDA, and because they are so young, they do not have a complete knowledge of what is good or not, or choose to ignore it, because they are so young.
For teens who drive, lowering the drinking age has a chance of hurting the driver, the passengers, and other people driving near the teen driver, if the teen decides to drive and make the bad decision to drink and drive. “Between 1970 and 1975, 29 States lowered their drinking ages to 18, 19, or 20. By 1983, safety concerns had led many of these States to reverse course...NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] published an analysis in 1985 and a follow-up in 1989 on...the estimated number of lives saved...The studies found that the target involvements decreased on average by 13 percent in States where the drinking age had been raised” (NHTSA). Twenty-nine states lowered their drinking ages for less than fifteen years, and changed their MILDA back to the original drinking age: twenty-one. Thirteen percent less people died in the states when the MLDA was 21 years old, in comparison to the higher amount of people killed when the MLDA was lowered to 18, 19, and 20.
Drinking age should not be lowered because our own body isn't capable of resisting alcohol. 21-year-old may not be mature enough to know their limitations on drinking and just lowering the age will have a bad cause. Another reason is that if we lower the drinking age we might be contributing to more fatal accidents. Drinking may also allow people to hurt themselves and others. Young adults may have a chance of not knowing their limits. Lowering the drinking age will just make it worse because young adults or teenagers are still under pressure with drugs, depression, violence, etc.
21 year old are more likely to have no limitations on drinking; therefore, it makes it worse if the government would lower it down. According to Mike John who wrote the article, Cons of Lowering Drinking Age, Underaged Drinking," Lower drinking ages to 16, 17, or 18 like the MLDA [the minimal legal drinking age] in some European countries is inappropriate for US standards because American teens generally start driving at earlier ages and drive more often than their European counterparts. American teens are thus much more likely to drive under the influence of alcohol if the drinking age were lowered in the US." Since teens are able to drive in America, there is a more likely chance that these teens are capable of drunk driving; which can may a fatal scenario. Teens are allowed to drive at an age much younger than the current MLDA, and because they are so young, they do not have a complete knowledge of what is good or not, or choose to ignore it, because they are so young.
For teens who drive, lowering the drinking age has a chance of hurting the driver, the passengers, and other people driving near the teen driver, if the teen decides to drive and make the bad decision to drink and drive. “Between 1970 and 1975, 29 States lowered their drinking ages to 18, 19, or 20. By 1983, safety concerns had led many of these States to reverse course...NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] published an analysis in 1985 and a follow-up in 1989 on...the estimated number of lives saved...The studies found that the target involvements decreased on average by 13 percent in States where the drinking age had been raised” (NHTSA). Twenty-nine states lowered their drinking ages for less than fifteen years, and changed their MILDA back to the original drinking age: twenty-one. Thirteen percent less people died in the states when the MLDA was 21 years old, in comparison to the higher amount of people killed when the MLDA was lowered to 18, 19, and 20.
Your case is focused and persuasive. The point about how it's not fair to compare the younger European drinking age with American teens because you guys drive more...along with a clear citation...that impressed me. Your opponents better bring some fire against this!
ReplyDeleteGood luck in your debate; I'm eager to see it!