Should the Federal Government Lower the Minimum Legal Drinking Age to 18 Essay Example

hand, opponents of lowering MLDA to 18 argue that teenagers at the age of 18 are to in a position to handle alcohol responsibly. As a result, there are high chances of causing harm of committing suicide (Birckmayer and Hemenway 1366). They also argue that traffic accidents reduced when MLDA was increased to 21. There seriousness in the issue is to protect they young generation from engaging in irresponsible behavior that can cause their death as well as other people.

From the above explanation, it is clear that each side both the pro side and the con side are concerned about the life and behavior of the young generation. They aim at reducing the rate of young deaths caused by underage alcohol drinking. According to the Hoffmann Law Firm, underage alcohol drinking is the main cause of many teenager traffic deaths as well other traffic deaths. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse studies revealed the dangers of underage drinking which include death, injuries, and irresponsible behavior. Alcohol is also a major cause of young suicide. In addition, alcohol exposes the youth to high risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and violent behavior (Carpenter 146). As a result, the federal government decided to control alcohol consumption by preventing underage people from exposing themselves to controllable risks like death and diseases. However, the decision by federal government to set a limit for drinking age at 21 confronts two basic social problems namely the safety of the youth and their rights.

One of the stakeholders greatly interested in the debate of lowering MLDA to 18 is the youth. The youth have a strong stand in this debate because they support

lowering MLDA to 18. Teenagers through the National Young Right Association have raised their voice on the government’s decision to deny them their right (Grossman 15). They feel oppressed by the MLDA at 21. They feel oppressed because the same government that denies them the right to drink at the age of 18 is the same government that grants them the right to vote and go to war using guns. This problem is of high significance to them because they feel the government is denying them their right. Another stakeholder is the parents. Parents will always take a strong stand on the debate of lowering MLDA depending on the side they support. For example, parents on the pro side support lowering MLDA to 18 because they want to supervise their children drinking instead of letting them drink while hiding (Grossman 15). They believe lowering MLDA to 18 will grant them the opportunity to control the drinking behavior of their children because at the age of 18 they have much control compared to when they are at 21. On the other hand, parents on the con side believe that underage drinking should not be allowed because it has disastrous effects to children like exposure to bad behavior and death. As a result, the social issue of lowering MLDA to 18 is of great significance to the parents because some feel youths should not have access to alcohol while other feel children youths should be allowed to drink as long as they behave responsibly.

The last stakeholders are the authorities. Some authorities on the pro side are interested in lowering MLDA to 18 because it will improve the

economy. According to the Jeffrey Tucker, director content for the foundation for economic education, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and California are thinking about reducing the drinking age to 18 (Carpenter, 145). By some experience and estimation, they conclude that lowering would be good for the youths, their safety, and US economy (Krauss, 174). On the other hand, authorities on the con side argue that lowering MLDA will lead to increased accidents and health issues. According to Christopher Carpenter, health institution is against because it would cause a lot of health damage into the society (Carpenter, 146). This clearly shows the issue of lowering MLDA to 18 is of great significance to authorities.

The stakeholders on the con side are motivated by the need to protect the young generation from underage drinking. Their values are safety and health of all teenagers. On the other hand, the stakeholders on the pro side are motivated by the need to respect young people right, increase safety, and reduce crime rate and improvement in the economy (Krauss 174). Their values are the rights of the youth, economic improvement, and reduction in crime rate. This paper will discuss the arguments of the proponents and opponents of MLDA. The proponents will be side A while opponents will be side B.

This paper will not discuss the consumption of alcohol as a positive or a negative thing. For instance, people may think consuming alcohol is a good thing while others may think consuming alcohol is a bad thing. As a result, the paper will not glorify or demean the consumption of alcohol. Instead, it will discuss some of the proponents and opponents arguments on the need

to lower MLDA from 21 to 18.
Key Words: MLDA- Minimum legal drinking age, Teenagers, / youth- individuals aged between 18, 19 1and 20 years, pro side is the proponents side while con side is the opponent’s side

Background/History and Current Policies

The Drinking Act governs the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA). This law aims at reducing underage drinking. The drinking laws provide a good example of the manner in which scientific research can influence the setting of effective and efficient public policies. Over the past decades underage drinking has been blamed for many problems like traffic clashes, assaults, teenage pregnancies, vandalism, homicides, and sexually transmitted diseases. The history of MLDA in U.S dates back during the days of complete prohibition. In the year 1920, the 18th Amendment of United States constitution banned the manufacture, transportation, and selling on any liquor with intoxicating effects. However, this Amendment was repealed by passing the 21st Amendment in the year 1933. This amendment allowed states to set alcohol policies and MLDA. When prohibition of selling alcohol was lifted in U.S, many states set the MLDA at 21 (Mosher 1980). Selling and consumption of alcohol to individuals below the age of 21 was banned. However, during 1970s, around 29 states in U.S lowered the MLDA from 21years to 18, 19, or 20 years. During this time, the minimum-age limit of several activities like voting was lowered to 18. The 26th Amendment passed in July 1971 lowered legal voting age to 18 years resulting to several states lowering the MLDA. The lowering of drinking age from 21 to 18, 19, and 20 years, forced scientist to start research on the impact of lower

MLDA. Most of the scientists focused on traffic clashes as the main cause of teenager deaths. Most of the scientific studies in between 1970 and 1980 revealed that there was significant increase in traffic crashes because of lowering the MLDA to 18. Many youths were involved in traffic accidents because of driving when drunk.

With clear scientific evidence that revealed increase in the number of traffic crashes involving teenagers because of lower MLDA, advocacy groups spearheaded a movement that aimed at restoring the MLDA at 21 in each state ((Birckmaye, 1370). As a result, between September 1976 and January 1983 around 16 states increased MLDA to 21. However, most of the states ignored the pressure from advocacy groups and government incentives to increase MLDA to 21(Birckmaye, 1371)). Because of failure to comply with advocacy groups and government incentives, the federal government started to become concerned about the general safety of teenagers in different States, which did not increase the MLDA. The federal government was also concerned about the youths in neighboring states. This is because individuals who were below minimum legal drinking age in the respective states could drive easily to neighboring states to buy alcohol and return home after they were done. The federal government felt driving across states when drunk could increase traffic crashes.

Since the 21st amendment to the United States constitution gave states the mandate to set and regulate alcohol drinking through MLDA, the federal government could not force all states to adopt a uniform drinking age of 21. Failure by the states to set uniform MLDA resulted to the president of Commission of Drunk Driving recommending for the establishment of a uniform

MLDA at 21 years. As a result, President Reagan agreed with the commission and signed into law the bill Uniform Drinking Age Act requiring all states to increase minimum legal drinking age to 21 years. The Uniform Drinking Age Act bill was signed into law in 1984. All states were to adopt the requirements of the law with a period of five years. Failure to adopt the law would result to withdrawal of government financing in respective states. However, by 1988 all states had already set the MLDA at 21. Since the passing of 21st Amendment on MLDA, the drinking law has never been amended again. However, different states have set different policies that govern alcohol consumption. In addition, MLDA of 21 years has led to increased debate on lowering it to 18 years. Despite, the law has remained untouched.

The MLDA legislation can be attributed to the determination of Candy Lightner as well as the MADD. MADD was an association of mothers against drunk driving that led a huge campaign against drinking age in the U.S. The MADD exerted a lot of pressure to the states and federal governments to increase the drinking age because lower drinking age was causing many deaths. The unity and pressure of the MADD paid in 1984 when the Uniform Drinking Act was passed and signed to become law thus regulating nationwide drinking age. Currently, underage drinking in U.S is illegal but 45 states have set several exceptions that allow individuals below 21 years to consume alcohol. This implies that different states have set policies that govern the situations where an underage person can drink alcohol. In certain circumstances, an

individual below the age of 21 years can consume alcohol. For example, 29 states allow underage drinking if it is done in a private place with parental approval, 25 states allow underage drinking if it is for religious purpose while 11 states allow it if it is for educational purpose.

However, research reveals MLDA of 21 years has successfully reduced alcohol-related problems especially among the youth. MLDA of 21 saved over 1,000 youth lives each year (NHTSA 1989; Jones et al. 1992). The most exciting thing is that after the enactment of the MLDA people adhered to it without enforcement. Opponents of the MLDA of 21 years argue that the law does not work because underage people still drink alcohol. However, evidence shows that underage problems caused by alcohol consumption have reduced. Although some drink alcohol, they drink less.

In-Depth Presentation of Pro Side

Today, MLDA is at 21 years. However, there is debate on lowering the MLDA to 18 years. The debate consists of the pro side and the con side. The pro side entails the proponents of lowering MLDA to 18. Proponents support the lowering MLDA from 21 to 18 years. The pro side section will be divided in three parts namely stakeholder’s values and position, issues and arguments raised by stakeholders and lastly the pro side plan. The proponents of lowering MLDA to 18 argue that MLDA at 21 has not reduced cases of underage drinking. Instead, it has pushed teenager’s binge drinking to less controlled zones and private places resulting therefore endangering their life as well as health and behavior. The stakeholders of lowering MLDA to 18 are the youth, some authorities, and some

parents. Youths are greatly interested in the debate of lowering MLDA to 18 is the youth because they feel oppressed by the law. Teenagers through the National Young Right Association have raised their voice on the government’s decision to deny them their right. Youths support on lowering MLDA is shaped by demand moral value on demanding their right. Parents on the pro side support lowering MLDA to 18 because they want to supervise their children drinking instead of letting them drink while hiding. They believe lowering MLDA to 18 will grant them the opportunity to control the drinking behavior of their children because at the age of 18 they have much control compared to when they are at 21. Parents support on lowering MLDA is shaped by moral reasons of providing guidance to their children. Some authorities on the pro side are interested in lowering MLDA to 18 because it will improve the economy. Authorities support on lowering MLDA is shaped b economic value. They believe lowering MLDA will improve the economy. The major issues that arise on the pro side are MLDA of 21 oppresses the right of young people from 18 to 20 while they are considered as an adult, improvement in the economy and granting parents the opportunity to monitor their children drinking behavior. Stakeholders in this side value safety of the teens, improvement in the economy and parents opportunity to control children drinking age.

The first argument in the pro side is that MLDA of 21 years oppresses teenagers aged 18 to 20. It denies them their right to drink. Youths feel that since they are allowed to vote at the age

of 18, then the society has unique trust in them. They believe that the society grants them the responsibility to vote because they are old enough to do so (Mills, Britain, Raul Caetano, and Vaeth 2809). Having the right to participate in general election implies that the aged 18 and above are responsible enough to differentiate what is good and bad. Youths through the National Youth Right Association argue that the youths are old enough to make major decision in their lives like whether drinking is right or wrong. The other evidence is the fact that you can join military at the age of 18 (Mills et al. 2810). Once you join the military, you are entitled to protect citizens using gun. This clearly shows that you are considered responsible enough to have a gun and fight for your country. As a result, there is need to allow youths whether they want to drink alcohol at the age of 18. For example, statistics reveal that in 2006 the number of male and women aged 18 to 19 who enrolled in military were 82,916 and 16,513 respectively, those aged 20 to 21 were 158,587 and 27,017. In 2007, they were 82,636 male and 15,974 aged 18 to 19 while 20 to 21 years were 151,923 male and 25,739 female. In 2008, 84,758 male and 15,680 female aged 18 to 19 joined military. This clearly shows there is continuous trust in the people aged 18, 19, and 20. As a result, they should be allowed to take alcohol ("Number and Percentage Of 18- To 24-Year-Olds In The Armed Forces, By Age Group and Sex: 2000 through 2008"

Para 1).

The second argument is that lowering MLDA improves the economy. Mainly authorities have supported this argument. For example, the several members of the Libertarian Party, which is an American national political party that reflects, represents, and promotes the ideas and philosophies of libertarianism and the free market, argue that lowering the MLDA to 18 will improve the economy (O'Malley, Patrick, and Alexander, Wagenaar, 478). The libertarian parties of Minnesota are supporters of low MLDA because of several reasons. They argue that if the federal government lowers the MLDA to 18, learning institution will get the opportunity to educate individuals on the dangers of consuming alcohol. The fact that drinking at the age of 18 is illegal makes it hard for education institution to formulate methods of educating the youths on avoiding alcohol. Alcohol is a reality and youths should not be refused to access it.

Just like the national Young Right Association, Liberian politicians argue that youths are granted taste of adulthood but denied the full privilege to enjoy. In addition, changing MLDA to 18 years would help improve the economy of U.S. To support this argument proponents of lowering MLDA use the study on Menomonie. Menomonie is a small city located in Dunn County western part of Wisconsin. This town has many underage students who used to drink at the age of 18 (O'Malley, Patrick, and Alexander, Wagenaar 478). One of the bar owners in the town reported that selling of alcohol had great impact in the economy of the small city when the MLDA was 18. Proponents also argue that lowering MLDA will increase alcohol sales and the government can use taxation to

increase total revenue. For example, in 2010, the contribution of alcohol in state and local revenues was over $41billion. Of that amount, 20.1 billion came from indirect revenues such as corporate, personal income; property and other taxes generated by the beverage alcohol industry but would be higher if they expand it (Rasuj Para. 4). This indicates lowering the MLDA to 18 will increase the total contribution of alcohol thus improving the economy.

The third argument entails parents who argue that lowering MLDA will grant them the opportunity to supervise and monitor underage drinking also referred to as binge. Parents mainly support this argument (Rasuj Para. 4). Despite lowering MLDA encouraging more youths to engage in alcohol consumption, parents believe that they will have great opportunity to monitor their children and provide the necessary guidance. This is because at the age of 18, they have more control of their children than when they are 21 years old. Setting the MLDA at 21 years denies parents the opportunity to monitor their sons and daughters drinking behavior because many at 21 years live on their own. At 18 years, parents will have the opportunity to note an excessive consumption and take the best decision. Parents will have the opportunity to monitor their children drinking when they are in school rather than when they are working (Rasuj Para. 4). As a result, at 18 it will be easy to teach youths how to moderate drinking especially college students who tend to overdrinking while hiding.

Parents see no reason of setting MLDA at 21 yet students drink at the age of 18 while drinking. For example, the Journal of consulting and clinical

psychology did a study to observe 2,318-college student and their relation to alcohol. 4 of the every 5 participants have consumed alcohol before the age of 21. The MLDA should be lowered to 18 to allow parents monitor their children instated of letting them drink while hiding (Rutledge 512). Parents also argue that the youth have designed methods of drinking alcohol while hiding. For example there is a documentary were students played a game of drinking competition. The winner was the person who drank many bottles of alcohol. In addition, proponents of lowering MLDA to 18 argue that MLDA at 21 forces youths to use fake IDs in order to purchase alcohol. Since use of fake IDs is a criminal activity, proponents believe that lowering MLDA to 18 would reduce the use of fake IDs. Research shows that most of the crimes involving use of fake documents are executed by the youth especially alcohol related cases. The possession or use of false identification is a crime by itself, and if you use the ID to do something illegal, you can face additional charges and penalties for the illegal activity (Rutledge 512). Therefore, parents believe that lowering MLDA to 18 will prevent the use of fake IDs to obtain alcohol.

Parents also argue that MLDA at 21 can endanger the lives of teenagers especially when they are not willing to report any tragedy that happens when they are drinking while hiding. A good example is the tragedy of Gordie Bailey. Gordie Bailey was18 year when he went to the University of Colorado, he had been there just for one month, when the tragedy happened (Birckmaye, 1370). Gordie

and his friends were drinking a lot at them dorm. His stepfather says that they drunk 10 gallons in half an hour of liquor and wine. Gordie was not okay, but his friends could not take him to the hospital because they were underage. Gordie was utterly intoxicating, but he was left alone on the sofa in the library all night. They found him dead in the morning, and the parent claims that they could have avoided the tragedy if MLDA was at 18 (Birckmaye, 1370). Parents argue that if MLDA were at 18, Gordie’s friend would have reported the incidence to relevant authorities. According to them, changing the MLDA would put young generation in a safer place.

The plan of the pro side stakeholders is to lobby the public to support the idea of lowering MLDA from 21 to 18 years. Stakeholders on this side will lobby the public by educating them the need to lower MLDA to 18. They plan to educate people the benefits of lowering MLDA to 18. Some of these benefits include respect to the right of the youth, safety of teenagers, and reduction of crime rate as well as improving the economy. Educating people on the benefits of lowering MLDA will help this group in advocating for the amendment of Drinking Age Act.

Depth Presentation of Con Side

Parents, and some authorities like highway governor, and health institutions are the primary stakeholders of the con side (Carpenter 137). Parents are concerned about the safety of their children and claim that a low MLDA would have disastrous results. One of the most significant associations against is the MADD. A mother victim of the

drunk driving issue founded the mothers against the drunk driving organization. Her daughter was by a drunk driver so since 1980 she created MLDA to protect young people (McCartt 174). In 1920, 25,000 people were killed in a car accident 50% of it was related to alcohol. Letting young people drink early will assault and sexual abuse, in fact, intoxicated young are not able to run or defend themselves and are at the mercy of rapist, muggers, and other attackers. They are an easy target so keep it high preserve them to this danger. Lowering the MLDA to 18 years might increase the young injuries which one of the primary reasons for young death. There are many issues on the con side for lowering the drinking age from 21 years to 18 years. According to Tamika Zapolski, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Indiana University, lowering the drinking age to 18 years would be harmful in two ways. First, lowering MLDA to 18 will increase traffic crashes involving the youth. Second, lowering MLDA will create health problems among the youth. Third, lowering MLDA will create irresponsible behavior among the youth like sexual activities. The stakeholders of the con side value the safety, behavior, and health of the youths.

The first argument is that lowering MLDA to 18 will increase traffic crashes involving the youth. Highway governor is totally against the idea of lowering the MLDA to 18 years (Kypri 127). According to the Journal of safety research, since the MLDA came up to 21 years reduction among fatally injured drivers is evident. Surveys tracking alcohol consumption among high school students and young adults found that drinking declined

since the late 1970s, and most of the decline occurred by the early 1990s. These were the years when states were establishing or reinstating, an MLDA-21. Among fatally injured drivers ages 16 to 20 years, the percentage with positive BACs declined from 61% in 1982 to 31% in 1995, a bigger decline than for older age groups; declines occurred among the ages directly affected by raising MLDAs and among young teenagers not directly affected (Kypri 136). Almost all studies designed specifically to gauge the effects of drinking age changes show MLDAs of 21 reduce drinking, problematic drinking, drinking and driving, and alcohol-related crashes among young people. Lowering the drinking age to 18 years will increase highway crash deaths among young people.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, Motor vehicle crashes are the number one cause of death for persons between 15 and 20 years of age (Coate 148). During the 1980s, the country saw a reduction in alcohol-related fatal crashes, directly attributable to raising the legal minimum age for the sale and public possession of alcohol to age 21. It is approximated that minimum drinking age laws, imperfect as they are, have prevented close to 25,000 fatalities since 1975. The fact that a minor, who cannot legally purchase alcohol, has a positive BAC demonstrates that underage drinking and driving remains a problem (Coate 149). Teenage drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.10% are far more likely to be killed in single-vehicle crashes than sober drivers or older drivers with similar BAC levels. Young drivers comprise about 8% of licensed drivers but 17% of the alcohol-involved drivers in fatal crashes. In 2005, 24% of young

drivers killed in motor vehicle crashes had an illegal BAC.

According to Sandra Brown, Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of California at San Diego, despite the legal scaffolding to protect adolescent drivers from the dangers of driving and drinking (Dee 289). 16 to 18-year-old youths still accounted for 11 percent of the 80 million trips driven in 1999 by drivers with blood alcohol concentrations more than 0.10%. One of the most successful interventions has been the adoption of age 21 as the legal drinking age (Dee 295). One national study of laws raising the drinking age to 21 indicated that persons who grew up in states with a drinking age of 21, relative to those who grew up in states with lower legal drinking ages, drank less not only when they were below 21 years of age but also when they were 21 to 25 years old.

The second argument is that lowering MLDA will create health problems among the youth. The health institutes are totally against Lowering MLDA to 18 years. Everyone knows excessive alcohol consumption creates a lot of health problem. Even if the MLDA cannot stop every binge, it prevents many of them to drink or be too drunk. They are afraid to be caught by the police, parent or other authorizes. According to the studies of Europeans, countries show that younger people are trying in Europe than the United States (Carpenter 146). If we take the percent of 18-year-old reporting drinking in the past 30 years, we can see that France has a percentage of 64%, but the US has 33%. When consumed in large quantities, alcohol can cause lasting

brain damage. According to of health institutes, it is better to delay they contact with alcohol (McCartt 179). Based on some scientific experience, the MLDA should go up to 25 years old because it's the majority age of a mouse and they are the one who had a good respond to alcohol. All the stakeholders are concerned about the safety and defend their possible outcomes by using experience, stimulation, and research to support their opinions and give their solutions.

Christopher Carpenter, Professor of Economics at Vanderbilt University, stated that the Minimum legal drinking age of 21 is working. Alcohol consumption jumps sharply exactly at age 21 and remains elevated. Deaths jump sharply exactly at age 21 by about 9% and remain elevated. Arrests jump sharply exactly at age 21 and remain elevated. Hospitalizations jump sharply exactly at age 21 and remain elevated (Saffer 405). All these issues will be affecting the youths at the age of 18 years, yet some of them are in school. Numerous policies and proposals have been put forth to address the troubling profile of excessive alcohol use by young people. Many of these need more research to explain their effectiveness on a broad population-wide scale, but a minimum legal drinking age of 21 is not one of them.

The third argument is that lowering MLDA will create irresponsible behavior among the youth like sexual activities and early pregnancies. Opponents of lowering MLDA to 18 argue that lowering the drinking age will led to bad behavior like sexual activities resulting to early pregnancies. Early pregnancy will lead to school dropout. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services Task Force of

the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholics, the minimum age for initiation is based on the specific behaviors involved and must take into account the dangers and benefits of that behavior at a given age (DiNardo 992). The age 21 policy for alcohol takes into account the fact that underage drinking is related to many serious health problems, including injuries and death resulting from homicide, assault, drowning, car crashes, suicide, and recreational injuries (DiNardo 998). In fact, the leading cause of school dropout and early pregnancies among teens is consumption of alcohol.

The plan of the con side of lowering MLDA is to lobby support from the public. Several recommended approaches have proven to reduce levels of risky drinking among the teenagers in the US (Toomey 213). Some of them are Promotion of prevention programs before joining college. Data conclusively shows that most youths are coming to college with drinking patterns in place (Ornstein 219). Societies must start prevention programs earlier and be more aggressive in order to change this cultural pattern. Colleges and high schools can be direct with prospective and admitted students and parents regarding the issue as well. Begin Alcohol Edu type programs before teenagers join college (Ornstein 226). Kids are way beyond this level when they arrive, although these programs have been shown to reduce harm at college, too. Changing social norms; Northern Illinois University pioneered the positive social marketing technique to address attitudes and perceptions about binge drinking, and other colleges and high schools have adopted this approach and have seen reductions in risky behavior.

The issue of minimum legal drinking age has led to increased debate on the right

age between 18 and 21 years. This is because alcohol is one of the drugs that is readily available to the youths. Alcohol is the drug highly abused by adolescents even more than other drugs like tobacco. The increased debate on lowering MLDA from 21 to 18 has led to two sides one supporting 18 years and the other one supporting 21 years (O'Malley, Patrick and Alexander, Wagenaar, 479). However, each side has its own argument on the issue. As a result, this paper will critically analyze each side’s argumentation as well as providing the strengths and weaknesses or each argument. In addition, the paper will conduct moral reasoning analysis on lowering MLDA from 21 to 18 years. Finally, the paper will give a tentative conclusion on the issue (Wagenaar, 207).

Having discussed the cases in depth, it is time to analyze each side. To begin with, some of the supporters of lowering MLDA from 21 to 18 are the youths through the National Youth Rights Association. The argument of the youth through this association is that setting MLDA at 21 greatly oppresses the right of the young people from 18 to 20 because they are considered adults (Mccartt, Anne, Laurie, Hellinga, and Kirley, 174). Since at the age of 18 they can vote then the society considers them old enough to play a role in the future of the country. If the society can accept people at the age of 18 to vote, then it means they trust the same people can make critical decisions in their lives. After careful analysis of the National Youth Right Association argument, it is clear that they want to

prove why underage people should be allowed to use alcohol. Their argument is based on the idea that since underage people are allowed to make country’s decisions then they should be allowed to make their own decision on alcohol consumption (Krauss, 174). To support their argument they go ahead to discuss how people at the age of 18 are allowed to join military service. The right of entering the military service is a proof that you are responsible enough to have a gun and fight for your country. In addition, they argue that MLDA at 21 makes alcohol more attractive. Another group that supports MLDA at 21 is the libertarian parties of Minnesota (Wechsler, Henry, and Nelson, 987). These parties believe that lowering drinking age will give education institutions the chance to educate the youth on dangers of alcohol. The other group is parents who believe lowering the drinking age will give them the opportunity to monitor underage drinking.

Their argument in support for the lowering of the MLDA from 18 to 21 has several strengths and weaknesses. One of the strengths of the arguments given in support of lowering drinking age to 18 is the fact that the proponents have employed reason or logic by giving clear examples to demonstrate why people at the age of 18 should be allowed to take alcohol. After careful analysis of their arguments, it is clear that the stakeholders in this side have given good examples to support their arguments. Giving an example of how underage people are allowed to vote, join military, and even marry is a clear indication that they can make responsible decisions based on whether

they want to drink alcohol or not. They have used logos to persuade people to believe their arguments.
The other strength of these arguments is the fact that they use persuasive statistical data to prove that at the MLDA of 21 years does not work and instead it attracts people to drink alcohol. They give a statistical example of a study done by Journal of consulting and clinical psychology to observe 2,318-college student and their relation to alcohol. The study revealed that 4 of the every 5 participants have consumed alcohol before the age of 21 (Birckmayer, 1365). Therefore, MLDA of 21 does not stop the underage drink instead; it attracts underage people to drink. This is a clear statistical example used by proponents to show the need to lower MLDA from 21 to 18 and give parents the responsibility to monitor their children at 18 years because at 21 they do not have much control on them compared to when they are 18 years old.

The other strength is the use of arguments that evoke pity and emotions to the people. This can also be referred to the use of pathos. One of the examples used in the arguments clearly evokes pity from the reader. It creates an emotion that appeals to the reader to think of the importance of lowering MLDA to 18. The example of Gordie Bailey who was18 years yet he died because of drinking when underage. Gordie consumed a lot of alcohol, which intoxicated him. He died because of the fear to report the incidence since he was underage. This example clearly evokes the emotion of the reader. For example, if the

MLDA was 18 Gordie would not have died because the matter would have been reported early. This example shows that there is many underage people consuming alcohol while hiding and in case something bad happens, they fear reporting. Therefore lowering the MLDA to 18 will improve the safety of underage people taking alcohol (Mills, 2810).

The other strength is the use of ethical appeal in the arguments. Ethical appeal is shown were the proponents argue that MLDA at 21 increase criminal activities like use of fake IDs to obtain alcohol and cigarette. Many people do not understand that forbidding people at the age of 18 years from taking alcohol increases criminal activities (Rutledge, 510). Some below 21 years use fake IDs to obtain alcohol. This is illegal and it is punishable by the law. It is good to lower the age to 18 to reduce the number of people using fake IDs to access alcohol because these IDs can be used in other criminal activities like stealing.

However, despite the above strengths there are several weaknesses of proponent’s arguments in support of lowering drinking age to 18 years. One of the weaknesses is jumping to unjustified conclusions. Some of the arguments have made unjustified conclusions. For example, claiming that the reduction of drinking age from 21 to 18 years will lead to decrease in the number of underage people consuming alcohol while hiding is unjustified. This is because lowering the age can also lure individuals below 18 years to alcohol consumption while hiding. To support this argument the proponents should have given a statistical example.

The second weakness is the use of false analogies. This is demonstrated when

they argue that underage people should be allowed to consume alcohol because they are allowed to vote and join military. They claim that voting and joining military means they are old enough to become responsible. This is a false analogy because there are many things that happen when an individual joins military like training. In addition, you cannot measure the level of responsibility with military and voting. Therefore, the argument is weak and lacks basis.

Critical Thinking Analysis of the Con Side

Now it is time to analyze the con side. It is clear that the con side does not support the idea of lowering the MLDA to 18. Their argument against lowering the MLDA to 18 also has its own strengths and weaknesses. One of the strengths for this side’s argument against the lowering of MLDA to 18 is that they have used real life situations and even given examples of what has resulted because of lowering the MLDA to 18. According to the con side, the MLDA is working mainly for the traffic death. For instance, the founder of the mothers against the drunken driving issues is a mother whose daughter was hit by a drunk driver and she created the MDDA to protect young people. This is an example of a real life situation. Another example that the con side has used to argue their side is the thousands of people who were killed in 1920 in a car accident and 50% of it was related to alcohol (DiNardo, John, and Lemieux, 998). This incident led to the mission of decreasing the number of drunken drivers and helping the victim of drunken living.

The other

strength is that they have pointed out the negative impacts of lowering the MLDA to 18 and what it would do to the young people by evoking sympathy to the young people. They argue that letting people drink early will result to assault and sexual abuse. They have gone further and argued that most intoxicated young people are not able to run or defend themselves and therefore they are at the mercy of rapists, muggers and other attacks. This makes them an easy target and hence the con side is trying to preserve them from these dangers. Another impact that they have pointed out is that lowering the MLDA would also increase the young injuries such that young people have more intends to do crazy things when they are drunk because they tend to lose limits and get out of control. These things not only hurt them but also those who are close to them including friends and family.

The other strength of their argument is that they have illustrated the positive change that has occurred since when the MLDA came up to 21 by using statistical data. According to the journal of safety research, since then, there is a reduction among fatally injured drivers. In addition, surveys done to investigate alcohol consumption among young adults and high school students have indicated that drinking has declined since. Among the fatally injured drivers of age 16-20, the percentage declined from 61% to 31%, a bigger decline than for older age groups (Saffer, Henry, and Grossman, 404). These studies designed specifically to gauge the effects of drinking age changes show how MLDA of 21 reduce drinking, problematic drinking

and drinking and driving and alcohol related crashes among young people (Kypri, Kypros, et al, 226).

Despite these strengths, the con side has several weaknesses. One of the weaknesses of the con side is that it makes unjustifiable conclusions just like the pro side. The claim about lowering the MLDA might increase the young injuries causing young deaths is unjustifiable. This is because it needs statistical support to show increase in young deaths because of lowering MLDA. Failure to give statistical examples makes the claim unjustifiable.

The other weakness is that their argument is only based on the negative side of what will occur when the MLDA is lowered to 18. Though there are many negative effects that arise due to consumption of alcohol, there are also some positive impacts of alcohol like the reduction of crimes caused by use of fake IDs to acquire alcohol. In addition, the side does not see the benefits of lowering MLDA to the economy.

Moral Reasoning Analysis

Pro Side Obligations

The obligation of the pro side is to create awareness on the need to lower the MLDA to 18. Using their arguments, proponents of lowering drinking age should mobilize people to demand change in the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. This will be achieved by educating people the benefits of lowering the drinking age. After mobilizing people, they can present these arguments to the respective state governments were they can reviewed and acted upon. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the proponents to lead people in demanding change in the MLDA.

Pro Side Values

The core values of the proponents on lowering MLDA is that it will provide respect for the young right, increase the

safety and also reduce crime rate but also it can have a good effect on the economy. They believe that lowering MLDA will reduce crime since the use of fake IDs will decline. In addition, it will have good impact to the economy since people who are not drinking because of the law will start drinking increasing alcohol sales and tax. This means they value the rights of the youth, reduction in crime rate and economy.

Possible Consequences of Pro Side Position

The support on lowering MLDA has both positive and negative consequences. One of the positive effects is that it will drug smuggling when the MLDA is lowered. This is because those people using alcohol while hiding will start using it in open places. Therefore, criminal activities will reduce since the use of fake IDs will reduce. The other positive effect is that some deaths will not occur once the MLDA is lowered. Underage people are dying because of fear to report their addiction to alcohol use. Lowering the MLDA will enable them to report alcohol complications. The negative effect of this side is that lowering the MLDA can lead to accidents, increased alcohol usage, and irresponsible behavior among the youth. Most of those youths who will start taking alcohol will become irresponsible.

Foundational Normative Principles that Support Pro side

The foundational normative principles that support the lowering of MLDA is that it is better to see your son drinking at the age of 18 than being informed that your son is in police custody because of alcohol abuse yet you knew he does not take alcohol. If the lowering of MLDA will lower crime then the law

should be changed.

Con Side Obligations

The obligations of the con side are to create awareness on why it is important to lower the MLDA to 18. Using their arguments, people should demand change in the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. They can accomplish this by educating people on the impacts that drinking at a lower age results to. They can present their arguments to the right authorities where they can be acted upon. Therefore it is the responsibility of the proponents to lead people in demanding change and making the right decisions.

Con Side Values

The core values of the opponents of lowering the MLDA is that it will reduce the number of deaths and suicides that have resulted due to alcohol consumption by the young people. They believe that the young people will be more responsible and able to control their actions. In addition, assaults and sexual abuse will also reduce and alcohol related health problems would also reduce. This means that they value the safety and health of all people.

Possible Consequences of Con Side Position

The argument against lowering the MLDA has both positive and negative consequences. One of the positive effects is that with less consumption of alcohol, deaths suicides and sexual abuse and any other effects related to alcohol will reduce. There will be also reduction of accidents since almost 50% of them occur because of drinking and driving (Toomey, 213). However, crime will pave its way since people will always find a way to do what is prohibited. The negative consequence is that some people cannot do without drugs especially those who have become addicts and therefore will do what it takes to acquire

them hence leading to increase in number of crime.

Foundational Normative Principles that Support Con side

The normative principles that support con side is the statistical prove that lowering MLDA will lead to increased deaths and school dropouts as well as increasing accessibility of alcohol to underage people. They also have support from heath care providers and government through the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (Rasul, 10).

Tentative Conclusion

Having analyzed each side, thoroughly it is time for me to take a stance. For instance, I support the con side. First, I support the con side because it does not make unjustifiable conclusions. Their arguments are true because lowering the MLDA will risk the safety of their children. This is because it will increase youth’s accessibility to alcohol. As a result, there will be tremendous increase in alcohol intake among the youth. The second reason is that lowering MLDA, will lead to risky sexual behaviors and increase the risk of physical and sexual assault among the youth. Research reveals, “among college students under age 21, 50,000 experience alcohol-related date rape, and 43,000 are injured by another student who has been drinking." The con side is appealing because it gives the true impact of lowering MLDA. Lowering MLDA will lead to irresponsible behavior and school dropout.

My obligation is to educate the society the benefits of setting the MLDA at 21 years and the disadvantages of lowering it to 18 years. My core values are the safety of t children, responsible behavior, and lower death rate. I believe there is need to protect children from access to alcohol because it puts them into more danger. The positive consequence of my stand

on MLDA is that I will get support from members in the con side while the negative consequence is huge criticism from the pro side. The foundational normative principle of my argument is the National Minimum Drinking Age Act regulates the drinking age. This law is set to clarify that alcohol use for people under the age of 21 is harmful. This is where I draw my stand on MLDA. Finally, I do not feel there is concern with my conclusion because it clear explains my stand on MLDA.

Conclusion

From our discussion, one truth that comes out clearly is that alcohol is a drug that is readily available to the youths and is highly abuse by the members of the same age group. Consequences are very severe. Reducing the drinking age has both the negative and positive effects. In as much as they have both consequences, the negative effects will override the positive effects. Many parents who felt that they need to supervise their children were not logical in giving out that idea because ideally, one might not be able to supervise someone while drinking, it might happen once or twice, but not always. The tendency of one getting addicted at a young age is higher that when they are older. Otherwise alcohol consumption in the United States should not be a question of age but a matter of self-discipline.

Works Cited

1. "NIH Fact Sheets - Alcohol-Related Traffic Deaths." N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.
2. "Number And Percentage Of 18- To 24-Year-Olds In The Armed Forces, By Age Group And Sex: 2000 Through 2008". Nces.Ed.Gov, 2016, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012026/tables/table_29.asp.
3. "Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to a
   

Younger ..." N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.
"Youth Drinking: Risk Factors and Consequences - Alcohol ..." N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.

Drinking Without Thinking on the U.S.-Mexico Border?" Alcohol Clin Exp Res Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 38.11 (2014): 2809-815. Web.

age laws: review and analyses of the literature from 1960 to 2000." Journal of Studies on Alcohol, supplement 14 (2002): 206-225.