Alcohol Restriction Debate
Abraham Lincoln once stated that "It has long been recognized that the problems with alcohol relate not to the use of a bad thing , but to the abuse of a good thing.” Alcohol is exactly that which can be good for one but the poison for another , particularly , good for adults but bad for adolescent . Our position is that this protective and sensible law should remain until we as Americans can come up with the best way to handle underage drinking. This position is based upon sound science that demonstrates the current laws help protect the health and safety of our youth. Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) laws are the most studied and successful alcohol-related laws on the books.
Alcohol is zealously marketed, easily obtained, inexpensive and existing laws are not consistently enforced. Combine these factors with a widespread belief that alcohol is a benign drug, creates fun, inspires rebellious behaviors and positively defines one’s social status, and it becomes a pervasive force within the culture; one which is very seductive to youth. High-risk drinking and alcohol abuse are complex problems that no one strategy can remedy, but the higher MLDA is one effective approach. A small number of vocal individuals are proposing that the drinking age be lowered from 21 to 18 based on a belief that abusive and high-risk drinking by youth in our society would be dramatically curtailed by simply adopting the lower drinking age and providing alcohol education. The facts do not support their argument. The facts surrounding the consequences of lowering the drinking age in the U.S. during the 1970s, the recent lowering of the drinking age in New Zealand and the drinking patterns exhibited by European countries with already lower drinking ages prove the proposal to be ill-advised. At least 50 MLDA studies concur that a higher minimum legal drinking age is effective in preventing alcohol-related deaths and injuries among youth. When the MLDA has been lowered, injury and death
Alcohol is zealously marketed, easily obtained, inexpensive and existing laws are not consistently enforced. Combine these factors with a widespread belief that alcohol is a benign drug, creates fun, inspires rebellious behaviors and positively defines one’s social status, and it becomes a pervasive force within the culture; one which is very seductive to youth. High-risk drinking and alcohol abuse are complex problems that no one strategy can remedy, but the higher MLDA is one effective approach. A small number of vocal individuals are proposing that the drinking age be lowered from 21 to 18 based on a belief that abusive and high-risk drinking by youth in our society would be dramatically curtailed by simply adopting the lower drinking age and providing alcohol education. The facts do not support their argument. The facts surrounding the consequences of lowering the drinking age in the U.S. during the 1970s, the recent lowering of the drinking age in New Zealand and the drinking patterns exhibited by European countries with already lower drinking ages prove the proposal to be ill-advised. At least 50 MLDA studies concur that a higher minimum legal drinking age is effective in preventing alcohol-related deaths and injuries among youth. When the MLDA has been lowered, injury and death