Pros And Cons Of Drinking Age Prohibition
EXPLANATION OF KEY TERM
“Drinking age prohibition” was counterproductive in the 1850’s and 1920’s. Nothing has changed (Scrivo, 1998, n.p.).
ARTICLE SUMMARY In the article “Why the Drinking Age Should be Lowered: An Opinion Based Upon Research,” Karen Scrivo from Indiana University in Bloomington supports her rational claim that the state of Indiana should lower the legal drinking age to 18 or 19. Prohibition is counterproductive because it lowers the percentages of young, responsible drinkers. If one has to sneak around their parents about consuming alcoholic beverages rather than assimilate significant advice from experienced adults on how to drink responsibly, studies show the percentage of drunken fights increased from 12% to 17% (Scrivo, 1998, n.p.). Furthermore, ““cutting class after drinking" jumped from 9% …show more content…
In their article, “Lowering the Drinking Age Increases Car Crashes Among Youth,” authors use New Zealand, who lowered their drinking age to 18 a few years ago, as an example. For instance, “The authors estimated that 400 serious injuries and 12 deaths a year among 15-19 year olds could be avoided in New Zealand by raising the drinking age” (PIRE, 2005, n.p.). The PIRE argues that the United States will follow in their footsteps if we lower the age. Although, Scrivo says otherwise. She claims that the decrease of alcohol-related automobile accidents is related to multiple other factors. “These include: education concerning drunk driving, designated driver programs, increased seat belt and air bag usage, safer automobiles, lower speed limits, free taxi services from drinking establishments, etc” (Scrivo, 1998, n.p.). In addition to all these factors, if the legal drinking age was lowered, the number of responsible drinkers would increase. Therefore, the number of drunk drivers would
“Drinking age prohibition” was counterproductive in the 1850’s and 1920’s. Nothing has changed (Scrivo, 1998, n.p.).
ARTICLE SUMMARY In the article “Why the Drinking Age Should be Lowered: An Opinion Based Upon Research,” Karen Scrivo from Indiana University in Bloomington supports her rational claim that the state of Indiana should lower the legal drinking age to 18 or 19. Prohibition is counterproductive because it lowers the percentages of young, responsible drinkers. If one has to sneak around their parents about consuming alcoholic beverages rather than assimilate significant advice from experienced adults on how to drink responsibly, studies show the percentage of drunken fights increased from 12% to 17% (Scrivo, 1998, n.p.). Furthermore, ““cutting class after drinking" jumped from 9% …show more content…
In their article, “Lowering the Drinking Age Increases Car Crashes Among Youth,” authors use New Zealand, who lowered their drinking age to 18 a few years ago, as an example. For instance, “The authors estimated that 400 serious injuries and 12 deaths a year among 15-19 year olds could be avoided in New Zealand by raising the drinking age” (PIRE, 2005, n.p.). The PIRE argues that the United States will follow in their footsteps if we lower the age. Although, Scrivo says otherwise. She claims that the decrease of alcohol-related automobile accidents is related to multiple other factors. “These include: education concerning drunk driving, designated driver programs, increased seat belt and air bag usage, safer automobiles, lower speed limits, free taxi services from drinking establishments, etc” (Scrivo, 1998, n.p.). In addition to all these factors, if the legal drinking age was lowered, the number of responsible drinkers would increase. Therefore, the number of drunk drivers would