Article Critique: The Dangers of the Drinking Age
The Dangers of the Drinking Age In this article, Jeffrey A. Miron and Elina Tetelbaum argue against the belief that a drinking age of 21 years old saves lives and prevents students from drinking. Their argument is that raising the drinking age to 21 has had many unintended consequences.
These consequences include: a rise in binge drinking and disrespect for the law. They use statistics to support their major points and counteract opposing views.
“For the past 20 years, the United States has kept a Minimum Legal Drinking Age of 21 (MLDA21) with little or no public debate about the wisdom of this policy.” More than
100 college and university presidents signed the Amethyst Initiative recently. The Amethyst
Initiative is a statement calling for “an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21 year old drinking age.” (709) With a predictable response to this, advocates of restricted access and no tolerance decried the initiative. They stated that the
MLDA21 saves lives by preventing traffic deaths among 18 to 20 year olds. For example, the president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving accused the university heads of “not doing their homework” on the relationship between the drinking age and traffic deaths. (710)
According to Miron and Tetelbaum, the advocates of the MLDA21 are the ones who need a refresher course. In their recently completed research, they show that the MLDA21 has had little or no lifesaving effect.
In 1933, the U.S. repealed the prohibition of alcohol. This made the states free to legalize, regulate, or prohibit access to it as they saw fit. Most of the states legalized it, but they also prohibited it. For the prohibition, 32 states made their MLDA 21, and 16 states made theirs between 18 and 20. This continued through the late 1960s.
Between 1970 and 1976, 30 states lowered their MLDA from 21 to 18. Since the
26th Amendment granted those 18 years and
These consequences include: a rise in binge drinking and disrespect for the law. They use statistics to support their major points and counteract opposing views.
“For the past 20 years, the United States has kept a Minimum Legal Drinking Age of 21 (MLDA21) with little or no public debate about the wisdom of this policy.” More than
100 college and university presidents signed the Amethyst Initiative recently. The Amethyst
Initiative is a statement calling for “an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21 year old drinking age.” (709) With a predictable response to this, advocates of restricted access and no tolerance decried the initiative. They stated that the
MLDA21 saves lives by preventing traffic deaths among 18 to 20 year olds. For example, the president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving accused the university heads of “not doing their homework” on the relationship between the drinking age and traffic deaths. (710)
According to Miron and Tetelbaum, the advocates of the MLDA21 are the ones who need a refresher course. In their recently completed research, they show that the MLDA21 has had little or no lifesaving effect.
In 1933, the U.S. repealed the prohibition of alcohol. This made the states free to legalize, regulate, or prohibit access to it as they saw fit. Most of the states legalized it, but they also prohibited it. For the prohibition, 32 states made their MLDA 21, and 16 states made theirs between 18 and 20. This continued through the late 1960s.
Between 1970 and 1976, 30 states lowered their MLDA from 21 to 18. Since the
26th Amendment granted those 18 years and