Debate on Drunk Driving
Content
Daniel Diaz
Group 1
Fisher, M. (Augu). Can lowering the drinking age be the healthful move?. Retrieved from
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/08/can_lowering_the_drinking_age.ht
ml
The drinking age should be lowered mainly because there is a conflict
between what it is considered to really be an adult. Legally, one becomes an adult
once here or she has turned the age of 18. However, the consumption of alcohol isn’t
allowed until age 21. This is a major conflict because realistically, people are able to
get punished and sent to jail, have their own bank account, serve in the armed
forces, but they’re not allowed to consume alcohol? Another factor that Marc Fisher
states in this article is that while he was growing up at the age of 18, 18 year olds
were allowed to consume alcohol publically and not have to hide what they were
doing. The key point to this is that it taught people how to drink with moderation.
Nowadays, teens who do choose to drink; drink at excessive amounts because of the
rarity in which they are able to drink. Also, adults were around to help moderate the
teens’ consumptions. Finally, going back to the conflict, Fisher started off the article
by saying what the President of UMD College Park, Dan Mote, stated that it is against
the law to drink underage; but if they were to witness someone passed out or in
harms way because of under-aged drinking then the student body should help them
out. This causes a conflict because Mote is stating the fact that it is illegal to
underage drink, but he acknowledges the fact this students drink anyways and
basically just says to help them anyways.
(2009, July 29). Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/07/11/AR2009071102337.html
The main focus on this article is that universities and people everywhere should
enforce the drinking age limit. Instead of coming up with the fact that under-aged teens
drink anyways and that should be the reason why the law should be changed; instead
everyone needs to just enforce it. If the drinking age were to change because of
conformity of the law; then what else can that lead to? What else would be the point of
having a law if it’s just going to change as well? They also mention in the article that
even though college students have said that they will continue to drink anyways, outside
of the universities people still choose not to drink and have driven the mortality rate of
deaths related to alcohol downward.
McCardell Jr., J. M. (2012, May 28). New york times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/28/do-we-need-to-redefineadulthood/let-them-drink-at-18-with-a-learners-permit
McCardell states the cliché facts in saying that college students will drink
regardless of the drinking age, and that the drinking age law should be enforced.
However, he states a different theory and comes up with a different process in regards of
the drinking age. Like how teens take a class that inform them about driving, how to
drive and safety issues and receive a permit to drive; teens should be mandated to take a
class in the issues of drinking and information about alcohol and also receive a permit to
drink. Once teens have been given their drinking permits, they are able to drink but also
drink responsibly like driving. In driving, if you go over the speed limit you get a ticket
by the law; by drinking and breaking the law such as public indecency then they should
receive a ticket as well. McCardell basically comes up with a parallel situation to help
reach a census with the issue.
Dean-Mooney, L. (2008, Sept. 08). Us news. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/09/08/a-lower-age-would-be-unsafe
Dean-Moony simply addresses the idea that the law that is given right now is
safer than lowering the drinking age. It has been statistically proven that keeping the age
at 21 has saved more lives than it would if it were lowered. It is also said that 72% of
adults believe lowering the legal alcohol consumption to 18 would cause for a more
dangerous environment. Dean-Mooney also explains what a neurotoxin is. A neurotoxin
is a poison that acts on the nervous system. This also affects the development of the
brain; a under developed brain that is still developing at the age of 18. Consuming
alcohol not only stunts the development of the brain but it also adds unneeded danger to
an already complex and one of the most important components of your body. There are
also links to diseases and sicknesses in the long term idea of a human being.
Group 1
Fisher, M. (Augu). Can lowering the drinking age be the healthful move?. Retrieved from
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/08/can_lowering_the_drinking_age.ht
ml
The drinking age should be lowered mainly because there is a conflict
between what it is considered to really be an adult. Legally, one becomes an adult
once here or she has turned the age of 18. However, the consumption of alcohol isn’t
allowed until age 21. This is a major conflict because realistically, people are able to
get punished and sent to jail, have their own bank account, serve in the armed
forces, but they’re not allowed to consume alcohol? Another factor that Marc Fisher
states in this article is that while he was growing up at the age of 18, 18 year olds
were allowed to consume alcohol publically and not have to hide what they were
doing. The key point to this is that it taught people how to drink with moderation.
Nowadays, teens who do choose to drink; drink at excessive amounts because of the
rarity in which they are able to drink. Also, adults were around to help moderate the
teens’ consumptions. Finally, going back to the conflict, Fisher started off the article
by saying what the President of UMD College Park, Dan Mote, stated that it is against
the law to drink underage; but if they were to witness someone passed out or in
harms way because of under-aged drinking then the student body should help them
out. This causes a conflict because Mote is stating the fact that it is illegal to
underage drink, but he acknowledges the fact this students drink anyways and
basically just says to help them anyways.
(2009, July 29). Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/07/11/AR2009071102337.html
The main focus on this article is that universities and people everywhere should
enforce the drinking age limit. Instead of coming up with the fact that under-aged teens
drink anyways and that should be the reason why the law should be changed; instead
everyone needs to just enforce it. If the drinking age were to change because of
conformity of the law; then what else can that lead to? What else would be the point of
having a law if it’s just going to change as well? They also mention in the article that
even though college students have said that they will continue to drink anyways, outside
of the universities people still choose not to drink and have driven the mortality rate of
deaths related to alcohol downward.
McCardell Jr., J. M. (2012, May 28). New york times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/28/do-we-need-to-redefineadulthood/let-them-drink-at-18-with-a-learners-permit
McCardell states the cliché facts in saying that college students will drink
regardless of the drinking age, and that the drinking age law should be enforced.
However, he states a different theory and comes up with a different process in regards of
the drinking age. Like how teens take a class that inform them about driving, how to
drive and safety issues and receive a permit to drive; teens should be mandated to take a
class in the issues of drinking and information about alcohol and also receive a permit to
drink. Once teens have been given their drinking permits, they are able to drink but also
drink responsibly like driving. In driving, if you go over the speed limit you get a ticket
by the law; by drinking and breaking the law such as public indecency then they should
receive a ticket as well. McCardell basically comes up with a parallel situation to help
reach a census with the issue.
Dean-Mooney, L. (2008, Sept. 08). Us news. Retrieved from
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/09/08/a-lower-age-would-be-unsafe
Dean-Moony simply addresses the idea that the law that is given right now is
safer than lowering the drinking age. It has been statistically proven that keeping the age
at 21 has saved more lives than it would if it were lowered. It is also said that 72% of
adults believe lowering the legal alcohol consumption to 18 would cause for a more
dangerous environment. Dean-Mooney also explains what a neurotoxin is. A neurotoxin
is a poison that acts on the nervous system. This also affects the development of the
brain; a under developed brain that is still developing at the age of 18. Consuming
alcohol not only stunts the development of the brain but it also adds unneeded danger to
an already complex and one of the most important components of your body. There are
also links to diseases and sicknesses in the long term idea of a human being.
