On December 5th,1933 the 21st amendment replied Prohibition. Listed as the 18th amendment, prohibition banned the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcoholic beverages for consumption. The 21st amendment also allowed each state to set its own alcohol consumption laws. Nearer to this change, states kept the drinking ages higher around 21. It wasn’t until the passing of the 26th amendment that lowered voting ages from 21 years of age to 18 years. Soon thereafter states began to lower there MLDA, or minimum legal drinking age. After this the Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 became active. Hanson goes on to explains,
“The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession …show more content…
First Canada, here the legal blood alcohol content is also set at .08%. The legal age of alcohol consumption is 18. Statistics according to the MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) in Canada, when looking across the whole country, vehicle related death rates reached 2,546. That is around four deaths a day per year. Out of those deaths only 476 involved a DUI over the legal alcohol blood content.
Second Look at the Ukraine. The Laws are along the same terms: Drinking age is set at 18, and the BAC is set at .08%. Government Digital service of up records, that out of a total of 5740 car accidents only 180 of them were alcohol related fatalities.
When the results of Tennessee and Wisconsin are combined, they are almost equal to Canadas results, or the Ukraine as a whole. Adding to that remember there is no account of crashes involving 18-20 year old’s in Tennessee and Wisconsin, meaning the other two countries are including three more years to their studies.
The difference between responsible drinking and not allowing teens to drink at all can be …show more content…
For example, it could be compared to, driving or the skills used in one’s occupation. To prohibit a potentially dangerous activity is a poor way to provide training in that activity, particularly when such effort only force teens to “practice” their new skill in secret, among other unskilled beginners. (Males 205) Males makes a great point here. When a young adult turns 21 the just get thrown into something completely new. States could create a drinking permit with certain regulations involving rules like; a no consumption over drinks with an alcohol content over .12%, or only being able to drink in presents of a parent or a guardian. By doing this it allows the new drinker an understanding and experience so they can practice responsible drinking.
Americans second experiment with prohibition seems to have been no more effective than the first one. By lowering the drinking age would not be a complete solution to Americas underage drinking, but it would eliminate many small- and even medium- aggravations among people. By doing this it would allow law enforcement and intervention efforts to be redirected from less important matters such as; minor’s possession of alcohol, authentic dangers, pernicious inebriation, drunken driving. It would bring the drinking laws into congrouence with the fact the legal adulthood begins at 18. (Smith 124)
Just like the 18Th amendment needed modifications, so does the 21st amendment.
“The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession …show more content…
First Canada, here the legal blood alcohol content is also set at .08%. The legal age of alcohol consumption is 18. Statistics according to the MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) in Canada, when looking across the whole country, vehicle related death rates reached 2,546. That is around four deaths a day per year. Out of those deaths only 476 involved a DUI over the legal alcohol blood content.
Second Look at the Ukraine. The Laws are along the same terms: Drinking age is set at 18, and the BAC is set at .08%. Government Digital service of up records, that out of a total of 5740 car accidents only 180 of them were alcohol related fatalities.
When the results of Tennessee and Wisconsin are combined, they are almost equal to Canadas results, or the Ukraine as a whole. Adding to that remember there is no account of crashes involving 18-20 year old’s in Tennessee and Wisconsin, meaning the other two countries are including three more years to their studies.
The difference between responsible drinking and not allowing teens to drink at all can be …show more content…
For example, it could be compared to, driving or the skills used in one’s occupation. To prohibit a potentially dangerous activity is a poor way to provide training in that activity, particularly when such effort only force teens to “practice” their new skill in secret, among other unskilled beginners. (Males 205) Males makes a great point here. When a young adult turns 21 the just get thrown into something completely new. States could create a drinking permit with certain regulations involving rules like; a no consumption over drinks with an alcohol content over .12%, or only being able to drink in presents of a parent or a guardian. By doing this it allows the new drinker an understanding and experience so they can practice responsible drinking.
Americans second experiment with prohibition seems to have been no more effective than the first one. By lowering the drinking age would not be a complete solution to Americas underage drinking, but it would eliminate many small- and even medium- aggravations among people. By doing this it would allow law enforcement and intervention efforts to be redirected from less important matters such as; minor’s possession of alcohol, authentic dangers, pernicious inebriation, drunken driving. It would bring the drinking laws into congrouence with the fact the legal adulthood begins at 18. (Smith 124)
Just like the 18Th amendment needed modifications, so does the 21st amendment.