There are many arguments in favor of having a standard drinking age nationwide. Most of the arguments favor 21 as the standard age nationwide primarily for health and safety reasons. One argument is that having the drinking age as 21 prevents adolescents from accessing alcohol. If under 21 it is illegal to purchase, possess, and consume alcohol, high school students who are 18 cannot provide alcohol for their peers and fellow classmates. Drunk driving fatalities have also decreased 13% in adolescents between the ages of 18 to 20, since the standard drinking age was increased to 21 in 1984. States have also reported a 16% decline in motor vehicle crashes. By far one of the biggest arguments as of late, are the health repercussions of underage
…show more content…
One of those was that the drinking age is the only exception to the legal age of adulthood in the U.S. At 18, you can vote, enlist, marry, own businesses, serve as a juror, and other responsibilities, but you cannot legally drink. In many other cultures, the standard drinking age coincides with the legal age of adulthood. Others argue that such a high drinking age leads 18 to 20-year old’s to engage in drinking behind closed doors, which causes them to engage in extremely heavy drinking, or binge drinking. As already known, large amounts of alcohol on a developing brain has long-term effects, but not only does it put the drinker at risk, but it puts innocent people at risk as well. High schools, colleges, and even military bases are forced to deal with the damaging consequences of binge drinking. For parents, the legal drinking age puts them in an untenable position and marginalizes their role. They have two choices: 1) ignore alcohol consumption amongst young people and prohibit their children from drinking (even though they know they are), or 2) break the law and serve alcohol to their children under 21. Many parents argue that the law takes away their “right” to teach their children how to make healthy and informed decisions about alcohol and its …show more content…
While federal grants give states money that they need, it always comes with stipulations that force the hand of states to comply and enforce policies that the Federal government wants. Because they are forced to comply with such policies, the Federal government maintains a dominant control over state governments, instead of them sharing power equally, relatively speaking. Of course, states are usually compelled to comply with the guidelines and policies the Federal government wants, because of the “fear” of losing the money, which is sometimes a good portion of their budget.
A provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act declared that federal aid of any kind could not be used to discriminate against people for their race, gender, religion, or nationality. This provision of the
Act was very important, especially at the time, because it forced many states to integrate their elementary and secondary schools. I believe this provision is important even to this day and ties in with Title IX. President Nixon in 1972, signed several amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965; the act was a federal law that provided financial funding to colleges and universities, as well as to students. The most well-known and influential of the
One of those was that the drinking age is the only exception to the legal age of adulthood in the U.S. At 18, you can vote, enlist, marry, own businesses, serve as a juror, and other responsibilities, but you cannot legally drink. In many other cultures, the standard drinking age coincides with the legal age of adulthood. Others argue that such a high drinking age leads 18 to 20-year old’s to engage in drinking behind closed doors, which causes them to engage in extremely heavy drinking, or binge drinking. As already known, large amounts of alcohol on a developing brain has long-term effects, but not only does it put the drinker at risk, but it puts innocent people at risk as well. High schools, colleges, and even military bases are forced to deal with the damaging consequences of binge drinking. For parents, the legal drinking age puts them in an untenable position and marginalizes their role. They have two choices: 1) ignore alcohol consumption amongst young people and prohibit their children from drinking (even though they know they are), or 2) break the law and serve alcohol to their children under 21. Many parents argue that the law takes away their “right” to teach their children how to make healthy and informed decisions about alcohol and its …show more content…
While federal grants give states money that they need, it always comes with stipulations that force the hand of states to comply and enforce policies that the Federal government wants. Because they are forced to comply with such policies, the Federal government maintains a dominant control over state governments, instead of them sharing power equally, relatively speaking. Of course, states are usually compelled to comply with the guidelines and policies the Federal government wants, because of the “fear” of losing the money, which is sometimes a good portion of their budget.
A provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act declared that federal aid of any kind could not be used to discriminate against people for their race, gender, religion, or nationality. This provision of the
Act was very important, especially at the time, because it forced many states to integrate their elementary and secondary schools. I believe this provision is important even to this day and ties in with Title IX. President Nixon in 1972, signed several amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965; the act was a federal law that provided financial funding to colleges and universities, as well as to students. The most well-known and influential of the