The Webster definition of danger is the possibility that you will be hurt or killed. We let danger flow through our blood and often don’t think twice about the consequences. Drunk driving, alcohol poisoning, and inebriated violence are real and happening across the United States. Alcohol is a dangerous drug that is used on a daily basis by American citizens. The law concerning when it’s legal for people to drink has been stirring up major controversy for decades. To ensure everyone’s well-being people need to be aware of the laws in place and any possible amendments that would be safer for the public.
An organization called Choose Responsibility is convinced the current minimum legal drinking age of 21 (MLDA 21) is ineffective and should …show more content…
They explicitly support the law because they believe waiting until the age of 21 manifestly produces greater, more effective benefits compared to previous laws regarding alcohol. Their agenda mainly supports the life-saving effects MLDA 21 has had so far. MLDA 21 supporters report substantially less drunk drivers, chances of alcohol poising, alcohol-related deaths, car crashes, injuries, life-altering consequences (Hedlund et al). A study was conducted over the course of 13 years about the MLDA 21 and how it affected the blood alcohol concentration levels (BACs) in 16 to 20 year-olds. In 1982, before the law was put into place, the percentage with positive BACs was 61%. In 1995, the BACs had gone down to 31%. Empirically speaking, the supporters of the MLDA 21 are living in what they find a much safer country for their children, which according to statistics, are now much less affected when it comes to the influence of alcohol (McCartt et al). No doubt, alcohol is dangerous. It both directly and indirectly affects the well-being of everyone. Therefore, America needs a set of rules in place that keep everyone safe. Choose Responsibility, Amethyst Initiative, concerned parents, and MLDA 21 supporters are in conflict. Each view believes they are fighting against the dangers of alcohol. All claim they increase and ensure safety. However, there can only be one correct course of action. Now is the time to step up and get involved while there’s still a chance to make a
An organization called Choose Responsibility is convinced the current minimum legal drinking age of 21 (MLDA 21) is ineffective and should …show more content…
They explicitly support the law because they believe waiting until the age of 21 manifestly produces greater, more effective benefits compared to previous laws regarding alcohol. Their agenda mainly supports the life-saving effects MLDA 21 has had so far. MLDA 21 supporters report substantially less drunk drivers, chances of alcohol poising, alcohol-related deaths, car crashes, injuries, life-altering consequences (Hedlund et al). A study was conducted over the course of 13 years about the MLDA 21 and how it affected the blood alcohol concentration levels (BACs) in 16 to 20 year-olds. In 1982, before the law was put into place, the percentage with positive BACs was 61%. In 1995, the BACs had gone down to 31%. Empirically speaking, the supporters of the MLDA 21 are living in what they find a much safer country for their children, which according to statistics, are now much less affected when it comes to the influence of alcohol (McCartt et al). No doubt, alcohol is dangerous. It both directly and indirectly affects the well-being of everyone. Therefore, America needs a set of rules in place that keep everyone safe. Choose Responsibility, Amethyst Initiative, concerned parents, and MLDA 21 supporters are in conflict. Each view believes they are fighting against the dangers of alcohol. All claim they increase and ensure safety. However, there can only be one correct course of action. Now is the time to step up and get involved while there’s still a chance to make a