All of the following Are Valid Argument Supporting the Legal Drinking Age of 21 except

Laws prohibiting the sale and supply of alcohol to minors are not well enforced (Wagenaar and Wolfson, 1995), and enforcement systems vary from state to state. However, law enforcement systems typically use both state administrative agencies, usually referred to as state alcohol control agencies (ABCs), and local law enforcement agencies such as police departments and county sheriffs. The main purpose of enforcing MLDA laws was to punish underage drinkers for possession or illegal consumption of alcohol (Wagenaar and Wolfson, 1995), an unintended and unexpected consequence of the MLDA (Mosher, 1995; Wolfson and Hourigan in printed form). Of the 1,000 minors arrested for possession of alcohol, only 130 establishments that sell them alcohol have taken action against them, and only 88 adults who buy alcohol for minors are being prosecuted. Wagenaar and Wolfson (1994) estimate that only 5 in 100,000 incidents of underage drinking result in a fine, licence revocation or licence suspension in a liquor establishment. In addition to the increasing application of the MLDA, other procedures and policies can be implemented to improve the effectiveness of MLDA laws. To ensure that adults do not sell or provide alcohol to minors, public and institutional policies can be developed to complement MLDA laws (Wagenaar et al., 1996a). For example, liquor establishments may implement a variety of policies and practices, including (1) requiring all liquor servers to receive responsible service training on how to review age labeling and reject sales to youth, (2) putting systems in place to monitor servers to prevent illegal sales to teens, and (3) implement warning signs (Wolfson et al. 1996a, b). Wolfson and colleagues (1996a,b) found that establishments that met these guidelines were less likely to sell alcohol to young women who appeared to be under the age of 21 and did not provide age labelling. With evidence that a lower legal drinking age was associated with more traffic accidents among young people, civil rights groups led a movement to reset the MLDA to 21 in every state (Wolfson 1995). In response, 16 states increased their deputies between September 1976 and January 1983 (Wagenaar 1983).

However, many states resisted pressure from these groups and ignored government incentives to increase their MPs (King 1987). The federal government was concerned about the safety of young people in states with low rates of deputies and young people living in neighboring states. People who were under the MLDA in their own state could cross state borders to buy alcohol in a state where the MLDA was lower, and then return home, which increased the likelihood of being involved in traffic accidents. Question: If people can`t drink legally until they`re 21, will they just drink more when they reach MLDA? Question: If states are the only bodies that have the right to set a minimum age for alcohol consumption, does federal legislation violate state powers with respect to this policy area? After Prohibition, almost all states exceeded the Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) of 21. However, between 1970 and 1975, 29 states lowered the MLDA to 18, 19 or 20 years, mainly in response to the change in voting age. Studies conducted at the time showed that traffic accidents among teenagers increased as states reduced their MLDA. In addition, the “blood borders” between states with different MLDAs have attracted public attention after high-profile accidents in which teenagers under the legal drinking age traveled to a neighboring state with a lower MLDA, drank legally, and crashed on their way home. Stakeholders called on States to increase their MLDA to 21. Some did so in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but others did not.

To promote a national age of alcohol consumption, Congress enacted the National MLDA. A review conducted by the U.S. General Accounting Office in 1988 found that increasing the age of alcohol consumption reduced alcohol in adolescents, driving after drinking, and alcohol-related traffic accidents in adolescents. Science can play a crucial role in developing effective strategies to address health problems, including those that focus on alcohol-related problems (Gordis, 1991). In an ideal world, public policy-making would be based on the identification of a problem and scientific evidence of the most effective factors in reducing that problem. In the real world, however, law and order results from economic and political forces that sometimes combine with good science. The Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) laws are an example of how scientific research can support effective public policy. This article shows how science has influenced mlda policy in the past and summarizes research that contributes to the ongoing debate on MLDA. Despite these improvements, too many teenagers still drink. In 2012, 42% of Grade 12 students, 28% of Grade 10 students and 11% of Grade 8 students reported drinking alcohol in the past 30 days.

In the same year, approximately 24% of Grade 12 students, 16% of Grade 10 students and 5% of Grade 8 students reported drinking alcohol in the past two weeks. The Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) laws are an example of how scientific research can support effective public policy. Between 1970 and 1975, 29 states lowered their deputies; Subsequently, scientists found that road accidents among teenagers increased significantly. Alcohol use among adolescents is associated with many problems, including traffic accidents, drownings, vandalism, assaults, homicides, suicides, teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Research has shown the effectiveness of a higher MLDA in preventing injury and death in adolescents. Despite laws prohibiting the sale or supply of alcohol to anyone under the age of 21, minors can easily obtain alcohol from many sources. Increasing MLDA enforcement levels and deterrents for adults who may sell or provide alcohol to minors can help prevent further injury and death among teens. The methods used to study the effects of MLDA on alcohol consumption were very different and contributed to differences in conclusions between the studies. For example, some studies used convenience samples, such as: Students in introductory psychology courses, while other studies used sophisticated random sample models to obtain nationally representative samples. Wagenaar (1993) concluded that studies using sound research and analytical blueprints generally observed an increase in alcohol consumption among adolescents after a reduction in MLDA. In contrast, when many states increased the MLDA, alcohol consumption among teens decreased.

Research shows that a higher MLDA leads to fewer alcohol-related problems in teens and that the 21 MLDA saves the lives of more than 1,000 teens each year (NHTSA 1989; Jones et al., 1992). What is convincing is that the effect of higher MLDA occurs with little or no application. A common argument among opponents of a higher MLDA is that because many miners still drink and buy alcohol, a 21 MLDA does not work. However, the evidence shows that although many adolescents still consume alcohol, they drink less and suffer fewer alcohol-related injuries and deaths than under lower MPs (Wagenaar, 1993). A more appropriate discussion is therefore not whether the MLDA should be lowered again, but whether the current MLDA can be made even more effective. Answer: When the age limit for 21 years was introduced, alcohol-related road accidents decreased among 18- to 20-year-olds. This decline has occurred with limited enforcement of MLDA laws. The decrease is therefore not due to the application of the Drunk Driving Act and harsher penalties, but is a direct result of lower consumption (O`Malley and Wagenaar, 1991). When looking at the success of another country with a particular policy, one cannot simply compare international rates of alcohol-related problems without assessing the role of the factors that contribute to the problems. Many cultural, political and social conditions, which vary from country to country, influence alcohol prices. The most robust research, although conducted in the United States, has shown a strong inverse relationship between MLDA and alcohol consumption and the problems associated with it: as MLDA increases, alcohol-related problems decrease in adolescents. As changes in MLDA occur in Europe, researchers will be able to more accurately determine the effects of higher MLDA on alcohol-related problems in European adolescents.

Opponents of MLDA at age 21 hypothesized that even if a higher MLDA reduced alcohol consumption among minors, rates of alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems would increase among those over 21. In other words, opponents believed that an “elastic” effect would occur: when teenagers reached the age of 21, they drank to “make up for lost time” and therefore drank at higher rates than if they had been allowed to drink alcohol at an earlier age. However, a study by O`Malley and Wagenaar (1991) refutes this theory. Using a national probability sample, O`Malley and Wagenaar found that lower rates of alcohol consumption due to a high legal age to consume alcohol continued even after the age of 21 adolescence. Despite a wealth of research proving the effectiveness of mlda at age 21 in saving lives and reducing alcohol-related problems, several states are again considering lowering their legal drinking age limits. Louisiana`s 21-year-old MLDA was recently challenged in court on the basis that it violates the state`s constitutional law regarding age discrimination. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that ” Laws that set the minimum age for alcohol consumption above the age of majority are not arbitrary because they substantially further the state`s reasonable goal of improving road safety and are therefore constitutional” (Manuel v. State of Louisiana [La.