- Mothers Against Drunk Driving - Parents
"between 1982 and 1998, there were 61 percent fewer drinking drivers involved in fatal crashes under age 21"
However... that is just one side of the story, and does not take into consideration other factors.
This info from the same site has more important information though
"In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control looked at 49 high-quality peer-reviewed studies of the effects of changing the minimum drinking age law. Almost every study found that increasing the minimum drinking age to 21 saved lives (an average decrease of 16 percent) and that lowering the minimum drinking age to 18 or 19 caused an average increase in crashes of eight to 10 percent."
Finally, there was a graph about how while alcohol related deaths from the 80's were higher then they are today, other fatalities are actually higher today. So that means that the reductions in drunk driving deaths can't be the cause of less teen drunk driving accidents.
Last edited by nerv14; 09-16-09 at 08:09 PM.
I agree that there isn't a problem with teenagers drinking, but the problem is that since they are more likely to drive drunk when drinking is legal, that harms society.
Anyway, the argument for at least the legalization of marijuanna, center on welfare for the society issues instead of freedome ones. More drugs should be legalized because it will help the economy and reduce crime, more freedome is another lesser factor in that issue, for me anyway.
I do just have to say that I support a 21 age drinking age less now because there is only around a 16% reduction in drunk driving because of the drinking age. So I am not sure if that is worth the loss of freedome in not being able to drink legally. Its a ballance.
Last edited by nerv14; 09-16-09 at 08:15 PM.
If you're old enough to join the military. You're old enough to buy a beer.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
Teen drunk drivers also contribute to harm other individuals who aren't drunk on the road. (my source has information about that claim as well) So by keeping the drinking age at 18, we would be depriving some of those people their lives even though they did not consume alcohol themselves.
Whatever the age limit is to buy/own/carry a pistol, that's what the drinking age should be.
Ideally a parent should introduce a child to alcohol at a young age to teach them responsibility. You know the whole French attitude of having wine diluted with water at meal time. Removes the 'cool' factor
But i would say 16, if you can join the army. You can handle alcohol.
First and foremost, drinking is not legal for teenagers, therefore it is impossible to make such a long leap. Of course we can use statistics from previous era's, yet that is not an equal relationship so a rather large amount of controls would have to be made to control for the differences.I agree that there isn't a problem with teenagers drinking, but the problem is that since they are more likely to drive drunk when drinking is legal, that harms society.
IMHO, MADD's various studies are flawed. Reason be, they seem to be supportive of studies that heavily weight the age variable, when a natural reduction of drunk driving might have more to do with increased enforcement, education, and plain common sense. Since i have no link to the actual studies cited, i am only speculating.I do just have to say that I support a 21 age drinking age less now because there is only around a 16% reduction in drunk driving because of the drinking age. So I am not sure if that is worth the loss of freedom in not being able to drink legally. Its a balance.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911