The Law Saves Lives
Both research and the hands-on experience of state highway safety agencies indicate that this law has saved countless lives. In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA) estimates nearly 25,000 teen traffic deaths have been prevented by age-21 laws. In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) examined 49 peer-reviewed studies on the effects of changing the minimum drinking age law. Almost every study found that increasing the minimum drinking age to 21 saved lives, with an average decrease in traffic fatalities of 16 percent. The studies also showed that lowering the minimum drinking age to 18 or 19 caused an average increase in crashes by 8 to 10 percent. If states lower the drinking age again, more teens will drink and drive and more will die.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Eliminate drunk driving and you'll save a lot more lives. The politicians I voted against have no right to punsih responsible drinkers for being under 21 instead of imposing tougher drunk driving laws on themselves.
Proof the drinking age doesn't save lives is on my site at http://udadd.com/memorial.html
Whose to say that the reason there has been less deaths and drunk driving accidents is because of the age being 21? I agree with your statement, that since the drinking age has been raised there has been less incidences resulting from alcohol, its inevitable. However whose to say that this is a direct result is from the age. Driving while inebriated is indeed a problem in our nation and the government has realised that. Hense the abundance of surfacing programs in schools that make children aware of the dangers of drunken nights, and the fact that a car is a 2500 lb bullet waiting to take lives and mixing alcohol with driving is not smart. The youth of today doesn't abide by the 21 law, every friday and Saturday night in every city in America thousands of under age kids purchase and consume alcohol so its really not a matter of keeping kids from drinking until they're twenty one, but an issue of educating these kids so they don't make unintellegent life decisions.
The sited study failed to take into account the greatly increased Educational campaign that coincided with the increase in the drinking age during the 80's. It also failed to take into account improved safety standards of automobiles as far as I could determine. As such the study is useless. This is a problem with all studies based purely on statistical analysis. All such studies are suspect.
What about the proliferation of seat belts or air bags? Are these factors controlled for in the studies?
"It also failed to take into account improved safety standards of automobiles as far as I could determine."
Banning alcohol for all ages would save even more lives....or would it. There are always tradeoffs between safety and abilities. If no one drove then there would be no driving deaths. We as responsible citizens(voting age adults) make tradeoffs between ability to get places quickly and lives lost. We don't often think of it that way but if no one drove then no DUI. We need to find a reasonable tradeoff.
Data is flawed. I am a Former State Trooper, worked the night shift my career and arrested alot of DUI suspects, sometime the same person multiple times. A DUI is the following:
1. Bad luck (the ratio of police to drunks on the road is flawed)
2. Good luck (if you have the skills to detect "truly" drink drivers)
3. Skilled (if you can stumble into mud and make it a gold mine)
Kids will drink and DO DRUGS (yes do drugs), the laws DON'T make a difference. There are establishments that sell to minors (and eventually get caught, but another replaces it)
SOLUTION: www.18or21.com
An occasional drink isn't the same as binging or drunk driving, so how about raising the driving age? A higher drinking age cuts down on abuse, so why not raise it to 40 or 50? Or join the army or vote at 21?
Going from a total ban and then at 12:01 on a birthday one can drink as much as they want sets kids up to overindulge because birthdays are celebrated. Drinking attitudes matter more than one's age.
Gradually introduce it with a limit of 1 wine glass with a PARENT and MEAL at 17 as in Europe, 19 for low alcohol beverages and 21 to purchase. Close loopholes allowing FAKE IDs good enough to fool some police.
I have stories of kids sneaking into the nightclub I worked at when the drinking age went from 18 to 21. I chose to cut down on my drinking 20 years ago to only once a week after seeing so many people drink too much.
How about an ad of Jenna Bush's fake ID saying - Many of our children flaunt the drinking laws. - (I worked with the policeman that confiscated it.)
Part 2 of 2
Second, if there is an increase of 5,000 in accidents but 30,000 more persons begin drinking and 20,000 of those who already drink start to do so responsibly, because it is not longer "forbidden fruit", then there a net "gain" to our society. Gain in that we are no longer prohibiting adults from expressing themselves in a socially neutral way.
Part 1/2
Ever since 9/11 the government has been impinging upon the freedoms of individuals in order to protect them; even going as far as to illegally detain persons of interest without due process. The supreme court has ruled such actions unconstitutional. I posted another comment with a more general argument but to specifically address this claim I post again.
First, I'll take as being true the assertion that more actual accidents will occur if we lower the drinking age (I'll not consider the degree, makeup, or results of those accidents). This is a desirable goal but it exists in a vacuum. If the number of alcohol poisonings and rapes decrease at the same time then total crime may very well decrease. You also then have to value the relative severity of each crime. Much of the current debate has been started by the educational sector that is more directly affected by the later statistics as opposed to the former and they are justified in their bias toward those crimes.