Reasons Why The Gambling Age Should Be Lowered To 18
Apr 08, 2014 In Alabama, Alaska, New Jersey, and Utah, a person cannot buy tobacco legally until age 19. State gambling laws vary tremendously, with the legal age for different types of gambling ranging from 18 to 21 years. In each policy area, the age of majority that’s specified has emerged from a careful assessment of benefits and risks.
Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
Started: | 12/12/2007 | Category: | Society | ||
Updated: | 12 years ago | Status: | Voting Period | ||
Viewed: | 11,635 times | Debate No: | 306 |
Pro Some may argue that people who are 18 are not yet mature enough to drink or gamble, but that is false because our national government allows us to begin raising families at age 18, which definitely requires much more responsibility and maturity. If this is not the case then what is it? Perhaps it is felt that drinking and gambling are too dangerous for people under the age of 21. I suppose it is possible that they feel that drinking and gambling are addicting and that people in their teens will be unable to resist their addicted urges. Well in response to this I would have to say that just because someone is under 18 that does not mean that they will get addicted easier, people of older ages can often get addicted anyway. Not to mention at the age of 18 in this country we are allowed to purchase and smoke cigarettes. Why then, is the national legal age for drinking and gambling not 18, but 21? Con Well to begin, let's split up the question, and first deal with drinking. In 1970 to 1975, the indeed DID lower the drinking age to 18, felling nothing would come of it. In reality, there was a dramatic increase in alcohol related driving accidents and deaths, in addition to a vast amount of alcohol-related diseases. For example, in many European nations, where 18 is the legal MLDA (minimum legal drinking age) there is a much higher rate of heart and liver diseases. Also, those who begin to drink at earlier ages have a much higher chance of developing alcohol addiction later in life and of having alcohol-related social problems. My last point is against something many people have said which goes along the lines of how they will get beer easily even if it is illegal. However, this is much farther from the truth, as they was a sharp decline in alcohol purchasing for 18-21 year olds after the MLDA was raised again in 1976. So no, I feel that to lower the MLDA to 18 all across the nation would be a poor idea. Now, to gambling. I also felt very strongly about lowering the gambling age, and I actually still do. Luckily, so does most of the nation, and 20 out of the 38 states that have casinos made the minimum gambling age 18. This also shows another, much larger problem of making it a federal law to have the entire nation lower the ages of both things to 18: It would be unconstitutional. Similar to a prohibition, these rights are guaranteed to the states under the 10th amendment (the elastic clause), and would prevent the federal government to make any laws concerning it whatsoever. This is why you only have non-indian casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, as Nevada and New Jersey made laws towards their creation. So in closing, while the two may appear perfectly reasonable at first glance, they either would harm our nation or wouldn't be legal |
Pro I would like to point out that people today act much differently. We are not in the same type of teenage rebellion like we once were in the 1960's and 1970's. Today we are much more modern and mature than we once were. Back in those days however people did all kinds of drugs. Heroin, cocaine and alcohol were all drugs that were widely used, but aren't as much today. Next, on the issue of your point about alcohol in Europe causing more liver and heart disease, scientific research has actually proven that a little bit of red wine at a time is actually good for your heart. Plus, I don't think it is the role of the government to intervene with people's choices about their health, and considering the fact that I am arguing with a Libertarian I am surprised that you do. I mean seriously, based on your argument here, what is next? Are we going to have to start banning hamburgers, hotdogs and french fries simply because they increase bad cholesterol and can increase chances of death by heart disease? No, at least we better not. It is an individual's choice to decide what they want to eat. If we let the government control that, then what's next, the clothes we wear? Okay I'm getting off topic now. In conclusion I restate my point that even though excess drinking can lead to health problems, if at the age of 18 people are mature and responsible enough to choose this nation's leaders and to be able to raise children of their own, then they are definitely responsible and mature enough to decide if they should drink alcohol or not. The government can't keep regulating everything that we do, that takes the responsibility away from the citizens themselves and creates a lazy, passive national population. Con Just to start with, I agree with you that the government should in no way gain MORE power than they have right now, and that they should not be protecting us against ourselves, one of the main problems with the War on Drugs and prohibition, but that's another debate. What I meant to say earlier was that the states were not neccesarily concerned with our personal health when making the MLDA 21, but that by lowering it to 18, the disease issue would be one of the reasons it would be bad for the populace as a whole. My next point also ties into my desire for a libertarian society. I feel that Americans should be able to do whatever they damn well please, as long as it does not infringe on others' 'lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness'. However I feel that with the definite increase in ALCOHOL-related driving accidents (remember I am not talking about illegal drugs here, so your Vietnam argument doesn't make much sense) would definitely influence others' 'lives'. While I agree with you wholeheartedly that if the government keeps regulating everything we do, we'll turn into a 'passive' nation, I restate my earlier point that it would in fact be for the protection of society as a whole, and not just against ourselves. Finally, you never really deal with gambling, which is fine, but again, for that AND for the MLDA, it is up to the states, and what you are proposing is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the Tenth Amendment. These rights are guaranteed for the states, and to make federal laws concerning it AT ALL is against our forefathers' wishes and against the Bill of Rights. Thank you. |
Pro Furthermore, I still disagree with you that lowering the drinking age to 18 would increase the danger in modern day's society. When you talk about increased alcohol related instances I notice that you are referring to drunken driving. In studying sociological perspectives on the subject of drunken driving as it changes over time in college I feel compelled to point out that before the 1980's the sociological perspective of drunken driving was that it was not the fault of the person who performed the act, people saw drunken driving as inevitable. During the period of the 1970's and prior the NATSA focused mainly on making sure that vehicles were safe for drivers who got into drunk related accidents, because, as I continue to stress, the blame was not put on the drunk driver. However, with the creation of social groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID) the perspective on drunk driving shifted. The blame is currently more focused on those who make the choice to get drunk and then operate a motor vehicle. Furthermore, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) became a major advocate of putting the blame on the drunk driver. Now that the blame is put on those who perform such selfish and unsafe acts, people are more dissuaded from driving under the influence. Also, between the years of 1979-1987 media coverage on the issue of drunk driving and the focus on the frame of the 'killer drunk,' people became more accustomed to the idea of blaming drunk drivers for their actions (Citation: all the information is in chapter 6 from a book by John D. McCarthy called 'Activists, Authorities, and Media Framing of Drunk Driving.' Unfortunately I cannot attach a link b/c the excerpt is from a password protected pdf file on the school website). In addition, this media coverage opened people's eyes to the horrors of drunken driving and its effect on innocent people. I can say from first hand experience at college that drunk driving here is not highly prevalent. We have a type of taxi service called 'safe ride' that most students who drink tend to use. This is because the sociological perspective has been changed by the media and overall population to put the blame more on the drunk driver themselves, rather than accepting drunk driving as an inevitable occurrence. To rap up all this my point is that today's population is much more responsible when it comes to drunk driving than it used to be. I understand your concern that drunk driving can infringe on other people's lives, but just because there are a few accidents does not mean that people who can be drafted and given the license to kill, cannot drink a little. Give me a break. Besides, it's not like teenagers who want to drink can't get their hands on alcohol very easily anyway. My point here is that kids who want to binge drink are going to do so no matter what, but there are actually kids who want to just drink moderately at the age of 18, and they should be able to do so. They should not be punished for the irresponsibility of their peers. Hence, if you lower the drinking age from 21 to 18 you will not see a significant increase in binge drinking and drunken driving in today's educated, modernized age. What you will see instead, is an increase in the number of teens who drink moderately and socially. Finally, in regards to Europe, dullurd makes a good point that I forgot to mention. In European countries you don't see a lot of binge drinking occur. Mainly this is because younger teens are able to drink with their parents and friends socially, so as to learn how to control their drinking habits as opposed to abusing their freedom when they reach college. With this point in mind, I would even consider dropping the age down to even maybe 16 like it is in some European countries, but I'll focus on the age of 18 for purposes of this debate. Well I think that's about all I have to say. I understand that I didn't touch on gambling much but you know, w/e, we'll stick to alcohol. Anyways Libertarian thanks for debating me, it was fun, and good job in this debate as well as in the many others that I have seen you participate in. Con First, you say that the 21 mandatory minimum age is unconstitutional. However, although the MLDA act was made by Congress, it is each states' option to pass it or fail it in their own state. The reason why all 50 states did was because they saw the risks of making a minimum drinking age under 21 and the dangers that would occur to their law-abiding citizens. Next, you say that lowering the drinking age would have no real danger on society and other Americans' lives and liberties, however, this could not be farther from the truth. According to the American Medical Association, there was a 141% increase in DWI accidents in states that had a MLDA of 18 years old. By lowering the drinking age, you greatly increase the risks of accidents on the road, showing just how much lowring the MLDA would harm society. In addition, traffic fatalities increased 35% in these sates, which just shows how dangerous the road would be. Your next argument states that by lowering the age, it would reduce binge drinking later on in life, as that is what happens in Europe. While this makes sense, in America this wouldn't work. A New York study showed that those who drank at earlier ages were in fact MORE likely to drink heavier in college and throughout their life. So instead of decreasing binge drinking, a lower MLDA would in fact INCREASE the likelihood of that happening. To close, I feel that lowering the minimum legal drinking age would be a blatant violation of vast amount of Americans' lives liberties and pursitus of happiness. I feel that it would only harm America and all of her people, and is not only unconstitutional, but a bad idea on the whole. Thank Vexonn, that was a good debate, and I would like to remind all voters to p[lease vote on who you thought debated the best, not on your own personal views in the issue, and thank you again. |
Vexonn | TheLibertarian | Tied | |
---|---|---|---|
Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Who had better conduct: | - | - | 1 point |
Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | 1 point |
Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | 3 points |
Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | 2 points |
Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Vexonn | TheLibertarian | Tied | |
---|---|---|---|
Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Who had better conduct: | - | - | 1 point |
Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | 1 point |
Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | 3 points |
Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | 2 points |
Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Vexonn | TheLibertarian | Tied | |
---|---|---|---|
Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Who had better conduct: | - | - | 1 point |
Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | 1 point |
Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | 3 points |
Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | 2 points |
Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Vexonn | TheLibertarian | Tied | |
---|---|---|---|
Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Who had better conduct: | - | - | 1 point |
Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | 1 point |
Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | 3 points |
Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | 2 points |
Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Vexonn | TheLibertarian | Tied | |
---|---|---|---|
Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Who had better conduct: | - | - | 1 point |
Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | 1 point |
Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | 3 points |
Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | 2 points |
Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Vexonn | TheLibertarian | Tied | |
---|---|---|---|
Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Who had better conduct: | - | - | 1 point |
Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | 1 point |
Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | 3 points |
Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | 2 points |
Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Vexonn | TheLibertarian | Tied | |
---|---|---|---|
Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Who had better conduct: | - | - | 1 point |
Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | 1 point |
Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | 3 points |
Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | 2 points |
Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Vexonn | TheLibertarian | Tied | |
---|---|---|---|
Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Who had better conduct: | - | - | 1 point |
Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | 1 point |
Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | 3 points |
Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | 2 points |
Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Vexonn | TheLibertarian | Tied | |
---|---|---|---|
Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Who had better conduct: | - | - | 1 point |
Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | 1 point |
Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | 3 points |
Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | 2 points |
Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
Vexonn | TheLibertarian | Tied | |
---|---|---|---|
Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | 0 points |
Who had better conduct: | - | - | 1 point |
Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | 1 point |
Made more convincing arguments: | - | - | 3 points |
Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | 2 points |
Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
- Pages:
- Word count: 1826
- Category: alcohol
A limited time offer!
Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteed
Order NowShould the Drinking Age be Lowered to 18? Essay Sample
Narration: The MLDA affects you; it affects me, all of us. Imagine being invited to a party and feeling uncomfortable because those around you are drunk and disorderly. Imagine going to college and not being able to focus on your school work because campus partying is even more common than before; the only difference is that now it’s legal. That’s not something I see benefiting us as young adults. Lowering the MLDA to 18 years old is not what is going to help make our generation and future generations mature and thrive as young adults.
Claim #1: Higher legal drinking ages are associated with lower rates of traffic accidents. Support #1:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released that when the MLDA was increased to 21 in 1984, it decreased the number of fatal traffic accidents for 18- to 20-year-olds by 13%; which saved approximately 27,052 lives up to 2008. Because the legal driving age is over 16, 18 year olds have just started driving and are still learning control and the ways of the open road and their car. According to the NHTSA motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for 15-20 year olds alone. By allowing them to drink at such a young age, not only are they learning to drive but they also have to learn their limit and how alcohol will affect their driving. Recently New Zealand lowered its drinking age to 18, giving researchers an opportunity to watch the effects. The rate of alcohol related crashes among young people rose significantly compared to older drivers.
Claim #2: It’s not working for European countries
Support #2:
It is argued that the United States should mirror some European countries and lower their MLDA to 18 or even younger. But the idea that European countries are doing fine with their MLDA is false. The rate of drinking among US teenagers is lower than most European countries. US teenagers also show equal or lower rates of intoxication/binge drinking than do adolescents from most European countries, and most European countries report higher rates of intoxication and binge drinking for youth under 13. I don’t think the solution to the issue is to have 13 year old adolescents binge drinking.
Claim #3: Underage has easier access to alcohol because of peers being legal Support #3:
Not many of us hang out with 21year old adults because they are not in school with us every day. If we did, underage drinking would be a lot more common. If the MLDA were lowered to the age of 18, our peers would be of age to drink and purchase alcohol. This would increase underage drinking. So by allowing 18 year old young adults to drink we would also be allowing 17, 16,or even younger adolescents to drink. Not only can 18 year olds distribute alcohol, but they can put more pressure on school authorities by making it necessary to monitor teens at school functions such as dances and sporting events. A little partying before the game would be perfectly legal before they go out into the public and onto school grounds.
Claim #4: Causes rebellious age to be lower
Support #4:
21 year old adults tend to be more mature and responsible than 18 year olds. A typical 18 year old is entering a new phase of independence as they move on to college or into the workforce. With this new freedom and lack of maturity comes disaster. They become more susceptible to binge drinking at parties and with drinking games. The proportion of current drinkers that are binge drinkers is highest in the 18- to 20-year-old group at 51% according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This just shows the immaturity of this age group because this statistic is while the law is still in place. If drinking were legal for them the percentage of binge drinkers is likely to rise in their age group. Binge drinking is associated with alcohol poisoning, liver disease, unintended pregnancies, fetal alcohol syndrome, neurological damage, and more. Drinking at a younger age increases ones likeliness to become addicted to the toxin, which increases the before mentioned risks as well as others.
Claim #5: Disregard for the law
Support #5:
If the MLDA is changed now, current and future teens will get the impression that the laws are subject to change. Because of this they may be less likely to respect the law and it can lead to further behavior problems with young adults. This may lead to rising crime rates of that age group or even older. Lowering the MLDA will hurt the respect for the law that increasing the age actually established. Since 1984 studies indicate that when the drinking age is 21, those younger than 21 drink less and continue to drink less through their early 20s, and that youth who do not drink until they are 21 tend to drink less as adults.
Claim #6:More likely to use other illicit drugs
Support #6:
A study from the Journal of Studies of Alcohol and Drugs found that the younger a person begins to drink alcohol the more likely it is that they will use other illicit drugs. Lowering the MLDA to 18 would increase the number of teens who drink and therefore the number of teens who use other drugs. As teens use dangerous drugs they are more likely to be involved in criminal behavior or less concerned with school work and other responsibilities.
Claim #7: Development in frontal lobe is affected in young adults Support #7:
At the age of 18 a part of the teenager’s brain called the frontal lobe is not fully developed. The frontal lobe is not fully developed until the mid-20’s. This lobe is responsible for planning, forming ideas, making decisions, and using self-control. Drugs and alcohol target this under developed part of the brain. The alcohol affects the “white-matter” of the brain which contains nerve fibers and is involved in transmitting messages between brain cells. Because the alcohol targets this part of the brain and it is already not fully mature, the self-control function of the brain is easily disrupted. This could result in further irresponsible behavior. When alcohol affects the frontal lobes of the brain, a person may find it hard to control his or her emotions and urges. The person may act without thinking or may even become violent. Drinking alcohol over a long period of time can damage the frontal lobes forever. The consequences of the damage can affect the quality of life far beyond adolescence.
The Gambling Age Should Be Lowered To 18
The effects of lowering the MLDA to 18 years old have consequences that can affect our lives, and those who come after us, for forever.
Cross Examination
Does it really make one an adult because of their age, or does it take more than just a number? Many decisions are not granted until one is above the age of 18, 19, or 20.
Are maturity levels really capable of handling alcohol at eighteen? Maturity levels obviously get better the older one gets, so the younger the drinking age, the less maturity an adult has, granting less responsibility while one is under the influence.
Doesn’t lowering the drinking age push children into drinking in more unsafe environments at younger ages?
Since underage drinkers are a problem within many countries, wouldn’t lowering the drinking age cause a push into a younger age bracket of underage drinkers?
Rebuttal
Refutation #1: Are you an adult at eighteen?
Proof #1: Legally, turning eighteen does mean one becomes an adult, but the maturity levels and responsibilities actually determine one’s adulthood. Many responsibilities and eligibilities do not occur until one is older than 20; such as, gambling (21), renting a car (usually 25), renting a hotel room (usually 21), purchase a handgun (21), adopt a child (21), run for President (35). While documentation shows that one truly becomes an adult when one turns 18, however, many huge decisions cannot be made until above the age of 20.
Refutation #2: Driving statistics are better with a higher drinking age. Proof #2: A U.S. district court ruled that the drinking age of 21 has reduced highway crashes. From a NHTSA, which is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an analysis showed the percentage of weekend nighttime drivers were found in 2007 with 3.2% lower blood-alcohol concentration level than in 1986.
Refutation #3: Lowering the drinking age wouldn’t actually take away the rebellious attitude for younger ages. Proof #3: While many children act rebelliously and find a thrill by drinking underage illegally, the chances of underage drinkers are less likely. Underage drinkers feel much more social pressure with MLDA 21 because alcohol being illegal causes younger drinkers to be more cautious about the decisions they make and where they drink. Lowering the drinking age also indicates easier access of liquor to younger ages because peers surrounding them have access to alcohol, granting underage children with access to alcohol much simpler than now.
Refutation #4: Mirroring the morals and laws of many other countries around the world could be harmful. Proof #4: If the United States mirrored many European countries and lowered the drinking age to 18, people would be more likely to start drinking at younger ages. A U.S. Department of Justice held a study in 2005 showing that U.S. teens drank equal to lower amount of intoxications compared to European countries. European countries also reported rates of intoxication for individuals under the age of 13. So lowering the drinking age also lowers the bracket of underage drinkers and perhaps causing many dilemmas within younger age groups.
Refutation #5: Teens would not be able to handle their alcohol responsibly. Proof #5: Teenagers are more likely to harm or even kill themselves when intoxicated at younger age because the levels of maturity, but even more importantly, level of alcohol is more unknown and less understood by younger adults. Drinking at a younger age would cause there to be more injuries and accidents due to a lack of understanding and proper handling of alcohol.
Refutation #6: Would many people support lowering the drinking age to 18? Proof #6: A Gallup poll is 2007 stated that “77% of Americans would oppose a federal law that lowers the drinking age in all states to age 18.” While individuals do support lowering MLDA 21 to 18, a public vote shows that more favor would be given to sustaining the drinking age at 21.
Closing of Rebuttal:
So I conclude you all with this last thought: lowering the drinking age causes children to have easier access to alcohol from peers as well as lowers the age of “rebellion” to a younger age. Just think of when you have children of your own, the situations you would want them to encounter, and that keeping the drinking age at 21 keeps him or her a much safer individual.
We can write a custom essay
According to Your Specific Requirements
Order an essay