There have always been people against alcohol in America, first there was the prohibition that completely failed in any attempt to stop people from drinking alcohol. In the 1980’s a powerful lobbyist organization was formed, MADD. This was the beginning of having the drinking age at 21. The main issue with the drinking age is drunk driving. People are afraid that if the age is lowered to 18, then more people will hit the roads driving in an unfit condition. An agreement needs to come that backs the government out of controlling aspects of our adult lives that is not included in the constitution, but something has to be done to control drunk drivers. In lowering the drinking age to 18, penalties for drunk driving should increase. There really is no excuse for drunk driving at all; the current punishment for drunk driving is a fine and possible license suspension. The punishment for drunk driving should become a mandatory sentence, that way people can’t bargain for a lower sentence. With a mandatory sentence in place, they will have to pay the penalty, both the fine and the insurance premium up charge (450% increase for four years in NC).
----------------
Now playing: Aerosmith - Crazy
via FoxyTunes
.jpg)
5 comments:
Hey, I liked how you supported your argument with a possible way to fix the current problem that we have in dealing with drunk drivers, but I'm still a little confused. What exactly would we do with drunk drivers who are 18, and still in high school? In forcing those kids to serve mandatory sentences, wouldn't we only be hurting their chances at reform? What about punishments for those who are under the new legal drinking age?
-Kryssi
http://abortion102.blogspot.com
I see what you're saying about increasing the punishment for drunk driving if the legal age is brought down, and I feel your theory of people worrying drunk driving will increase if the age is brought down, but let's face it; Changing the punishment won't be as beneficial in lowering drunk driving. Take marijuana for instance, people still do it even though they can go to jail and lose a lot of money. I'm not saying that changing the punishment won't help at all, but the best way to lower drunk driving is not lowering the age at all. We can make the punishment more severe for those who are or over 21. That way, our government can deal with the 21 year-olds and overs.
Increasing the punishment in fact can be a huge deterrent for people that are on the edge. Some people are going to drunk drive just as people are going to smoke marijuana regardless of what the punishment is. By increasing the punishment, people who may have been tempted to drunk drive in the right situation will now be less likely to because of the increase in punishment. For underage drinkiers that are already drinking and driving illegally, with the current set of laws, they can get out of a harsh punishment by knowing the right people.
People are always going to break the law, by minimizing pointless laws and maximizing punishments, things will improve.
By a mandatory sentence, i did not specifically mean jail time. The jails are already over capacity with the current inmates. What I meant by a mandatory sentence is that in the case of a drunk driver, then he/she will have to pay a certain fine, take a class and lose their license for a designated time regardless of the situation. In the current sentencing procedure so much if left to the judge. If the drunk driver knows the right people, has enough money or other such ways to overcome the justice system, they can get out of feeling the full punishment.
I liked your argument because it really made this idea become more realixtic. I do believe that if the drinking age is lowered that they would also have to change the laws around. I also believe that it should be lowered because many people under the age of 21 drinks anyways and honestly, I think that if this were lowered, the incidences of people drinking irresponsibly will decrease dramatically.
Post a Comment