• +91 33 4001 6189
  • Toll Free 844-INFO-DPP
in-home services for the elderly in Kolkata, Delhi & Gurgaon
Dec 13, 22

Why Is the Legal Drinking Age 21 and Not 15

Road safety in general, and drinking and driving in particular, can be influenced by many general economic, demographic and social factors. This section discusses factors that can influence drinking and driving among adolescents. These differences may affect comparisons between Canadian and U.S. data. For example, if alcohol tests are less available for fasting drivers than for impaired drivers, the proportion of fatally injured drivers with a positive blood alcohol level calculated solely by the drivers tested may overestimate the proportion of all fatally injured drivers. However, these differences are not expected to affect trends over time or trend comparisons between the two countries. Believe it or not, Franklin Roosevelt helped bring about change in a rather cumbersome way. FDR approved lowering the minimum age for conscription from 21 to 18 during World War II. When conscription came out of the Vietnamese era, people were naturally a little upset that 18-year-old men were mature enough to fight, but not old enough to vote.

In 1971, states ratified the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18. Lawmakers have begun to apply the same logic to alcohol consumption. The drinking age, which the 21st Amendment placed under the responsibility of each state, began to decline across the country. The United States General Accounting Office (1987) reviewed and synthesized the results of the 49 studies that had adopted MLDA 21 up to 1986. They concluded that “raising the drinking age has a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic injuries among adolescents, who are affected by the laws on average across states” and that “raising the drinking age also results in decreased alcohol consumption and driving after alcohol for the age group affected by the law.” They note that the studies on road accidents they reviewed were of high quality. Although the studies used different assessment methods, they provided “remarkably consistent” results. Other studies conducted since 1986 have reached similar basic conclusions (Toomey, Rosenfeld and Wagenaar, 1996). Adults between the ages of 18 and 20 should not be denied this enjoyment if other enjoyable activities are legal by the age of 18. Raising the minimum drinking age has led to a decline in overall alcohol consumption among all young adults, even when alcohol is easily accessible. According to the National Center for Addiction and Drug Abuse, underage drinking accounts for 17.5% ($22.5 billion) of alcohol consumption spending in the United States.

[16] The 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health indicates that 24.8% of adolescents aged 14 or 15, 46.7% aged 16 or 17 and 68.3% aged 18 to 20 drink alcohol. [49] Figures 32 and 34 show the same thing: measured by fatality data, the decline in alcohol consumption and traffic among adolescents in the United States and Canada was virtually identical between 1982 and 1997. Other evidence supports this conclusion. In both countries, the number of young, drunk drivers involved in fatal crashes has declined faster than the number of older drunk drivers. A roadside survey in British Columbia found similar results to Roeper and Voas (1999): a much smaller proportion of drivers aged 16 to 19 than older drivers had a positive blood alcohol level or above the legal limit of 0.08 (Mayhew & Simpson, 1999). In the United States, 31% of road deaths are alcohol-related. [48] This percentage is higher than in many countries where the alcohol age is below 21, such as France (29%), Great Britain (16%), Germany (9%), China (4%) and Israel (3%). [48] Although the United States increased the MLDA to 21 in 1984, the rate of motor vehicle accidents and fatalities in the 1980s declined less than that of European countries with legal drinking age below 21. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] In Canada, as in the United States, many educational and motivational programs over the past 20 years have focused on drinking and driving among adolescents.

There was a strong student movement through organizations like SADD, Teens Against Drunk Driving (TADD) and Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving (OSAID). The main focus of Health Canada`s program during this period was youth. However, as in the United States, there are virtually no results of evaluating the effectiveness of these efforts. Mayhew and Simpson (1999) provide a brief overview of programs and limited evidence. However, determining the underlying cause of this decline in the total number of deaths is not an easy task. Deaths from non-alcoholic traffic crashes also decreased relative to the number of kilometres driven over the same period, due to a number of causes, including increased seat belt use, widespread use of airbags, and other improvements in car and road safety. In addition, drunk driving may decrease for the general population due to increased education on consequences, harsher penalties, better enforcement, or increased stigmatization of impaired driving. MADD evaluates states. Rating the States, compiled by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), provides an interesting, albeit subjective, measure of the strength of government programs for youth (Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 1991, 1993, 1996 and 1999). As part of these assessments, a group of MADD members and national experts on drinking and driving gathered information on each state`s drinking and driving laws and activities. The jury awarded each state and nation as a whole a “certificate card” rating from A to F in each of approximately 10 categories.

The categories differed slightly from year to year, but always included youth, prevention and education legislation (in 1991, the category included only prevention and education, while youth legislation was included elsewhere). Section 410 Expenditure. Leaf and Preusser (1998) track section 410 expenditures for youth alcohol and driving for the six fiscal years 1992-1997. During these years, a total of $93.3 million in Section 410 funds were allocated to states. Approximately 15%, or $14.7 million, was spent on youth activities: $3.4 million for enforcement, $3.2 million for school and workplace programs, $1.3 million for youth leadership development, $1.1 million for family-focused programs, $0.8 million for public youth education, $0.6 million for community activities of youth programs and $4.3 million for community-based programs. other activities. The main difference between Canadian and U.S. laws affecting teen drinking is the age of alcohol consumption itself.

In Canada, the drinking age is 18 in three provinces (Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec) and 19 in the other seven. This legal age has not changed in the last 20 years. The decline in alcohol use and driving among adolescents in Canada must have been caused solely by other factors. Zero-tolerance laws are a logical combination of legal drinking age laws, which prohibit teens from drinking alcohol, and laws per se that make it illegal to drive with a blood alcohol level above a certain level. If it is illegal for teens to drink, then it should be illegal for teens to drive with a positive blood alcohol level. A zero-tolerance law sets a maximum blood alcohol level of 0.02 or less for minors and suspends or revokes an offender`s driver`s licence. Most zero-tolerance laws use a limit of 0.02 blood alcohol levels instead of an absolute limit of 0.00 to allow for small measurement errors in blood alcohol testing instruments and avoid challenges from teens who claim to have taken medications containing small amounts of alcohol. MLDA 21 laws significantly reduced drinking and driving among teens. They appear to have done so both by reducing direct alcohol consumption among adolescents and by encouraging adolescents to separate their drinking from driving. Ohio conducted more than 1,300 high school drunk driving programs from 1986 to 1991. In 1994, there were 670 SADD chapters with a full-time SADD coordinator.

The graduation project was carried out in 500 high schools until 1991; BACCHUS was active in 37 colleges until 1990. A “None for Under 21s” campaign in 1994 promoted Ohio`s zero-tolerance law. In-store cop programs help enforce MLDA 21. Economic, demographic and social factors have undoubtedly influenced drinking and driving among youth. The only influence that can be fully quantified is the evolution of the young population in relation to the total traveller population. Other unquantified or even unidentified factors may have played an important role in reducing alcohol use and sexual intercourse among adolescents. North Carolina founded the Governor`s Youth Advocacy and Involvement Office in 1983 to organize youth groups and educate them about drunk driving. SADD grew rapidly to 325 chapters in 1990. Youth safety councils have been formed in all high schools in the state to address drunk driving and other issues. Many municipalities conducted annual project completion activities.

The University community of Chapel Hill has introduced a Drive-A Teen program to offer rides as an alternative to driving after drinking. Over the past 20 years, changes in where teens live and what they do are undoubtedly having an impact on drinking and driving. About 90% of young people now graduate from high school and about 62% of these graduates go on to university. In comparison, in the early 1970s, about 85% of high school students graduated and 49% of these graduates were studying. Thus, in recent years, more and more students are graduating from high school and more of these graduates are entering college. The underlying housing, social and leisure habits associated with such changes may contribute to changes in drinking and driving in adolescents after drinking. For example, it`s likely that alcohol consumption on and around college campuses can often occur without the need to use a car.