The National Drinking Age Protest in the United States in 1984 aimed to ensure that all states raise the basic membership and purchasing age to 21. This was linked to the fact that there were many vehicle accidents occurring among young adults and youth due to drunk driving. When a person turns 18 you are considered an adult, you can buy lottery tickets, tobacco and fight for our country, but you cannot drink beer, you should be able to buy alcohol if you can fight for the country. Although there were obvious problems with young adults driving while intoxicated at the time of the NMDAA's creation, much training on the negative consequences of excessive drinking has subsequently occurred. guaranteed that these numbers would not be repeated if the United States chose to make changes. Lower the legal drinking age to 18. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay America should watch what different nations do to choose where to set the legal drinking age for the United States. The normal legal drinking age worldwide is 15.9, according to a Potsdam School study. The United Kingdom is venturing to ban alcohol for adolescents under six years old. Regardless, most countries have set the legal drinking age at 18. Globally, the normal age at which people start drinking alcohol is 12 years old and around 80% of young people start drinking mixed drinks regularly at the age of 15 or younger, as says the World Wellbeing Association. Still, some would say that the United States should not make its laws dependent on what different countries have chosen to be worth. All things considered, the government took the decision to extend the legal drinking age from 18 to 21, as campaign group Mums Against Drunk Driving noticed the high number of road accidents. car involving people under 21 drinking a lot of alcohol and after driving. The administration supported the mothers by advising states to raise the legal drinking age or face a 10 percent cut in the amount of money they receive for highways, which would involve s strive to reduce car accidents caused by drunk driving. Additionally, "the nation's minimum drinking age law has saved exactly 17,000 lives on highways since 1988. Taking a look at the people who legitimized the minimum drinking age alcohol at 21 and those who censor it, the restriction should be considered a gigantic measure.” Progress has been made in determining alcohol-related risk variables. Although a significant number of accidents occurred before the new law which made it illegal to drink alcohol for those under 21, there is currently much more attention to the dangers of drinking and driving. Students are usually informed at school about the various dangers and given general details about the threats associated with drunk driving. This is very different from the measurement of data provided in previous years on the recurrence of deaths and injuries. The additional data provided to students has gone a long way toward ensuring that there are not the same number of car accidents due to drunk driving. 18 year olds are much more educated than those who were 18 beforethem, which means they are increasingly able to drink. Furthermore, if a large number of vehicle accidents are to blame for why people under 21 should not be allowed to drink, then the people who are reinforcing this guarantee may not be thinking about increased control travel. Transport and railway frameworks are significantly more extensive than in previous years, making it extremely easier for individuals to get to where they abandon their travels.a branch of drunk driving. If an 18 year old can fight in the United States, they should also be allowed to drink. This comes down to the degree of obligation that is required of someone using a programmed rifle, for example. If someone can be given a gun and told to shoot the opponent, that's an important obligation. Anyone who is entrusted with this obligation is entrusted with the most valued part of humanity, human life. This sounds like the kind of liability that comes with drinking, but the likelihood of someone kicking the bucket after drinking is probably much more uncertain than the likelihood of someone biting the dust after fighting . Having such a double standard shows where the needs of the US government lie. The administration is happy to send 18 year olds to war where they can get rid of it, but they would rather not spend money cleaning up the tracks if someone had a drunk driving accident . America is Star Wars; in any case, this is the case in most Republican administrations. Be that as it may, when the measure of capital he has is compromised by the manner in which mishaps can arise from drunk driving, a strategy is devised to stop the inflow of money. Some may say that pitting the two against each other is like looking at apples and oranges. The administration cares deeply about the people of its nation and will do everything in its power to ensure the safety of the native people. If that means drafting 18-year-olds to fight in the war, then that's a risk worth taking. Removing the ability of 18-year-olds to enjoy alcohol in the United States also demonstrates an extraordinary goal. The strategy, in this case, is to ensure that teenagers do not kill each other. When the administration decides on choices regarding its strategies, it is not really a question of whether the individual it is influencing is of age or development, it is a question of knowing what is the best use for the greater number of individuals. By having 18-year-old individuals fighting in wars, the legislature can create a more grounded armed force, since it has more individuals to fight for it. When it comes to approaches to the legal drinking age, lawmakers decide their choices based on what will be most beneficial to individuals who are prone to accidents while driving while intoxicated. , because they are too young to be. attentive when they drink. When considering who is right and who is not right about the administration's goal in passing laws intended to protect the individuals of their country, it is essential to think about the valuation of life as these distinctions in war arrangements and residential approach to alcohol consumption demonstrate. This argument ensures that the administration is very concerned about ensuring the well-being of the U.S. Open. Regardless, this statement is flawed since the individuals who are sent to war in America are not sent to secure the..