The 21st Amendment Analysis

In 1984 Ronald Reagan proposed a new law that declared that the legal drinking age must raised up to 21 instead of the age of 18. The law was forced upon the states by threatening them by stating that the government will reduce their highway funding until the states passed the law. Of course all the states eventually change their legal drinking age to 21. Some critics believe that this law’s results have been very successful, however the law possesses many insecurities, but certain programs can be arranged to help educate teenagers on alcohol.

It has been a rising issue within the past century to have the drinking age set at 21, but many people are more in favor of having the age set at 18. For instance, “’Raising the drinking age to 21 was passed with the very best of intentions, but it’s had the very worst of outcomes,’ stated by David J. Hanson, an alcohol policy expert” (Johnson). Many people believe that having the drinking age set at 21 was a smart idea, but it has caused many more deaths and injuries over the years. Most of these fatalities are cause from people who are underage and choose to consume alcohol. Again, “Libertarian groups and some conservative economic foundations, seeing the age limits as having been extorted by Washington, have long championed lowering the drinking age” (Johnson). These groups see that keeping the drinking age set at 21 is dangerous as it causes more problems to the Untied States. If the drinking age was lowered, or set at 18, there would not be such unforgiving outcomes, like deaths and lifelong injuries, which are usually caused from people who are under the age of 21 drinking alcohol. Although there are numerous groups that are fighting to keep the age

minimum drinking age to 21. States that did not risked lowering the amount of highway

The government is conducting an idea to whether lower the minimum legal drinking age in the United States or not. Many Americans forbid the idea of legalizing the drinking age so that it would be profitable to the businesses. Likewise, there have been many advantages and disadvantages of why should the government allow young adults drink under the age of 21. To prevent this issue, many Americans have provided reasoning that will support the idea of keeping the minimum legal drinking age where it is now. The government should maintain the minimum legal drinking age in the United States at the age of 21.

In 1984, the American government raised the minimum national drinking age from 18 to 21 as a method to reduce the number of car crashes and deaths caused by underage drunk drivers. The government placed the minimum drinking age law in the Federal Aid Highway Act, and by doing that states were not technically required to keep their minimum drinking age at 21. Given the fact that the law was a part of the Highway Act, if a state wanted to establish a different minimum drinking age, they would be required to surrender ten percent of their highway funds (Messamore). In 1987, after the act was passed, South Dakota challenged the law by changing their minimum drinking age to 19 and were brought to court in the case South Dakota vs. Dole. The court used the 27th amendment, which limits government spending power, to achieve their federal objectives. In a 7-2 decision, it was decided that Congress was able to use financial penalties on states that did not comply with the law (South Dakota v. Dole). Different federal, state and local laws help to decide alcohol 's "role" in our country. The different governments worked together to decide what laws would be put in place regarding manufacturing alcohol, selling alcohol, who can drink, and any responses to alcohol-related problems (Alcohol Policy). The brain is not fully developed until age 25 and alcohol can affect the hippocampus, a part of the brain that plays an important role in the formation of new memories. Several people may

Society’s attitude towards the drinking age has been a major controversy in the United States. The attitudes regarding the drinking age have been based off statistics and society’s varying opinion. Alcohol is a toxic depressant that has a damaging effect on the human body. As a result, to prevent excessive alcoholic consumption, the ratification of the 18th amendment took place from 1919 to 1939. This established the Prohibition Act, which banned the transportation, manufacturing and selling of an alcoholic beverage. However, illegal production of alcohol continued to take place in secret. Gradually prohibition laws became difficult to enforce. As a result, the Prohibition Act was repealed in 1933. In 1984, congress mandated a law which would raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 through the National Minimum Drinking Age. Reasoning for mandating an older drinking age, was to enhance public safety and promote good health. In 1988, all 50 states enforced the drinking age to 21. The concern for the consumption of alcohol have targeted teenagers and young adults

Converse to the ideals of 18 to 20 year olds, the federal government favors the current drinking age and deters states from lowering them. Between 1970 and 1982, 36 states lowered their individual drinking ages to 18, 19 or 20 (Searles). A major problem that occurred during those times was the “blood boarder” incidents. Teenagers living adjacent to states with lower drinking ages would cross the boarder to buy alcohol, then drive back under the influence. In order to prevent the increase in accidents and fatalities linked to these occurrences, the federal government (with significant lobbying from Mothers Against Drunk Driving) passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. To ensure that all states complied with it, the federal government would cut 10% of highway funding to any state with a drinking age lower than 21 (Searles).

In 1984, Reagan signed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. This act incentivized states to raise their legal drinking ages to 21 (Dejong). These incentives were actually punishments for not following the law though. As the NIAAA explains, the Federal government can without ten percent of federal funding for highways from states that do not prohibit people under age 21 from buying or publically possessing any alcoholic beverage (NIAAA). With states being so opposed to the highways and interstates in the first place because of construction costs (Berkely), of course they wouldn’t want to have to fund any of it themselves. Now the real question: did this law decrease alcohol-related

The national minimum drinking age in The United States is stated to be anyone under the age of 21 years can not consume or purchase any alcoholic beverage; this law was passed on July 17,1984 by President Reagan. Nearly 88,000 people die from alcohol-related causes annually making it the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Many People would agree that alcohol should not be present to children under the age of 21 years. There has been many debates on whether or not the drinking age should be lowered to 18 years of age. “Between 1970 and 1976, 29 states lowered their age for drinking alcohol. The results were catastrophic. Highway deaths among teenagers and young adults skyrocketed. Immediately, states began raising the minimum

(LegalFlip.com) President Ronal Reagan signed into effect the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. The NMDAA is an example of an “unfunded federal mandate”. (LegalFlip.com) A federal mandate is a law that orders the states to do (or not do) something or face a penalty. Federal Mandates can either be funded or unfunded. An unfunded federal mandate means that the federal government does not give the states money in order to carry out the mandate. The federal government does not have the power to force states to do something. Under the NMDAA, the government ordered the states to raise thier minimum legal drinking age to 21 years old. States were free to say “No”, and not raise their minimum legal drinking age. However, any state that refused would lose approximately 10% of it federal funding for highway public transportation.(LegalFlip.com) So, for all intents and purposes, the states had to raise the drinking age.

On July 1, 1971 the 26th amendment was passed which lowered the minimum age to vote from twenty one to eighteen years old. Shortly after the amendment was passed twenty nine states across America started lowering the drinking age from 21 to either 18,19, or 20 years old. This new freedom for young adults only lasted for a brief time by 1984 the Uniform Drinking Age Act was passed. The Uniform Drinking Age Act forced states to change the drinking age back to twenty one years old; by reducing the federal transportation funding, for each state that did not have a minimum drinking age of21. This act has caused controversy for years, there even is group of 136 college presidents called Amethyst Initiative that support a lower minimum legal

I. Introduction: Starting in 1970 21 states reduced the minimum drinking age to 18. Another 8 reduced it to 19 or 20. However, these states noticed increases in alcohol-related fatalities among teenagers and young adults. As a result, of the 29 states that had lowered their drinking age, 24 raised the age again between 1976 and 1984. By 1984, only three states allowed 18-year-olds to drink all types of alcoholic liquor. The enactment of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 prompted states to raise their legal age for purchase or public possession of alcohol to 21 or risk losing millions in federal highway funds. The states who raised it were given highway funding by the

The United States’ minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) of twenty one is almost a perfect example of a policy with unrealistic expectations and serious unintended consequences. The current policy that the United States has in effect criminalizes youth who consume alcohol at less than twenty one years of age. Young adults are going to drink under twenty one, so why shouldn’t the United States lower the MLDA to eighteen? Following Prohibition in 1933, many states made their MLDA twenty one. During the 1960’s and 1970’s, many states lowered it to eighteen to match the drafting age (Alcohol Policy MD). President Reagan passed The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 which required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public

The last two states that raised their drinking age was Wyoming and South Dakota. South Dakota claimed that the highway funding ordeal was an overstretch of congresses power. They also claimed that this was a violation of the Twenty-first amendment which allows states regulate alcohol. The Supreme Court responded by saying that Congress can indirectly promote organization through spending power as long as it is for the general welfare for the people. The Supreme Court ruled law constitutional,they believed that Congress was genuinely trying to promote general welfare of the

The reason for this alternate title is due to the national governments use of financial resources to place pressure onto the States to adopt laws that the federal government is unable to enforce themselves, such as in regulating the importation and sale of intoxicating liquors protected to the States by the 1933 ratification of the Twenty First Amendment. One example of such coercive federalism lies within the 1987 case of South Dakota v. Dole. Leading up to the Court’s ruling in this case, Congress was manipulating the States into adopting laws that implemented a legal drinking age of 21 in order for the State to receive a distribution of a federal highway grant. In a 7 – 2 vote the court upheld the federal government’s decision to withhold highway funds from states that refused to raise the legal drinking age to