These people believe that a young person in America who is encouraged to sign up for the military and fight for his country deserves the right to choose whether or not they will drink alcohol. Also, a person at 18 in America is encouraged to take on the role of deciding who will be the leaders of his country, but he does not have the freedom to drink alcohol. Many people see this as a contradiction in politics and in life. These supporters of lowering the drinking age believe that the young alcohol drinkers of America would become more responsible with their drinking habits simply because it would become something that is not looked at as a bad thing and is demonstrated by adults how to drink responsibly. An article printed in the Los Angeles times, “At 18, is it time for a drink?” presents the fact that the majority of serious alcohol-related accidents on college campuses happen when young people are hiding their drinking in their rooms (Gordon).
Instead, a good idea would be to increase the amount of time a teen needs a permit for, in order to get more experience before actually getting a license. Advocates of raising the driving age often cite immaturity as a reason that the sixteen to eighteen age group has so many crashes. This is the part of the problem that raising the driving age will best address, but not all young drivers are immature. It would be unfair to punish the group as a whole for the actions of a few. Besides, there is already a way to prevent teens from driving before they are ready.
As a result, it wouldn’t solve the whole problem of underage drinking, but it would be an important step in the correct direction to help young adults. As we have seen, the legal drinking age in the USA should be lowered to 18. We already recognize 18 year olds as responsible adults that can benefit the society in many different ways. Also, lowering the legal drinking age to 18 would be consistent with the freedom that supposedly every single habitant in the United States has. Additionally, people at 18 are mature enough to decide what is correct in their own lives with the help of the government and
Should the Westminster electoral system be reformed? The Westminster electoral system has been a target for reform for a long time. Despite the loss in the 2011 referendum, reform is still wanted by a number of people especially the Liberal Democrats who will benefit the most. First Past the Post is the system that Westminster uses for election to the Houses of Commons it is a simple majority or plurality system that requires a candidate to get more votes than anyone else. One argument that the Westminster electoral system should be reformed is that First Past the Post doesn't give the social representation that other system gives, for example in the Parliament elected in 2010, women, 51% of the population, are represented by 22% of Parliament therefore an under representation, however, university educated are overrepresented, 91% of the Houses of Commons represent 31% of the population but having PR doesn't guarantee that the social composition of Parliament only making the percentage of votes more proportional towards the seats.
I would support the Dream Act, At least it gives the minors a chance to make it right and follow the law and get on the right path of following legalization here in the U.S. If we don’t give them a path to citizenship we will be dealing with a bigger issue of employers still hiring illegal immigrants and we will have more immigrants not paying taxes and will exploit the system. They come to the U.S. for a better life than their country could provide. So why are we making it impossible for their children to go in
Dressing children in adult clothing has been suggested as hurrying because it makes them look like adults so they feel they should act as adults and we lose sight of their innocence. Forcing children to participate in sports before their bodies are ready is also happening. Parents put too much pressure on children to win which takes the fun out of the already physically harmful game. The book goes on to talk about how different family lifestyles hurry children. Divorced and single parent families have a better chance of hurrying their children, while married families are able to set better examples.
One of the main arguments for the lowering of the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 is that “If youth are allowed to make other choices, such as voting, going to war, or getting married, then they should be given the choice to consume alcohol to, even if it hurts them” (SpeakUp! Prevention Coalition, 2012). This is the most common argument that I've heard when it comes to this topic. This also seems to be the best argument because if a person is old enough to die for their country or vote for any type of public office, why shouldn't they be able to drink alcohol at the same age? Another common argument used in support of lowering the legal drinking age is that young people still do it, even though it's illegal.
Some of those things are that in 1970 through 1975 they previously lowered the drinking age down to 18, because that’s when you enter adult hood, you should be responsible for your actions. But they changed that because the government did not want to risk losing hundreds of millions of dollars on highway funds. That’s the only reason they changed it. Moving
The drinking age should be lowered to the age of 18. I feel that for many reasons including that people are adults at that age and should be able to make their own decisions.When you are 18, you receive many important rights such as the right to vote, the right to get married, the right to buy smokes, to get a credit card.It's when your adulthood begins. I think that those rights that I have just stated requires a huge risponsibility, even more responsibility than that you have when you need to control your drinking. Think thatyou are not allowed to dring at your wedding. How does it sound?What I mean is if you can do all these at the age of 18, why cant make your own decisions about alcohol consumption?
The breakdown in American society includes moral and ethical issues. In Barbara Lebey’s opposing viewpoint essay she maintains that the sexual revolution movement changed traditional notions of motherhood and family that put children first (Lebey, 2003). It is vital to our society and younger generation that traditional families are restored. It is very difficult for a family to thrive without the aide of both parents. One parent usually means half the