Safe drivers should have a privilege to be aware of those who decide to disobey the law in order to keep a distance. Driving drunk is a choice that people make, that’s why others should know about it. If a drunk driver has the courage to do it once, he will probably make the same mistake twice. The last reason I think that drunk driver’s need a specialized license is that others may be think it twice before getting behind the wheel
Although the intention was good prohibition actually negatively affected the populations’ health because they turned to hard liquor instead of beer. While the supply of alcohol drastically decreased the demand remained the same. Due to the ban on importing or manufacturing of alcoholic beverages in the U.S, it became more difficult to get beverages containing lower amounts of alcohol (e.g. Beer and wine) while getting hard liquor became easier because it was easier to manufacture and smuggle across borders into the country. The higher alcohol content in hard liquor was more effective for getting drunk yet it also took its toll on the population’s health.
Sometimes people feel the defendant has too many rights and has more benefits, which could help them get away with criminal activity. All these points are valid, but they are forgetting about the rights of people and what they stand for. I would think people would want defendants to be punished fairly and not have an opening, where they could possible get their case dropped because of something illegal done on the prosecution or law enforcement
The language was more formal and serious than in the commercial. The constraints were different however because not as many people read this article as how many people saw the Super Bowl commercial. This article was just as effective though because it focuses on the statistics which scares people into not wanting to drink and
However, these teenagers also live in fear of getting caught for drinking and thus, consume their alcohol in unsafe environments; typically, these dwellings are where they can “escape” disturbances and predicaments, but usually encounter more. These environments are generally unsupervised and in groups of “children” that are ignorant of responsible drinking habits. Due to their apprehension of being caught, teenagers tend to never confess to an adult of the troubles they encountered as they drank and, therefore, may further affect their experience. Thus, if the drinking age was lowered to eighteen, a teenager would have the ability to be more straightforward with their drinking and would be able to drink in more supervised locations. They would also begin to drink in moderation since there is no longer the appeal of a “forbidden” rebellion.
A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them. (Doing drugs might be an example. It might seem satisfactory at the moment, but ultimately, it damages their body.) A person must only do what seems to be in their best interest. Under moral egoism, no moral duty exists to anyone other than self.
Unlike soma, the drugs produce numerous negative aftereffects. Furthermore, the use of drugs is not regulated. As a result many accidental overdoses do occur. Although drug use is not mandatory as it is in Brave New World, many people choose to take drugs. In both societies, people use drugs for the euphoric feeling to escape from their worries and problems, instead of dealing with their emotions.
In other words, simply because drinking and driving rates are not particularly high in Europe among late teens does not mean this trend would continue in the U.S. Additionally, for those who feel that those who enlist in the military should drink legally, one might counter that the context is different. Sure, at first glance, picking up a bottle seems less harmful than picking up a gun. Keep in mind, though, that the military allows such behavior under extreme supervision and in a highly targeted fashion, not to mention going under extensive training, where you get a very different experience than allowing a young adult to drink a bottle of alcohol. Yes they can go to war, and they can vote, but that doesn’t mean they are ready to drink. Letting younger people drink is giving immature citizens more of the ability to make bad decisions that not only affect themselves but can also be very harmful to others.
I think this would be an effective deterrent for others who might consider drunk driving because they might not have been through the experience of alcohol yet, so don’t really know how to forget about the consequences unlike some of the individuals who have already forgotten about it, and only thinking about the good time alcohol provides. 5. No, the death penalty is not merited for drunk driving because although I would like to enforce it on all the drunk drivers in the world, it just doesn’t seem that reasonable. So, in my law, I came up with the idea to give them a warning of “death” so that they get very frightened. And I’d like to keep them alive so their mistake haunts them forever, and are constantly reminded of their consequences due to their actions…causing a family or loved one to feel such grief just because they wanted a fun night out and didn’t think anything bad would happen to them.
First, it is largely ineffective. Second, it would decrease unsafe drinking activities. Finally, you are an adult at 18. A lot of people would agree with me on making the legal drinking age lower (mainly teenagers) but I also know there are a lot of people that disagree with me. Many people see 18 year olds as irresponsible, immature kids but not every teenager is.