Rebuttal of "Drinking Age of Twenty-One Doesn't Work"

Name
Professor
Rebuttal essay
Date
Rebuttal of "drinking age of twenty-one doesn't work."
Should the drinking age be lowered from twenty-one to, say, eighteen? Is the act prohibiting alcohol consumption before the age of twenty-one causing more harm than the intended good? Has the nation registered a distinct change in traffic-related deaths in the past twenty-five years of the law being enacted? The age limit of twenty-one is not working, and a policy review should be initiated to lower the age to eighteen (McCardell, par.4). In his commentary "drinking age of twenty-one doesn't work" McCardell gives support to the amethyst initiative that introduced a raging debate to the public, claiming twenty-one years old drinking age is not working.
What McCardell and fellow proponents of a reduced drinking age cup believe in is that drinking age at twenty-one increases binge drinking which poses health issues to college students. They also claim that increasing age limit has reduced alcohol-related accidents in all age groups and not under twenty-one alone. McCardell also blames the state for lack of proper preparation of youths as they turn eighteen as one of the leading causes of reckless drinking. He also alludes to the fact that these young adults are aware that the law is unjust and routine violation may lead to disrespect to the law (McCardell, par 16).
Inasmuch as McCardell presents an interesting view on the debate, he fails to highlight the devastating effects such legislation would have on the nation. His research has shifted from drunken drinking to binge drinking in an attempt to convince the public to support the initiative. The following discussion explores the flaws in McCardell's argument and offer evidence that supports the age limit of twenty-one years as the minimum drinking age.
McCardell opens up his argument by claiming that the society has changed since 1970. The national minimum drinking age act signed in 1984 raised the drinking age to twenty-one to address the problem of drunken driving which resulted in numerous fatalities. He claimed during that time, that the State did not prepare the young adults to make responsible decisions regarding alcohol use. Twenty-five years later, there is much better public advocacy of lobby groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and others.
The young adults are more aware of the risks associated with drunken driving, quips McCardell. He alludes to "designated driver campaign, mandatory seatbelt, and airbags as well and ignition interlocks for DUI offenders. However these claims are not supported by results, since the increase of minimum age to twenty-one, a total number of crashes have reduced significantly. Raising the limit to twenty has seen a particular age-related decline in many alcohol-related crashes (McCartt, Hellinga, & Kirley, p.179) thereby quashing McCardell's argument that the reduction has been across the age groups.
In a similar initiative, New Zealand recently lowered the drinking age, and the results have seen an influx of fifteen to nine...