The 1984 US National Drinking Age Demonstration aimed to ensure that all states raised the open membership base and purchasing age at 21 years. This was related to how there were numerous car accidents occurring among young adults and the youth population regarding drunk driving. When a person turns 18 you are counted as an adult, you can buy lottery tickets, tobacco and fight for our country, but you can't drink a beer, you should be able to buy alcohol if you can fight for the country. Although there were clear problems associated with young adults drinking and driving during the time the NMDAA was established, much education on the negative consequences of excessive alcohol consumption subsequently ensured that these numbers would not be repeated if states United States had chosen to lower the legal drinking age to 18. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay America should look at what other nations are doing to decide where to set the legal drinking age in the United States. The normal legal age for drinking alcohol worldwide is 15.9, according to the Postdam School study. The United Kingdom aims to deny alcohol consumption only to adolescents under the age of six. Be that as it may, most countries have a base legal drinking age of 18. Globally, the normal age to initially drink alcohol is 12, and around 80% of young people start drinking mixed drinks consistently by age 15 or 15. younger, according to the World Health Association. However, some argue that the United States should not make its laws dependent on what other countries have chosen to be worth. All in all, the government has decided to extend the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 since the campaign group 'Mums Against Drink Driving' noted the high number of car accidents identified involving people under the age of 21 year old who drank a lot of alcohol and after driving. The administration supported moms by advising states to raise the legal drinking age or face a 10% cut in the amount of money they receive for highways, which would include preventing car crashes caused by drunk driving. Furthermore, the "National Least Drinking Age Act" has saved exactly 17,000 lives on freeways since 1988. Considering the people who have legitimized the drinking age of 21 and those who censor it, the restriction should be considered a gigantic measure. Progress has been made in defining liquor-related risk variables. Although a significant number of accidents occurred before the new law making it illegal to drink under 21, there is now much more awareness about the dangers of drunk driving. Students are normally taught at school about the different dangers and given extensive details about the risks of drink 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 the students has gone a long way towards ensuring that the same number of alcohol-driving car accidents do not occur. 18-year-olds are much more educated than those who were 18 before them, and this means they are increasingly capable of drinking. Furthermore, if a high number of car accidents can be attributed to people under 21years should not be allowed to drink, then people who support such a guarantee may not think about increased travel efficiency. The transport and railway facilities are much more extensive than in previous years, and this makes it extremely easier for people to get where they are abandoning riding the train.a member of drinking and driving. If an 18 year old person can fight in the United States, they should also be allowed to drink. What matters is the degree of commitment required of those who, for example, use a programmed rifle. If someone is given a firearm and advised to shoot the opponent, this is a significant obligation. Each individual entrusted with this obligation is entrusted with the most valued segment of humanity, human life. This resembles the type of duty with drinking alcohol, however, the likelihood of someone dying after drinking is probably much more uncertain than someone biting the dust after fighting. Having such a dual standard shows where the American government's needs are. The administration is happy to send 18-year-olds off to war where they could kick the bucket, but they'd rather not burn money tidying up the lanes if someone were to have an accident while driving while intoxicated. America is a star war; in any case, it has been in most Republican administrations. However, when the amount of capital he has is compromised by the fact that there may be fenders due to drunk driving, a strategy is adopted to stop the flood of money. Some might say that the contrast of the two resembles looking at apples and oranges. The administration cares deeply about its nation's residents and will do everything it can to ensure that Native people are protected. If that involves enlisting 18-year-olds to fight in the war, then it's a risk worth taking. Eliminating the ability of 18-year-olds to drink alcohol in the United States also demonstrates an extraordinary goal. The strategy, in this case, is to ensure that teenagers do not massacre themselves or each other. When the administration decides the choices on its strategies, it is not really evaluating whether the person it influences is age or development, it is a question of what is the best use for the majority of people. By having 18-year-old individuals fighting in wars, the parliament can create a more entrenched armed force, as it has more individuals fighting for it. Regarding the adoption of approaches on the legitimate drinking age, the legislator is deciding his choices based on what will be of most benefit to people who are prone to get into accidents related to alcohol and driving, since they are too young to ever be. be careful when they drink. When looking at who is right and who is not right about the administration's goal when making laws intended to protect the individuals of its country, it is essential to reflect on the life esteem that these distinctions in the organization of war and the approach to residential drinking demonstrate. The conflict guarantees that the administration is more interested in ensuring the well-being of the American open. Be that as it may, this statement is flawed since the individuals who are sent to war in America are not sent to secure the interests of American individuals. Take for example the war in Iraq, which society at large is not sure why it started. As indicated by numerous intelligent individuals who panned that war, Iraq was not attacked to discover atomic weapons and to take them back or deactivate them, as George W. Hedge had said when America initially attacked,.