The legal drinking age for the U.S. should be lowered if the situation is being supervised in certain environments. Many drink underage to "rebel" against society norms so lowering the age would not call for such rebellion. Binge drinking would not take place if environment is being supervised.
The legal drinking age is currently twenty-one. If we were to lower this age limit, the author states " young adults allowed to drink in controlled environments such as restaurants, taverns, pubs and official school and university functions. In these situations responsible drinking could be taught through role modeling and educational programs".
I agree and don't think it is any different than teaching young adults how to have safe sex if they choose to have sex. If someone is going to choose to drink at 18, 19, or 20 or 40 for that matter they should be held responsibile for their actions at any age. Why do the laws say purport that a person is an adult at age 18, can drive at age 16, but can't drink until 21? I think it's hypocritical to say someone is an adult at age 18 BUT, you can't drink until your 21.
"With so many resources online, many students are using it as a valuable resource for academic research these days. And it's mostly valid-there are plenty of scholarly and legitimate websites out there that can provide valuable information. But you will have to cite your sources correctly if you want to use information you found online in your papers."
This article outlines Freedom or Religion or Belief as established by the United Nations and its members. Discussed is the process and the outcomes of those discussion as well as the enforceability of the agreed upon principles.
This article examines religious freedoms in China. It discusses how in China only those Government approved religions enjoy freedom of religion protections and then only to the point of what is considered by the government to be "normal religious activity," which is defined by the government.
This article has given two individuals to present their arguments for and against the Healthcare Insurance Law. Karen Davenport presents her arguments supporting the health care law and the individual mandate; Michael Cannon presents his arguments particularly against the individual mandate and the claim that the mandate will lower costs of medical care.
Greg Merle does a wonderful job of pointing out the facts that lead to the question are we really free? He lists a few restrictions the government puts on the American people.
"What is it that big government doesn't get about the "pursuit of happiness". We have to be free to make mistakes. We don't need laws designed to protect me from me, such as seat belt laws, trans fat laws, helmet laws, shower head water flow laws, etc. Did you know that there is actually a black market on certain toilets because the government wants to control how much you flush? From a logical stand point, it's ridiculous."
This supports seat belt usage but also discusses the infringement on personal politics. Do we go by the law or our personal beliefs? There are different ways to look at this situation.