Mediating the Drinking Age Debate

Kevin Johnson

The drinking age

• Changed from 19 to 21 in 1984• Must be 21 to drink or purchase alcohol

anywhere in the United States

Reasons for change

• Underground drinking by underage teens

• Results in binge drinking and the drinking for the thrill of breaking the law

• Can vote, smoke, get married, sign contracts and join the military at age 18

Reasons for change cont.

• In Oregon, 17-20% of all alcohol sold is to minors

• $71 million dollars spent on underage drinking programs and enforcement by U.S. government

• College presidents sending letters to lawmakers asking them to reconsider lowering the age

• Highest drinking age in the world

Reasons to stay at 21• Alcohol is a known depressant• Teens get drunk twice as fast

as adults do• Results in 70,000 sexual

assaults each year by college students

• Crashes have decreased 16% since the change

• Before change, underage drinkers were involved in over twice as many fatal traffic crashes as they are today

Reasons to stay cont.

• More vulnerable to drug abuse, unprotected sex, and depression

• Higher chance of academic failure• Inhibits growth of brain• 11 American teens die every day from crashes

that involve alcohol

Mediation• Change the drinking age to 19• Age demographic for drinking and

driving accidents went from 18-20 to 21-24 with the age change

• Educate teens on drinking• Keeps alcohol out of high schools• Takes away thrill of breaking the

law for most college students (more normalized process)

• Money spent on enforcing the underage drinking law goes to educating teens monitoring drinking and driving

Conclusion

• The law isn’t stopping underage drinking and now is the time for change.

Works Cited• Alan, Jeff. "The Drinking Age: A "Spirited" Debate." Weblog post. Oregon Catalyst. Cascade

Policy Institute, July-Aug. 2008. Web. 29 Mar. 2012. <http://oregoncatalyst.com/1657-The-Drinking-Age-A-Spirited-Debate.html>.

• "Drinking Age ProCon." Drinking Age ProCon.org. ProCon.org, Mar.-Apr. 2012. Web. 29 Mar. 2012. <http://drinkingage.procon.org/>.

• Minton, Michelle. "Lower the Drinking Age for Everyone - Michelle Minton - National Review Online." NRO. National Review Online 2012, 20 Apr. 2011. Web. 29 Mar. 2012. <http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264916/lower-drinking-age-everyone-michelle-minton>.

• Miron, Jeffrey A., and Elina Tetelbaum. "The Dangers of the Drinking Age." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, Apr.-May 2009. Web. 29 Mar. 2012. <http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/15/lowering-legal-drinking-age-opinions-contributors-regulation.html>.

• "SADD Statistics." Welcome to SADD. SADD Inc., Jan. 2011. Web. 01 Apr. 2012. <http://sadd.org/stats.htm>.

• "WHY 21?" MADD -Why 21. 2011 Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Web. 29 Mar. 2012. <http://www.madd.org/underage-drinking/why21/>.

Name& Section : Johnson, HE

Excellent Good Fair Needs Work

Context Purpose: perceptive definition of central question, visual & verbal; scope is narrow, question consistent throughout

Substance Development: sufficient summary & insight; slides focused & yet fully developed; mix of verbal & visual information

Sources: appropriate for topic, pertinent in placement, and accurately cited; quotations & data introduced correctly

Organization Thesis: a thesis, early or late, that clearly states both sides of question & its mediation

Introduction and Conclusion: overview of organization given at the beginning; conclusion sums up key points

Relationship: relationship of ideas clear; coherent; visual cues guide us through presentation

Style Style: clear & to-the-point text on-screen; same for data on-screen; the verbal component fits the visual

Verbal performance: engaging presence, name given, neither too colloquial nor too formal; no mumbling

Conventions & Correctness free from data errors free from word errors (SP, etc.)

Response Team Response: Questions in class & written responses demonstrate understanding; response helps enhance presentation (rated “Excellent,” “Good,” or “Fair.”

Overall Comments: First, take another look at your series of slides. Do you see how crammed and rushed they are? Your “Reasons for Change” (with an utterly irrelevant picture, besides) lists seven items, two of them running on for three lines, and then your alternative slide likewise jams a lot of varied material together (though the picture’s more appropriate). Your “Mediation” has the same kind of crush, making the “Conclusion” slide seem dubious, unsupported — and of course “Bibliography” is the incorrect word; we need “Works Cited.” The problem’s one of organization, finally, of finding a better way to sort out your materials. A couple of times in class, you spent a long time meandering, verbally, while one silide hung in place. Your Response Team’s report is just a rough summary, really, but you notice it ignores organizational issues, instead just cherry picking your data. Sound data, but you’ve got to work on structure. B or 85.