- Gambling Age Lowered To 18 Articles
- Gambling Age Lowered To 18 1971 Picture
- Gambling Age Lowered To 18 In America
- Gambling Age Lowered To 18 July 1
Reasons why the gambling age should be lowered to 18 Gambling becomes more frequent withincreased amounts bet because of unreasonable optimism. Box man The casino supervisor who stands between the dealers and across from the stickman reasons why the gambling age should be lowered to 18 supervises the game and guards the chips. The Legal Gambling Age Should not be Lowered. No, the legal gamling age should not be lowered to 18. 18 year olds are not yet ready or mature enough to make decisions when it comes to gambling. Too many people who are 21 and older are already led to financial ruin through gambling addiction. To open up such chances to 18 year olds would do no one any good.
According to the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, in 2010 underage drinkers from ages 15-20 were responsible for 48.8% of alcohol purchases. The minimum legal drinking age(MLDA) in the United States was 18 years old until 1984, when all fifty states raised their legal drinking age to 21 or older. The drinking age should be lowered from 21 years old to 18 years old because at that age one legally becomes an adult, it would reduce the amount of unsafe drinking activity, and there are fewer drunk driving car accidents in many other countries with a drinking age of 18.
In the United States at the age of eighteen you receive the rights and responsibilities of adulthood. As an adult you should be able to make your own decisions on drinking alcohol.
Gambling Age Lowered To 18 Articles
You can vote, smoke cigarettes, serve on juries, get married, sign contracts, be prosecuted as adults, and join the military. It is known that alcohol consumption can interfere with development of the young adult brain’s frontal lobes.
The frontal lobes are essential for functions such as emotional regulation, planning, and organization. However, the decisions you can make as an adult include risking one’s life. Among these decisions should be alcohol consumption because as an adult you have the right to participate in actions that affect your health. Former Middlebury College president John McCardell wrote a New York Times op-ed that called the current drinking age “bad social policy and a terrible law.” It is a bad social policy because college is where you start making new relationships that could potentially last your entire life and to create such bonds it would be nice to just be able to talk over some beers. Allowing eighteen year olds to legally drink in regulated environments would decrease the amount of unsafe drinking activity. Bars and clubs are potentially unsafe environments, but they are supervised by employees. Prohibiting 18-20 year olds from drinking in such places causes them to choose to drink in unsupervised places such as house parties or fraternity parties. The rate of underage drinking arrests would go down if drinking were legal making crime rates decrease as well.
According to Boston University, “Allowing alcohol consumption legally might help cut down alcohol related deaths in colleges.” College students over drink and tend to have accidents because they are unsure when they will be able to have alcohol again. In 2006 according to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, 76.6% of twelfth graders admitted to drinking at some point in their lives. Lowering the drinking age would diminish the thrill of breaking the law. There would no longer be the exciting aspect of being rebellious. The United States increased the drinking to 21 in 1984, but its rate of traffic accidents and fatalities in the 1980s decreased less than that of European countries whose legal drinking ages are lower than 21. In the United Kingdom, only 15.88% of car accidents are related to drunk driving. In stating this, you can’t really say that having a drinking age of 18 reduces the amount of drunk driving accidents. Plus, deaths from drunk driving as a percentage of total driving fatalities have gradually decreased since 1982, two years before MLDA 21 went into effect. Since this decline came across all age groups, it cannot be because of the introduction of MLDA 21. In a 2002 meta-study of the legal drinking age and health and social problems, 72% of the studies found no statistics that related to an increase in suicide and criminal activities by adolescents if the drinking age were to be lowered to eighteen.
Raising the drinking age has been ineffective thus far. If the drinking age were to be lowered to eighteen it would have more benefits than consequences. Underage drinking enforcement is not even a priority for many law enforcement agencies. An estimated two of every 1,000 occasions of illegal drinking by youth under 21 results in an arrest. By raising the drinking age and making consumption only available for older people our laws have made drinking even more attractive. And drinking in excess has become a standard way of rebelling against what is seen as an unjust and immoral law.
Cite this page
Gambling Age Lowered To 18 1971 Picture
Lower Drinking Age to 18. (2016, Mar 01). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/lower-drinking-age-to-18-essay
This is just a sample.
You can get your custom paper from our expert writers
Last month Nevada State Assemblyman Jim Wheeler introduced legislation based on a rather apt philosophical argument. He argued that if men and women are of age to fight and die for their country, they should be able to go out and have a little fun on the tables in Vegas.
Gambling Age Lowered To 18 In America
Wheeler’s proposed legislation seeks to lower Nevada’s gambling age from 21 to 18. However, officials don’t seem to share his views and are standing firm in maintaining the status-quo of Vegas gambling age restrictions.
In a recent meeting between officials, one gambling regulator was quoted to have uttered the phrase, “dead on arrival.” One that no lawmaker wants to hear in connection with their proposed legislation. Regulators see this bill being passed as more trouble than it’s worth to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
Granted, the lowering of the gambling age would increase tax revenues for the state derived from gaming activity, but as Nevada Gaming Commission Chairman Tony Alamo put it, “The industry has not come to us with any wants for dropping this,” adding, “Everyone’s happy with 21 years of age.”
President of the Nevada Resorts Association, Virginia Valentine also contributed during an interview, “We’ve never supported it in the past. There’s really no compelling reason to change that position.”
What officials do want to emphasize is that the proposed bill would in fact create a problem for operators if the gambling age is lowered to 18. That is in conjunction with the practice of alcoholic beverages being served in casinos. If 18 year old men and women are able to begin gambling, how then do casinos get a handle on the use of alcohol in their establishments? To get police patrons to check IDs at every slot and table seat would be no small task, not to mention a nuisance to players.
Officials also point to the fact that Vegas is no longer the only state with legalized gambling. In other locations the legal age would remain 21. This of doesn’t take into account several exceptions where gambling within certain tribal lands, in places like Alaska, Idaho, Minnesota and Wyoming, the legal gambling age is 18. There are also pari-mutual betting practices open to those 18 and up in Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington. Bingo can be played by those 18 and up in Connecticut, Florida, New Mexico, Oregon, Wisconsin and at tribal casinos in South Dakota. Even more confusing is that the legal gambling age is 18 or 21, depending on the casino, in California, New York and Oklahoma.
It seems pretty clear there is already a quagmire of gaming rules throughout the country depending on the games being played. What many officials in Nevada are now asking is: Would lowering the age draw that many more gambling patrons? The consensus is no. Another point brought up is how much are these younger patrons actually expected to spend with their new found gaming freedom. Most don’t think it’s enough to justify the investment in time and money to get the laws changed.