Transcript Mediating the Drinking Age Debate

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 1820 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-drinkingage-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-opinionscontributors-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 onscreen; 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.”
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.
Overall Comments: