Schwehr 1 Daniel Schwehr Professor K. Speech 06-10037 16 April 2014 Speech 06-Project #2 Part #1 I. Introduction: a.

Attention Statement/ Problem: i. The reason for this project is to find out if we should, or should not, change the legal age of 21 to a lower age for drinking. ii. In the brief report on Event-Specific Drinking Among College Students, Clayton Neighbors points out that college drunk drivers will have a huge risk for driving, College represents a period of risk for heavy drinking and experiencing unwanted consequences associated with drinking (702). b. For this reason, I would argue there should not be a law that would change the age limit for drinking alcohol. II. Significance: a. Harm #1: If people drink too much, they may cause serious damage that may lead to death. i. Underage drinking is the number one misfortune for which leads to accidents and fatalities.

Schwehr 2

ii. In some cases, young people who drink believe they can get away with driving drunk without getting caught. iii. Sharon Lipperman-Kreda, Joel W. Grube, and Mallie J. Paschall points out for those who want to drink drunk, Conversely, students who do not use alcohol may assume that underage drinking laws are enforced simply because they have no experience violating (249). b. Harm #2: Drinking costs way too much to begin with. i. Some of the alcohol costs up to $80 just for one drink. ii. The cost can double when the driver gets into a car accident. iii. Susan Brink claims that America is having trouble in which drinking can be pricy. Brinks points out that, alcohol abuse costs American businesses an estimated $134 billion a year (Brinks). III. Inherency: a. By not changing the legal age limit, it can help the risk of lost of life. With this, the law needs to be dedicated in cracking down drunk driving. b. The current law is not that efficient on cracking down on those driving. IV. The Plan: a. Agent: The State of California. i. There should be a bigger fine in the case of drunk driving, instead of just spending a night in jail. ii. The price of the DUI will be higher if caught.

Schwehr 3

iii. If the judge says that the person is guilty, then they should go to prison for more than what it is now. b. Buying alcohol should be raised. i. Most drinks cost around $50-$80, it should be around $100 minimum to prevent more damage. ii. With the cost of buying alcohol, people can save more money and buy other, more important things. V. Solvency: a. Harm #1: Americans can be healthier if we do not drink. i. Those who drink will have a bigger change of getting cancer at a younger age. 1. Drinking can cause heart disease that may lead to death. ii. The World Health Organization claims that safety is number one. They point out that, "The public health goal ... [should be] to minimize the harm caused by drinking (W.H.O.) iii. There will not be a cost for medical. b. Harm #2: With less drinking, it can prevent the stress within the household. i. If people do not drink, people can have a happier household and not have any situations.

Schwehr 4

ii. In an effort to help the fight on alcoholism, Hans Joachim Salize points out that, There is general agreement that the effects of alcoholism on the partners and family members of addicts are enormous (62). iii. If people do not drink, people can have a happier household and not have any situations VI. Advantages: Despite many disadvantages, there are many ways in which this could benefit the economy and our lives. a. With more and more expensive drinks, it could help the economy by spending that money on other things that we so dearly need. b. If used with precaution and handled proper, drinking can save lives and damage cost. c. We could enjoy drinking in parties. VII. Conclusion: a. Whatever the voter decides to vote, I pray the right one would win to insure the safety of the community. b. As stated above, the safety of the country is the number one key I want to point out. c. For many of those reasons and many more, I hope the right vote comes on top of the other.

Schwehr 5 Work Cited Brink, Susan. "The Economy Is Harmed by Alcohol." Alcohol. Ed. Andrea C. Nakaya. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "The Price of Booze." U.S. News & World Report (2 Feb. 2004). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. Lipperman-Kreda, Sharon, Joel W. Grube, and Mallie J. Paschall. "Community Norms, Enforcement Of Minimum Legal Drinking Age Laws, Personal Beliefs And Underage Drinking: An Explanatory Model." Journal Of Community Health 35.3 (2010): 249-257. Academic Search Premier. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. Neighbors, Clayton, et al. "Event-Specific Drinking Among College Students." Psychology Of Addictive Behaviors 25.4 (2011): 702-707. PsycARTICLES. Web. 18 Apr. 2014. Organization, World Health. "Society Should Focus on Reducing the Negative Impacts of Alcohol." Global Status Report on Alcohol 2004. Geneva: World Health Organization, Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, 2004. Rpt. in Alcohol. Ed. Andrea C. Nakaya. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. Salize, Hans Joachim, et al. "Treating Alcoholism Reduces Financial Burden On Care-Givers And Increases Quality-Adjusted Life Years." Addiction 108.1 (2013): 62-70. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.