Gouging ...I mean capitalism.

The first time I bought gas for myself was six years ago. I paid under $2.00 it. Today, if I drive by a station advertising gasoline for $3.95 I think I've got myself a deal. In the past few years, we have been conditioned, and yes, brainwashed to think that fuel for under $4 is a steal. We're shocked when it goes up a dime a day for an entire week. Then, it only comes down two of those dimes and we're relieved. Sneaky.
However, now we've got more to worry about than just prices. How about the problem of finding gas? Finding fuel is currently like a time bomb game of "Where's Waldo." You're driving around and around gas stations, only finding pumps covered by annoying, cheap plastic bags while you're sweating over that orange light that seems to stay on on your dash. You finally find gasoline, only to wait behind man kind's finest specimens, also waiting. What is it about a crisis that brings out the worst in people? After hearing horror stories from the pump, I am literally scared to try to get gas.
Due to hurricane season, Bloomberg.com reports that at least 46 million barrels of motor fuel output were lost from August 30 to September 19. By the way, the United States consumes over 20 million barrels of oil a day. (CIA World Factbook) So what happens if we completely run out? We need to address that problem before it becomes reality. A solution: price gouging ...or capitalism if you want the term to come with a little more authority.
Face it, as long as prices are within our range, we will all keep filling our tanks as often as we can. I am personally not prepared to pay any more than I have to at the pump, but for conservation sake, I think it could be worth it. The decline in gas purchases may even inspire some to stay home or plan trips more carefully. It will eliminate waste. Sure, everyone will be furious, devestated, and any other dramatic term we can think of, but in a long term view, price gouging, I mean capitalism, would be beneficial for our situation. So, in the meantime, suck it up and meet those charming people in the 15 cars behind you.

Gouging Gas Prices

The situation with the gas around northeast Georgia is absolutely outrageous. Due to the tropical storm Hurricane Ike the gas source is very restricted because of the stand still of oil refineries in the state of Texas were the oil for northeast Georgia comes from. The residents from northeast Georgia are scared of the lack of gas, which caused most people to over react. People were racing to any gas station that had even just a little gas, and these people took every ounce of gas to the last drop. Gas stations started to raise their prices and put limits on gas. After the storm touched down most of the gas stations in the surrounding county’s of Demorest raised the prices at least one to two dollars more than what is was originally, and now even three weeks after the storm gas prices are still rising at various gas stations. With the gas prices high and the long wait for gas the majority of the people are very frustrated. Some of these people are extremely mad because they have to go at least thirty minutes away from their homes just to find gas, and one of the biggest frustrations for the people is that once they find the gas they have to wait in a huge line for another thirty minutes before they can even touch a pump to receive gas. I have even heard stories of people waiting to ask gas trucks when they will be delivering again, and even if they say four in the morning the people would get up early to get gas to avoid the lines. I feel that most gas stations are gouging people for the gas because of the storm situation and the oil refineries being slow. This is gouging because the gas stations are taking advantage of the people by raising the gas prices higher than they should be. Capitalism is an economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of means of production. Capitalism also encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. I think that the gas stations are at the point were they are just taking the advantage of raising the prices and making as much money as they can off of the customers because of the situation.

Let Capitalism Rule

Due to recent natural disasters our nation is currently in a state of economic turmoil. Many of these problems are directly related to our gas supply. With most of the gas in Georgia coming from the Houston pipeline, which was hit very hard by hurricane Ike, gas has become increasingly hard to find. Oil production was halted when the hurricane hit, causing the gas supply to temporarily be cut off. This temporary stop in production has caused a gas shortage for Georgians. With legislation currently in place that prevents gas station owners from raising the price or gouging, gas is one of the few products with a government issued price ceiling. Is this fair? As much as I may regret this statement from my peers, I firmly believe that it is not fair to the gas station owners.
Living is a capitalistic society is one of the things that makes America so great. People from around the world have flocked the our great land for centuries to take advantage of this. Starting a business and getting rich is the American dream, and capitalism is key to this type of success. Capitalism is defined by dictionary.com as an economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production Why should our government step in to control prices on gas? The law of supply and demand, according to netmba.com states that if there are fewer units of products to be sold, and the demand is still high enough, the price will rise. Gas station owners should be able to take advantage of this.
Take a trip to any gas station locally and you will see one of two things. You will either see a vacant parking lot with trash bags over the pumps, or you will see tons of people clamoring over one another to get what little gas is remaining. Men yelling at women to hurry up, old ladies flipping the bird, and everyone looking scared to death that the gas will run out before they get their tanks topped off are some of the chaotic sights I have seen at the pumps recently. If gas stations owners had free will to jack up the prices, I guarantee that less people would fell the need to top off their tank. If less people were buying it out of fear, and more people were buying it because they actually needed it, our gas crisis may be solved. The demand would eventually drop, while the stockpile had time to be replenished leaving the gas prices back where they were to start.
I am fully aware that people would be outraged. Many people would complain that it was too expensive to do anything or go anywhere that is not completely necessary, but our gas supply would finally catch back up, prices would soon fall, and then we would all be able to go back to our pre-hurricane lives.

Gas Prices: Gouging or Capitalism?

Today's gas situation is pretty hurindous. The supply of gas is limited because of hurricane Ike shutting down oil refineries in Texas. However, the media and people's fear excellerated the gas shortage to mean "gas crisis" and everyone went into panic mode. Cars were driven to the closest gas stations and were sucked dry. This was an inconvinent situation, yes, but only until gas stations began to use the "gas crisis" to maxamize their profits. Stations started uping their prices and puting a limit on that pricey gas. Hurricane Ike hit on Friday, September 12, and days later the Race Trac in Habersham county raised the price of their unleaded gas from to $4.09. Today the price continues to rise. Soon after this happened, people began losing hold of their morals and manners. They now cuss and yell impacient absenities at other customers trying to fill up their tanks. Other people are so desperate for gas, they either travel out of the county to get it or follow gas trucks off the highways to gas stations, and wait for them to fill up the tanks. Some people even camp out over night at stations, hoping to nab a tank full when a truck comes early in the morning. All of these desperate measures are taken because not only is gas rare, but it's now very expensive. I think this is wrong. I think gas stations are gouging customers for gas. Just because a terrible situation has arisen, doesn't mean it's right to take advantage of people. It's not right in any situtation, so why do it? This is definitly gouging; this is not capitalism. Capitalism is dealing with supply and demand, not outragous theivery. Charging up to nine dollars a tank isn't going to solve anything. Gas stations won't make much money off of unfortunate drivers for long. Soon people will run out of money and no longer be able to afford the rarity that is gasoline. Rising prices only hurt situations like this, not helping it.

Assignment Due Wednesday, October 1

Discuss the gas sitation in our area. Many gas stations are out of gas, and those that do have gas have long lines of sometimes angry and frustrated customers. Some stations are limiting the amount of gas each customer can buy. There are laws against gouging, which prevents gas stations from taking advantage of the situation by raising prices. But if they were able to raise prices and let capitalism run its course, perhaps people would be less likely to buy more gas than they need. So, the topic for this week's blog is: Higher Gas Prices: Gouging or Capitalism? Have fun!

Stupid People = Stupid Decisions

Like Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Ike left behind devastation, death, and destruction. The effects of hurricanes are not anything new; so, why did some residents not evacuate?
In 1992, my family and I lived in South Florida. This was the year that, category five, Hurricane Andrew hit South Florida and the Bahamas. Similar to Ike, residents in Florida were encouraged to evacuate and we did. My mother told me that she could never chose her material things over the life of her children. All the things that she has accumulated and worked so hard for were just that, material things.
Despite Hurricane Ike preparations, nearly 100,000 people refused voluntary and mandatory evacuation orders in Texas and Louisiana last week, reported Yahoo News. "I'm going to stay as long as the Lord says so. If they come with a court order, then we'll leave. I hope it doesn't get to the point where we're forced out" said Patricia Kelly, an Ike holdout.
I just cannot seem to understand the lack of intelligence. Do these people secretly want to die? Are they so materialistic that they are willing to lose their lives before losing their stuff?
As a result of these so called holdouts, some of America’s best men and women are in these flooded and diseased areas to try to rescue these people. If these people cared about anything beside themselves and their possessions then than they would have evacuated when told to do so. Now, more lives are being risked to force them out. How inconsiderate. Yahoo News reported that from Orange County, Texas, to Cameron County, La., the US Coast Guard, National Guard units, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service conducted over 1,000 rescues, but were turned back as often by residents determined to hang on as the worst floodwaters since 1913 clung to the Cajun Prairie. Is it worth sending America’s finest in to save America’s selfish? No!

Should they? No. Will they? Yes.

Hurricanes cause enormous amounts of damage. Lives are lost, property is lost, and entire towns can be leveled. I know this and I have never even been close to a hurricane. Personally, that will affect where I choose to live. Hurricanes come here? No thanks. I realize this is not an option for some, however, those living in hurricane prone areas should be smart about these monsters of weather. If you are told to evacuate, do it! The government should not give aid to those who choose to stay in a hurricane's path. However, they will.
According to nytimes.com, Hurricane Ike caused as much as $16 billion in property damage. This is a staggering number that is no doubt leaving a lot of homeowners devestated. Meanwhile, this same website shows a story of "250 stubborn Texans refuse to leave," FOXNews.com is also reporting on those who are, now after the hurricane, being forced out of their homes. My question to those people is: Why do you stay? For sentimental reasons? To protect your house? Exactly how does your presence help your home during torrential rain and 120 mile per hour wind?
I'm not saying the government should not help at all. $16 billion is millions of people left homeless. These people, whether they left or not, are going to have to start all over again. Other than insurance funds and government help, those affected will have little means of starting over. nytimes.com also reports that over 24% Texans do not have insurance and of the $16 billion in damages, Texas' insurance pool will only cover $2.3 billion. The government is left holding the bill for the remaining $13.7 billion. Although I cannot imagine why I would live in a hurricane zone, I also cannot imagine how I would recover from losing everything I had.
There should be a line, though, for those who stay and those who leave. If you willingly stay and are physically injured, I do not think you deserve my tax money to make you all better. I need that money for instances I do not bring on myself. Those who stay should have to relinquish their rights to some of their government aid. If they choose not to receive help when the government is trying to get them out of harms way, why would they want it now?

Stupidity = Life on a Rooftop

This just in: The U.S. Government cannot save its citizens from themselves. That’s right ladies and gentleman, the government is not responsible for one’s own stupidity. I say this because despite warnings and ample time to flee, there were still people who choose to stay in their homes and wait out hurricane Ivan. Now these same people are costing the government daily as they are currently being saved from their flooded homes. This is not something that needs to happen. There are consequences to every choice you make, and the consequence for these brave souls is life on a rooftop for a little while.
According to a survey on sciencedaily.com, almost a third of people facing evacuation due to a hurricane will choose to stay. The government is making decisions according to what is in the best interest of the residents, and the residents should act accordingly. Sure this is the land of the free and the home of the brave, but in these circumstances the “brave” should not be deployed to help out the “free.”
The cost of a hurricane can be staggering. MSNBC.com states that Hurricane Katrina will end up costing over 200 billion dollars. With Hurricane Ike looking eerily similar, it is looking like the cost will be close as well. The money being used comes from nonprofit organizations and the taxpayers. Everyone pays taxes, and most would like to pay less. What gets under my skin isn’t the money spent on rebuilding after the hurricane or even the money spent helping people evacuate, it’s the money that will be spent saving the people who chose not to evacuate. Rescuers must be paid for doing their job. Helicopters, boats, and hummers that will be used in the rescue effort all cost a great deal to operate.
The safety of the lives of rescue workers is also a huge concern. Why should anyone be sent to save someone who was too stubborn for their own good? According to an associated press article on Salon.com, there has been one recorded death of a rescue worker. The brave worker fell into a rising river while attempting to save someone trapped in a SUV. This was an unneeded fatality. The driver of the car was attempting to flee the hurricane well after the initial evacuation.
The government of this great nation of ours should not but its employees through this. Once warnings are sent out and the evacuation becomes mandated, those who choose to stay should be on their own. No unnecessary spending and no additional lives should be lost!

Hurricane Ike

This past weekend hurricane Ike was predicted to blow through the state of Texas. Many news stations and whether channels started to notify the residence to an emergency evacuation three days before the storm was going to hit, and to leave their homes before the storm touched down. When the people were told how severe the storm was some of them listened and evacuated from their homes and some were gutsy enough to stay home. According to stormpulse.com, the hurricane was on pace to hit Texas with 145mph winds late Saturday night. Most people started to leave early Friday morning and some evacuated Thursday evening.

Hurricane Ike was a category 4 storm which caused a large amount of damage.
news.nationalgeographic.com says that the cost of damage reach up to 22 billion dollars. After hurricane Ike struck, the Red Cross sheltered more than 20,000 people across four different states. For the people who were trapped or did not leave their homes red cross sent out 120 emergency vehicles, and 2,500 worker to rescue these people. Rescues such as hurricane Ike takes an enormous amount of money to cover the cost of the rescue, which means that we as tax payers know that the money that we give to the government is going to a good cause and saving peoples lives.

the people who stayed in their homes and had the opportunity to leave before the storm hit leaves a question of the responsibility of the government. The question is should the Government be blamed for these people not evacuating. I personally think that they should not be blames because the Government did everything that they could to inform the people of the hurricane. I would not expect the government to go and knock on people's door telling them to leave. The Government is there to help and protect us in every way possible, but if someone does not want to leave their home they just want leave no matter what the case may be. People in our Government put their lives on the line for us as much as they can such as the rescuers for this storm, but rescue crews are not cheap. I say that because for the people that stayed behind must not know that the Government can't just send people out and say go rescue the people who stayed in their homes because that cost a large amount of money, which does not make the task easy. The rescue is also dangerous according to Dallas news some rescues were put on hold do to the danger of flood water which contained chemicals that might cause illness and damage the skin. I think that the Government should not be blamed for not rescuing people who stayed back because they are doing the best that they can, but I do think that the Government could do something for them. Although, some people think that the Government is wrong, I feel that the people who were notified should have tried to evacuate.

Issues and Concerns: Hurricane Ike

On September 12, local weather channels informed citizens of Texas that Hurricane Ike was headed straight for them, and they should evacuate as soon as possible. Many people began to move immediately while others decided to stay. According to cnn.com, the hurricane was projected to hit the coast of Texas early on Friday or late on Saturday. Evacuations began around Texas began at 7 a.m. on Thursday. Hurricane Ike struck the coast on Saturday night. This gave people about two days to escape the path of destruction Ike forged. There is no total cost of damage thus far, but Ike caused 13,000 people to become homeless and stay in 127 shelters after Ike ripped through Texas. Four thousand Red Cross disaster workers and 100 emergency response vehicles came to the rescue of Hurricane Ike's victims who couldn't get out of thier homes . This shows the govenment is doing it's job. Citizens pay taxes and the government uses those taxes to fund recues like this one. There is a question, however, whether the government should be responsible for the people who didn't heed the warning to evacuate and stayed in thier homes or not. I think they should. The govenment is there to work for the people. This includes peole who may not have cooperated in certain situations. Other people don't know the exact reasons why some didn't leave when they had a chance. They may have been disabled or not had the money for gas to leave. People shouln't judge before they know the situation. The government was created to protect its people...every last one of them. The cost of rescue operations are large, but that's why the funds for such come from taxes. The money comes from citizens and is given back to citizens. The danger in saftey and health of first responders is also a big issue. According to fireescue1.com, the health risks of responders are germs from flood water and chemicals floating in it or in the air that might get in the skin. Both of these can cause severe illness. I think that these things are a risk, but a first responder is aware of what can happen to them when he or she is on the job. They don't take this lightly and accept it as part of thier responsibility to victims. Again, I think just because some people don't evacuate when told doesn't mean they shouldn't be helped. No one should blame them or ignore them because everyone's situation is different.

Should government rescue people warned to leave prior to a natural disaster but chose to stay?

Natural disasters such as hurricanes Gustav and Ike that recently wrecked havoc on the coasts of Texas and Louisiana have many Americans asking should the government assist those stranded who were previously warned to leave. However the government funded group that rescues the people is the National Guard. A group that is paid to do what they do, so there for its job, a job where individuals signed on the dotted line and agreed to what followed. Where the real question lingers is whether Americans' donated dollars to disaster relief funds like the American Red Cross are well spent. The chief organization in charge of providing aide to the victims of these natural disasters is the American Red Cross, who according to The American Red Cross website met with the Chief Marketing Officer Council September 16th to promote worldwide donations to the American Red Cross. The American Red Cross website states that "the 3,500 CMO Council members manage some $100 billion in annual marketing expenditures worldwide." The council is looking to launch a national campaign to rise an initial $100 million to attempt to replenish the fund nearly depleted from an active year of disasters. For those people quesioning the funding and campaign to rise more lets just clue in on where the money actually goes. I feel the donations given are spent very wisely and are beneficial to the victims. The American Red Cross catalogs everything according by state. The American Red Cross reports that "on September 16th in the state of Texas over 13,000 people sought refuge in 127 shelters, more than 4,000 Red Cross disaster workers and volunteers are on the ground to assist." Likewise in Louisiana the Red Cross reports almost a 1,000 people were provided a safe haven in 14 shelters, over 3,500 Red Cross workers and volunteers are on the ground to assist." In addition nearly 300 people stayed over night in shelters in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. With those mass numbers of people it should now be bluntly apparant how consciously the donated money is being spent. We all must forgive those few 15 to 20 people who tend to be older and have probably developed some sort of emotional attachment to their house or and area. Granted after the storm has hit they are the ones that are needing to be rescued, buy hey that is what the National Guard is for.

Assignment due Wednesday, September 17

In the aftermath of Hurricane Ike, discuss the responsibility of the government in keeping people safe during and after natural disasters. Should the government rescue people who were warned to leave, but chose to stay despite mandatory evacuation? Consider the cost of rescue operations in terms of dollars as well as safety risks to first responders. Also, put yourself in the shoes of the hurricane victims and consider the reasons why they may have chosen to stay in their homes.

Teen Fatalities Could Increase 10 Percent

Should the United States lower the legal drinking age to 18 years old? Is it fair that the men and women, under the age of 21, in the military can make life and death decisions, but cannot drink alcohol? Will this improve binge drinking on college campuses? Will this increase the number of alcohol influenced drivers on the road? Is there a real problem with keeping the legal drinking age at 21 years old? These are all extremely relevant questions that we should all be asking ourselves when forming an opinion on this topic.

Presidential elections are a time for change and growth. During several debates and interviews candidates have been asked whether they support the lowering of the legal drinking age to 18 years old. Some candidates have said yes and some have said no. As to all issues there are many sides and opinions.

I do NOT agree with lowering the legal drinking age.

I respect and appreciate the men and women in the military who fight for our rights and freedoms everyday. However, joining the military is a choice. Furthermore, it is a job that these men and women are receiving a fair compensation, medical and retirement benefits, a free education, and self gratification. Yes, Americans depend on these individuals to protect our country but only after intense training and still under supervision. Our troops do not go out to fight alone.

Binge drinking will never stop on college campuses. <http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3708133> The safety coalition agrees that binge drinking and underage drinking continue to be a problem, but lowering the drinking age will only make problems worse. To some students college is a time to learn and grow. To other students college is a place to party, experiment, and rebel.

Lowering the drinking age will increase the number of drunken drivers on the road. Persons under the age of 21 have to drink in private places right now. If we lift this restriction and allow them to drink in public places they too will have to get home somehow. I do not care how responsible a person thinks he or she is, making decisions under the influence of alcohol is difficult. <http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3708133> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted nearly 50 peer-reviewed studies of countries that had changed their drinking age and found that lowering the age increased fatalities by 10 percent.

Is lowering the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 years old truly necessary for factual purposes or is it just conveinance driven? I have not found strong factual evidence that lowering the drinking age will have any significant difference in college campus binge drinking and underage drinking. As stated earlier, some students attend college for the sole purpose of drinking and having fun. Moreover, there will always be underage drinking. In most cases underage drinking is a result of curiosity, a means to fit in with an older crowd, the thrill of breaking the law and some just like the taste. Amanda Lee, a high school biology teacher, said "The human brain does not stop developing until we reach our early to mid 20s, an undeveloped and alcohol influenced brain is not a good combination for decision making." If we chose to publicly serve and sell alcohol to 18 year olds we are opening up an entirely new can of worms. Our focus will no longer be 18 year olds drinking alcohol, it will be 14 - 17 year olds. Most 18 year olds are still in high school and could distribute alcohol to the younger students in that school. Jessica Whitley, a high school guidance counselor, said "There are already addiction problems occuring in high school, why would anyone be so stupid to make alcohol more accessible to kids." Currently, a high school student would have to know an older person outside of school who would be willing to supply alcohol for high school students.

How old are you?

As scantily clad girls breeze right into any bar in downtown Athens, I wonder if the bouncer noticed that she looked like a high school freshman. He barely glances at my ID when I hand it to him. There are always going to be ways to get around the rules, especially in college towns like Athens. Fake IDs may hang on many of the bar walls, but I have only seen one girl turned away from any club. That said lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 isn’t going to answer many of the problems that face university and college officials.

In July, 128 presidents and chancellors of colleges and universities around the nation began a petition called the Amethyst Initiative to convince lawmakers to take a look at the current drinking age and reassess. One of the problems that the Amethyst Initiative points out is that binge-drinking has become a huge concern on most campuses across the country, and the age restriction of 21 and up is not helping curtail students drinking more than is safe.

If we lower the age limit to 18, binge drinking will not end just because underage drinkers will suddenly be allowed to purchase a drink. According to Students Against Destructive Decisions, Adults age 21 or older who had first used alcohol before age 21 were more likely than adults who had their first drink at age 21 or older to be classified with alcohol dependence or abuse. Lowering the drinking age will create a new level of abuse, dependence, and addiction. Many 18-year-olds are still in high school and are relatively uneducated about drinking. Rather than seeing underage college freshmen stumbling around, we will see high school freshman puking on the side of the streets.

The important part of what the Amethyst Initiative stands for is opening debate about this issue. Lowering the drinking age without learning how to educate young adults is not going to stem drinking problems on campuses. The key aspect that lawmakers and college officials should be looking at is new solutions for education. However, until there is a better solution to prevent students dying of toxic alcohol levels or driving home intoxicated, lawmakers should keep the age limit at 21. Of course students will continue to get around the law, but a quick fix isn’t going to solve the ultimate problem of binge drinking.

Keep It at 21

I do not think that the drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 18. I believe that most 18 year-olds are not mature enough to handle the responsible of alcohol consumption. According to Narcotic Education Foundation of America and Drug Abuse Education Provider of the California Narcotic Officers’ Association, the brain does not stop development until a person is in his or her early to mid-20s and that consuming alcohol at this time affects coordination, motion control, thinking, memory and other mental processes.

In their book, The Truth about Alcohol, Berry Youngerman and Mark J. Kittleson state when the drinking age was raised by many states in the late 1980s, the number of car crashed caused by teenage drunken drivers greatly decline.

Those who support lowering the drinking age believe that it will save lives, because it will decrease binge drinking. Also, according to Ruth C. Engs, a Applied Health Sciences Professor at Indiana University, a majority of college students drink alcohol irresponsibly, seeing as “an enticing “forbidden fruit,” a “badge of rebellion against authority” and a “symbol of adulthood”” Engs believes that the Prohibition didn’t work and that raising the drinking age to 21 isn’t work now.

But according to The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the law that set the legal drinking age to 21 is already saving lives, approximately 1,000 a year. Also, according to a fact sheet released online by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Center for Disease Control reviewed near 50 studies of countries that changed their drinking age and found that when it was lowered to 18, the fatality rate increased by 10 percent. In the same fact sheet, it is stated that when the drinking age is lowered, injuries and deaths greatly increase.

Drinking Age: Lower It and Move On

Less than two weeks ago, around 100 college presidents from the most prestigious institutions in the nation started a petition to lower the nation drinking age from 21 to 18. Colleges such as Duke and Ohio State were in favor. To these presidents I must say, right on! Lower the drinking age.

This petition has met quit a bit of resistance. Most of the people who oppose this petition view it as a way to hide a problem. This view can go either way but they are missing the broad view. This is a country that allows anyone who turns 18 to be drafted into military service, vote for the future leaders of our country, and purchase tobacco. The last of these privileges is where the problem lies. How can we allow an 18 year old to begin killing themselves by smoking, though slowly, but not allow them to have a sip of alcohol?

According to the last national census, cancer.org states that over 20% of our country smokes. This web site, sponsored by the American Cancer Society, goes on to say that the numbers go up as the age goes down. 1 out of 4 Americans between the age of 18 and 44 smokes, and the numbers for high school students are similar.

Each year, almost 500,000 people die from smoking related illnesses. These results may seem shocking, but the United States government still feels that it is ok to leave the legal age for tobacco at 18. On the other hand, nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov, states that only around 100,000 deaths occur each year due to alcohol. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration website also went on to show that DUI fatalities are down this year. What are we missing?

With a little research, anyone can find facts like these on the internet. Once these facts are found, you can then form your own humble opinion. After this research, I found that the problem is not whether or not it’s legal. Laws are meant to be broken right? The problem is education. Drinking is not wrong, but drinking too much can harm you. This education needs to start early. Drinking is a personal choice and I feel that lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 will not causes a sudden spike in alcohol related deaths. With that being said, if I were able to put my John Hancock on that petition there would be no hesitation.