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.