Introduction
The current law of having 21 as the minimum legal drinking age is a source of a national debate over the issue. Conversely, it is alleged that while 18 is a legal age for making other private decisions such as smoking or voting in elections, it is natural that drinking alcohol should be an element of the same scale as it will nurture a more responsible and balanced attitude towards drinking. There is, however, a concern that lowering that age may boost cases of uncontrolled irresponsible drinking. The first group represents a more liberal attitude and promotes personal responsibility while the second group
is more traditional and conservative and votes in favor of state’s control over the issue. In order to decide whose argument is more convincing, both positions should be considered in a more detail.
Social Problems
The issues arising out of drinking is a major concern to both groups in fighting about the age limit. Both sides have agreed that alcohol is an issue for the society to be concerned. The problems that come with drinking not only affect the youth, but also those that surround them. It is a fact that the alcohol affects the brain development of a minor before attaining the majority age. Researchers have established that the brain of a human being develops till the 20’s of his age. When an individual engages in alcoholic activities, his brain will be degraded and fail. Accidents arising from alcohol drinking is another major problem associated with it. The minor will not be in apposition to control his actions and to end up hurting those around him. Further, those below 21 will likely engage themselves in unprotected sexual behaviors and narcotics. An individual will not be in control of his actions and end up misbehaving to the detriment of those around him. The discussed outcomes above associated with alcohol are a serious concern to both sides arguing about the legal age of alcohol drinking. The effects of alcohol will attack the drinker, the parents, the society and the country at large.
Stakeholders in Support of the Policy
There are several groups that support reconsidering the law in favor of a lower age. Among them are delegates of the younger generation both under and over 21 who believe that the current law is too conservative and outdated. Many stakeholders have come up to form a group for its course in the 21 age limit campaign. There are also some non-governmental organizations such as Choose Responsibility who direct their efforts lowering the drinking age because they think that this will make drinking more responsible. These views are also shared by progressive liberal media who believe that freedom of choice should be one of the basic human rights. When speaking about the supporters’ arguments, it should be noted they claim that underage drinking exists anyway even under the current law but it is illegal, so decreasing the legal drinking age would make it more controlled and responsible. The current statistics are shocking: “Among drinkers only, 32% of under-age compared to 24% of legal age are heavy drinkers” (Engs, 2014). This means that illegal and irresponsible drinking can actually cause more issues than lowering legal drinking age. Secondly, when discussing drunk driving, representatives of this camp claim that there is no direct correlation with the official drinking age because the rate of accidents is the highest among newly legal drinkers anyway, irrespective of what figure represents this minimal age. As representatives of this party claim, “more than 3 out of 5 alcohol-related deaths among people under 21 occur off the road”( Tracy, 2014). Thus, the viewpoint of the camp is backed up by two basic values: liberty, on the one hand, that leaves a choice to a person, and responsibility, on the other hand, which makes this choice more thoughtful and responsible. It is not a secret that a choice enforced by the ban only does not include an element of responsibility and hence is easier violated. Educating the public, and particularly the teenagers and young people from the target segment is one of the group’s tasks.
Supporters’ Issues and Arguments
Yet, while recognizing that pro arguments are quite reasonable, it is impossible to ignore the opposition to this movement, which includes people of authority such as medical experts like Support 21 Coalition group, parents who are concerned about their children’s wellbeing and the church who cares about preserving social moral norms. Medicine is quite overt about the issue, as research of alcohol shows non-controversial results. So, one of the central arguments is that underage drinking is medically harmful in the first place, so it would be unwise to adopt a law that encourages underage drinking. Teenage drinking effects brain development in a negative way, so it should not be permitted (US Federal Trade Commission).Even though, the current law is not fully observed, it at least draws a borderline for some people who would like to follow legal permission otherwise. Organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving are clear in their message: “21 saves lives” they say. They are uneager to put their children’s lives under threat and believe that the situation would be much worse about driving accidents if alcohol were permitted at an earlier age. They appeal to the statistics when drawing their conclusions: “since the 21 law was widely enacted, the number of young people killed annually in crashes involving drunk drivers under 21 has been cut in half, from more than 5,000 individuals in the early 1980s to around 2,000 in 2005”( A Lower Age Would Be Unsafe). Public health and security are among this group’s values that drives their actions. They believe that the responsibility is state concern and l should not be left to a teenager to decide as consequences can be unpredictable. Freedom of choice, they are sure, cannot contradict the norms of safety and health, so there are some aspects that authorities should regulate as they did before.
All in all, both pro and con arguments are quite convincing because they represent different angles of the same issue. There is some manipulation with statistics because each side interprets it in their favor. The values of both parties are also genuine ones in the context of American society. It is noted that a more serious research should be implemented on the social influence of both approaches to deciding which one is better at the moment. Besides, no matter which law is adopted, this does not cancel public effort to reduce underage drinking (and not only underage drinking). Education of the public and promotion of a healthy lifestyle is one of the key elements in resolving social issues like the discussed one. Some policies have been put forward that can assist in the fight against the issue of alcohol drinking. For instance, the policy on 911 Good Samaritan Laws is a reform policy that can be applied by both opponents and proponents of this alcohol issue. Both pros and cons that come with alcohol drinking should be addressed to ensure that a better and neutral position arrives. The individuals who will engage in drinking should be able to make an informed decision at the end of the day. The different colleges should also support such policies by educating the freshmen. Every college joining student should decide for himself whether to join others or be a loner. References
A Lower Age Would Be Unsafe( 2008). US News
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/09/08/a-lower-age-would-be-unsafe
Engs, R.(2014). Why the drinking age should be lowered: An opinion based upon
research http://www.indiana.edu/~engs/articles/cqoped.html
Tracy, S.( 2014) Is the National Drinking Age Doing More Harm Than Good?
Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-tracy/national-drinking-age-doing-more-harm_b_4629417.html
US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), "Dangers of Teen Drinking,"
www.dontserveteens.gov (accessed Oct. 20, 2010)
No comments:
Post a Comment