Underage drinking is a major issue in the United States. It has been a controversy ever since the drinking age was changed from eighteen to twenty-one in the 1980s. Many individuals throughout America are in favor of this change while a majority of the population opposes this change and wishes for the drinking age to be lowered back to eighteen. Both sides have a variety of valid reasons for taking one side or another. I researched and found two opposing online articles regarding this topic, both having many respectable points in favor of each stance.
The first article, “Do Not Lower the Drinking Age,” discusses reasons why the drinking age should not be lowered back to eighteen. It poses a variety of arguments with responses. In addition to posing certain arguments, it presents four main points with facts to back each up. The first point made is that lowering the drinking age will not reduce the attraction of alcohol for minors. If eighteen year-olds were allowed to drink alcohol, they would be modeling drinking for their younger peers as well as providing easier access to alcohol for minors. Changing the drinking age to twenty-one is said to have actually decreased the number of youth’s alcohol consumption, and this article has statistics to back this statement up. The article goes onto say that lowering the drinking age does not increase responsibility and even though turning eighteen comes with many privileges such as voting, enlisting in the military, and even smoking; drinking should still not be allowed. The article says that even though many people believe that the law doesn’t work and underage teens drink illegally, the number of young people drinking has actually decreased.
The second article, “The Minimal Drinking Age Should Be Lowered,” presents convincing reasons why the drinking age should be changed back to eighteen. The first point made is that if one is old enough to enlist in the army at the age of eighteen, one should be able to consume alcohol. If an individual can put his or her life on the line, then they should be responsible for all of their actions. Another point made is that many minors drink alcohol despite the law. The article says that even though statistics show that the intake of alcohol in minors has decreased, those who choose to drink are drinking an excess amount. The fact that Europeans drink alcohol at younger ages and the advantages of this is brought up in this article. Growing up with alcohol reduces the dangerous intoxication incidences that seem to be frequently present in the United States. This is one point that I absolutely agree with and almost convinces me alone that the drinking age should be changed back to eighteen. The article also touches on how our education system incorporates classes regarding responsible drinking and the fact that our brain is still developing into our twenties, so whether the drinking age is eighteen or twenty-one doesn’t change the fact that it can still effect brain functions.
I think the second article, which is in favor of changing the drinking age back to eighteen, is more convincing. I believe this because the statistics posed and the facts presented seem to outweigh the responses from the first article. Each point made in the second article counters the arguments states in the first article and seem more valid and reasonable. After analyzing these articles, my opinion that the drinking age should be changed back to eighteen has stayed the same. I believe it should be changed back. The points that convince me the most are the laws in European countries and how much responsibility one is given when they turn eighteen besides being able to drink. Lowering the drinking age to eighteen would result in positive effects in American in my eyes.
No comments:
Post a Comment