Class Links

As I have been blogging, I have also been following a few of my classmates' blogs. Here are just a few of the ones that have grabbed my attention:

To Lower or Not to Lower? (The drinking age)

It is probably obvious as to why I enjoy reading this blog. This blog is in favor of a lower drinking age just like my blog! The posts are easy to find a way to relate them back to your own personal life. This can make you think of the issue in a different context and possibly persuade you to have an opinion in favor of lowering the drinking age. This blogger knows how to present their facts in an efficient manner because the posts are short and concise.

Health Care

This blog brings up the issue of euthanasia, which is physician assisted suicide. The blogger clearly presents their opinion of being against the practice by exploring the many different aspects of the topic. The fact that the blogger uses a neutral tone helps readers to formulate their own opinion on the subject, but also makes them want to lean towards being against euthanasia. This is because the blogger gives sufficient evidence as to why the practice is wrong.

Untitled

I enjoy following this blog because it presents the debate on the drinking age in a different manner than simply being for a lower drinking age or being against a lower drinking age. This blogger explores the way in which alcohol is viewed in the United States and why this is the reason the drinking age has come to be such a hot topic. The facts and evidence that this blogger looks at are presented in a clear and concise manner. Read this blog and you will begin to see why the issue of the drinking age may not just be about the actual age of 21.

Theory: Satisfaction Almost Guaranteed

There is no way to completely satisfy both sides of the legal drinking age debate. However, I would like to propose a theory that would almost completely satisfy those in favor of lowering the drinking age to 18 and partially satisfy those in keeping the age at 21. Since the majority of underage drinking occurs in college, colleges should be issued pub licenses that allow distribution of beer and wine to those with a student ID of age 18. In order to prevent over consumption, a breathalyzer will be used to ensure that the alcohol limit of 0.08 is not exceeded. Furthermore, the drinking age would still remain at 21, but colleges would be given the chance to show students the way to drink responsibly.

Leave it Up to Mom and Dad

This may seem a little out of the ordinary, but some of my friends are actually allowed to drink with their parents. Their parents allow them to have a drink or two in the home because they know that their teenager is in an environment where they can monitor the consumption of the alcohol. If you think this is wrong, think about this: If a parent allows their teenager to drink in the house, they are less likely to see it as a substance that is exciting. I do not think that I would feel as thrilled drinking at home with my parents than if I was drinking at a party with my friends.

So why are some parents choosing to allow their teenager to drink in the home? They are doing so because they believe that if the teenager drinks with them, they can learn to drink responsibly when they are not with the parents. The teenager will already have a sense of what their limits are with alcohol and the amount that they can tolerate. This will most likely ensure to the parents that when their teenagers do go out to wild parties, they will not be involved in alcohol-related accidents.

Even though this method of teaching safe drinking is illegal right now, it is still being used because most parents know that their teenager will drink at some point. If the drinking age were lowered to 18, all parents would feel comfortable in allowing their teenagers to drink in the home. More accidents and problems are occurring in the United States because young adults do not know the safe way to drink alcohol. And who better to teach the young adults, than their parents themselves?

It's the Mature Thing to Do

What is an easy way for a teenager to appear mature? Drink alcohol! Since the legal drinking age is 21, 21 comes off as an age of maturity to young adults. They feel that if they drink, they will also look mature. Looking mature seems to be what all teens in society want to do so that they will be respected by others. This misconception leads to teens wanting to consume alcohol even more.

You are not likely to find an adult party without alcohol. There are always a variety of drinks available at these parties because they are hosted by mature adults (those that are 21 and older). Individuals under the age of 18 see these parties and think, “Well I should drink alcohol too so that I will appear as a mature adult.” The thing that is not so great with this thought is that at 18, one is supposed to already be considered an adult! However, alcohol is what sets apart an immature adult from a mature adult.

Misconceptions about maturity related to alcohol are giving the definition of “maturity” a negative meaning. Maturity should not be viewed as a trait that comes after the consumption of alcohol. Maturity’s definition should not be related to alcohol at all. Having the drinking age at 18 would not cause the definition of maturity to be confused. Lawmakers need to realize that having a high drinking age is doing nothing but causing problems

Amethyst Initiative

It may be hard to believe, but even college presidents and chancellors are pushing for a lower drinking age. These college presidents and chancellors see the negative outcomes of underage drinking on a regular basis. They are making an effort to lower the age to 18 with the Amethyst Initiative, which is their attempt to begin a public discussion and political review of the current legal drinking age of 21.

The Amethyst Initiative believes that college students have not stopped drinking in response to prohibition but instead, increased alcohol’s danger. The danger has increased because college campuses are unable to control the alcohol when it is in non-public places, such as dorms and off-campus houses. If the alcohol age was simply lowered back to 18, students would be drinking in public places, where officials could monitor alcohol consumption.

The main source of criticism that the initiative receives is from the evidence that lowering the age reduced alcohol-related traffic fatalities. However, the initiative believes that this argument is minor when compared to the number of alcohol-related deaths due to binge drinking. More individuals among the age of 18 to 21 died as a result of binge drinking than they did as a result of traffic fatalities. Since binge drinking is done by teenagers for the “thrill,” its frequency can be reduced. Binge drinking would be less likely to take place if the age were lowered because alcohol would not be such a “thrill” for young adults.

So why are we not listening to the Amethyst Initiative? They are the ones that see underage drinking occurring all the time and they are the ones that have to deal with its outcomes. If they are willing to push for a lower drinking age, they must be confident enough to know that lowering the age will lead to positive outcomes.

Mixed Messages

The most widespread argument made by opponents of lowering the drinking age is that at age 18, teenagers lack the ability to make wise decisions about alcohol. Research has concluded that the human brain does not fully develop until a person is in their early 20s. This may be true, but what about the other decisions that teenagers are making at the age of 18, such as signing up for the military or choosing a college? Do these decisions not require the same, if not more, mental capacity as deciding whether or not to drink?

I believe that signing up for the military requires an increased level of mental capacity when compared to making the decision about consuming alcohol. In the military, soldiers have the ability to shoot a person and kill them. This means that at the age of 18, a person has the ability to take another person’s life! If an individual of the age of 18 can make the decision to kill a person, they should definitely be able to make the decision of partaking in the consumption of alcohol.

Similarly, choosing a college requires a higher level of mental capacity than choosing to have an alcoholic drink or two. The college that a teenager chooses now at the age of 18, affects the future of their lives. Alcohol, when consumed in moderation, affects only a night or two of a person’s life. It is much more difficult to choose a college than it is to choose to drink or not to drink.

On the whole, it appears that the drinking age of 21 is sending mixed messages to young adults. Are teenagers supposed to believe that signing up for the military and choosing a college is inferior to that of making the decision to drink alcohol or not?

Analysis: To Lower or Not to Lower?

The “legal drinking age” of 21 has come to be a hot topic in our country as many people are making an effort to lower the age to 18. In the early 1970s (during the time of the Vietnam War), 29 states lowered their drinking age to 18 since that was the age to enlist in the war. But when traffic fatalities associated with alcohol began to increase, many states raised the age back to 21.

Now you might be wondering why I put “legal drinking age” in quotations; this is because there is not actually a “legal drinking age” in the United States. In theory, the states are free to set the age limit at whatever age they deem appropriate. However, in 1984, Congress found a way to make sure that every state would set their drinking age to 21. Congress told the states that if they set their age to less than 21, that they would not receive 10 percent of highway funds.

By intimidating the states, Congress got their way with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. The legal drinking age was set at 21, which is the highest drinking age in the world.

As the years have passed since 1984, a number of debates have come into the public scene. There are two broad sides: one side has concluded that raising the drinking age has provided more alcohol-related problems, while the other side believes that the opposite holds true. Groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving,
support the current drinking age, while Libertarian groups are in support of a lower drinking age. Whichever side you are on, we can all agree on one conclusion: underage drinking is definitely a problem in our country.

There have been many arguments against lowering the drinking age, but just how valid are these arguments? The most common argument is that a lower age means more alcohol-related traffic fatalities, many of which include young drivers.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
has estimated that by increasing the drinking age, 13 percent of alcohol-related accidents involving individuals of age 18 to 20-years-old, has decreased since 1975.

The validity of this statistic has been questioned by proponents of a lower drinking age. This is because the NHTSA provided no evidence of how they came to their conclusion. There seemed to be no relationship presented between the lower number of accidents and the higher drinking age. There has also been the point brought up that alcohol-related traffic fatalities was already declining before 1984.

Other less common arguments against lowering the drinking age are that the younger population lacks the mental development to make decisions on alcohol, underage drinking leads to health problems later in life, teen drinking is usually in the form of binge drinking, and that the alcohol will be passed down to even younger adults.

Research suggests that the human brain is not fully developed until the person reaches their early 20s. Therefore, young individuals do not have the mental development to make wise decisions about alcohol.

Serious health problems have arisen with underage drinking, such as a dependence on the substance later in life. A research study in Pennsylvania found that introducing alcohol to children earlier in life might increase their likelihood to binge drink in college.

Teens partake in binge drinking as opposed to social drinking because they consume it only to get “wasted.” Binge drinking is considered as “any intoxicated drinking that leads to certain harmful or destructive behaviors."
Also, many opponents of lowering the drinking age propose that a lower drinking age will lead to an easier access for teens that are even younger than 18. As with the issue of traffic fatalities, counterarguments have come about in response to the above arguments.

The biggest effort to lower the drinking age has probably been the Amethyst Initiative. This initiative hopes to begin a public discussion and a political review of the legal age of 21. The attempt is being made by more than 100 college presidents and chancellors because they have witnessed firsthand the negative consequences of binge drinking and alcohol-related deaths across college campuses. Amethyst argues that increasing the drinking age has not stopped college students from drinking, but instead has pushed it out of controllable public spaces. Students are finding ways to drink privately, which leads to excess consumption.

The initiative also points out that at the age of 18, individuals can take on many responsibilities, including those of the military. Their question is this: If you can take a life at the age of 18, why can you not have a drink? The group of Mothers Against Drunk Driving seem to have the most controversy with this because they know that the current legal age of 21 is most likely not being enforced on these college campuses.

Proponents of lowering the drinking age conclude that it will make drinking alcohol more of a social activity rather than an activity that gives a thrill to teens because they are breaking the law. Alcohol for teens is seen as the “forbidden fruit.”

Furthermore, if teens know that they are breaking the law, they are less likely to call for help if a peer needs medical assistance due to alcohol consumption. A regulated environment with appropriate supervision would come into play with a lower drinking age. Also, the fact that enforcing the Minimum Legal Drinking Age is expensive raises the proposition that it would be more effective to educate the youth on safe drinking at a younger age.

Both sides of the debate present a number of arguments, but which arguments are the most valid?