Doing the right thing about alcohol

Composition ENG-112
14 February 2011
Doing the right thing about alcohol
It is not uncommon to hear people from a certain association quote numbers from a national survey furnished by an institute, a university study, or research center, presented as a series of numbers and percentages obtained from police and hospital records, students, and general public surveys. Invariably, when theissue has to do with alcohol in relation to young people, the facts are pretty obvious. Currently, with 21 as the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA,) there are less drinking and less drinking fatalities among 18 year olds as Mr. Hurley states. On the other hand, because kids under age 21 are not allowed to drink legally, the number of underage drinkers, binge drinkers, and the amount of alcoholrelated crime in college campuses, has accordingly increased (Engs.) Proponents from many schools and other organizations are trying to have legislation passed for the MLDA to be lowered to 18 as a solution to the alcohol problem while other organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving argue that 21 is the right age to allow someone to drink (Fisher). A solution to this dilemma is onlyattainable if alcohol is treated not only in terms of age against law-violation-statistics; but as a drug that affects the whole person, and the following arguments illustrate the pros and cons about this proposal regardless of age from the perspective of responsibility, freedom, health, and legal liability.
A person can be responsible at age 18 as well as at 21. As far as the advantages oflowering the MLDA to 18, it could be said that youngsters would not need to resort to binge drinking. This dangerous practice would be avoided since a student could go to a club and get one drink at a time rather than downing 4 or 5 right before going in. Because kids would not need to drink secretly, they would prefer to do it at a more attractive setting like a bar or a club, and therefore, doit responsibly like any other patron. On the other hand, countries in which MLDA is 18, have not really seen a decrease in those numbers (Jernigan;) therefore, maintaining the age at 21 will at least keep some kids off the roads, as the numbers reflect. Regardless of the age, the fact is that alcohol is readily available for kids, and whatever limitations are in place the law is notenforceable; moreover, teenagers will naturally rebel to legal restriction since in their eyes, people have fun when they drink. This situation could not be resolved by lowering the drinking age; if anything, kids who drink out of control when they are not allowed, will do so openly. Kids are drinking at a very young age regardless of the law and proponents of a lower drinking age say that allowing them todrink earlier there could be more control of how they drink, whereas, opponents think that if the age is maintained at 21 there are less opportunities for kids to get started drinking in the first place. So, it could be argued that age is not the factor by which a person should or should not be allowed to drink, the criteria should take into account how maturely and responsibly a person can actand both sides agree that more education is important in this sense.

From the point of view of a person’s rights, an 18 year old can go to war wield a firearm and actually take someone’s life defending his country (Hurley.) Even before a person turns 18, he or she can obtain a driver’s license, they can decide to have sex, they can get married, and have children; at 18 a person can sign amortgage loan and buy a house, and in front of the law, that same person is considered an adult. They can vote, and they can do many other things, but if they are getting married under 21, they cannot toast at their own wedding; ironically, a parent can give permission to the son, while in the family house, to have a drink at his wedding. Therefore, it could be argued that if a person has the...