The Minimum Drinking Age in the US Must Be Reconsidered - Book Report/Review Example

Evaluation of MLDA The debate regarding the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) has captured the attention of the American society for a significant period of time and rightly so. This profound notion is multidimensional in nature such that it questions a range of ideologies, beliefs and rationales that challenge the regulations which have prescribed the implementation of age-21 laws. In this essay I shall evaluate the paper titled “The Minimum Drinking Age in the U.S. Must Be Reconsidered” by focusing on the arguments that have been put forth by the author. Before exploring the ethics, evidence and explanations which favor one MLDA stance over another, it is necessary to outline the reasons that have led to the enhancement of the importance that the topic under consideration commands. I believe it is essential to highlight this aspect of this argument to develop the understanding of the reader regarding the contextual background of the notion which is under consideration and I appreciate that this criteria has been fulfilled by the author in the MLDA essay. In the MLDA essay paragraph number 2, the author discusses that for a significant proportion of the population, the enforcement of regulations which restrict alcohol consumption for individuals below the age of 21 contradicts with the ways in which society as a whole functions. A vivid example of this is associated with the fact that the American society promotes the advancement of the youth by instilling in them the tenets of progress, liberty and equality that are enjoyed by all citizens of America through the power of the vote which is granted to the citizens at the age of eighteen. I like how the author has contrasted the privileges that are granted to an individual at the age of eighteen in this paragraph because this enhances the depth of the argument by raising a critical question which argues that if a young adult is allowed and even encouraged to participate in the democratic process at this age, why do the rationalities that are linked with this judgment not apply in the case of the MLDA argument? By using the aforementioned example the author highlights the primary premise of her essay which essentially aims to analyze, assess and evaluate the implementation of age-21 laws in the United States with regards to the consumption of alcohol. The essence of this argument is rooted in displaying how our society governs the rights which are granted to the citizens of the country upon reaching the age of eighteen and how these newly bestowed responsibilities present a negation of moral, ethical and societal arguments that support the law which has enforced the age of 21, as the minimum legal drinking age in the United States. In paragraph 3 of the essay the author highlights this supposed negation or contradiction by reflecting upon the historical context of MLDA. However, she has failed to validate how these laws have contradicted themselves as she mentions that the MLDA was increased to 21 because of the loss of young lives which is a rational and logical decision on the part of the government. Unless the author had provided further evidence to substantiate her claim that MLDA laws depict a contradiction ,based on this premise, this argument can be declared weak or ineffective. Another weaknesses in author’s argument which is centered on the age of a person is that it fails to take into account that an individual’s level of psychological and emotional stability cannot be defined or categorized solely on the basis of age as the circumstances of a person’s life are also an important in this regard. Throughout the course of this essay, the author firmly stands on the idea that the stance which requests the reconsideration of MLDA is multifaceted and therefore, cannot be explored in accordance with a single perspective. I think that this aspect of the essay is highly positive because it broadens the scope of the argument by providing an insight to the reader regarding the matter. This aspect of the argument which has been presented in paragraph 4 of the MLDA essay is associated with the analysis of evidence that indicates that the current laws on alcohol consumption have led to a reduction in car accidents that are caused by people who are driving under the influence. In my opinion, the integration of statistical data to reflect that MLDA should be reconsidered presents contradictions, because on one hand the essay proposes that the MLDA of 21 did lead to a reduction in the deaths which are caused by traffic accidents in 1984 however, the rebuttal merely asks readers to understand the ‘larger issue’ which has not been presented effectively in the paper. In paragraphs 7 to 10, the paper proposes that the accuracy of this statement, regardless of the presence of statistical data which is indicative of a decline in traffic fatalities does not essentially correlate with the implementation of MLDA. This notion states that the occurrence of road accidents in regions such as Europe where the age-21 laws are not practiced does not coincide with the enforcement of the regulation and MLDA cannot be cited as a phenomenon that is singlehandedly responsible for lowering the incidence of traffic fatalities even if statistical data represents a decline in such deaths. Immediately, the author proposes that a discussion on the effectiveness of European laws on MLDA is beyond the scope of the paper which weakens this argument due to the lack of empirical research. In the MLDA essay paragraph 6 to 7 the author utilizes the recommendations of the research of Dr. David J. Hanson who states that translating the success of alcohol prevention groups by applying similar techniques within the context of communities, groups and families is indeed possible and a more suitable option than enforcing stringent measures to prevent the consumption of alcohol. I think the incorporation of this aspect of the debate in the essay enhances the effectiveness of the author’s conclusions because it proposes an alternative path that should be selected once the MLDA is reconsidered. However, the author’s argument is weakened by the introduction of the ‘forbidden fruit’ argument which suggests that the evaluation of a person’s psyche, to some extent, shows that human beings are attracted to the things which seem difficult or impossible to obtain and the same case applies for alcohol. I think this argument is ineffective within the context of underage alcohol consumption because it does not justify or mention the several reasons which may tempt a person to drink. Regardless of this observation, the author has effectively incorporated the research of Dr. David J. Hanson with regards to MLDA. Through the conclusion of the MLDA essay, the author aims to modify the scope of the discussion by introducing logical steps in developing pertinent policies to advance a moderate and safe use of alcohol across the nation. This notion also coincides with efforts and initiatives that aim to instill the concept of responsibility amongst the youth regarding alcohol consumption. This observation draws from the fact that of all the groups in society, the youth needs systematic guidance and structure to maximize its potential and I agree with this evaluative statement. However, the most ineffective element in the concluding paragraph of the MLDA essay comes towards the end of the paper when the author states, “Simply put, if we treated our young people with respect for their ability to act as adults, we could expect adult behavior in return” (Nonimus). I believe this is a very simplistic understanding of a complex argument which fails to reiterate the author’s stance in compelling manner. Work Cited Nonimus, Anne. “The Minimum Drinking Age in the U.S. Must Be Reconsidered”. 2013. Read More