Lowering the Drinking Age: A Discussion of the Risks and Benefits of Such a Proposition - Essay Example

 Lowering the Drinking Age: A Discussion of the Risks and Benefits of Such a Proposition What is oddly bizarre about the way in which the United States has enacted and enforces drinking law is the fact that nearly every privilege of adulthood within our society is granted upon the individual reaching the age of 18 years. These privileges are interestingly of a seemingly secondary nature to the “ultimate” privilege of imbibing alcoholic beverages; for this, the federal government demands that an individual must be at or over the age of 21. This brief essay will attempt to consider some of the ways in which the drinking age, as it stands currently at 21, is actually only serves to compound the problems of youth drinking that currently exist within the society of the United States. Additionally, some of the policy and legislative mechanisms that have been used to standardize the drinking age as well as the key drawbacks that they espouse will also be considered. Furthermore, due to the fact that these laws have pushed back the age that many states had previously instituted drinking ages, this author will put forward the argument that such national/federal laws with respect to drinking have only served to slow the development of maturity within the nation’s youth as seen today. Firstly, it should be understood that the drinking age as it exists today was not a concept that each and every state arrived at of their own free will. Take for instance the following quote: Between 1970 to 1976, 30 states lowered their Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) from 21 to 18, 19, or 20” (Jameson 1). What this of course means is that multiple states within the United States had come to the firm realization that the drinking laws that had previously been exhibited on their books were not only outdated by nonsensical. As such, many of these states sought to lower the age to more appropriately reflect the level of stewardship and adulthood that is granted by the state on a litany of other issues. However, the Federal government soon began to change the drinking laws at a national level due to an increased attempt by certain social elements to raise the drinking age across the nation and make it uniform. In an attempt to accomplish this, the federal government sought to encourage states to make the drinking age nationwide to be 21 as a way to free up millions of dollars in federal highway subsidies. The individual state legislatures did just that and soon 21 was a nationwide standard for drinking. Says one author, “When the age was raised to 21 in the mid-1980s, the goal was to reduce highway fatalities. But everyone knows that the 21 age limit hasn't stopped minors from drinking. And now some experts believe it's actually contributing to an increase in extreme drinking” (Olgivie 1). The effect of such a stance has been seen in the fact that the United States suffers from some of the highest rates of alcohol related offenses in the developed world. Rather than actually seeking to protect it’s younger/at risk citizens from the danger of alcohol, the law has only served to create an aura of criminality and intrigue around something that should otherwise merely be a rite of passage and another benefit that adulthood has to offer.Says one analyst, “The U.S. has the strictest youth drinking laws in western civilization and yet has the most drinking-related problems among its young. And there seems to be a connection between these two facts” (DeLanghi 1). This all leads to a salient point with regards to the way in which underage drinking has been criminalized within our society. The fact of the matter is due to the fact that the United States has implemented an alcohol policy that has done little if any good to actually affect the pattern of behavior of its youth with respect to drinking. One journalist relates, “The data indicate that the 21-minimum drinking age has not only done zero good, it may actually have done harm. In addition, an individual legally enjoys nearly all other rights of adulthood upon turning 18 — including the rights to vote, get married, and sign contracts. It is time to reduce the drinking age for all Americans” (Ford 1). In this way, one is left scratching their head as to why on earth a government can consider it morally permissible to enter the service of one’s country, chose a life-long mate, vote, and purchase weapons, yet – for some inexplicable reason – the same individual’s judgment cannot be trusted to make decisions with regards to how they will manage their own life with respect to drinking alcohol. Furthermore, the type of stigma that is created surrounding alcohol and the drinking age does not serve to deter would-be drinkers from buying and enjoying alcoholic beverages prior to their 21st birthday. As can be evidenced on a host of college/university campuses around the country, this type of prohibition has only served to increase the allure of the practice and more likely than not actually encourages irresponsibility with regards to drinking more so than it encourages responsibility. Says one critic, “Right now we basically have alcohol prohibition for adults ages 18 to 20, and we are getting some of the same results we got through national prohibition in the early 20th century. Fewer young adults drink, but when they do drink they tend to drink more, and I'm mostly concerned about drinking to excess” (Milton 1). By creating a mystique of unlawfulness regarding the practice, the lawmakers and law enforcers only serve to compound the problem. Just as the prohibition only served to create an underground culture of drinking that sought to evade the constraints that the law placed upon it, the same can be said for youth and underage drinking as it is today. Rather than providing a legitimate constraint based on sound logic and interpretation of the actions of the youth, the particular law only serves to promote use and abuse of alcohol as a type of “off limits” substance. Lastly, the way in which alcohol policy has been directed in this nation with regards to how old a person must be to legally enjoy the substance is itself an anathema to the average reader. Whereas all of the other benefits of citizenship and adulthood can be enjoyed 3 years earlier, it requires a person to “mature” a further 3 years in order to be fully old enough to engage in legal drinking. Such a practice is counterproductive as it actuallyserves to slow the rate of maturity that is experienced within the nation’s youths. Whereas multiple countries in Europe have little or no enforced drinking laws, it encourages the children to mature at a faster rate, make life choices, and be nominally independent with regards to what choices they will make with regards to alcohol in the future. Furthermore, because the United States requires an individual to be of such a comparatively “old” age prior to being able to experiment with alcohol, they are actually impeding the growth, progression, and maturity of their society. Due to the fact that “kids” is a term that individuals are using more and more broadly to define older and older subsets of young adults, it is clear that merely increasing the drinking age only serves to retard the level of maturity and development as college students and others seek to discharge all of their immaturity and youth angst. 1 Paragraph Response to Structural Integrity of the Essay I believe that a peer review of my work will help me the most in gaining a different perspective of what rebuttals I could include and thus far have not. Although I have done my utmost to make this response of the highest quality, it has only been viewed through one set of eyes. As such, the ability to have a fresh perspective to point out some of the illogical ways in which I may have presented some of my most important points as well as to point out the ways in which I could make my existing points stronger I believe will be of the most benefit towards making this essay better. Peer Review 1. This paper is on the topic of deficit reduction. The basic premise of this paper is that the US government, when looking at how to reduce deficits, should do so not just by reducing spending by cutting unnecessary programs, restructuring entitlements and reducing already heavily used services (such as Medicaid), but rather that the government must try to raise revenues through increasingly taxing the upper echelons of income earners as part of any part of deficit reduction. This paper occasionally drifts away from this central thesis, especially when it tries to discredit conservative fiscal policies: the author could do more to directly connect these fiscal policies to his thesis, or perhaps put that as part of the thesis, saying that the weight of evidence shows that those policies do not help spur the economy, and thus they should be disregarded as part of the thesis rather than later on. 2. There were a few types of evidence used to support this thesis. A part of the problem with this section is that the thesis, as mentioned above, somewhat obliquely related to some of the topics discussed. For instance, it is clear that the writer felt they needed to talk about the underlying economic ideas as part of their discussion: for instance, whether or not the conservative idea that lower tax rates spur the economy was actually valid. The author provided a great deal of evidence that these ideas were not in fact valid, which does undermine the argument for keeping high-income tax rates low, but it does not in and of itself argue that revenues must be raised. The evidence given consisted of newspaper articles from trusted sources as well as a report by a congressional budget office – very believable sources. 3. The author might have spent too much time addressing the “so what” question. The writer indicated that this was very important because many of the services that could be cut as part a budget deal were targeted towards the social safety net, and that it was in everyone’s best interest to ensure that that safety net stays in place because everyone could find themselves in a situation that needs that safety net. This might have been self-explanatory to people who already believed in the social safety net, but was probably very useful for those people who did not recognize how this issue could affect them. 4. The argument is well founded, but again, it would be better to put something about the underlying structures of the economy in the thesis statement so that more of the essay explicitly connected to that thesis. The evidence given was top-notch, as mentioned before, citing good news sources and government documents. The author could have imbedded more statistics in the argument itself, rather than simply saying that a report said something and making the reader go look at the report to check how true that was. 5. The tone seemed appropriate. It was very professional and made the reader think that the writers was trying to be as logical as possible. 6. The argument seemed very fair/balanced. I especially liked that the author put down the competing claim in clear and forceful language, fully explaining conservative economic principles and why they make sense cognatively and why many people believe they’re true. This essay made the counter-argument sound like the more reasonable position, before refuting it with the actual data, which points out that, counter-intuitively, conservative economic principles do not actually seem to work when one looks at the history of the United States. However, the author did not do anything to explain other factors than tax rates that could have led to booms in the economy when taxes happened to be high. 7. The author seemed to be targeting middle class Americans. 8. The author shows awareness of the audience by writing specifically about why middle class Americans should care. Rather than focusing on how important the social safety net is to the poor, which would appeal to lower class Americans, or the economic benefits of higher taxes, which would appeal to upper class Americans, she focused on how everyone could find themselves needing the safety net, targeting the middle. 9. The argument did not do enough to connect to me emotionally. It was very logically coherent, but the few stories of how hard losing the safety net were did not do enough to appeal to emotion. It did convince me, however, of its points. Second Peer Review This paper deals with the topic on the role of big corporations in the American society. The basic premise of this paper holds that while corporations do have an important role to play in the community, they have negative aspects attached to them. The writer does offer evidence that supports both sides of his thesis, and sticks to the points raised by his thesis. However, the first part of the thesis is largely ignored, with the paper more involved in giving information that supports the second part of his argument. In turn, the second part of his thesis is well articulated and supported. The writer makes relevant arguments support most of the ideas that he brings up in the paper. From using the machinations at play after the revolution to put the rise of large corporations into context, to showing how big corporations led to loss of jobs in the Washington community, the writer is able to demonstrate how the big corporations have integrated into, and affected, the American economy. However, the writer could have offered hard evidence to support the veracity of some of his harder hitting ideas. For example, it would have improved the credibility of the threat posed by big corporations if he had given a quote from a newspaper regarding the collusion between corporations and the court system. Additionally, while the Walmart example is a highly discussed fact, it would have propped up the argument more if he had given statistics pointing to actual loss of jobs after Wal-Mart’s entry. The paper does draw on a few credible sources, but it seems, at times, to rely on hearsay, for example, regarding the infiltration of the American local court systems by the big corporations. Overall, the paper presents the reader with relevant opinions, but does not cite any sources to support his claims. The writer makes a concise argument in support of his thesis with a detailed contention of his ideas. He systematically follows the rise of the big corporations after the American Revolution, to the formation of the modern big corporations in the late 19th century, to the manipulation of the 14th amendment by corporations and then enters into his main argument concerning the current effects of big corporations. The writer spends adequate time making arguments support his thesis, although he does not give reasonable weight to the first part of his thesis statement. The positive aspects of big corporations are given fast treatment with the paper more concerned with the negative aspects of the same. The writer may have devoted too much space to explaining the manner in which, the big corporations came to wield so much power at the expense of giving hard facts on the effects of big corporations on the average American. The paper does follow a paced timeline and does not make huge leaps forward only to come back to the point. However, the writer waits too long to make a present day comparison, tending to focus more on how big corporations have affected the American citizen in the past. Overall, the writer’s argument makes sense without any large gaps or leaps, but shows little awareness of opposing views. The writer makes his argument in a fairly coherent structure, with a good lead paragraph that sets the tone for the relationship that exists between the American public and the big corporations. The writer then makes a half-hearted defence of some big corporations before beginning his argument, through charting the course of big corporations in America by using paragraphs to split the various stages of development. This follows from the revolution to the rise of the modern corporations, to the 14th amendment granting power to corporations, to the manner in which they control government today. The structure supports the premise of the paper, although the time spent before getting into arguing for his main thesis point could have been shorter, maybe one paragraph to chart the progress of big corporations. Overall, the paper’s structure is fairly concise, although it seems confusing when it takes a while to get going. The paper’s lead and end are self-supportive, and the reader has little trouble following the logical flow of ideas. The author’s tone was recognizable and consistent throughout the paper. The paper was written in an appropriate tone for the nature of the writer’s thesis statement, although it leads the writer to think that the writer may be biased against the big corporations. Throughout the paper, the tone is fairly tilted towards discrediting big corporations. The paper was striking in the manner in which the writer put down his argument in a forceful way, with clarity and conviction fully explaining the ways in which major corporations are taking advantage of constitutional loopholes to reap as a lot of profits as possible at the expense of the American public. The writer’s tone also made his counter-argument look plausible, although he follows up in the succeeding paragraphs by refuting this counter-argument using a firm and unrelenting tone, albeit fairly deficient in enough sobering hard facts. The tone leaves the reader in no doubt that big corporations, through luck and collusion, have put themselves in a position where the abuse of power is appealing to them. Overall, the paper achieves a recognizably anti-big corporation voice that consistently engages the reader to think along the same lines. Most of the points made in the paper have a human feel about them and the majority of the sentences read well. In this paper, the writer seems to be making a pitch to the American working class. He shows awareness to the plight faced by the working class Americans. For example, he states that taxation levels for working class Americans are being adjusted upwards while big corporations receive tax cuts. There is more evidence of a specific audience in questioning whether; the integration of big corporations into American politics could have any positive outcomes for middle and lower class Americans. The paper connected to the reader in an emotional manner by use of a forceful and urgent tone that carried right through the paper. This ensured the reader did not stray from the main tenets of the paper. The paper was logically coherent with the provided supporting evidence aiding to create an emotional response. Through this, the paper succeeded in putting across its point satisfactorily. The paper’s grammar was good with minimal grammatical mistakes. The writer, however, does not make use of the citation form of writing, which leaves his work un-supported. The paper’s mechanical flow was conventional, and he used short paragraphs to accentuate important points. While some of the sentence structures were sloppy, the technique was generally strong. Works Cited DeLanghi, Sarah. "The Debate On Lowering The Drinking Age." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 01 Mar. 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. . Chafetz, Morris. Big fat liars : how politicians, corporations, and the media use science and statistics to manipulate the public. Nashville : Nelson Current , 2005. Print. Ford, Gavin. "Alcohol: Problems and Solutions." Why We Should Lower the Drinking Age to 19. N.p., 4 Mar. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. . Jameson, Paula. "Drinking Age ProCon.org."Drinking Age ProCon.org.N.p., 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. . Milton, Michelle. "Lower the Drinking Age for Everyone - Michelle Minton - National Review Online." NRO.N.p., 9 Feb. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. . Ogilvie, Jessica Pauline. "Is Lowering the Drinking Age a Good Idea?" Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 30 May 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. . Read More