Why the Legal Drinking Age Should Be Lowered - Thesis Proposal Example

Legal Drinking Age The question of the legal drinking age in the United s has been addressed from two perspectives; whether the legal drinking should remain at 21 or whether the age limit should be lowered to either 18 or 19. The legal drinking age debate is based on morals, social and legal requirements. Additionally, proponents of either of the side present arguments aimed at showing its benefits over the available alternative. Should the legal age for drinking be lowered from 21 years? Thesis: There numerous perspectives on the issue of lowering the age of drinking, and it is of equal importance for each perspective to be analyzed to understand what would be best for the populations affected by the issue. Background Over the years, the question of the legal drinking age has been debated based on stances on either side of the arguments. At first, the United States legal drinking age was at 18, but then it was raised to 21 based on both direct and indirect effects of drinking below the mature age of 21. With changes in the modern society, raising the age limit seems a reasonable alternative. However, the decision to lower the drinking age is opposed on the same grounds why the age limit was increased (Hanson, Venturelli, Peter & Fleckenstein 63). The paper will evaluate arguments on whether the drinking age should remain at 21 or should it be lowered. The effects of each alternative will also be discussed. Perspective I In the article by Laurence Steinberg, the alternative of lowering the drinking age is embraced. The article recognizes the fact the United States is among the few developed nations that have still the drinking age remain at 21. The author tends to recognize the changing society as changing as lowering the drinking age should also follow the trend. The perspective is relevant in that it provides an analysis of why lowering the drinking may be important for persons or institutions affected by the issue(Hanson, Venturelli, Peter & Fleckenstein 65) However, the article is biased in that it focuses its discussion on the effect of the high drinking age mainly on educational institutions. On the other hand, the article by Sara Watson supports the decision to retain the drinking age at 19. The author cites that lowering the age would have significant consequences on legal and social grounds. The perspective is relevant in that it explains the origin of the decision of placing the legal drinking age at 19. Additionally, the author cites the restrictions that have been enabled by the existing legal drinking age. The article focuses on a larger perspective of the issue rather than focusing on one particular group. Perspective II The two articles agree that the legal age being at 21 has improved drinking problems in the U.S, but Steinberg focuses on the effects of the drinking age being high while Watson applauds the positive impact of the high legal drinking age. Specifically, Steinberg recognizes the fact that the age limit does not hinder alcohol consumption for a person below the age limit. For this reason, lowering the age may just be a formality of allowing an already existing behavior (Nugent 1). The author then cites how educational institutions struggle to ensure the law is adhered to. Most institutions, mainly college and high schools, struggle to balance the number police needed to handle underage drinking cases (Armstrong & Fogelin 56) In the article by Watson, however, states the significant effects of a low drinking age. The author dates back to provide the reason as to why the drinking age was raised to 21. For instance, a low drinking age limit influenced the increased road accidents and unwanted pregnancies. The statistics of these two issues are high between the ages of 21 and 23 (Watson 1). For this reason, lowering the drinking age would lessen the age group in which these issues affect (Zapolski 1). Perspective III The two extreme positions taken by articles is that the legal drinking age should be lowered to increase the effectiveness of handling with underage drinking and increasing ability of people to understand the importance of a high drinking age limit would stop the exploration of the alternative to lower the drinking age. Steinberg main idea in the argument is that the institutions are mostly affected by the low drinking age limit. The problem is more prevalent in high schools and colleges where the age limit seems a great hindrance to law abiding. This is based on that; the average age of college level education in the United States is at least 18. For this reason, lowering the drinking age would improve the way management in these institutions on alcohol abuse is done (Glaser 1). In addition, the decision would decrease the cases of underage drinking in educational institutions. However, Watson cites the problem being a social perception problem on the impact of drinking. The article bases its information on already conducted research on how the society suffers from a low drinking age limit (Watson 1). Similar to Steinberg, Watson cites management problem but, in this case, the issues would be at a national level, not an institutional level. Perspective IV The articles represent the extent of the issue at the global level. The article by Steinberg cites the increasing cases of underage drinking in educational institutions. The problem may not be only significant in the United States considering the underage drinking statistics. At the age limit being at 21, colleges have numerous students below the legal age taking part in underage drinking. Consequently, lowering the legal age would minimize these cases (Griggs 1). However, the article cites that the U.S remains the handful of developed states that still have a high legal drinking age making the problem rampant in the nation. The arguments by Watson, on the other hand, present a global perspective on the expected social problems of a low drinking age. The article recognizes the fact that decision making in persons under the influence of alcohol is poor. For people of low ages, the decision-making may be more decisive. This could be evidenced by the numerous social and legal problem associated with underage drinking (Carpenter 1). Perspective V The local perspective of the alternatives presented is significant. Both articles recognize the local impact of either of the alternatives. Steinberg focuses on the local perspective on underage drinking in educational institutions (1). The author is of the assumption that the high drinking age is responsible for the increase of drug abuse management in educational institutions and the increased responsibility by these institutions to increase police presence to curb underage drinking (Griggs 1). This affects the quality of education in the institutions and hence the local communities are indirectly affected. Watson also cites the local moral implication of lowering the drinking age (1). The article mainly cites road carnage and problem in the management of proper family ties. A low drinking age would increase the number of young people drinking under the influence (Kiesbye 72). In regards to family ties, poor decision making by teenagers while under the influence would increase cases of unwanted pregnancies. Conclusion From the arguments presented, it is accurate to assert that the argument of lowering the drinking age is opposed and supported from different perspectives. However, one may also cite that the arguments in support of lowering the drinking age are based on problems that could be easily addressed by other relevant approaches. On the other hand, the arguments in support of the high drinking age cite the social problems that could be statically proven to be caused by underage drinking. More research should be conducted on the issue giving clear and more accurate argument in support of existing alternatives. There numerous perspectives on the issue of lowering the age of drinking, and it is of equal importance for each perspective to be analyzed to understand what would be best for the populations affected by the issue. Works Cited Armstrong, Walter. & Fogelin, Robert. Cengage Advantage Books: Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic. New York: Cengage Learning. 2009. Print. Carpenter, Christopher. Current Drinking Age of 21 is working. New York Times. 10 Feb, 2015. Web. 22 April 2015. Glaser, Gabrieal. Return the Legal Drinking Age to 18, and Enforce It. New York Times. 10 Feb, 2015. Web. 22 April 2015. Griggs, Brandon. Should the U.S Lower its Drinking Age? CNN. Jan 4, 2015. Web. 22 April 2015. Hanson, Glen., Venturelli, Peter. & Fleckenstein , Annette. Drugs & Society. Boston: Jones & Bartlett. 2014. Print. Kiesbye, Stefan. Should the Legal Drinking Age be lowered? New York: Greenhaven Press. 2012. Print. Nugent, Georgia. Raising the Drinking Age to 21 has been a Disastrous 30-Year Experiment. New York Times. 10 Feb, 2015. Web. 22 April 2015. Steinberg, Laurence. "Lower the Drinking Age to 19." New York Times. 10 Feb 2015: n. page. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. . Watson, Tara. "Lowering the Drinking Age Has Serious Consequences." New York Times. 10 Feb 2015: n. page. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. . Zapolski, Tamika. Keep the Age Drinking High. New York Times. 10 Feb, 2015. Web. 22 April 2015. Read More