nicohwilliam

Running head: DRINKING AGE 1

Drinking Age

Larry Cephas

Lincoln "Link" Schreiber

Strayer University: PHI 210 Critical Thinking

January 16, 2017

Introduction

In today’s world of ever-changing legislation, the drinking age is one topic that constantly finds itself upon the debate table. The arguments in favor of lowering the drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen typically center around the idea that someone is classified as an adult at eighteen, and therefore should be able to drink. The drinking age should not be lowered. However, those in favor assert that supervised drinking would decrease dangerous activity; that countries with the lower age represent lower drunk driving fatalities; and that the law should ultimately be changed to prevent people from breaking it.

Opposition One: Supervision

In theory, increased supervision would decrease dangerous activity. Thus, is the backbone of the arguments posed by proponents of a lowered drinking age (ProCon 2016). This is interesting in that it offers a picture-perfect viewpoint in which everyone behaves. Someone who took this view might believe that supervised parties are often less dangerous. And this might be true if more parents drive their children home, if bars place limits on the amount of drinks one consumes, etc. Overall, however, supervision will not prevent disaster.

Opposition Two: Accidents

Proponents of a lowered drinking age often cite statistics from areas with the lower drinking age, many of whom have fewer drunk driving related fatalities (ProCon 2016). And while this might be true for some jurisdictions, such as those who are accustomed to the lower drinking age and adapt accordingly, the theory discounts the fact that these areas might also have harsher penalties, fewer people who choose to drink, etc. The argument is most interesting in the idea that the drinking age can even be tied to the amount of accidents that occur from drinking itself. Someone who takes this view might notice that people of the younger age in these areas act more responsibly than older people who drink in American places. But that is the ultimate beauty of the rose-tinted goggle analogy.

Opposition Three: The Law

Finally, proponents of a lower drinking age argue that the drinking age should be lowered because law enforcement would be able to place its efforts elsewhere and that it would decrease the number of people breaking the law (ProCon 2016). This is especially interesting when one considers that law enforcement does, in fact, spend too much effort on fighting drunk driving and other alcohol related issues. Someone who holds this viewpoint might notice that fewer people would be arrested for underage drinking if the age was lowered. This would be true for all areas of the United States, as drinking under the age of twenty-one would no longer be illegal.

Conclusion

The proponents of a lowered drinking age argue that it would lower the number of laws broken, increase responsibility, etc. However, the mere fact that fewer people would be arrested or the idea that areas with the lower age have fewer accidents discount the various sociological and economic factors that surround those statistics. The drinking age should therefore remain the same.

References

Drinking Age ProCon.org. (2016). Retrieved July 08, 2016, from http://drinkingage.procon.org/