Alcohol is a dangerous drug and results in more than a few casualties all across the country. When people argue for the legalization of drugs, they give alcohol as an example and state that even though it is a dangerous substance, it still remains legal and many people have been dying from it. The reason may be unreasonable, but it does make sense. Marijuana is not legal because it is dangerous but alcohol is legal despite that it is dangerous. The US legal system is running two-faced policies here looking at this argument. But because of the same argument, it would not make sense to simply make marijuana legal. The reasonable alternative would be to take more control over the substance which is of danger to the community. This is why a more free hand should not be given with alcohol consumption, and this is why it should remain illegal. Arguing this argument, this paper is going to look into an essay written by one of the college colleagues and describe where the ideas in that particular argument go wrong.
The essay in question argues that by the age of 18, the youngsters are given a right to take on every possible responsibility. They can enter into a contract, get married, enroll in the armed forces and even drive; yet they are not trusted to have a drink when they choose (Alsharari). The answer to that is pretty simple. There are more than a reasonable number of accidents happening out on the roads that involve drunk drivers, and most of these drunken driving accidents come to pass at the hands of the youth. In 2010, studies found the highest number of drunk drivers to fall in between the ages 21 and 25 which calculated to about 23.4 percent. This is a trend at a time when drinking below the age of 21 is not permitted. There are many youngsters that hold back for the fear of the same law. There is no telling how worse things can get once the legal drinking age is lowered.
The writer says that Britain has kept its legal drinking age at 18 despite all the talk about raising that age to older (Alsharari).The counter argument to that reason is that the age of 18 may be working with the people living in Britain and maybe their legal systems may have become accountable enough to question any surfacing crime. It could also be said that they have made a decision, and it worked for them, so they stuck with that decision. There is no reason why the U.S. law shouldn’t stick by the legal drinking age at 21. The legal age of 21 works for the people of America, and that’s why it’s there in the first place. It is smart to do what Britain does; make a decision that is best for the country’s interest and stick by it.
Drinking is a sensitive matter, and it impairs the functioning of the brain, not to mention all of the dangers that associate with it. Decision need to be made in the United States very carefully because the loss of mental ability in these emotional and sensitive youth may haunt the country with more than devastating consequences if the system makes one wrong decision.
Works Cited
Nagin, Matt. Top 3 Reasons Why the Drinking Age Should Not Be Lowered to 18. 14 September 2012. <http://mic.com/articles/14574/top-3-reasons-why-the-drinking-age-should-not-be-lowered-to-18#.89ndvO64e>.
<Nada Alsharari>. "Lowering the Drinking age." 23 February 2016.
