Drinking Age

Jacquelyn Manka
ENG 110
Professor Hibschman
10 November 2011
Drinking Age of 21 In July of 1984, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was put into act, making the national drinking age 21, higher than it was in any individual state. Ever since, there has been an ongoing debate on whether or not the change has been effective and if it was necessary. I agree with the article “The Drinking Age of 21 Saves Lives,” by Toben F. Nelson and Traci L. Toomey, because they effectively used logos and ethos to present their argument and persuade the audience into agreeing that the drinking age has been successful since its move to the age of 21. When it comes to teenagers and alcohol, it is safe to assume that no matter what the law states, adolescents are still going to find ways to obtain alcohol and consume it. However, as Nelson and Toomey reported, “in the 1970s when many states reduced their drinking ages, drinking-related deaths among young people increased. When the drinking age of 21 was resorted, deaths declined” (Nelson and Toomey, 556). It is obvious that the increase in the drinking age had a positive effect in the United States. The two authors strengthen their argument by using facts and statistics from studies and observations of the drinking habits of young adults. They also benefit from addressing the counter argument and using logos to support their opinions. For example, a common argument for lowering of the drinking age is that in most other countries, the drinking age, if there is one, is 16-18 (Nelson and Toomey). Those who propose the lowering of the drinking age often report that these countries experience less alcohol abuse amongst youth. However, as Nelson and Toomey cite, “Surveys of youth in multiple European countries show that the rates of frequent binge drinking among adolescents are higher in Europe than in the United States” (Nelson and Toomey, 556). Clearly, a lower drinking age could not alleviate the issues the United States has with underage drinking, if countries that have lower drinking ages experience more adolescent problems with binge drinking. Every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night the bathrooms of college dormitories are filled with pupils puking their guts out after a night of binge drinking. There have even been instances where ambulances have been needed to rush binge drinkers to the hospital to get their stomachs pumped. Making it legal for minors to purchase alcohol will only increase these incidents, because it will be easier for them to obtain alcohol. Another effective technique that Nelson and Toomey use is proposing a better solution to the issue at hand after pointing out that college students who are underage binge drink less than students who can legally drink, aged 21-23 (Nelson and Toomey, 556), and that petitioning to reduce the age at which once can legally drink is a step in the wrong direction (Nelson and Toomey, 557). There is a saying about how it is unnecessary to fix something that is not broken. Even the article for the counter argument admits, “alcohol-related fatalities have declined over the last 25 years” (McCardell, 552). It is evident that our country has no reason to reduce the drinking age. If anything needs to be done, a raise in alcohol awareness among young adults is what it should be. Nelson and Toomey suggest that colleges and community leaders should be more focused on reaching out to students that need help, placing restrictions and increasing taxes on alcohol, enforcing laws on underage drinking and driving while intoxicated, and adjusting on and off campus drinking policies rather than adjusting the drinking age. The harsh reality is that ever year more young people are emotionally and physically affected by alcohol use. Students are injured, sexually assaulted, and die as a result of drinking irresponsibly. And without the age-21 law, these statistics would be even worse than they already are (557). Some schools do have programs that confront alcohol abuse and present its dangers to teens, but most do not. Giving these teens the ability to legally purchase and consume alcohol is not going to solve the problem, but will in turn make the problem worse. Underage drinking is a problem that has always existed and always will; the way that underage drinking is approached is what needs to change.
Nelson and Toomey present a well-written, concise, organized argument that they back up with both artistic and inartistic forms of logos. Their article is easy to follow and understand, and they present themselves as intelligent, credible authors. It is important to keep in mind that the drinking age once was 18. Obviously, there were strong enough reasons in the 1980s for the government to boost the drinking age up to 21. Considering the facts that alcohol-related fatalities are still an issue, although they have decreased, it is common sense to conclude that lowering the drinking age will only result in an increase in alcohol-related fatalities in young adults. Personally, I believe that adolescents are not responsible or educated enough to be trusted with alcohol. Most of us do not know the difference between different types of alcohol and their specific concentrations. Thus, leading to alcohol poisoning, if you are that lucky. When I was 15, a good friend of mine, Corrina, was celebrating the New Year, which was also her eighteenth birthday, with her friends. This was also the first night she ever consumed alcohol. Not knowing what she was getting herself into, Corrina ended up drinking until she passed. None of her friends were any older than herself, nor did they know how to handle the situation. So, they left her to sleep. As it turned out, Corrina had suffered from alcohol poisoning and choked to death that night. It was a tragic loss that should not have occurred. Corrina and her friends were not old enough or responsible enough to handle the consequences of drinking, which is exactly why it is illegal. Cases like Corrina’s happen more frequently than they should, and when they do they remind us exactly why the drinking age is 21 and not 18. John McCardell’s article “A Drinking age of 21 Doesn’t Work” argues that the drinking age should be lowered and that the age-21 law is not effective. Although the author cites many sources, his ethos is negatively affected in doing so. He admits that The New York Times and The Washington Post both report studies prove raising the drinking age to 21 has been a success, then states that the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry does not agree (McCardell, 551). Both editorials, The New York Times and The Washington Post, are well known by most Americans and therefore are perceived as accountable sources. Naming a publication that most people are likely to have never heard of before that disagrees with two well-known publications, McCardell’s argument is weakened.
McCardell Also negatively affects his logos because many of his arguments are not logical. He states that “the prevalence of binge drinking among college students is continuing to rise, and so are the harms associated with it (McCardell, 551) and that “the greatest number of deaths still occurs at age 21, followed by 22 and 23” (552). Logically, if binge drinking among college students is becoming an increasingly common problem, enabling younger college students to purchase and consume alcohol more easily will not solve the issue. Furthermore, if the age group has a higher mortality rate is 21, the legal age, then lowering the legal age would presumably lower the age group that experiences the most deaths. Consequently, as Nelson and Toomey concluded, lowering the drinking age would push the problem back into high schools. (Nelson and Toomey, 557). Even though McCardell may cite more scholarly sources, his argument is not as logical or easy to follow. It is more difficult as an audience to keep up with him and follow his argument.
It well may be that with the proper education and programs, the drinking age could be lowered successfully, without fatalities rising. It would be socially beneficial and appreciated by college students everywhere if the drinking age were restored to 18. After all, if you are old enough to serve and die for the country, you should legally be permitted to drink. However, it is not worth the possible consequences to try it out without a 100 percent guarantee that it would work out. History proves that more alcohol-related fatalities occurred when young adults under 21 could legally purchase and consume alcohol. In the end, we are talking about the lives and well being of young adults. It is absurd to put those lives in jeopardy just for the consumption of alcohol. Overall, moving the drinking age up to 21 was a wise decision. While underage and binge drinking are still problems that our nation faces today, and probably always will, the adjustment has successfully reduced the amount of alcohol-related deaths. Thus, Nelson and Toomey wrote a more understandable, more concise, more logical, and overall more effective article. To conclude, the drinking age should remain at age 21 as they argued in “The Drinking Age of 21 Saves Lives”. However, communities and college campuses should initiate programs and better enforce laws to crack down on underage and binge drinking, to better society for our youth.

Work Cited

McCardell, John. “A Drinking Age of 21 Doesn’t Work.” Good Reasons with Contemporary Arguments. 5th Edition. Eds. Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer. Boston: Longman, 2012. 550-553. Print.

Nelson, Toben and Traci Toomey. “The Drinking Age of 21 Saves Lives.” Good Reasons with Contemporary Arguments. 5th Edition. Eds. Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer. Boston: Longman, 2012. 556-557. Print.

Cited: McCardell, John. “A Drinking Age of 21 Doesn’t Work.” Good Reasons with Contemporary Arguments. 5th Edition. Eds. Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer. Boston: Longman, 2012. 550-553. Print. Nelson, Toben and Traci Toomey. “The Drinking Age of 21 Saves Lives.” Good Reasons with Contemporary Arguments. 5th Edition. Eds. Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer. Boston: Longman, 2012. 556-557. Print.