Weekly Writing Assignment #4

Toulmin Model
Argument/Counter Argument

The controversial issue against lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 continues to be heatedly debated from both sides.

OPPONENTS OF LOWERING THE DRINKING AGE
main source can be found here.

One of the major non-profit groups against lowering the drinking age would be the Support 21 Coalition. Their website can be found here. Support 21 was founded by MADD [Mother's Against Drunk Driving] and has been supported by other organizations such as the 'Insurance Institute for Highway Safety' and the 'American Medical Association' and other such prominent groups.
Support 21's claims for having the drinking age stay at 21 is mostly out of assumptions. They have no other proof that lowering the drinking age to 18 will cause more or less damage on the road or on binge-drinking.

They have ignored the success of such countries as Europe or Canada when it comes to alcohol education: it first starts in the home, at the hands of responsible parents that teach them how to drink. They have claimed it as a 'myth'.

Support 21 are against lowering the drinking age because their main claim is that the current minimum drinking age saves lives. Their concern is that drinking is a public health concern; they have zero tolerance for anyone over the age of 21 purchasing alcohol for teens. Support 21 appeals to not just people under 21; but above 21 as well. By claiming drinking as a public health concern; it also appeals to adults who deal with alcoholism and those that have been victims of knowing alcoholics.

One of the solutions that they provide is to increase law enforcement and harsher punishments when it comes to catching teens in possession of alcohol and those caught drinking. They are also skeptical when it comes to starting early alcohol education courses. Their argument is that despite having driving lessons; teens still get into accidents--the same theory also applies to sex education; teen girls still get pregnant. So what is the purpose of incorporating an alcohol-safety class if teens are still going to binge?

One of the studies that they have conducted was that in the 70s', over 29 states lowered the drinking age to either 18, 19 or 20. This law introduced an increase of motor vehicle crashes among teens. After the government decided to enforce the minimum drinking age in 84'--American Medical Association reported that death and injury on the road declined rapidly. [source; The American Observer]

On a more personal analytical opinion of Support 21 Coalition's mission and goal, I would have to slightly disagree with many points. The first being that the study was conducted in the 70s'--in an era completely different from today's modern times. Times are changing, people are more aware now. People were smoking furiously until they were educated that it caused cancer; people are more educated now when it comes to drinking and driving--and I believe that with more education, people will learn when it comes to alcohol.

Teenages are more drawn to things that they are forbidden from doing. Enforcing a law such as this one causes only more harm to those that are uneducated. It needs to start at home with responsible parents at a very young age. For those that enter college without any introduction to it in the home are bound to go wild at parties and drink more than they know how to handle.

SUPPORTERS OF LOWERING THE DRINKING AGE

One of the supporters of lowering the drinking age would be Choose Responsibility. They are advocates of teaching kids at a young age the cons of drinking and trusting them with the ability to grow up and drink responsibility. Education is the key, for them.

Other supporters would be college presidents that have been key witnesses in what happens on college campuses and many tragedies that strike college students when it comes to binge-drinking. Over a hundred college presidents signed a petition to lower the drinking age to 18. Such situational problems that arise at college parties can be easily avoided had students known better.

However, one of the criticisms that arise out of this would be that they are putting their trust into teens in this modern day and era too much. How much do we really know about the average teen and that they are thinking and doing behind closed doors?

They have no actual proof that when it comes down to lowering the drinking age; that it would work.

The article from the American Observer writes: "It’s important to look at the historical perspective. If alcohol consumption at 18 is as damaging as critics say, there would be an entire generation of Americans and generations of Europeans with brain damage resulting from drinking too early."

They are protesting that having such a high drinking age limits any room for discussion and will cause more harm--Choose Responsibility's goal is to get people to start talking again and to make people realize that at 18, if you can vote, buy cigarettes and be chosen to stand in the front lines in war to face death--than you can most certainly have the capacity to drink responsibility.

While I am a supporter of lowering the drinking age, I would have to agree with some of the critics about this. How are we to know for sure that teens will drink responsibility? We have no solid, actual proof. All we have are assumptions--and I don't even know if that is enough sometimes. But I am a huge supporter of educating people--I think education is key and will make many breakthroughs.