Major Analysis Project: The Debate on the Current Drinking Age

Carolyn Huynh
CMJR 320/Persuasive Writing
Professor Bammert
February 3, 2010

Major Analysis Project:
The Debate on the Current Drinking Age

The argument being presented is the ongoing and controversial debate of keeping the minimum legal drinking age at 21 or the possibility of lowering it to down to age 18, continues to spark heated conversations throughout the United States. Since 1984, the United States continues to remain the country with the highest legal drinking age in the world and brings with it a slew of problems to youth and those that are uneducated when it comes to alcohol.

Ever since the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was implemented, the legal age to consume alcohol has remained at 21—however, this law has proven to be counterproductive in its attempt to save lives. Instead, there has been an increase of problems on college campuses on binge-drinking and alcohol abuse. There are statistics that state that 1 out of every 5 college students are alcohol abusers; meaning that they consume more than five drinks in one sitting. It seems as if the more forbidden alcohol is, the more students and kids want to obtain it and abuse it—often times leading to alcohol poisoning and death—mostly caused by fear of being caught or simply being uneducated when it comes to alcohol.

The proposition to lower the drinking age, though simple sounding in its request is not black and white. There are many sides to the spectrum, and though one can see the perks of simply changing the law to match other countries, such as the likes of Canada or Europe, whose rules are lax when it comes to alcohol (i.e. allowing a glass of wine to accompany a twelve-year-olds’ meal with permission from the parents)—one has to consider rewriting almost three decades worth of history; and that is no easy feat. This subject warrants much more in depth and insightful arguments from both the opposing side as well as the supporters of this movement. The current major participators in this debate would include Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Support 21 Coalition, Choose Responsibility and over a hundred college presidents that have signed a petition to lower the drinking age. The audience, mostly those that are under twenty-one as well as responsible parents, are the main watchers—though there are also many prominent sections in the government that support keeping the age at 21.

The first text that will be analyzed, will be an article written by the American Observer—American University’s graduate journalism magazine. One of the major opponents of lowering the drinking age would be the Support 21 Coalition. 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 is vehemently against lowering the drinking age.
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 who are 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. By turning the argument into a public health concern, this provides a way for the argument to open up not just for those concerned in the battle, but for everyone (regardless of age or how this matters concerns them) to get involved—because in some way or the other, their health might or might not be at risk. The powerful use of this argument is an effective strategy: include the masses and try to at least get them on your side.

The next medium that will be critiqued will be an online video segment that ’60 Minutes’ did on this topic. They begin by showcasing the supporters’ reasoning for lowering the drinking age. Two years ago, one hundred college presidents (including the heads of Dartmouth, Virginia Tech and Duke) across the country signed a petition to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. The movement was started by John McCardell; former president of Middlebury College in Vermont. As one of the main pioneers behind this movement, McCardell got what he wanted people to do: to talk about this topic again.

The debate that McCardell has been trying to provoke is that he does not think the law is working at all—and instead of pushing kids to begin drinking at 21; kids have taken it underground, behind closed doors, allowing them to become uneducated in alcohol and instead abusing it heavily and binging on it excessively. McCardell’s petition was the driving force behind his success in either persuading people to his cause or to dissuade people into joining the other side. By having presidents from prestigious schools sign this petition, McCardell was showing that adults are signing this and that they are all in agreement. It was not just mere college students that signed the petition to quickly lower the drinking age—there was more to this logic—and that was to also save lives.

In an opinion editorial, written by Robert Schlesinger for US News, Schlesinger sides with lowering the drinking age, but agrees that it will be a difficult transition to make. By allowing the idea of ‘possibility’ of lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 into the picture, this provides a common thread for both sides of the argument. What would the future look like if the drinking age is lowered to 18? Would everyone be safer or will things get significantly worse? He agrees that alcohol education should begin at home but also that it lays in the government as well. It isn’t just the forbidden fruit to those under 21, but it is the forbidden fruit to everyone in the U.S.
“First, alcohol education starts at home: Parents are the first line of education when it comes to liquor and how teens deal with alcohol will reflect at least in part how it is regarded at home. More broadly, as Maureen Ogle, author of a history of beer, wrote in this space in December, this country still has a prohibition hangover. We repealed the prohibition laws but still treat booze like it ought to be illegal.” [USNews.com]

He makes a claim that the country is still in a “prohibition hangover”—this means that although alcohol is legal now, people still treat it as if it were still illegal; which in this case, it is for those under 21. The ‘degree’ of how law enforcers treat alcohol creates a movement to drive it all underground—to avoid being simply categorized as ‘bad’, people avoid being seen in public drinking at all. Schlesinger’s op-ed, though modest in its length, managed to appeal to a younger audience by telling his own personal account of his college life. It was effective in how it connected with the audience.

The last and final text that will be examined, is the website and homepage of the group, Choose Responsibility—the group in favor of lowering the drinking age. Their main catchphrase is: Balance, Maturity, Common Sense. Their proposal, to allow those who are 18-20 the ability to purchase and consume alcohol. They believe that by having an age minimum to drink only treats them as if they are not responsible adults; so why should they act like adults? Under their proposal link, it says: “Current drinking laws infantilize young adults. We should not be surprised, then, by infantile behavior from otherwise responsible adults.” Their main goal is to produce a successful program that will use education as a main force in helping kids choose wisely when it comes to alcohol. According to a study they did: “Though its legal drinking age is highest among all the countries surveyed, the United States has a higher rate of dangerous intoxication occasions than many countries that not only have drinking ages that are lower or nonexistent, but also have much higher levels of per capita consumption.” This makes us wonder, is the age minimum requirement really working? The statistics are shocking when you go past the college campuses and into a broader scope of the issue.

It seems as if the prevention of death is the value that both sides would put at number one on their hierarchy list. Deaths that were a result of alcohol poisoning or out of poor reasoning simply just because kids did not want to call 911 out of fear of being caught themselves to help save their friends. For the opposing side, MADD obviously does not want more drunk drivers on the road—and their fear is that if the age is lowered, kids will be out of control when it comes to drinking and driving. But one has to ask the question then, should the driving age be raised? It brings a whole new argument into the picture. The second tier that both sides would place in their hierarchy system would involve education. Being educated about alcohol and being first taught in a responsible home environment is the first step towards making good choices.
The argument seems valid on both ends. But the ultimate question to be asked is: which side will end up possibly and potentially saving more lives? On one side, you have professors from universities who are on board with the idea of lowering the age due to their experiences of being involved firsthand with students who binge-drink. The other side presenting their argument is Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)—who are concerned with the idea that there will be more drunk drivers on the road. Both sides represent good arguments; and the key arguments involved include a sense of trust and a responsibility to educate youth.

This debate is important because it asks us all as citizens to enter into the conversation and argue for a better public health. What will be the better choice for all of us? Will we be able to drive safely on the highway without the fear of an irresponsible drunk 18 year old behind the wheel? You enter into the conversation with a concern for yourself, your friends and your family. If the potential to lower the drinking age is imminent, how will we go about advocating safety and making sure that our kids are safe? These are important questions and key issues surrounding the argument that needs to be addressed. 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—we just have to have the ability to start trusting in kids.



Works Cited

http://inews6.americanobserver.net/articles/campaign-lower-drinking-age-faces-sobering-reality

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/19/60minutes/main4813571.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/02/23/the-drinking-age-debate-time-to-go-from-21-to-18-but-its-not-an-easy-call.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/20/local/me-drinking20

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3708133&page=1

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/19/health/chi-college-drinkingaug19