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

Weekly Writing Assignment #5

Value Hierarchies

Applying Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's model to the article from Weekly Writing Assignment #4, I am trying to deconstruct the author's message to the audience and the audience who is likely to be persuaded and those that are not.

As part of the audience that has read this article [which is a debate on lowering the drinking age or keeping it at 21], I would have to more likely side with lowering the drinking age to 18.

The publication, the American Observer, is American University's graduate journalism magazine--and the author, Dorry Samuels, is presumably a graduate student who attends AU and who can give witness accounts of how college students behave when it comes to alcohol abuse.

Samuels relies on facts from both sides of the argument--though he is a bit biased when it comes to defending colleges that want to lower the drinking age; due to his own personal experience. His introduction, however, seems a bit sensationalized and he seems to do it only for the pure sake of grabbing someone's attention. Rather than approaching the debate at a critical and neutral angle, he opts to dramatize it for his audience; knowing that they will probably identify themselves with those students that he used as an example of the problem of binge drinking.

The author continues to sensationalize the issue by continuing to use facts that seem to be present only for the shock-jaw effect--which, I would have to say, works well for his argument; especially if his audience is aimed at college students. Speaking as a college student myself, I would have to agree with all his facts; though his wording style and choices should have been more appropriate.

It seems as if Samuels values making the current drinking age look bad, and the 'idea' of lowering it, look like a grand epiphany. He continues to surround it with statistics that make the proposition simply look like a good idea. He also balances it out with other opposing statistics, but not enough.

The hierarchy of Samuels' values can be analyzed into simple categories: safety, education, and new ideas. The author makes his first point by telling how dangerous alcohol as become among young people. He suggests by using education to teach them how to handle it better is a good option. And finally, the idea of lowering the drinking age, albeit radical, can do a lot of good in the long run--though it seems to be a futile battle at the point.

AD Council; Think b4 you speak movement

The press release for AD Council can be found here.
The Think b4 You Speak homepage can be found here.

I thought that the new National PSA Campaigns are very (or, will be) affective. The message is clear and it is a worthy cause--awareness first begins in the classroom at a young age and at home as well. If it is on the T.V, kids will see it. The pioneers behind this movement knows this, and utilizes it to their advantage. The Thinkb4youSpeak website is also very interactive and they've created and marketed it so that it seems to personally speak to you. The website offers alternatives to saying "that's so gay" and even has an interactive dictionary game that provides entertainment and educated purposes. The site even boasts a tracking system that shows how many people use "fag" "dyke" or "that's so gay" on their twitters--this allows them to monitor their progress. Overall, they have managed to practically cover almost every communications medium to ensure that the message will be seen by kids and teens.

The TV spots with Hillary Duff and Wanda Sykes are also very effective when it comes to informing the audience about how insulting using those words are. I think using these two spokespeople are the perfect choices; one a comedian and one a role model for kids creates a good impact on sending a message to kids.

To critique this ad however, the correction of the 'unintentional' use of 'fag' seems a bit harsh; especially if you never mean for it to be used for insult. On a more personal note, I do think that these campaigns are effective, but I am good friends with many gay people and they use these terms in jest whether aimed at each other or towards their heterosexual friends. A radical idea would be to include a famous homosexual celebrity to appear in the ads as well to put a stop to it, even within homosexuals.

"The Aesthetic Imperative"

1. Claim-argument?
2. Value, Hierarchies?
3. Agree/Disagree?

The last line in this excerpt from "The Aesthetic Imperative" written by Princeton graduate, Virginia Postrel is: "...'making special' has become a personal, social, and business imperative."

Postrel's claim of 'making special' is that aesthetics has become increasingly sought after in this day and age. Gone are the days of every laptop looking exactly the same--iMacs, for example, operate in the same function as any good computer does but looks aesthetically pleasing to the eye at the same time. The purpose of seeking beauty in this world has evolved into an idea of creative expression. We as consumers, like being surrounding by things that we think look good and that attracts us to it.

"We are by nature-by deep, biological nature-visual, tactile creatures," says David Brown--a former president of the Art Center Colege of Design in Pasadena.

Brown, as quoted by Postrel, is saying that we are innately a visual species. When we like things, we make it known. We value those that can operate with a sense of creativity. You can't just be in business simply because you are good at math--nowadays, you need to make a good presentation to go along with your idea.

The hierachy of aesthetics has been expanded into a concept that we are actually utilizing style. The first tier, according to Postrel is that it appeals to our senses. The second tier, would be to question if it is fully functional and capabale to meet our needs. What used to be just all about cost, comfort and convenience now includes aesthetics in the mix.

As much as I would like to disagree with Postrel, that aesthetics is not that big of a deal--I will have to grudgingly agree with her and that I am guilty of being in the higher percentage of consumers that are more drawn to products and places that are easy on the eye. I value good design and while that may include how it operates, but I am more in favor of the outside. I have been a big fan of Apple since it first began and I much prefer it to how Compaq designs their laptops. Macbooks, for me personally, are much more appealing to my young side and that it is making the claim that they are a company for the future.

What are the values for Westboro Baptist Church?

Westboro Baptist Church's About Us section can be found here.

This is an analysis of WBC's values vs. my own.

"www.godhatesfags.com" is the first link that appears after a Google search. Knowing about WBC and their extreme methods, I was hyperaware that this has to be their homepage. Their 'About Us' section describes who they are and what their values are--and upon first reading, it seems as if their first value would be to make the world at peace...according to what they deem is a 'peaceful' world. Their picketing style however, disrupts the definition of what peace is--and they seem to not even want the dead to have peace (their 'peaceful' picketing even shows up at funerals of soldiers and homosexuals). According to WBC, they have conducted about 40,000 of these 'sidewalk picketing' demonstrations since 91'--and these include internationally as well. For them, ridding the world of sodomy is the first value and that would give them a sense of world peace as well as family security.

My sense of what I deem important and the ideals that I value in this world are in the complete opposite of what WBC believe. I find it ironic that we both value a world a peace, but for me, that definition means something else. I value a world where people respect one another and don't cause disruptions in the name of 'peace'. Paul Farmer, one of the pioneers for Partners in Health, once found in Haiti a quote that says "The only nation is humanity" back in the early 90s'--and I hold that statement to the highest regard. What WBC does is degrade humanity and unfortunately, that includes themself in the category.

I first and foremest respect whatever opinion WBC holds, I will never see eye to eye or fully understand their reasoning (if they have any), but as a person that is based in logic and holds the value of equality in the highest regard, I would give them an equal right to voice their opinions, but that doesn't mean that I would ever agree with them. I would respectfully listen to them give their side of the argument when it comes to homosexuality, and I will in turn give them my version and hope that they would respect mine as well. However, judging from their outlandish demonstrations, I don't think this peaceful conversation would pan out well--especially if they pulls antics such as holding up colorful signs that say "Aids cure fags"--which is an absurd claim that is wrought with ill-reasoning and contains no scientific backing. I recognize that they value social recognition, but I would uphold my own idea of what social reconition means, and that is the exchange of ideas that is based in an educated and critical manner.

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.

Analyzing Seattle Times; Sports

This is an analytical in-class assignment about an article from the Seattle Times. The article may be found here.

In Jerry Brewer's article, "Fanatomy: As a sports town, we’re underrated"--Brewer makes a case and defends Seattle sport's fans against other hardcore sport fanatics from mainly east coast cities. Brewer mentions several times throughout the article that Seattle is often perceived as caring more for their art museums than sports. He likes to emphasis the the perceived prejudice about Seattle is that they are more 'intellectual' (i.e. cultivating culture, independent bookstores, coffee enthusiasts) than the fist-pumping crowds in Pittsburgh or Boston.

The article chronicles past failures as well as recent wins when it comes to sports in Seattle--and that despite everything, the strongest thing in this town are the passionate fans that still show up for a game; even if it is raining. The longest running fanbase out of all the sport franchises in Seattle is of course University of Washington's football team, the Huskies.

Brewer appeals to the motivational side of what it takes to be a genuine sports fan from the Pacific Northwest. He emphasizes how fans, though they may not come off as enthused, have shown their fair share of taking their love of a team to extreme lengths. Brewer chronicles funny anecdotes of long-running jokes among fans: one story in particular about the coach from their archnemesis team in the 70s' and how they chased him throwing beer at him; and whenever the coach would come into town, it was requisite that they all threw beer at him. Such examples as these motivates the reader (who I would assume to be a Seattelite) to such heights that they would begin silently cheering throughout the rest of the article for their beloved hometown.

Brewer also manages to appeal to the audience's emotional side by showing another lovely example about an incident where the Sonics were beaten, and the area began playing an ironic Frank Sinatra song. People were not angry or upset, but some began laughing at the irony of it all. Seattelites have a good sense of humor, and Brewer understands this, so he inserts a humorous anecdote to make us love our city even more.

The author creates an environment that appeals to every Seattleite who loves sports; and he does a great job of it by not only assuring them that they shouldn't be number 52 and that they are not understated--but isntead manages to pump them up even more and prepare themselves for the next game.