Friday, November 16, 2007
Friday, November 9, 2007
Something needs to happen
Ignorance of alcohol takes thousands of teen lives each year. The current laws aren’t preventing deaths and something needs to be done. Is 21 a good age? Does the government need to raise taxes to discourage teens from drinking, or should we look to our friends “across the pond” for answers to our decrepit drinking culture? A recent study conducted by the US Surgeon General concluded that 11 million Americans drink underage and 7.2 million of them “binge drink”, or drink 5 or more alcoholic drinks in one sitting.
Many people say that waiting to let people drink until they are 21 is saving lives. The supporters of the law also claim that if humans start drinking too early in their lives then our brains don't develop right. These statements are pure nonsense, the study that says the higher drinking age is saving lives doesn't exist on paper and can't be backed up by and statistical data. The idea that alcohol is stopping our minds from growing can't be backed up either, Europeans and a lot of other countries that allow their children to drink do much better on standardized testing than American children do.
The only real problem with teens drinking is not that they are drinking so young, it is because they are having to drink underage. Not only is drinking underage getting innocent teens in trouble with the law but underage drinking is causing binge drinking. Many kids binge drink every weekend in America. Binge drinking happens because people want to drink as much as they can before an authority catches them.
Lowering the drinking age to 18 or 19 would save many more hospital visits and or lives than the current law. The problem with lowering the drinking age all at once would have bad consequences for quite some time after the laws change. Most American teens are not mature enough and are too ignorant about alcohol to be let loose with it's allure.
There is a middle position in all of this confusion and argument. John McCardell, the former president of middleberry college, has imagined a way of educating young Americans in order for them to gain the ability to drink at 18. In this semi-middle position McCardell believes that decriminalizing drinking for teens 18 and older will “bring alcohol consumption out from hiding to where parents and adults can monitor it and teach responsibility without conflict,” says McCardell. After completing this education class a teenager of the age of 18 will be able to purchase a “permit to drink.” This permit would have rules that the kid would have to follow or, like if you get caught speeding with a drivers permit, you will lose all privileges. This position would be accepted by many more people than just lowering the drinking age. This idea has the most promise than either of the two previous stances on this issue.
Whatever happens in this argument, someone needs to change the laws before more teens have to be brought to the hospital or the graveyard.
Many people say that waiting to let people drink until they are 21 is saving lives. The supporters of the law also claim that if humans start drinking too early in their lives then our brains don't develop right. These statements are pure nonsense, the study that says the higher drinking age is saving lives doesn't exist on paper and can't be backed up by and statistical data. The idea that alcohol is stopping our minds from growing can't be backed up either, Europeans and a lot of other countries that allow their children to drink do much better on standardized testing than American children do.
The only real problem with teens drinking is not that they are drinking so young, it is because they are having to drink underage. Not only is drinking underage getting innocent teens in trouble with the law but underage drinking is causing binge drinking. Many kids binge drink every weekend in America. Binge drinking happens because people want to drink as much as they can before an authority catches them.
Lowering the drinking age to 18 or 19 would save many more hospital visits and or lives than the current law. The problem with lowering the drinking age all at once would have bad consequences for quite some time after the laws change. Most American teens are not mature enough and are too ignorant about alcohol to be let loose with it's allure.
There is a middle position in all of this confusion and argument. John McCardell, the former president of middleberry college, has imagined a way of educating young Americans in order for them to gain the ability to drink at 18. In this semi-middle position McCardell believes that decriminalizing drinking for teens 18 and older will “bring alcohol consumption out from hiding to where parents and adults can monitor it and teach responsibility without conflict,” says McCardell. After completing this education class a teenager of the age of 18 will be able to purchase a “permit to drink.” This permit would have rules that the kid would have to follow or, like if you get caught speeding with a drivers permit, you will lose all privileges. This position would be accepted by many more people than just lowering the drinking age. This idea has the most promise than either of the two previous stances on this issue.
Whatever happens in this argument, someone needs to change the laws before more teens have to be brought to the hospital or the graveyard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)