Arguments
Those that are for lowering the drinking age generally argue that the moderate consumption of alcohol frequently as a compliment to a meal or drink with friends is preferable to and healthier than the binge drinking habits more often associated with ”dry” countries such as the United States. These opinions generally lead to the argument that it is far more effective and beneficial for laws to monitor, limit, and guide healthy drinking habits rather than to outright ban it. Furthermore, it is argued that alcohol abuse occurs—at least in part—as a result of the stringent drinking laws. Many of these proponents also argue that instead of there being a strict age limit, laws should be more gradual with suggestions such as having to take a test to get licensed to drink or implementing laws such as those in Europe that limit the type of alcohols or the setting under which they may be consumed. Those who argue for maintaining and even strengthening current drinking laws, however, citing past examples2, generally argue that injuries and deaths related to are bad enough presently. They also argue that initiatives to implement gradual drinking laws or educational programs are optimistic and unrealistic3. Furthermore, they propose that drinking and driving related problems4 are rampant enough among those who are not legally of age and that lowering the drinking age would only enable these habits further, causing an even higher volume of alcohol-related problems.
1. "Drinking and Culture: International Comparisons." Choose Responsibility: Balance, Maturity, Common Sense. Choose Responsibility. Web. 07 Mar. 2012. 2. Fell, James C. "WHY 21? Addressing Underage Drinking." MADD. Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Web. 07 Mar. 2012.
Read more about this topic: Alcohol Consumption By Youth In The United States
Famous quotes containing the word arguments:
“When I am convinced of any principle, it is only an idea which strikes more strongly upon me. When I give the preference to one set of arguments above another, I do nothing but decide from my feeling concerning the superiority of their influence.”
—David Hume (1711–1776)
“‘Tis happy, therefore, that nature breaks the force of all sceptical arguments in time, and keeps them from having any considerable influence on the understanding. Were we to trust entirely to their self-destruction, that can never take place, ‘till they have first subverted all conviction, and have totally destroy’d human reason.”
—David Hume (1711–1776)
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)