|
To the Editor:
The consumption of alcohol is a social concern that has had much
publicity lately, with the passage of proposal D, raising the legal
drinking age to twenty-one. The opponents' favorite argument against
this proposal is that if eighteen year olds are old enough to vote,
see adult films, and die for their country, they should be considered
old enough to drink. I think, however, that the opponents to the
twenty-one year old drinking age are missing a few very important points.
First, anyone is old enough to die for their country. This is an
emotional, not a logical argument. Second, the viewing of adult
films does not have the social ramifications of alcohol abuse in that
innocent citizens are not affected in its aftermath. And third,
granting a right to someone does not mean that they deserve all
rights available.
Because with rights come responsibilities and if one abuses
responsibilities one does not deserve to have those rights. I
feel that eighteen through twenty year olds have not displayed
responsibility when it comes to alcohol consumption.
There are many points of proof to this statement. 1) There has
been an increase in alcoholism among those under the age of twenty
one. 2) There has been a major increase in under twenty-one drunken
driving accidents and deaths. 3) There has emerged a new social
pressure for a youth of eighteen to learn how to drink and socialize
before he has learned to cope with his own life. 4) Most importantly,
when the new law goes into affect, it is certain that some twenty-one
year olds will be supplying eighteen year olds with alcohol. However,
the eighteen year olds will not longer be able to "buy" for
their seventeen, sixteen, and fifteen year old friends.
One might ask, "But isn't this punishing the majority for the
crimes of the minority?" Perhaps, but the minority of eighteen
to twenty year olds that abuse alcohol are already punishing the
majority (including those over twenty-one) through irresponsible and
sometimes dangerous behavior. The young reckless drivers are also
hurting themselves.
Of course, not all persons that are irresponsible at age eighteen
will become responsible by age twenty-one, but many do gain
responsibility. Enough, I feel, to justify the restrictive law. I
have faith that people can develop responsibility and maturity with age.
In my case, being nineteen, I believe that anything worth having is
worth waiting for. |
