2008 Woodie Awards
Letter to the Editor: Lowering the drinking age to 18, responsibly
Issue date: 9/4/08 Section: Opinion
I know that this is a heated debate and that everyone from PBS "Donnybrook" hosts to students on the quad, argue about what is right and what is wrong about the drinking age. However, I think that there is always room for compromise, even about this topic.
The two sides do bring up valid points. Lowering the drinking age will make the illusion of rebellion by drinking underage disappear, thus making more and more students at college who would have considered to drink to stinking inebriation think otherwise. Also, deaths related to going overboard with liquor would decrease dramatically on college campuses across the country. Confusing rules about only the few getting to drink would be a thing of the past (again).
However, in doing so, the place for that would show up more at high school - which is a more critical time in anyone's life. How else do you move onto college or a workplace when you have a drinking problem straight out of high school? Drinking in high school could lead to what many consider is happening at the college level: loss of interest in the future and plain failure at life. Also, lowering the age would not guarantee a drop in the number of people who drink anyway. In fact, it may increase.
So here's my proposition: make a law where 18-year-olds can drink upon the completion of a high school degree as well as boost Health classes to include programs on how to drink responsibly. That way alcohol will (legally) stay out of the high schools, everyone would be better educated about alcohol (which is always a good thing by me), and college administrations will have one less problem to worry about. Everyone would pretty much win.
This would be pretty simple to implement. With the alcohol corporations just vying for more business, they would be more than willing to sponsor any "responsible drinking" programs. This would then offer an opportunity for more taxes, thus pleasing all the politicians. And, we (those above 18) would finally get most of our rights at the age when we are technically citizens. We can then fight for our country, vote for who runs our country, and then we have a Bud, thanks to our country.
So, enough debates, arguments, and just plain yelling about who is right or wrong about drinking. Instead, why not end it now and compromise. There are more important issues - especially on an election year - than to be wasting our time about the drinking age.
Harry Zollars
Sophomore pre-pharmacy major
Bethalto
The two sides do bring up valid points. Lowering the drinking age will make the illusion of rebellion by drinking underage disappear, thus making more and more students at college who would have considered to drink to stinking inebriation think otherwise. Also, deaths related to going overboard with liquor would decrease dramatically on college campuses across the country. Confusing rules about only the few getting to drink would be a thing of the past (again).
However, in doing so, the place for that would show up more at high school - which is a more critical time in anyone's life. How else do you move onto college or a workplace when you have a drinking problem straight out of high school? Drinking in high school could lead to what many consider is happening at the college level: loss of interest in the future and plain failure at life. Also, lowering the age would not guarantee a drop in the number of people who drink anyway. In fact, it may increase.
So here's my proposition: make a law where 18-year-olds can drink upon the completion of a high school degree as well as boost Health classes to include programs on how to drink responsibly. That way alcohol will (legally) stay out of the high schools, everyone would be better educated about alcohol (which is always a good thing by me), and college administrations will have one less problem to worry about. Everyone would pretty much win.
This would be pretty simple to implement. With the alcohol corporations just vying for more business, they would be more than willing to sponsor any "responsible drinking" programs. This would then offer an opportunity for more taxes, thus pleasing all the politicians. And, we (those above 18) would finally get most of our rights at the age when we are technically citizens. We can then fight for our country, vote for who runs our country, and then we have a Bud, thanks to our country.
So, enough debates, arguments, and just plain yelling about who is right or wrong about drinking. Instead, why not end it now and compromise. There are more important issues - especially on an election year - than to be wasting our time about the drinking age.
Harry Zollars
Sophomore pre-pharmacy major
Bethalto
Be the first to comment on this story