Dear Dr. Williams,
I recently read your essay on the vilification of cigarette smokers in Ideas on Liberty, “Nazi Tactics” from August 2002. After reading this essay I was appalled to say the least, your claims were completely inaccurate and extremely exaggerated. In one claim you say, “As a result of both official and non-official fraudulent claims about the health effects, as well as the health-care costs of smoking, there has been widely successful vilification of cigarette smokers and tobacco manufacturers” (par. 5). It has been proven by many different studies how detrimental tobacco is to a persons’ lungs and how likely it is to cause cancer, how could you possibly say that these are false? The effects to second hand smoke have also been proven and any doctor could tell you this. The government is not out to get smokers, it’s out to protect non-smokers from the health risks they can’t help but obtain in public where smoking is allowed. This “vilification” of cigarette smokers is completely justified because of the risk they put others in, you say, “These people who control our lives are almost finished with smokers; but never in history has a tyrant arisen one day and then decided to tyrannize no more” (par. 7). The government was established to protect its citizens and help make decisions such as these. I never thought protecting innocent lives from tobaccos’ deadly smoke was tyranny; this is a completely absurd claim. It’s not fair to harm a majority of the population by the 20% of Americans who chose smoke (par.4)”
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Reflection 1.2
After writing my second draft, I feel more confident with my paper. It's definitely not perfect or how I want it to be in the end, but it's getting there. I worked more in this draft to incorporate sources, I struggled with determining how many were to many sources though. I think it's at a good amount right now. I still want to clean it up and revise it but I think my basic points and the structure are there now. I just want to reword some things and state things differently in my final draft. The feedback I got was good, I only received 2 out of 3 people's comments but I still got a lot of good commentary on my paper. They basically said what I thought they would say and that I just need to strengthen my argument. Overall, I'm much happier with my topic then I was in the beginning and I'm also happy with the sources I've found to help support my argument, I just need to work on citing them correctly and utilizing them where they will have the most impact.
Essay 1.2 Lowering the Drinking Age- Step in the wrong direction
Dear De Andra Kenoly,
I recently read your article proposing to lower the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA)in The Whitworthian from February 28th 2009. I strongly disagree with this idea because I am very certain it would only turn an unhealthy drinking culture into a worse one. It has been proven that there is a major problem with minors abusing alcohol and that it is on the rise. I understand your duty as a soon to be journalist to write an interesting editorial but, I'm sure as a Senior undergraduate student you've seen alcohol abuse by your peers. Something needs to be done, but lowering the minimum age to purchase the alcohol will only create brush this abuse under the rug and cause more abuse from a wider range of ages.
I'm sure you've seen that college students today have easy access to alcohol from friends and are often known to binge drink every weekend. This is becoming more and more of an issue because of the health risks that are associated with drinking so heavily and in such short time frames. Your article mentioned the Amethyst Initiative, which has had a major role bringing this issue into the public to be discussed. According to their website, their goal is to: “…encourage moderation and responsibility as an alternative to the drunkenness and reckless decisions about alcohol that mark the experience of many young Americans” (Amethyst Initiative). As you stated, John McCardell, the President Emeritus of Middlebury College, founded this group in hopes to change the law and create action. They broke news because of their petition signed by over 100 college presidents all agreeing to the benefits of lowering the MLDA. They believe lowering it will create a new culture of drinking in moderation. As good as that idea sounds in theory, I only see this creating a younger age group for binge drinking. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey said, “This small minority of college administrators wants to undo years of success – that defies common sense. We need to do all we can to protect the national drinking age – a law that saves the lives of drivers, passengers and pedestrians across the country each year” (MADD). Many benefits have come from raising the drinking age to 21 in 1985. I think it's safe to say most people, other than young adults counting down to their 21st birthdays, will object to this proposal.
Since the drinking age has been raised to 21, drinking related accidents have decreased by a significant amount. The Department of Transportation has estimated that the 21 year old drinking age has saved 25,000 lives since 1985 (MADD). Looking at this number of lives that have been saved every year from drunk driving accidents makes an impact by itself on why we shouldn’t lower the drinking age back to where it was, obviously it wasn't working in the first place.
Don't you think by college presidents signing petitions to lower the age to 18, they will only be passing the problem down to high school principals? Ruth Engs a professor of Health Applied Science at Indiana University believes drinking is a problem in minors because it is rebellious, she says, “This [binge drinking] is because drinking by these youth is seen as an enticing "forbidden fruit," a "badge of rebellion against authority" and a symbol of 'adulthood'” (Engs paragraph 2). If the drinking age is lowered to 18, then 16 year old high schoolers will just be wanting to drink because its “forbidden”. This will be a never ending cycle, lowering the drinking age is just irresponsible and not actually dealing with the real issues.
You also claim that many other European countries have a younger drinking age and that they have a healthy drinking culture. But one major factor in that they also have much higher driving ages. In the United States, we have a much younger legal driving age which gives rise to this culture by giving more freedom to our teenagers, having a car gives more access to getting the alcohol and more opportunity to be driving while under the influence. Europeans’ healthier drinking habits are not only related to the actual age, there are other variables involved in their cultures. The United States today would not be able to take on these mannerisms by just changing the age, this is not possible, and our country is not ready for this change.
In my eyes as being a college student, by allowing everyone in college to have access to alcohol, then many, many more people would be drinking. The major hindrance that stops many college students from “pre-gaming” is not having as much access too it. Common sense says you are forced to stop drinking when you run out, allowing everyone to go out and get their own alcohol would just keep everyone drinking more and more.
The website “Why 21?” they discuss the benefits of the 21 year old drinking age. Their website says, “A person’s brain does not stop developing until his or her early to mid-20s and adding alcohol to the mix is a recipe for disaster” (Why 21?). At 18 years old, the brain is surely not done developing; many psychologists say the brain continues growing past the age of 25. Scientists agree of the detrimental effects of alcohol on the brain, why would we allow teenagers to have access to something that we know is consider poison? Ronald M. Davis, Immediate Past President of the AMA said, ”It is impossible to ignore the scientific evidence demonstrating the dangers of underage drinking. A young adult’s brain is a work in progress, marked by significant development in areas of the brain responsible for learning, memory, complex thinking, planning, inhibition and emotional regulation. If we lower the age at which young adults are legally allowed to purchase alcohol, we are lowering the age of those who have easy access to alcohol and shifting responsibility to high school educators. The science simply does not support lowering the drinking age” (MADD).
We obviously see that minors cannot handle their alcohol, and that’s the cause of the problem. I believe "responsible drinking" is not an option right now, the law needs to be used to prevent deaths and injuries in young people. We cannot lower the drinking age and hope it will work, this would only create more problems, “States that previously lowered the drinking age to 18, such as Massachusetts, Michigan, and Maine, experienced an increase in alcohol-related crashes among the 18 to 20 age group” (procon.org) It makes no sense to me to give 18-year-olds this power when they will be set up for failure. New Zealand is also in the center of this controversy, in 1999 the drinking age was lowered from 20 to 18. According to a study in the American Journal of Public Health, the amount of traffic accidents increased significantly in young adults from ages of 15- 18, it is believed that a higher MLDA would have prevented these problems.
The laws cannot just be changed because it's being abused, it should be looked into and find a better option. If the drinking age is lowered then we will see the same problem in kids younger then the newly designated age. I believe better education on alcohol should be set fourth and more conversations about drinking should take place at home and at school. As the Amethyst Initiative suggests, maybe we should put in place a drinking license and have to take a class to get you're license just like drivers ed. But instead of making the license available at 18, it should still be at 21. Then, before turning 21 you are more informed about drinking and know the consequences of supplying to minors. I believe there are other options rather than lowering the drinking age, I think this will only cause more abuse of alcohol and send the future of our society down the wrong path.
Works Cited
Alcohol and the Teen Brain. Why 21?. 2007. No pag. Web. February 2, 2010.
Amethyst Initiative. 2010. Amethyst Initiative. Web. February 2, 2010.
Engs, Ruth. Forbidden Fruit. Indiana.edu. No pag. University of Indiana. Web. February 2, 2010.
Kypri, Kypros. Voas, Robert. Langley, John. Stephenson, Shaun. Begg, Dorthy. Tippetts, Scott. Davie, Gabrielle. “Minimum Purchasing Age for Alcohol and Traffic Crash Injuries Among 15- to 19-Year-Olds in New Zealand.” American Journal of Public Health 96. 1 (2005): 126-131. Print.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 2010. MADD. Web. February 12, 2010.
Should the drinking age be lowered from 21 to a younger age?. Procon.org. Web. February 3, 2010.
I recently read your article proposing to lower the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA)in The Whitworthian from February 28th 2009. I strongly disagree with this idea because I am very certain it would only turn an unhealthy drinking culture into a worse one. It has been proven that there is a major problem with minors abusing alcohol and that it is on the rise. I understand your duty as a soon to be journalist to write an interesting editorial but, I'm sure as a Senior undergraduate student you've seen alcohol abuse by your peers. Something needs to be done, but lowering the minimum age to purchase the alcohol will only create brush this abuse under the rug and cause more abuse from a wider range of ages.
I'm sure you've seen that college students today have easy access to alcohol from friends and are often known to binge drink every weekend. This is becoming more and more of an issue because of the health risks that are associated with drinking so heavily and in such short time frames. Your article mentioned the Amethyst Initiative, which has had a major role bringing this issue into the public to be discussed. According to their website, their goal is to: “…encourage moderation and responsibility as an alternative to the drunkenness and reckless decisions about alcohol that mark the experience of many young Americans” (Amethyst Initiative). As you stated, John McCardell, the President Emeritus of Middlebury College, founded this group in hopes to change the law and create action. They broke news because of their petition signed by over 100 college presidents all agreeing to the benefits of lowering the MLDA. They believe lowering it will create a new culture of drinking in moderation. As good as that idea sounds in theory, I only see this creating a younger age group for binge drinking. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey said, “This small minority of college administrators wants to undo years of success – that defies common sense. We need to do all we can to protect the national drinking age – a law that saves the lives of drivers, passengers and pedestrians across the country each year” (MADD). Many benefits have come from raising the drinking age to 21 in 1985. I think it's safe to say most people, other than young adults counting down to their 21st birthdays, will object to this proposal.
Since the drinking age has been raised to 21, drinking related accidents have decreased by a significant amount. The Department of Transportation has estimated that the 21 year old drinking age has saved 25,000 lives since 1985 (MADD). Looking at this number of lives that have been saved every year from drunk driving accidents makes an impact by itself on why we shouldn’t lower the drinking age back to where it was, obviously it wasn't working in the first place.
Don't you think by college presidents signing petitions to lower the age to 18, they will only be passing the problem down to high school principals? Ruth Engs a professor of Health Applied Science at Indiana University believes drinking is a problem in minors because it is rebellious, she says, “This [binge drinking] is because drinking by these youth is seen as an enticing "forbidden fruit," a "badge of rebellion against authority" and a symbol of 'adulthood'” (Engs paragraph 2). If the drinking age is lowered to 18, then 16 year old high schoolers will just be wanting to drink because its “forbidden”. This will be a never ending cycle, lowering the drinking age is just irresponsible and not actually dealing with the real issues.
You also claim that many other European countries have a younger drinking age and that they have a healthy drinking culture. But one major factor in that they also have much higher driving ages. In the United States, we have a much younger legal driving age which gives rise to this culture by giving more freedom to our teenagers, having a car gives more access to getting the alcohol and more opportunity to be driving while under the influence. Europeans’ healthier drinking habits are not only related to the actual age, there are other variables involved in their cultures. The United States today would not be able to take on these mannerisms by just changing the age, this is not possible, and our country is not ready for this change.
In my eyes as being a college student, by allowing everyone in college to have access to alcohol, then many, many more people would be drinking. The major hindrance that stops many college students from “pre-gaming” is not having as much access too it. Common sense says you are forced to stop drinking when you run out, allowing everyone to go out and get their own alcohol would just keep everyone drinking more and more.
The website “Why 21?” they discuss the benefits of the 21 year old drinking age. Their website says, “A person’s brain does not stop developing until his or her early to mid-20s and adding alcohol to the mix is a recipe for disaster” (Why 21?). At 18 years old, the brain is surely not done developing; many psychologists say the brain continues growing past the age of 25. Scientists agree of the detrimental effects of alcohol on the brain, why would we allow teenagers to have access to something that we know is consider poison? Ronald M. Davis, Immediate Past President of the AMA said, ”It is impossible to ignore the scientific evidence demonstrating the dangers of underage drinking. A young adult’s brain is a work in progress, marked by significant development in areas of the brain responsible for learning, memory, complex thinking, planning, inhibition and emotional regulation. If we lower the age at which young adults are legally allowed to purchase alcohol, we are lowering the age of those who have easy access to alcohol and shifting responsibility to high school educators. The science simply does not support lowering the drinking age” (MADD).
We obviously see that minors cannot handle their alcohol, and that’s the cause of the problem. I believe "responsible drinking" is not an option right now, the law needs to be used to prevent deaths and injuries in young people. We cannot lower the drinking age and hope it will work, this would only create more problems, “States that previously lowered the drinking age to 18, such as Massachusetts, Michigan, and Maine, experienced an increase in alcohol-related crashes among the 18 to 20 age group” (procon.org) It makes no sense to me to give 18-year-olds this power when they will be set up for failure. New Zealand is also in the center of this controversy, in 1999 the drinking age was lowered from 20 to 18. According to a study in the American Journal of Public Health, the amount of traffic accidents increased significantly in young adults from ages of 15- 18, it is believed that a higher MLDA would have prevented these problems.
The laws cannot just be changed because it's being abused, it should be looked into and find a better option. If the drinking age is lowered then we will see the same problem in kids younger then the newly designated age. I believe better education on alcohol should be set fourth and more conversations about drinking should take place at home and at school. As the Amethyst Initiative suggests, maybe we should put in place a drinking license and have to take a class to get you're license just like drivers ed. But instead of making the license available at 18, it should still be at 21. Then, before turning 21 you are more informed about drinking and know the consequences of supplying to minors. I believe there are other options rather than lowering the drinking age, I think this will only cause more abuse of alcohol and send the future of our society down the wrong path.
Works Cited
Alcohol and the Teen Brain. Why 21?. 2007. No pag. Web. February 2, 2010.
Amethyst Initiative. 2010. Amethyst Initiative. Web. February 2, 2010.
Engs, Ruth. Forbidden Fruit. Indiana.edu. No pag. University of Indiana. Web. February 2, 2010.
Kypri, Kypros. Voas, Robert. Langley, John. Stephenson, Shaun. Begg, Dorthy. Tippetts, Scott. Davie, Gabrielle. “Minimum Purchasing Age for Alcohol and Traffic Crash Injuries Among 15- to 19-Year-Olds in New Zealand.” American Journal of Public Health 96. 1 (2005): 126-131. Print.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 2010. MADD. Web. February 12, 2010.
Should the drinking age be lowered from 21 to a younger age?. Procon.org. Web. February 3, 2010.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Reflection 1.1
While writing my first draft I was somewhat overwhelmed with all of the sources I found. I was trying to incorporate the best ones, but the most credible ones. Often my sources weren’t quotes but information of websites without authors. I still need to figure out the best way to incorporate that information and other sources. I also had trouble trying to determine how to attack this editorial and how exactly to respond to it- should I go through point by point? Or should I just talk about some of his points and present my own arguments? I’m not sure which of the two I actually went with- but I would say a combination of the two.
The comments I read were basically to use more sources, which reading other people’s rough drafts, I said the same thing to them. Sources are going to be a major aspect in our rebuttals. Sources build your credibility and help the reader to trust you and agree with you. They’re also good for presenting others’ ideas and their opinions that you agree with, such as introducing someone else’s plan to help binge drinking rather than making it your own.
From reading the comments I received, I realized statistics would also help my argument because this is a health issue and statistics on deaths, and injuries will be very beneficial in strengthening my argument. For my next draft, I would like to incorporate my sources better and have better structure to my paper, I feel like my rough draft was somewhat disorganized and not as meaningful as it should be.
The comments I read were basically to use more sources, which reading other people’s rough drafts, I said the same thing to them. Sources are going to be a major aspect in our rebuttals. Sources build your credibility and help the reader to trust you and agree with you. They’re also good for presenting others’ ideas and their opinions that you agree with, such as introducing someone else’s plan to help binge drinking rather than making it your own.
From reading the comments I received, I realized statistics would also help my argument because this is a health issue and statistics on deaths, and injuries will be very beneficial in strengthening my argument. For my next draft, I would like to incorporate my sources better and have better structure to my paper, I feel like my rough draft was somewhat disorganized and not as meaningful as it should be.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Essay 1.1 Lowering the Drinking Age- Step in the wrong direction
http://www.whitworthian.com/2.11399/opinion-lower-drinking-age-could-be-step-in-the-right-direction-1.1578444
Dear De Andra Kenoly,
I recently read your article proposing to lower the legal drinking age. I strongly disagree with this idea because I am very certain it would only turn an unhealthy drinking culture into a worse one. Everyone agrees that there is a major problem with minors abusing alcohol and that something needs to be done, but lowering the age to purchase the alcohol will only create more abuse from a wider range of ages.
College students today are known to get alcohol from friends and to binge drink every weekend. This is becoming more and more of an issue because of the health risks that come with drinking so heavily and such a short amount of time. You talk about he Amethyst Initiative which has had a major role in bring about this debate. According to their website, their goal is to: “…encourage moderation and responsibility as an alternative to the drunkenness and reckless decisions about alcohol that mark the experience of many young Americans” (Amethyst Initiative). This group was founded by John McCardell, the President Emeritus of Middlebury College. This group broke news because of their petition signed by over 100 college presidents all agreeing to lower the drinking age. They believe lowering the drinking age will create a new culture of drinking in moderation. I strongly believe this will just create a younger age group for binge drinking.
By college presidents signing petitions to lower the age to 18, they will only be passing the problem down to high school principals. Ruth Engs a professor of Health Applied Science at Indiana University believes drinking is a problem in minors because it is rebellious, she says, “This [binge drinking] is because drinking by these youth is seen as an enticing "forbidden fruit," a "badge of rebellion against authority" and a symbol of "adulthood”” (Engs paragraph 2). Being called a forbidden fruit is no excuse, if the drinking age is lowered to 18, then 16 year olds will just be wanting to drink because its “forbidden”. This will be a never ending cycle, lowering the drinking age is just irresponsible and not actually dealing with the real issues.
You also claim that many other European countries have lower drinking ages and that they have a healthy drinking culture. But one major factor in that they also have much higher driving ages. In the United States, we have a much younger legal driving age which gives rise to this culture by giving more freedom to our teenagers, having a car gives more access to getting the alcohol. Europeans’ healthier drinking habits are not only related to the actual age, there are other variables involved in their cultures. The United States today would not be able to take on these mannerisms by just changing the age, this is not possible, and our country is not ready for this change.
In my eyes as being a college student, by allowing everyone in college to have access to alcohol, then many, many more people would be drinking. The major hindrance that stops many college students from “pre-gaming” is not having as much access too it. You are forced to stop drinking when you run out, allowing everyone to go out and get their own alcohol would just keep everyone drinking more and more.
The website “Why 21?” they discuss the benefits of the 21 year old drinking age. Their website says, “A person’s brain does not stop developing until his or her early to mid-20s and adding alcohol to the mix is a recipe for disaster” (Why 21?). At 18 years old, the brain is surely not done developing; many psychologists say the brain continues growing past the age of 25. Everyone agrees of the detrimental effects of alcohol on the brain, why would we allow teenagers to have access to something that we know is consider poison? We need to use the law to protect our young people; we are the future, why would we support them damaging their bodies even more? We obviously see that minors cannot handle their alcohol, and that’s the cause of the problem. I believe "responsible drinking" is not an option right now, the law needs to be used to prevent deaths and injuries in young people. We cannot lower the drinking age and hope it will work, this would only create more problems, “States that previously lowered the drinking age to 18, such as Massachusetts, Michigan, and Maine, experienced an increase in alcohol-related crashes among the 18 to 20 age group” (procon.org) It makes no sense to me to give 18-year-olds this power when they will be set up for failure.
The laws cannot just be changed because it's being abused, it should be looked into and find a better option. If the drinking age is lowered then we will see the same problem in kids younger then that age. I believe better education on alcohol should be set fourth and more conversations about drinking should take place at home and at school. As the Amethyst Initiative suggests, maybe we should put in place a drinking license and have to take a class to get you're license just like drivers ed. But instead of making the license available at 18, it should still be at 21. Then, before turning 21 you are more informed about drinking and know the consequences of supplying to minors. I believe there are other options rather than lowering the drinking age, I think this will only cause more abuse of alcohol and send the future of our society down the wrong path.
Works Cited
Alcohol and the Teen Brain. Why 21?. 2007. No pag. Web. February 2, 2010.
Amethyst Initiative. 2010. Amethyst Initiative. Web. February 2, 2010.
Engs, Ruth. Forbidden Fruit. Indiana.edu. No pag. University of Indiana. Web. February 2, 2010.
Should the drinking age be lowered from 21 to a younger age?. Procon.org. Web. February 3, 2010.
Dear De Andra Kenoly,
I recently read your article proposing to lower the legal drinking age. I strongly disagree with this idea because I am very certain it would only turn an unhealthy drinking culture into a worse one. Everyone agrees that there is a major problem with minors abusing alcohol and that something needs to be done, but lowering the age to purchase the alcohol will only create more abuse from a wider range of ages.
College students today are known to get alcohol from friends and to binge drink every weekend. This is becoming more and more of an issue because of the health risks that come with drinking so heavily and such a short amount of time. You talk about he Amethyst Initiative which has had a major role in bring about this debate. According to their website, their goal is to: “…encourage moderation and responsibility as an alternative to the drunkenness and reckless decisions about alcohol that mark the experience of many young Americans” (Amethyst Initiative). This group was founded by John McCardell, the President Emeritus of Middlebury College. This group broke news because of their petition signed by over 100 college presidents all agreeing to lower the drinking age. They believe lowering the drinking age will create a new culture of drinking in moderation. I strongly believe this will just create a younger age group for binge drinking.
By college presidents signing petitions to lower the age to 18, they will only be passing the problem down to high school principals. Ruth Engs a professor of Health Applied Science at Indiana University believes drinking is a problem in minors because it is rebellious, she says, “This [binge drinking] is because drinking by these youth is seen as an enticing "forbidden fruit," a "badge of rebellion against authority" and a symbol of "adulthood”” (Engs paragraph 2). Being called a forbidden fruit is no excuse, if the drinking age is lowered to 18, then 16 year olds will just be wanting to drink because its “forbidden”. This will be a never ending cycle, lowering the drinking age is just irresponsible and not actually dealing with the real issues.
You also claim that many other European countries have lower drinking ages and that they have a healthy drinking culture. But one major factor in that they also have much higher driving ages. In the United States, we have a much younger legal driving age which gives rise to this culture by giving more freedom to our teenagers, having a car gives more access to getting the alcohol. Europeans’ healthier drinking habits are not only related to the actual age, there are other variables involved in their cultures. The United States today would not be able to take on these mannerisms by just changing the age, this is not possible, and our country is not ready for this change.
In my eyes as being a college student, by allowing everyone in college to have access to alcohol, then many, many more people would be drinking. The major hindrance that stops many college students from “pre-gaming” is not having as much access too it. You are forced to stop drinking when you run out, allowing everyone to go out and get their own alcohol would just keep everyone drinking more and more.
The website “Why 21?” they discuss the benefits of the 21 year old drinking age. Their website says, “A person’s brain does not stop developing until his or her early to mid-20s and adding alcohol to the mix is a recipe for disaster” (Why 21?). At 18 years old, the brain is surely not done developing; many psychologists say the brain continues growing past the age of 25. Everyone agrees of the detrimental effects of alcohol on the brain, why would we allow teenagers to have access to something that we know is consider poison? We need to use the law to protect our young people; we are the future, why would we support them damaging their bodies even more? We obviously see that minors cannot handle their alcohol, and that’s the cause of the problem. I believe "responsible drinking" is not an option right now, the law needs to be used to prevent deaths and injuries in young people. We cannot lower the drinking age and hope it will work, this would only create more problems, “States that previously lowered the drinking age to 18, such as Massachusetts, Michigan, and Maine, experienced an increase in alcohol-related crashes among the 18 to 20 age group” (procon.org) It makes no sense to me to give 18-year-olds this power when they will be set up for failure.
The laws cannot just be changed because it's being abused, it should be looked into and find a better option. If the drinking age is lowered then we will see the same problem in kids younger then that age. I believe better education on alcohol should be set fourth and more conversations about drinking should take place at home and at school. As the Amethyst Initiative suggests, maybe we should put in place a drinking license and have to take a class to get you're license just like drivers ed. But instead of making the license available at 18, it should still be at 21. Then, before turning 21 you are more informed about drinking and know the consequences of supplying to minors. I believe there are other options rather than lowering the drinking age, I think this will only cause more abuse of alcohol and send the future of our society down the wrong path.
Works Cited
Alcohol and the Teen Brain. Why 21?. 2007. No pag. Web. February 2, 2010.
Amethyst Initiative. 2010. Amethyst Initiative. Web. February 2, 2010.
Engs, Ruth. Forbidden Fruit. Indiana.edu. No pag. University of Indiana. Web. February 2, 2010.
Should the drinking age be lowered from 21 to a younger age?. Procon.org. Web. February 3, 2010.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Rhetorical Analysis
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/2.2255/editorial-lower-drinking-age-best-option-1.165205
Editorial: Lower drinking age best option
This editorial was one written by college students at the University of Arizona. These students believe that the drinking age should be lowered from the age of 21. They believe that lowering the legal age to buy alcohol will lower the rate of binge drinking and the problems associated with it in college. They are arguing the decision of Robert Shelton, the President of UA. He opposed a petition signed by other university presidents around the nation. This petition called for change and consideration to changing the drinking age.
Shelton opposed this petition for many reasons, mainly because he doesn’t believe it would help the issues at universities today. These students are claiming that because you are able to go to war at the age of 18, you should also be able to drink. They also claim that because the causes those who are underage to drink just to rebel, and that these young adults have turned drinking into a “surreptitious activity”. They also believe that Shelton did not fully consider this proposal, and that he was basing his decision off of insufficient knowledge. This group never goes on to fully back up their claims with evidence; they just go on to refute everything Shelton said.
Within this editorial, the students look at every aspect of the opposing argument. They go through and acknowledge every piece of evidence Shelton lays out for his claims. The use of pathos is one of their strongest uses of persuasion in the example of the soldier coming home from war. They use emotional appeal to prove their point. The audience of this editorial would be college students and the presidents also being faced with this decision. The purpose of their argument would be to convince others that the opposing view is wrong and that the drinking age should be lowered.
I believe that the drinking age should not be lowered because it would just cause further problems within our generation. One of their arguments was that binge drinking takes place because those who are underage want to rebel, well if you lower the drinking age to 18, then 16 year olds will be acting the same way. I think it would be ineffective and just cause more chaos. I believe if this should take place at all it should slowly be grandfathered in, dropping the drinking age in the culture we have today would be a terrible idea and cause many more problems that we already have.
Editorial: Lower drinking age best option
This editorial was one written by college students at the University of Arizona. These students believe that the drinking age should be lowered from the age of 21. They believe that lowering the legal age to buy alcohol will lower the rate of binge drinking and the problems associated with it in college. They are arguing the decision of Robert Shelton, the President of UA. He opposed a petition signed by other university presidents around the nation. This petition called for change and consideration to changing the drinking age.
Shelton opposed this petition for many reasons, mainly because he doesn’t believe it would help the issues at universities today. These students are claiming that because you are able to go to war at the age of 18, you should also be able to drink. They also claim that because the causes those who are underage to drink just to rebel, and that these young adults have turned drinking into a “surreptitious activity”. They also believe that Shelton did not fully consider this proposal, and that he was basing his decision off of insufficient knowledge. This group never goes on to fully back up their claims with evidence; they just go on to refute everything Shelton said.
Within this editorial, the students look at every aspect of the opposing argument. They go through and acknowledge every piece of evidence Shelton lays out for his claims. The use of pathos is one of their strongest uses of persuasion in the example of the soldier coming home from war. They use emotional appeal to prove their point. The audience of this editorial would be college students and the presidents also being faced with this decision. The purpose of their argument would be to convince others that the opposing view is wrong and that the drinking age should be lowered.
I believe that the drinking age should not be lowered because it would just cause further problems within our generation. One of their arguments was that binge drinking takes place because those who are underage want to rebel, well if you lower the drinking age to 18, then 16 year olds will be acting the same way. I think it would be ineffective and just cause more chaos. I believe if this should take place at all it should slowly be grandfathered in, dropping the drinking age in the culture we have today would be a terrible idea and cause many more problems that we already have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
