Alright, LCT sent this to me a couple weeks ago and I finally got around to posting it. This is a persuasive (and boy is it ever!) essay written by KK Hollidae when she was in high school. I say this with no hyperbole and with my tongue outside my cheek: this is the single greatest piece of writing ever written by human hands. I'll add my thoughts after every paragraph because we all know that's why you're here--to know my thoughts on all things great and small. And because it's like six pages and we need breaks every now and then.
Land of the Not So Free
America is the homeland of freedom, the land of opportunity, the protected earth of liberty and justice. However, is our nation truly as righteous and just as we all believe? Presently, the laws of the government are set up so that a 16 year old living in Belgium, or France, or Germany, or Italy, or Spain, the lists goes on and on, has more rights than a 20 year old in the US. How then is this country viewed as the land of the free? In this country, a citizen must be 21 years of age in order to legally consume any alcoholic beverage (United). This law is unjust and demeaning of human rights. If America truly is the country of freedom, then the minimum drinking age must be 18 and not 21.
America is the homeland of freedom, the land of opportunity, the protected earth of liberty and justice. However, is our nation truly as righteous and just as we all believe? Presently, the laws of the government are set up so that a 16 year old living in Belgium, or France, or Germany, or Italy, or Spain, the lists goes on and on, has more rights than a 20 year old in the US. How then is this country viewed as the land of the free? In this country, a citizen must be 21 years of age in order to legally consume any alcoholic beverage (United). This law is unjust and demeaning of human rights. If America truly is the country of freedom, then the minimum drinking age must be 18 and not 21.
"The protected earth of liberty and justice." That is some badass shit right there. No beating around the bush for KK, as she goes right in listing the Commie Pinko countries that let you drink as a toddler and even has a source reference. Who is her source? UNITED- THAT'S WHO!
The United States and only three other countries in the entire world have the minimum drinking age at 21 years old, and the US is the only country out of the four who enforces this law. Almost every single other country has the minimum age at 18 or below (Legal). Why is it that a 20 year old citizen of the US is not considered to be as mature as a 16 year old citizen of, fore say, France, Spain, Germany, or Great Britain? How is it that a 16 year old in Europe is considered responsible enough to consume an alcoholic beverage, but a 20 year old American is not? Either the teenagers across seas are more mature and trusting than American teens, or the US government is too strict when it comes to alcohol.
Lots of good stuff here. "Fore say," is not a phrase that I have heard of, but I will definitely be using it in every paper I write from now on (assuming I go back to college). I'm not sure why Euroteens would have to be more "trusting" to be allowed to drink, but hey that's the point. THEY'RE NOT! So let us drink! 5 years ago! Also, what the hell are these sources? LEGAL, UNITED...those are just words.
Moreover, the United States government has given alcohol a “special ness that it does not deserve” (Chafetz 710). In many European countries alcohol is viewed as an important part of culture. For example, the minimum drinking age in France is 16. However, it would not be unusual for a 15 year old to have a glass of wine at dinner. In fact its expected that children view wine as an important part of French traditions (Legal). Where as in America, wine and alcohol are viewed as highly destructive drugs. When will Americans realize that by viewing alcohol negatively makes teens want to drink more?
There really is a certain ness around drinking when you're a teen. I can't put my finger on it exactly, but it is definitely a special ness. Also, let's not get into French culture here, because French children accept as part of their culture homosexual intercourse and making ape noises at the athletically superior Africans who make up their nation's sports teams.
Alcohol should not be a complete mystery for teenagers. Most teenagers drink because an alcoholic beverage is some unknown, adult only substance that is illegal and frowned upon. Parents should allow their curious child a sip of wine at dinner. That way the child would experience alcohol in a supervised environment as apposed to a wild and unsafe party. Andrew Struttaford states that “intelligent parents do not let alcohol become a big deal, a mystery, or a battleground” (24). The more people emphasize the downfalls of drinking, the more teenagers are driven to drink.
Yea, this makes sense to me. Good points KK!
Many people argue that since the minimum drinking age was raised from 19 to 21 years old, alcohol related accidents have decreased. This is true, and is mainly the reason so many people feel that the higher age is beneficial. However, this decrease began in 1980, which was before the drinking age was changed. Therefore the decline is due to other factors, not the change in the age limit (Engs 2). Since 1980, students in school have been educated strongly about the effects of drunk driving, cars have become equipped with airbags and seat belts, speed limits have been lowered, and there are free taxi services from drinking establishments. All these factors combined are what caused the decline of accidents.
What bar has a free taxi service? Is this some Ohio thing? because, if so, I still don't want to move there. And KK missed a great chance at using my favorite new phrase. It should read "Therefore the decline is due to other factors like, fore say, airbags..."
Another arguable point is the drinking and driving issues. In other countries it is much harder to receive a drivers license. Also many people do not own or drive cars, instead they use buses or taxis. This provides a problem considering that most teens in the US do drive and there are much higher accident rates compared between the US and European countries. However, a better solution to underage drinking and driving should not be to raise the drinking age. Instead, it would be much more effective if the government would give harsher punishments to drunk drivers, especially young drivers (Stuttaford 24). Teenagers would think more than twice about getting in a car after consuming an alcoholic beverage, if they knew that the punishment would change their lives. The government should stop focusing on the issues of underage drinking and should focus instead on the penalties for DUIs.
If this was really the land of the free, the protected earth of liberty and justice, then drunk drivers would be drawn and quartered or sent to live in leper colonies. It's really only fair.
Also, many people argue the government’s purpose for a high drinking age is a matter of safety. On the contrary, by lowering the age limit to 18, an 18 year old would actually be safer. Teens will continue to drink whether it is illegal or not. A survey was taken at East Carolina University in the same year that the drinking age was raised. They were asked how this age change would effect their alcohol consumption. 5% intended to stop drinking; 9% decided to use other drugs stating that “its easier to hide pot then a 6-pack of beer,” as one student wrote; 16% planned on getting false id’s; and 70% of the students planned on just changing their drinking location (Hanson 34). This age change has done nothing positive, instead it challenges teens to break the law. So, if it was legal to drink at 18, then teens would be drinking in safer, supervised places. They also would not hesitate to take a drunk friend to the hospital if the friend was in severe condition, because they would not worry about getting into trouble with the police or parents.
Well played East Carolina guy from the 80s, well played. I totally agree with KK on this. When I see a law it's like a challenge. Unless they change the legal manslaughter age to 22, I am going to consider it a personal challenge from the US government to slaughter one man every week until my demands are met. You have been warned government. (On a personal note: my friends had no problem taking me to a hospital when I was drunk as shit at the age of 16-- leading to a police cruiser stopping by my house, my parents grounding me for 3+ months, and the loss of my bowl. I still miss you, Spicy Virginia.)
Additionally, by telling teenagers they can not drink, their desire for alcohol increases. Teens are more likely to rebel against a law that tells them what they can not do. Andrew Stuttaford also holds a similar opinion. He strongly believes that “adult disapproval magically transforms that margarita from a simple pleasure into an especially thrilling act of rebellion” (24). When the drinking age was raised from 18 to 19, a NY State survey found that it had made no significant difference in the under-age students consumption rates, drinking attitudes, or drinking problems. In fact a similar survey in Texas was taken and it found that the underage drinking rates increased (Hanson 34). This just proves that when a teenager is told he or she can not have something, it makes him or her want to have it even more.
This seems like we're going over the same ground again, but I do agree that laws should not tell you what you can not do. Laws should say what you can do. Fore say, the law shouldn't say you can not commit murder, it should say you CAN not-commit-murder. I've been not-committing-murder for most of my life. And a margarita can't be a thrilling act of rebellion. It's more like a complement to an uncomfortable birthday dinner with friends where you get stuck sitting next to people you don't know that well. A stuntman shot--now there's rebellion.
To really benefit teenagers, responsible drinking behaviors should be taught to teens, instead of just telling them not to drink (Engs 2). If teens are taught safe responsible drinking habits, then when it does come the time that they are offered a drink, they will drink in moderation. This also would teach teens responsibility. At age 16 a teenager is allowed to risk his or her own life and the lives of the hundreds that are also on the roads. Driving is an extremely large responsibility, and yet parents are willing to allow their children to do so. Unsafe driving is just as dangerous and deadly as unsafe drinking. Yet there is a five year difference between the two. For the same reasons a parent allows a child to learn responsible driving habits, a parent should also allow a child to learn responsible drinking habits .
If the drinking age were changed, parents could teach their kids responsible drinking and responsible driving habits, yes. More importantly, though, they would be able to teach teens responsible drinking and driving habits. Drinking and driving is only unsafe if you are bad at it and the drinking age really exacerbates this problem.
One more final point, the government has made all other adult privileges at the age of 18 except for the privilege of consuming an alcoholic beverage. The 26th Amendment to the US constitution is known as the “Age of Majority”. As of this year, 2002, the law stands that at age 18 one has all the same rights of a person above the age of 21 except when dealing with alcohol (Chafetz 710). By separating the alcohol privileges from the rest, an 18 year is losing their human rights of being a citizen of the United States.
Fuck yea, KK! Preach it sister! We want(ed) our goddamn human rights. We are NOT SO FREE! Also, I think that I will start referring to myself as a major since I am over 18. Yea, Major Trott. I like the sound of that.
The government is hypocritical; they say that 18 year olds are considered adults, yet they label them as children when it comes to alcohol. At age 18, one is allowed to get married, but is not allowed to toast to their new wife or husband with a glass of champagne. At age 18 one can be drafted for the war, but is not allowed to enjoy a beer with other adult friends. At age 18, one is allowed to smoke deadly cigarettes, which can be just as damaging as alcohol, or in some cases worse; yet still one is not allowed enjoy the simple satisfaction of a margarita until three years later. At age 18, one is allowed to vote; so at 18 their opinions are valued, and essential for major nationwide decisions, but they hold no rights to drink alcohol. At age 18, one is trialed as an adult and can receive such a punishment as the death penalty, but is considered no more mature then a mere, helpless child when it comes to alcohol. At age 18, a woman has the right to abort her own child without parental consent, and yet she can not decide on her own to have a cocktail. At age 18, one can buy a double-barrel rifle, which basically gives that person the power to end any form of life, but that same person can not buy a harmless 6-pack of beer. Does anything seem a bit wrong with that? How are 18 year olds considered responsible enough to own a deadly, murderous weapon such as a sniper, but are not responsible enough to own a can of beer? The thought is unimaginable. 18 year olds can also sign contracts, ignore curfews, see x-rated movies, be kicked out of their own homes legally, and are eligible for many more job opportunities. However, the law states that they are not ready to consume any form of alcohol (Smith 88). The restriction on alcohol until age 21 belittles a 18-year-olds place in society. It is the one thing that keeps them from being considered fully developed independent adults.
I almost don't want to say anything. That's just about the greatest thing I have ever read. Abortions, job opportunities, "the simple satisfaction of a margarita": this is a truly outstanding paragraph. 18 year olds can't drink, but they can OWN a sniper. That's the deadliest form of human chattel out there, but an 18 year old with a personal sniper can't enjoy the cool contentment of a mojito, the regal refreshment of some Crown Royal, or the glorious gratification of a slippery nipple.
Also, I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as a "double-barrel rifle," but it's nice to know that within my reach is "power to end any form of life." If I had a gun I'd shoot trees, cats, British people, moss, amoebas, children with harelips, hummingbirds....the list goes on and on. And it's good to know that as a major I am legally allowed to ignore my curfew.
In conclusion, having the minimum alcohol consumption age set at 21 derides the rights of adults. 18 year olds are adults, and they need to be treated as adults, with all adult privileges. How can this country be viewed as the land of the free? A 20 year old receives an exceedingly harsh punishment if caught having had a sip of a cocktail. Whereas at the same time across the ocean, a 16 year old German girl can be binge drinking to the point where she passes out and not receive any punishment at all. If America truly was the land where freedom lives, then the drinking age would be 18. Our Lady of Liberty would be ashamed that her once free land has lost the justice and righteousness that it formerly held.
Thoughts:
The motherhumping constitution is deriding your rights new majors!
Our Lady of Liberty sounds like a pilgrimage site where some little girl named Fatima saw a vision of the Madonna on Cinco de Mayo in the foothills outside Mexico City.
A passed out German girl receives the harshest punishment of all: men filming themselves shitting on her chest (German porn is sick).
KK, you truly outdid yourself with this paper. I salute you for having the bravery to envision a land in which teens are not derided or deprived of their human rights; instead they will, fore say, proudly drive drunk well, toast their abortions, and use their snipers to kill anything they damn well please while revelling in the drinkability of Bud Light.
