War but No Beer?

For the last two decades, the legal age to consume alcohol in the United States has
been 21 and still is. Millions of adults in the United States under the age of 21 have to
abide by this law, but through evidence and theory I will show how this law is
ineffective. Therefore, I am taking a stand against the current law forbidding any citizen
of the United States to consume alcohol under the age of 21.
Recently, about 100 presidents of Americas universities have created the
Amethyst Initiative. This initiative was created to push for a discussion to reconsider
Americas policy on the consumption of alcohol. With this stated, instantly some may
argue that per the economic turmoil America is facing now, this issue is not worthy of
discussion at this moment. I disagree, of course we have to prioritize our problems and
the economy may seem to render a more important one, to some, but tending to laws that
might seem unjust in anyway to a group of elite individuals, since they are paving the
way for Americas future leaders, like the Amethyst Initiative might just bear the
question. Is the law we have now, the bottom-line?
One subject both parties touch on is the amount of peoples lives that are affected
by alcohol negatively. The parties that favor the law that is in practice now strongly
believe that science is the key to their justifications. Although, they do have some truth
like this statistic, Since the 21 law was widely enacted, the number of young people
killed annually in crashes involving drunk drivers under 21 has been cut in half, from
more than 5,000 individuals in the early 1980s to around 2,000 in 2005. By the end of
2005, the 21 drinking age had saved nearly 25,000 American livesapproximately 1,000
lives a year, (Dean-Mooney). To almost everyone, saving lives is the most moral thing
one can do in this context, but these numbers have been pretty much consistent from
1992 to 2004 according to NIAAA. This only tells us that the laws initial purpose has
now faded and the number of deaths have basically hit a plateau. The law is not creating
the drastic changes as it once did before, but yet the deaths are still occurring because
lawmakers have become too satisfied.
Supporters of the 21 law are blind to their own faulty satisfaction. They keep
stating how the fatal crash rate due to alcohol consumption has been brought down
dramatically, but they completely ignore the fact that deaths due to alcohol, but that are in
no way involved with driving are still happening off the roads. The reformers of the law
back in 1984 are looking at their evidence, the improvement of deaths on the highway
due to alcohol, as means and their means as ends in themselves and that is it. The
ultimate end is still unknown because the end involves the smallest number of deaths
possible, including zero deaths, but deaths are still occurring and this debate is still on the
table, for this paper would be irrelevant if the issue did not exist, therefore their end is not
justifiable. Actually nowhere near justifiable, but something much less, for if it were just,
a large mass of negative consequences would not still be occurring.
Parties that are pro 21 support my reasoning with their clouded visions, for when
they use the former evidence; they use that evidence wrongly. They state that just
because lives are being saved, regardless of the circumstances that are happening off the
highways, they are right and it is the only way. Here is a statement from the U.S News
and World Report that proves my point, The simple fact is that the 21law saves lives
and is, therefore, nonnegotiable, (Dean-Mooney). The lives of people should never be
taken for granted, I agree, but when the total amount of traffic related deaths are staying
Emma Rubenstein 9/30/13 11:58 AM
Comment [1]: I ieally appieciate how
cleai youi thesis is in both placement anu
content. Wonueiful job! It woulu be helpful
to woiu it in favoi of the Amethyst Initiative,
though. This woulu make youi message
even cleaiei to youi ieauei anu woulu make
the message thioughout youi papei much
moie uynamic.
Emma Rubenstein 9/30/13 11:36 AM
Comment [2]: I love how you choose to
auuiess the opposition heie. Insteau of
stating that some may aigue that the issue is
not woithy of uiscussion at all, exploie a
valiu stance that opposes youi aigument.
This will make youi iefutation of that
opposition even stiongei anu may push you
to exploie suppoit that you hau not
consiueieu befoie.
Emma Rubenstein 9/30/13 11:40 AM
Comment [3]: Nake suie to specify which
law this is. It will make youi logic much
moie smooth anu easy to ieau.
Emma Rubenstein 9/30/13 11:45 AM
Comment [4]: I'm not suie that youi logic
is completely cleai heie. Saving lives is
always a goou thing anu the numbeis uo not
neeu to inciease to make the law effective.
Emma Rubenstein 9/30/13 11:59 AM
Comment [5]: This sentence neeus to be
bioken uown anu elaboiateu on. I ieally
aumiie how concise you tiy to make it, but
in this case the woiuing cieates confusion
that coulu be eliminateu if you thoioughly
explain what you mean. Tiy talking thiough
youi logic out louu anu wiiting uown what
you say. This coulu leau to a lot of claiity!
consistent after the major drop that occurred when it first was implemented, something is
wrong.
Some at this point may ignore me completely because they are probably stating
this, well the goal was to lower the fatal crash rate not eliminate it. This a wonderful
accomplishment, but I am not stating that it was not ineffective, I am stating that the
families losing those 1000 lives a year would never settle for anything but less than zero
or zero deaths. We should not either.
While traffic deaths stay consistent after their major breakthrough, other areas
alcohol is involved with started to increase . Earlier I stated statistics about overall
American deaths due to alcohol but, here is an example of how alcohol relates to college
students lives specifically. According to a 2005 study published in the Annual Review
of Public Health, nearly 600,000 college students are injured each year in alcohol-related
incidents, and 1,700 die annually, (Kannenberg). Also, there is another organization that
provides similar numbers, According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism, 1,700 college students die each year in alcohol-related deaths, (Donaldson
James). These numbers are the result of a six percent increase amongst college students
since 1998 according to NIAAA. As one can see, these numbers are much higher in
college students alone compared to the statistics of overall American deaths due to
consumption of alcohol while driving, 1000 as stated earlier. The numbers of fatal car
crashes due to alcohol have steadied, but deaths off the highway have actually increased
in college life alone due to alcohol. This is one simple fact supporters of the current law
are failing to notice.
Another point I would like to state is the consideration of becoming an adult by
the United States. One is able to vote, serve the American military, drive a car, smoke
and drop out of school at the age of eighteen. Does anyone else see something wrong
with this? Is it just to say that America gives the right to an eighteen year old person to
take an M16 and shoot the enemy in the head, but they cannot pick up a glass of wine and
drink it? They can take another human beings life, because of the justification of
Americas consideration of an enemy which is another issue that will not be discussed,
but they cannot drink. On a social consensus, we can agree on that it takes much more
mental responsibility to go to war with a compatriot than to drink responsibly. I am just
putting to light circumstances as I see them, for I am not wrong because this is what is
happening. My opponent should realize these circumstances and not hide it amongst
their rhetoric and be a true citizen by agreeing to discuss about this issue. As shown in
the recent election of President Obama, the younger population, younger than 21, were
able to make a responsible choice in helping elect President Obama, but they cannot
drink. Which one seems more responsible like, the participation in one of Americas
most historic elections ever or the ability to drink alcohol? It is ridiculous that an
eighteen year old can take on all the responsibilities a 21 year old can, but the drinking of
alcohol.
In conclusion, self satisfaction and accomplishment should never be a priority
over anyones life. Also, it seems hypocritical on Americas part to give more serious
responsibilities to eighteen year olds than drinking alcohol. In the end though, if
politicians and the populace do nothing about this certain problem, then they would be
disrespecting one of Americas founding principals, which is the ambiguous pursuit of
happiness.
Emma Rubenstein 9/30/13 12:02 PM
Comment [6]: This stiategy of
acknowleuging the valiuity in youi
oppositions aigument is gieat!
Emma Rubenstein 9/30/13 12:03 PM
Comment [7]: Theie is huge potential
heie foi you to ieally uiive youi point home.
You hook youi opposition by flatteiing
them; now make suie to flesh out youi logic
anu expanu on youi asseition. uieat job!
Emma Rubenstein 9/30/13 11:59 AM
Comment [8]: You use some gieat
suppoit heie but you shoulu expanu on how
this suppoits the Amethyst Initiative. You
use a lot of eviuence to iefute youi
opposition, but make suie you also jump in
to asseit youiself as well.
Emma Rubenstein 9/30/13 11:57 AM
Comment [9]: I like how you tiansition
fiom statistical suppoit to the utilization of
emotion. This establishes a wonueiful flow
thioughout youi papei!
Emma Rubenstein 9/30/13 12:00 PM
Comment [10]: This is a veiy subjective
teim anu it may make those who suppoit
youi opposition feel attackeu. I love how
passionate you aie, but it is best to iefiain
fiom accusations. This pioviues you with a
much gieatei chance of hooking youi
opposition in.
Emma Rubenstein 9/30/13 12:01 PM
Comment [11]: Youi conclusion is veiy
cleai, which is wonueiful, but it also feels
choppy iight now. It is shoit which means
you uefinitely have some ioom to elaboiate.
Expanuing on each of the iueas that you
piesent heie coulu make it flow much moie
smoothly.
John,

Thank you so much for sharing your work with me! I really admire the
passion behind this paper. You use a wonderful combination of emotion and
statistic that builds a great flow throughout your work.
My first main comment pertains to how you word your thesis. Right now,
you assert that you are against the current law that establishes a drinking age of
twenty-one. I love how clear your idea is, but I think it would be much more
effective if you worded your thesis in favor of the Amethyst Initiative. While you
implement some great support, your paper often feels defensive. I think if you
worded your ideas in favor of an idea rather than against it would make it much
more powerful and dynamic. You could still keep all of your refutation of the
twenty-one law, but could also implement great support in favor of the Amethyst
Initiative.
While I love the implementation of logic and statistics throughout your
paper, the connection between your ideas often seems muddled. While they
make perfect sense to you, your reader often becomes lost in some of your
wording. In this case, it would really help to discuss your ideas out loud. While
this may seem silly, I think talking through your logic and then writing it down
would provide your paper with a whole new level of clarity. You implement so
much valuable outside support and cleaning up your logic would really drive your
point home.
I absolutely love how you implement emotional support in your last body
paragraph. While I would suggest that you become a bit less defensive, I think
that this is a great move. It really connects your reader draws them in on a
personal level.
Keep up the good work, John! I hope that my comments were of
assistance, feel free to email the Writing Center if you have any further
questions!

Best,
Emma Rubenstein