Bradley Jones
Annotative Bibliography
English 1010
Drinking Dropped to Age 18
Personally, I am against lowering the age of drinking to 18. As I look around in our
society, drinking has been a big influence in many people’s lives. Negatively I can number
countless reasons why I believe drinking should not be allowed to be lowered. However I have
never looked deep into why we should lower these laws that prevent 18 year olds from drinking
when they have been given the responsibility of fighting for our country, take upon thousands of
dollars of debt for college, and make other critical decisions each of us make as young adults. If
they already have so much responsibility, how much of a difference would that make if we give
them a choice to drink at 18? Even better, let me ask, if the law allows 18 year olds to drink
legally, how will that change our society? Our society changes so often and this is an issue that I
find interesting in our changing nation. We already know that those who choose to drink under
the age of 21 will find ways around the law to get their hands on alcohol and other drugs. So here
are some articles and views I found.
1|Page
Daniloff, Caleb. "BU Today." BU Today RSS. Boston University, 21 Oct. 2010. Web. 04 Nov.
2012.
Beginning with history Caleb Daniloff tells about many struggles and complaints about
prohibition. When Congress passed the law banning alcohol it became a failure, so they
changed the age from 18 to 21. States regulated age of drinking differently and the
Government sought to control drunk drivers and made it a federal law to make the
minimum age of drinking 21 years old. Using examples and personal experiences,
Daniloff strives to make his point that we need more good examples of moderate drinkers
to show the young adults how to be more responsible.
Daniloff made his article both personal and professional in his statements. Sharing his
observations of what was different between different campuses, he emphasized the need
for better examples for young adults. He said “back in the ’60s, when the drinking age in
New York, where I went to school, was 18, we didn’t feel a need to do that stuff because
it was legal.” Daniloff was comparing his observation between his time and now and was
frustrated to see how our society has changed so much about this issue. Stating that the
problem was not that the law was preventing them from drinking until they were 21, but
the fact that they don’t drink with someone who has experience and is an example they
should have.
It is obvious that our society has changed from the 60’s compared to now. Like Professor
Eng, Daniloff argues that controlled environment would help resolve many issues. I agree
that a major factor of the problem is the lack of responsibility and poor example young
adults has had in their lives. Either way, peer pressure or for any other reason, people
2|Page
may choose to drink. It has negative side effects and I stand with Daniloff that we should
create more responsible and moderately controlled drinking.
Engs, Ruth C. "Why Drinking Age Should Be Lowered: Dr. Ruth Engs." N.p., 1998. Web. 05
Nov. 2012.
Professor Ruth Engs proposes that we should lower the drinking age to 18 and establish a
controlled drinking environment. Giving statistics and examples of college students
drinking out of control, he elaborates the reason is because of poor role models. He
proposes to help young college age adults in controlled environments.
Professor Engs was part of the Applied Health Sciences at Indiana University,
Bloomington, Indiana. Arguing that, “Although the legal purchase age is 21 years of age,
a majority of college students under this age consume alcohol but in an irresponsible
manner.” He mentions two historical Prohibitions, the National Prohibition in the 1920s
and state prohibition during the 1850s, and states that it is the reason so many older
teenagers are enticed to partake of the “Forbidden Fruit.” To ague his reason, he said the
percentage rates of negative effects of alcohol rose after the law established in 1987 that
prevented anyone from legally being able to buy alcohol under the age of 21. Some of the
negative rates that were measured to show the irresponsible drinkers were, vomiting after
drinking, missing class, getting into more fights, and getting low grades. From his
educational perspective, he wanted them to be in a controlled environment and believed
that would help resolve the problems of irresponsible drinkers.
3|Page
Reading Professor Engs’ argument, I found it interesting to read the percentages of
negative outcomes were because of the lack of good examples and because they wanted
to be rebellious and partake of the “forbidden fruit.” I agree that we have irresponsible
drinkers and it would do us good to have better examples, but I just can’t get over this
wall in my head that alcohol makes us dumber. When I read part of his argument the
statistics of fighting rose after more people got into fights because of drinking. Well, duh,
studies have shown that we are less cognitive when we have alcohol in our bodies. I
understand that regardless of the drinking age, we should make our drinking
environments more under control and give better role models for those who choose to
drink.
Hanson, David J., Ph. D. "Alcohol: Problems and Solutions." Potsdam Health Issues, n.d. Web.
04 Nov. 2012.
David Hanson makes a response against the old popular quote made to motivate people to
not drink, “Alcohol kills brain cells.” It has been around for a long time and he argues
about why that is not always the case. Using scientific experiments to prove his reasoning
for backing up his theory he states that brain cells can heal quickly while we choose not
to use alcohol.
David Hanson Ph. D. is a professor at the State University of New York and has been
researching alcohol and its effect on sociology for about 40 years. He has written a
number of books and has also been quoted in the New York Times and other well-known
magazines. Hanson makes many arguments to allow us to believe that drinking can
actually be good for us. He says “even in extreme cases, there is a lack of evidence that
4|Page
alcohol kills brain cells.” Mentioning the lack of evidence, he gives his experiments on
rats a say that even if alcohol does kill brain cells, they will heal themselves if the person
withdraws from drinking alcohol for a time. He mainly pushes to let those who are
drinking too much a reason to change and drink moderately is actually healthier for the
brain.
I can’t seem to grasps where Hanson gets his point that there is not enough evidence that
alcohol doesn’t kill brain cells. I feel he is contradicting himself when he argues studies
found from studying rats. I guess I could agree with him to a point, but studies have
shown that when a person is intoxicated with alcohol there cognitive thinking and
decision making are lost and the person becomes more likely to become a threat to
themselves and others. Even though Hanson never specifically points out specifically
about 18 year olds being allowed to drink, it is clear that he doesn’t have too much say
against that idea. Also, if alcohol does kill brain cells, but the brain does heal itself, what
happens to the memories that were lost? This sounds to me like it’s an excuse for people
to get dumber in our society. Making ourselves dumber is the worst thing we can do to a
rising generation that is responsible for the future of this country. Professor Eng’s theory
of controlled environments my help, but what if alcohol really does kill brain cells?
5|Page
Hemenway, David, Ph. D., and Birckmayer, Johanna, Ph. D. "Minimum-Age Drinking Laws and
Youth." Web log post. National Center for Biotechnology Information, 04 Nov. 2012.
Web. Sept. 1999.
This was an article that explains the study of the risk of death among young adults who
died with alcohol. Those teens and young adults who drank alcohol showed a higher risk
factor for death and injury. In the 1970s and 1780s, the state legislators began increasing
the age of drinking alcohol age to 21 to prevent deaths of young adults and also to reduce
drunk drivers. By the 1986, the federal government issued a law to cut drunk drivers on
the road. One major factor that was studied was the effect of suicide and fatal crashes that
was caused by or involved alcohol. This study was shown to be very against lowering the
age to 18 for those to drink.
Joanna Birckmayer and David Hemenway both worked together in this study to prove
that society would not be better with a lower drink age. Recognizing that alcohol was
obviously not the main factor they said, “Alcohol may increase the likelihood of suicide
through a variety of mechanisms, including exacerbation of depression, adverse effects
on decision-making skills under stress, and interference with the treatment of either stress
or mental illness.” They showed that alcohol did play a major factor in the suicides
committed. Using data of suicide rates, they found that with the rise of suicides that
alcohol is actually worst for the young adults. Studies showed that when the states had
their drinking age at 18, there was a higher rate of suicide compared to those states that
legalized drinking only for those over 21.
6|Page
This article and studies made showed me more evidence than opinions and I find it clear
that if we have fewer issues with teenagers causing less damage to them and others it
would definitely be better for our society. Drinking will always be an issue, but we can
either stay with the legal age of 21 to drink or lower it to 18. Reynolds argues that we
should let each individual state decide what is best. I agree with that, but from the studies
it is shown that over time all the states raised the drinking age to 21, it is clear that most
states already agree that it is the best thing to do. There is however a few states that
would oppose this, and lower the drinking age to 18.
Reynolds, Glenn H. "Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Drink." Web. Wall Street Journal.
N.p., 13 Apr. 2011. Web. 5 Nov. 2012.
Glenn Reynolds reports and elaborates about and issue about lowering the drinking age to
18 on October 2011. Bob Lynn, a representative of Alaska announced his argument to
allow the legal age to drink to be lowered. Glenn Reynolds writes to agree with Lynn’s
point of view and adds more of his own insights of why that is fair for our society. This
article points out many reasons why congress should pass a law to lower the drinking age,
or proposes that congress should leave the decision left up to each individual state.
Reynolds stands behind a strong statement when Alaska’s Representative, Bob Lynn
says, “If you get shot at, you can have a shot." Reynolds argues that this is an issue that
politicians and people alike should join in debating. This deals a lot with our constitution
and points out “Along with joining the military, 18-year-olds can vote, marry, sign
contracts, and even take on a crippling lifetime burden of student loan debt in pursuit of
7|Page
an education that may never land them a job,” but 18 year olds are not able to drink.
Reynolds really pushes to get the attention of those in congress to make the change.
Striking mainly against republicans, he tells them to stand up against limited government
like they believe. Originally it was mostly the Republicans who pushed creating the law
that lowered the drinking age, allowing the government to control more. He argues
against their own beliefs that they should have less government control, but allowing
them to control who drinks is contradicting. Reynolds also makes an argument that
“safety is the excuse, but what is really going on here is something more like prohibition.
A nation that cares about freedom—and that has already learned that prohibition was a
failure—should know better.” Telling every reader that history is about to repeat itself if
we don’t do something about it now.
I found this article very strong for a reason for allowing 18 year olds to drink. Even
though I am still opposed to lowering the drinking age, Reynolds is right about the fact
that in order to make it fair for our society, the rights belong to individual state
government. Even though his idea is very good, I just can’t help but wonder about what
happens if Utah doesn’t change the law, but the state of Nevada does choose to lower
drinking age to 21? I’m guessing that all the young college students will be taking
weekend breaks to Las Vegas and other exotic places. This is exactly what Professor Eng
was fighting against when it comes to drinking in controlled environments. Does this
mean we will need to make Las Vegas a controlled drinking environment? Yeah right,
like that’s going to happen. We already know that politically, we rarely agree on what
should be done, but giving the states a right to control what they believe is best is a good
8|Page
idea. I don’t agree with lowering the drinking age, but the more the state controls this
issue, I happen to agree with.
I know this issue has shown a great impact of how much the government seeks to control
our choices and our society. Is it for the better of our society that the government seeks to
regulate the drinking age? Before I did this research, I was completely against drinking for those
who are under 21 and would argue to a point that it would probably be better for our society
make the drinking age older. We know that that is not likely to happen, but I still don’t think it is
a good idea to lower the drinking age. Engs, Hanson and Reynolds all touched the subject of
creating controlled environments for people to learn to drink more moderately and responsibly.
This I learned to agree with, but why does this not already happen? This would actually improve
our society. We all have our own choices to make, and our personal ideas for what would be
best, but if we look at the pros and cons of lowering the drinking age, it is clear that things would
be better if they did not lower the drinking age to 18.
9|Page