Perils of Prohibition, Essay Example

Analyzing Elizabeth Whelan’s “Perils of Prohibition” 

Thesis: There are two major points in Elizabeth Whelan’s article that I find to be the most persuasive for lowering the drinking age to 18. First of all, it is that the forbidden fruit does taste better than the allowed one. And secondly, while being treated as adults and required to fulfill almost all the responsibilities of adults, 18-year-olds don’t have the access to one of the major attributes of adult life in our culture – alcohol.

What I truly liked about Whelan’s article is that she stated her point of view and showed her concern for the problem from both the position of a specialist in the health science and the position of a mother whose child might be in danger because of the stated problem. I find this approach to be quite a persuasive one, because it makes author’s argument less official and more personal. People always get persuaded on real examples rather than on some abstract ones.

First of all, it is absolutely true that the more something is banned, the greater desire appears to do that something. It is simply human psychology and we can do nothing about it. Thus the more American laws forbid drinking, the greater there the desire by adolescents to taste what it is like. One of the major reasons why Whelan proposes to lower drinking age to 18 is that if teenagers will be allowed to start drinking at that age and under the supervision of their parents, then they will have less temptation to drink secretly at a younger age and they won’t have “let’s make up for lost time attitude” (paragraph 11) when they will arrive on campus with no parents standing behind their backs.

The point that was raised by Whelan and which I find to be absolutely true and persuasive is that in our culture we don’t have the etiquette of drinking. To have a glass of wine during a dinner is a beautiful practice, but to secretly get drunk somewhere on the street or in somebody else’s car is absolutely an ugly thing to do. But unfortunately our teenagers learn how to perform the ugly practice rather than the beautiful one. Such a situation occurs mainly because adults simply forbid their kids to drink, but they don’t explain and discuss all the pros and cons of the problem. And at this point Whelan is absolutely right. It seems like nowadays young people are treated far “less like children” (paragraph 6) concerning all the spheres except for alcohol.  That’s why “the twenty-one restriction seem anachronistic” (paragraph 6). I think that the point that Whelan wanted to raise by this phrase is that time passes and generations change therefore what was logical and just 50 years ago may be a bit illogical and unjust in the modern world.

Furthermore, teenagers should learn about different particularities of drinking and how to make it safer in the same way as they learn about safe sex. Fortunately or unfortunately, to have sex and to drink is somewhat in human nature and this practices cannot be absolutely banned, especially if to take into account the amount of sex and drinking that is shown on TV, in movies, magazines, etc. Thus it is quite illogical that while propagandizing safe sex and benefits of teen abstinence our society allows young people to get married at 18, but at the same age forbids consuming any alcohol. The responsibility connected with marriage and sex is quite the same as that connected with drinking. If 18-year-olds are considered to be enough responsible to get married and build a family, then they are automatically enough sensible to drink and face all the consequences of it. In 18 young people are allowed and forced to do all the things that adults perform thus it’s meaningless to forbid them to drink. In the heads of many adolescents this banishment only develops the feeling of injustice and the desire to prove that they can drink in the same way as adults do.

The use of examples about college students, who find themselves involved in problems due to drinking or more importantly due to their inability to drink consciously, is also a persuasive argument. It is considered absolutely normal to make small kids injections against various diseases so that they won’t get ill when they grow up. Why then it’s not normal to start preparing kids to “drink sensibly and avoid the pitfall” (paragraph 7) in the early age? “If eighteen-year-olds don’t have legal access to even a beer at a public place, they have no experience of handling liquor on their own” (paragraph 11). It doesn’t mean that parents should encourage their children to drink, but they can teach them how to drink “gradually, safely, and in moderation” (paragraph 2), so that when they come to college they won’t have the desire to drink that often and in such great amounts as were shown by the Harvard study of teenage drinking. That’s what Elizabeth Whelan and her husband do as a part of their daughter’s education. I find this tactic of showing on the example of her daughter the positive effects of ‘alcohol education’ to be a very persuasive element of the article. By it Whelan shows that she doesn’t only talk about the necessity to change the law and the attitude of people towards it, but there are some real actions and effects standing behind her arguments.

Thus, in overall, I can draw a conclusion that for me Elizabeth Whelan’s article was absolutely persuasive. All the evidence that she used to support her point of view made me feel and think that she is absolutely right in her statement that present American law concerning access to alcohol by teenagers is quite an unrealistic one. This doesn’t mean that it’s wrong in its origin, but as time passes certain transformations and corrections should be made, so that the law would be up-to-date and will reflect the interests and the position of the modern American society for which it is made.

Works Cited

Whelan, Elizabeth M. “Perils of Prohibition: Why We Should Lower the Drinking Age to 18.” Newsweek (May, 1995).