Jordan Bryant-Smith
10/23/14
English 120
John Small

Lowering the drinking age from 21 to 19 seems to be an automatic yes for college students under 21, but is it actually anything genuinely wrong with lowering the drinking age?
Are there any potential benefits to restoring the drinking law to pre-1984 levels?

In an article written for CNN, William Cohan argues that the standard drinking age is “all a farce”(Cohan), when alcohol consumption should be the first step towards responsibility.
Robert Voas from CSMonitor, however, believes there is no possible benefit to lowering the drinking age. Both authors want to solve the problem of underage binge drinking. Cohan and
Voas also agree that the minimum drinking age is not enforced strongly enough, however, they disagree on the effectiveness of the law. Robert Voas believes that the minimum drinking age is effective as it stands and lowering it would be a huge mistake. He feels particularly that society would be beneficial would be better off with the current law. In contrast, William Cohan argues that the national drinking law is incredibly ineffective and should be lowered to 19.

William Cohan wants to solve the issue regarding underage binge drinking by simply lowering the law to 19. Cohan referred to the minimum age law as a “national joke” (Cohan), after considering the frequency of its violation, “every week if not every day”(Cohan). He asserts that we should completely refocus our attention instead to zero-tolerance policies involving driving. Cohan believes the threat of having his or her driving privileges suspend for at least three years is a strong enough deterrent for driving while intoxicated. Cohan writes with a sense of urgency and uses examples of other countries to back up his point. He depicts the story of a exotic dancer in Durham, North Carolina:
It’s been eight