"Peer Response"

In reading Kat Saltarelli's blog post on two opposing articles, I found it very interesting how she used Mifflin block party to catch the audiences attention. She talks about how she attended Mifflin block party and that when she was there she didn't see anyone who didn't have a drink in their hands. Kat then goes into summarizing the two articles. One article is pro keeping the drinking age at 21 and one is not. In the article about keeping the drinking age at 21 the author argues that the drinking age should stay at 21 because the drinking related deaths while driving a motor vehicle have decreased in the age category of 16-20 since raising the drinking age to 21. The other article argues that the drinking age should be lowered because kids don't learn how to drink responsibility at a young enough age. It also says that it leads to binge drinking which is very dangerous. The article also talks about how having the drinking age at 21 gives a "forbidden fruit" effect amongst kids. The article says that when it is illegal for kids to drink they often times do so because it is illegal and they want to rebel. Kat talks about how many college students were underage at Mifflin and that having alcohol be illegal is not going to stop kids from drinking. Kat agrees with lowering the drinking age and mentions in her blog post that she wishes that the article arguing to lower the drinking age would have made some other arguments as well. These are that if you can die for your country then you should be able to drink. Also, that when you are 18 you are legal to do anything except for drink and that that isn't fair. I agree with Kat that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 or 19 years old. In this article about why the drinking age should be lowered a professor at the University of Indiana makes some good points about why the drinking age should be lowered.