A vast majority of countries have legal drinking age, prohibiting to drink alcohol who under it, primarly because maintain the health of people. However, some countries argue that strict laws on drinking could reduce the freedom of individuals, therefore choose do not have a legal age for it. This essay will examine both perspectives before reaching a conclusion.
On the one hand, proponents of legal drinking age believe that this policy contributes to healthy nation, especially healthy young people. The main reason for this beleif is that detrimental effects caused by alcohol. Young individuals may not comprehend the consequences of drinking, while this policy will give them ample of time to rethink about it. Research conducted by Global Health Union revealed that drinking alcohol from early ages leads to life shortage, alongside potential liver and lung cancer. Therefore, by prohibiting drinking to young people, the government can avoid sick population.
On the other hand, one of compelling arguments of advocates of not having strict laws regarding alcohol is freedom of choice. In other words, comsumers should be able to buy what they want despite their ages, and deintroducing law against alcohol will lead to more freedom and increase people’s trust towards the government. For instance, survey conducted at the Ohio State revealed that people become more trustful to the government and feel themselves more free since legal age for drinking has removed. This demonstrates that removing the legal drinking age leads to population who trust the government and feel freedom.
In conclusion, although removing legal age will offer benefits like freedom of choice, I frimly believe that introducing legal age leads to health nation.