In ever-increasing world, some countries have legal ages at which people can drink. Some people think that not have strict laws is more valuable policy. I will discuss both views in detail with relevant examples before presenting my personal take on the matter.
One the one hand, there is heated debate that do not have strict laws is a better policy for people who can drink in any legal ages. Firstly, if government allows to individuals to drink in any ages without restrictoin, it leds to spread out underground drinking and binge behaviour among youth. To be more precise, individuals, particularly teenagers, have a tendency to drink not only alcahol but also others. Spread out drinking among them impacts not only government but also habitats. As a result, it leds to increase a crime and larceny. For instance, countries like Germany and Italy permit to drink without any laws, as a result, in these countries have a great tendency to occure crime and lerceny.
Conversily, research has shown that early exposure to alcohol can lead to a range of negative outcomes, including addiction, impaired brain development, and risky behaviors. For prevent these problems, government should orginize strict laws or enforce people. While strict laws serve to protect youth from the dangers of alcohol, more lenient policies may promote healthier attitudes towards drinking. From my point of view, orginizing strict laws and enforce individuals would be more benificial and effective.
To conclude, while some countries allow to their citizens to drink without any restriction, others think that it is not a good way, we should use strict laws or enforce people then it may be affordible. I discussed both views in detail and also gave my own opinion. Impose strickt laws is a benificial way.