The law installing legal ages at which people can drink is a part of regulatory legal policy in some countries. Although there are countries which believe that such a law is unnecessary, I side with those who have officially fixed the permissible ages for drinking.
On the one hand, it is claimed that not having severe laws gives freedom and independency to citizens in decision-making. In this case, the absence of drinking age legalization can lead to the people’s possibility to brainstorm and choose the scenery that appeals to them. If one is restricted in personal rights, he or she will feel tension and inferiority. Moreover, supporters of this view argued that parents should have the opportunity to choose what is better for their children, whether to drink at an early age or not. Family discussions and conclusions on this topic are said to be an essential part of children’s education.
However, in my opinion, having legal ages at which people might drink is undoubtedly crucial and needful. First, the government of the country should control teenagers’ behaviour. Youngers might be uncontrolled and careless and maker a shy decisions when drinking possibly leading to harming themselves and surrounding. Nonetheless, the most significant argument is the government’s care of its citizens, social and legal order. When the ages at which people can drink are legalised, the country shows its interest in the safety of the lives of its citizens. As a result, it prevents possible accidents and controls the stability and flourish of the population.
In conclusion, even though there are advocates of not having strict laws of age for drinking, considering that it gives personal liberty and helps parents to educate their children as they desire, such a law contributes to avoiding accidents and controlling teenagers’ behaviour. Therefore, on balance, I believe that countries who already have legal ages at which their citizens might drink have made the most rational and conscious decision.