It might be convenient for those who are involved in the partying scene, but safety should not be undermined for convenience and shallow excuses. It might seem like a smart idea when one considers the facts, and hey, Amsterdam and Germany are exceptions, right?
Please, enough of those unsatisfying comparisons.
Before we challenge the state to change the law, we must challenge ourselves to be responsible, level-headed adults.
First, underage drinking is more rampant than it should be in high schools and, even middle schools. Alcohol abuse early in life has been proved to be unhealthy in both the short-term and long-term.
Changing the law would be a severe medical risk on more than one level, and deep down we all know that safety is one of the law's prime intentions.
Also, with this newly found independence, teens would unquestionably return to school in the morning with hangovers. Do we really want even more bad influences like this to destroy our schools?
I'm exhausted of hearing and seeing my peers waste their time and minds by their drinking and excessive partying on weekends. If the law were to change, this lifestyle would seep into the weekdays, and Friday and Saturday nights would only become more dangerous.
Other teenagers, those who chose not to engage in such activities, should not have to be at a disadvantage simply because others decide to be destructive.
In the end, all teenagers know that the drinking age should stay as it is, at the ripe old age of 21.
The main reason many are so eager to get the law changed is so they do not have to hide from punishment or shame from parents anymore. If you're ashamed of doing something, that should be reason not to do it.
In many "highly educated" perspectives, 18 seems to be the age when we know we're wise enough to be in control of what we do, how to act, and how to live. Let's get real, though: The drinking age is there for a reason -- to control those who think it should be lowered to 18.
Hannah Foerster is a senior at Lakeside High School.