Highly debated, periodically changed, and morally questionable describe the roots for the controversial minimum drinking age in the United States. As a society, we will never live in a perfect world. Likewise, there will never be a perfect solution to the minimum drinking age laws. In a case like this, the best option seems to be simply collecting the pros and cons and formulating a stance based on the findings. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, "Excessive drinking is responsible for more than 4,300 deaths among underage youth each year, and cost the U.S. $24 billion in economic costs in 2010." That fact alone might sway someone to agree with the current twenty-one and older alcohol consumption law. On the other hand, personally being underage provides me with a different perspective. I want to know why are we given the liberties to operate a car, vote on our president, and serve in the military all before the age of twenty-one but cannot legally consume alcoholic beverages.

Underage drinking was not my first choice as a research topic for this class, actually, I was planning on writing about whether or not college athletes should be paid. Unfortunately, first semester I did a research paper on the very subject so I decided it was better for me to learn about something new. Fast forward a couple days, and our class was throwing around research ideas and underage drinking was one that caught my attention. This research question does affect me in a couple ways. First, I am underage and in college where the drinking environment is noticeable twenty-four seven. Now whether I chose to participate or not, the drinking atmosphere is still relevant. Most people in school here at USC know at least one if not multiple people who have been in trouble with the school and or the police because of drinking related incidents stemming from being underage. Secondly, my brother who is only a year older than I and is in the United States Navy is permitted to protect our country but cannot have the luxury of drinking alcohol; seems a little dubious to me. As of now, I would not consider myself qualified to write a complete paper on this topic. Although, after I do the proper research and push myself to learn about this subject and form valid arguments, then I believe I will be qualified.

My three current sources come from a medical journal, an economic journal, and a journal for policy analysis and management. The first one I looked at was from the Journal of the American Medical Associates. In the article, the argument being proved is that there is a spike in unintentional injury involvement after drinking for underage drinkers compared to legal drinkers. The evidence used in the article was a study called "The National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiology Survey." Clearly the authors of the article are subsequently proving that underage drinking is harmful and should be avoided. If they had done a poor job proving their point, then it could have given support to the opposition of the argument. Three of the authors have medical backgrounds and that provides them with bias because they know the real health affects alcohol has. The last author has a statistics background which facilitated the numerical evidence and the proper data to backup their claims. 

The economic article, titled "The Minimum Legal Drinking Age and Public Health" written by a professor at Vanderbilt University, is arguing that the current legislature enforcing the drinking age of twenty-one is incorrect and is actually more dangerous than if the laws were set at a younger age. This article is bold in the fact that there are not many academic articles written opposing the current drinking age. The evidence provided in the article comes from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, National Vital Statistics, and the National Surveys on Drug and Health. I trust this author because he has done studies in all sorts of related fields including, health economics, labor economics, and alcohol. 

My final source comes from the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management and is comparable to my first, it is similar because this article is also about injuries sustained by underage drinkers while under the influence, except in this article it is specific to car related injuries. There is not much risk producing an article like this one because there are already numerous backers to its central claim: the minimum drinking age should not be lowered. The author is credible in my eyes because he is a weathered professor at Northwestern University and has been on economic research cases for decades. The evidence for this article is centered around "Monthly Wisconsin time-series data from 1976 to 1993" (Figlio). With this data, Figio is looking for the connection between the increased drinking age and alcohol related crashes encompassing teenagers. Clearly, the author knows how to translate data into arguments. 

My research question, why the drinking age should not be twenty-one, is a difficult one because from my research thus far there are lots of claims proving the dangers of underage drinking, therefore, compelling the minimum drinking age of twenty-one. Two on my sources provide what they claim as evidence for the side of, more people get injured while drinking underage and the third claims it has evidence that proves the opposite. As of now, I side with the article outlining the cons of having the increased drinking age. I made sure my sources were relatively current because that allows for most of the current technology to be used in the research for these claims; in return, making them more credible. I might have to revise my research question depending on how many sources I can find that support both possible claims.

