Have you ever wondered why you can join the military, vote, and legally get married all at the age of 18, but yet you can't have a sip of alcohol until you are 21. You can take someone else's life and even lose your life for your country but after a long day out doing patrols and protecting our freedom, you can't unwind and drink a beer. You can elect the leader of our great nation, one who is going to make all the decision for our nation, but yet the law tells you that you can't have a drink of alcohol unless you are 21 years of age. You can make all these life decisions at the age of 18 yet for some reason the law prohibits you from making the simple choice of having an alcoholic beverage.

One of the many reasons I am interested in this topic is because I think it one of many injustices in our legal system. To me it doesn't make much sense to have something as simple as alcohol be such a high regulated thing in our society when you can do many other way more harmful and important things at a younger age. Also having the age limit set at what it is to this day imposes abuse of the substance and that creates a bigger problem. This affects me because I am currently under the legal age limit to drink alcohol, but I am of age to join the military, elect people for high positions in political office, and legalize a bond between man and a women. I just think it is an unfair law that is in place in our nation. There are plenty of other countries out there that have drinking ages 18 years and even younger and they don't have nearly as many alcohol related problems as we do with a higher drinking age limit. I think I am qualified because I am on the opposite side of the law on this one, and it affects me because I can do other things that are of more significance at my age, but are not allowed to sip a beer at the end of a long day. 

The first article I have chosen is an Informative article I found on google scholars. It mainly lays out the statistics of having the legal drinking age at 21 and why it was raised to that I the first place. It also touches on the subject of why all states decided to change the legal drinking age, with other states still being 18 at the time, teens could easily just cross borders and buy alcohol in a state with  lower legal drinking age, so this really only created a bigger problem. That's why this article states how the federal government forced a law that was more of a punishment for states with a lower drinking age. This article was mainly informative so the major values were primarily unbiased. All three authors who added to this pieces all have PhD's relating to alcohol and health, so they are highly credible to add input on this topic.

My second source is an argumentative piece found on google. The author has a strong opinion to change the drinking age to 18 from 21. She brings up numerous points on how the higher drinking age is only creating more problems of underage drinking. She states that with a lower drinking age there should be other precautions to go with it, like educating the youth on alcohol so the abuse rate will go down. And she brings up a point to compare that to driving a car and taking driving tests. Also she bring up a counterclaim to her point and how there are other factors that go into play that aren't just because of a lower drinking age. This article has a heavy bias towards lowering the drinking age. The author is credible for this topic because she is a professor at a well-established university, and she also has a PhD. She is also part of the department of public health at the University of Indiana. 

In my final source, it is an article posted in the New York Times. The author makes a stance on lowering the drinking age to 18 from 21. She makes a point how the 21 drinking age has done nothing but made illegal underage drinking more prevalent and dangerous. Younger kids like freshman in college who are around 18 and are surrounded by alcohol are abusing alcohol because they don't have proper education on the effects of alcohol. This leads to worse problems than if the legal drinking age was lowered. This has spiked the amount of binge drinking that has gone on. Then she begins to bring up other things that people can do at the age of 18 that hold more responsibility than drinking alcohol. She is a profound writer and journalist. She works for the New York Times and also teaches at a well-established university, this all gives her credibility to talk about this subject.

This question is arguable because you can either take the side of yes the drinking age should be lowered back down to 18 years of age, or you are on the other side of the fence and want it to stay at the age of 21. Both sides have evidence that support your beliefs and you can argue both sides. The two arguments with bias both bring up what you can do at 18 but can't do at 21 and state how they are outrageous. Also the informative piece brings up a reason why the age was raised, but the other sides refute that statement. They don't really effect my perspective because I agree with the majority of my sources. I don't think I will have to revise my research question at all because it is pretty specific and you can argue both sides.
