As society is currently being restricted from many activities by regulations set out by the government body, it is important that we stand up for our own rights and live the good life while we have it.
The status quo recognises the legal drinking age to be renowned to all Australians as 18 years of age, however some people seek to change this limit to 21 years of age. I seek to oppose this statement. We have acknowledged the age of 18 to be rational actors who have capabilities to make informed choices, if this acknowledgement is still unstable to this day, when will it be decided? We all mature at different times so, would it be any better?
The negative team as a collective, believe that the status quo is fit at its current state and will provide the utilitarian outcome for Australian citizens, regarding …show more content…
There are many benefits that arise from the flexibility of the legal drinking age, such as the discouragement of black-marketing of alcohol, or any other illegal selling of alcohol that tends to arise once regulations are placed strictly on society.
The power this argument holds is that we can limit the freedom of choice just as easily as we allow it. Once the drinking gets out of hand and turns against the harm principle in order to hurt individuals around the drinker, the individual will be deemed irrational and as a result action will be taken by the state to prevent the drinker from continuing.
Weighing the harms and benefits of the detrimental effects and violence alcohol creates vs the freedom of choosing how an individual lives their life, I believe that by being able to create the utilitarian outcome for both sides, I have a strong presumption in favour of the freedom of choice when it comes to drinking alcohol. Therefore, the negative believe we have won this
The status quo recognises the legal drinking age to be renowned to all Australians as 18 years of age, however some people seek to change this limit to 21 years of age. I seek to oppose this statement. We have acknowledged the age of 18 to be rational actors who have capabilities to make informed choices, if this acknowledgement is still unstable to this day, when will it be decided? We all mature at different times so, would it be any better?
The negative team as a collective, believe that the status quo is fit at its current state and will provide the utilitarian outcome for Australian citizens, regarding …show more content…
There are many benefits that arise from the flexibility of the legal drinking age, such as the discouragement of black-marketing of alcohol, or any other illegal selling of alcohol that tends to arise once regulations are placed strictly on society.
The power this argument holds is that we can limit the freedom of choice just as easily as we allow it. Once the drinking gets out of hand and turns against the harm principle in order to hurt individuals around the drinker, the individual will be deemed irrational and as a result action will be taken by the state to prevent the drinker from continuing.
Weighing the harms and benefits of the detrimental effects and violence alcohol creates vs the freedom of choosing how an individual lives their life, I believe that by being able to create the utilitarian outcome for both sides, I have a strong presumption in favour of the freedom of choice when it comes to drinking alcohol. Therefore, the negative believe we have won this