Drinking law is necessary

With reference to Monday’s editorial article “Bad news for boozers,” (IDS Mar. 24) I would like to commend the professionalism endorsed, as it is a good thing to practice as we preach. That is to say, laws are often created for good reasons, though not everyone may share the same viewpoint about it. However, what truly caught my attention was the belief of the Editorial Board that the legal drinking age of 21 “should be lowered.” The Editorial Board pointed out the discrimination towards those between the age of 18 and 21 who can buy cigarettes and have a say in choosing the next commander in chief but are prohibited from dirt cheap Bud Lights from the Village Pantry. Why does that logic pique my concern? Firstly, back in my home country, Malaysia, I have socially indulged in alcohol ever since my 18th birthday. After coming to the states in August 2007, I was surprised to know that I had to wait another seven months before I could stop asking favors from legal-age friends. I did not understand why it seemed to me that only the United States decided to piss young adults off with a theoretically absurd drinking rule. Soon enough, I saw why. Previously in Malaysia (and many other countries), the freedom of expression was not enforced with enough transparency. People could not say nor do anything they please whenever they want. In comparison, in the United States, too many teenagers have caused much mental duress to the authority figures as a result of immaturity that was often linked to underage drinking. Too many people in the United States have misused their freedom of expression, especially before they reach their coming of age at 21. The drinking law is a necessary evil. You do not often hear people saying how they have done something they regret because of smoking some Camels or choosing Bush for the presidency now, do you? \nAnd just to self-indulge a little here, I also want to say that I have just turned 21 over spring break. Hah.