17 January 2013
Comparative Analysis Popular topics in our world and culture consist of alcohol and drug usage, as well as, the abusive side of these influences. Therefore, many articles can be found about these intriguing topics; however, not all of the articles are proficient or commendable. Drew K. Saylor created a better argument with her article, “Heavy Drinking on College Campuses: No Reason to Change Minimum Legal Drinking Age of 21”, than Richard M. Eckersley did in his article, “’Cultural Fraud’: the role of culture in drug abuse” because Saylor was dedicated to her argument and supplied adequate examples while Eckersley appeared to not stay on topic. By reading the title, “Heavy Drinking on College Campuses: No Reason to Change Minimum Legal Drinking Age of 21”, by Drew K. Saylor, you would know exactly what the article is about. Saylor does not stray from her viewpoint that the MLDA 21 should not be lowered. Instead, she believes that, “…we should seek to add to and improve this effort with increased enforcement, additional legislation, and efficacious interventions” (Saylor 332). Not only has there been a plentiful amount of research that supports the MLDA 21, such as, it “…has had more subtle but equally important effect on alcohol-related traffic injuries and fatalities by increasing the separation between drinking and driving among the under 21 population”, but Saylor also reinforces her argument with the account of the negative effects that occurred in New Zealand when they lowered their legal drinking age. In regards to other forms of ending alcohol abuse on college campuses, such as, “…brief motivational interventions”, the MLDA 21 effectiveness is far superior (Saylor 331).
In addition, Research Coordinator of Behavioral Health and Technology, Drew K. Saylor’s literature review, “Heavy Drinking on College Campuses: No Reason to Change Minimum Legal Drinking Age of 21” asserts that lowering the MLDA 21 would be greatly ineffective. She supports this claim by stating that there is not any evidence that supports lowering the legal drinking age, and if the age limit was lowered, then other laws in association would be negatively affected; therefore, causing chaos and confusion. Saylor’s purpose is to persuade readers to believe that we must remain committed to enforcing the laws that have already been established. She adopts a strong argumentative tone for her audience, the readers of Journal of American College Health and others interested in the topic of heavy drinking on college campuses and reasons to not lower the legal drinking age.
In contrast to how vigorous Saylor is in her argument, author Richard M. Eckersley can be considered impotent with his argument in his article, “’Cultural Fraud’: the role of culture in drug abuse”. Eckersley means well by illustrating the many aspects of culture, and by defining it as, “…-associated with minority status, ethnicity or race;”, and “the underlying [assumption] of an entire way of life, [that allows] us to make sense of the world and our lives” (157). His argument is that “aspects of modern western culture are a potent and under-estimated social factor behind drug use and abuse”; yet, he fails to truly commit to describing and supporting the connection between culture and drug abuse (Eckersley 157). Instead, he mentions and emphasizes the connection between culture and the general heath of people. For example, in contrast to his title, Eckersley explains that, “The paper is, then, concerned less with the need for specific policy or programme interventions to reduce harmful drug use than it is with the case for a deep cultural change to promote better population health and well-being” (157).
Lastly, in the article, “Cultural Fraud: the role of culture in drug abuse”, the author Richard M. Eckersley, BSC (Hon), asserts that aspects of