Some countries have legal ages at which people can drink. Other countries believe not have strict laws is a better policy. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.

In

this

contemporary era, Several nations have legal ages at which individuals can drink.

Besides

,other states think not having a solid body of laws is a greater strategy.In

this

essay,we will discuss both views.

To begin

with,it is important to acknowledge that the commonly used plan provides youngsters with some specific facts and solutions to possible problems,as schemes are capable of reducing alcohol-related injuries and deaths.

However

,

this

would not only remove health issues with youth but

also

can decrease the crime rate in society, resulting in a more stable condition of family and community, as these juveniles,in turn,will work for civilization in the upcoming year as Doctors, Engineers,Teachers and so on.

Therefore

, supporters of

this

approach argue that teens are not mature enough to handle the effects of cocktails and that setting a valid taking age is a way to protect them from harm.

On the other hand

, the majority of individuals say that harsh rules and regulations are not always effective in preventing underage swallowing and that children will obtain ethanol regardless of the legal duration.They argue that a more relaxed approach,

such

as education and parental guidance would be more effective in stopping liquor abuse among young people.

Additionally

, it should be reviewed and adjusted

according to

the cultural,social and economic context. In conclusion,

while

having a legal swilling period is a commonly used strategy to protect kids, it's not without its flaws. It should be enforced with other measures and be adjusted

according to

the cultural, social and economic contexts.

Furthermore

, it should not disproportionately affect certain groups and be consistent with cultural norms and beliefs