Do you remember your first taste of alcohol? How old were you? Twenty-one? All 50 states currently demand that their citizens reach age 21 before they can legally drink. But there's a growing movement that says mandatory minimum laws may do more harm than good. When determining the right date when a young person can take one of their final steps towards personal responsibility and freedom, what's the right answer?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
The reason why the 70's failed is because we simply lowered the drinking age overnight and did nothing beyond that. One of the biggest points I believe Choose Responsibility and even perhaps Amethyst Initiative advocate is education, education, and more education. Bring drinking back into the home under parental supervision, and have 18-20 year olds pass in-depth, hands-on education classes which stress how to drink properly, responsibly, when drinking is appropriate, and more.
Lowering the age and doing nothing else in my opinion can be just as poor of a decision as raising it to 21 and simply hoping it will take care of itself.
- mburmei1
August 20, 2008 6:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
5
5
8
3
5
4
6
4
1
4
5
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
History Speaks for Itself: Prohibition Doesn't Work
- From Choose Responsibility
By Choose Responsibility - Balance, Maturity, Common Sense
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
An Ounce of History
I had a professor, Dr. Dwight Compton who often said, "An ounce of history is worth a pound of reasoning." The history of the prohibition movement was that alcohol was then a right and alcoholism rates were at a historical high. With no known treatment except for a deep religious experience it seemed like the best choice for all. They had the problem one/half right, this issue was alcohol, but what about the role of the individual and the environment where they lived? Prohibition did work for a period of time. But it was a prevention model that would ultimately be doomed. Delaying the age of use should not be linked to the Prhibition movement. We must reduce alcohol related problems by finding the right prevention model that works in the 21st Century.
- Gary Hall August 20, 2008 9:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What about "Prohibition" of alcohol for 14 year olds?
I am baffled by this "Prohibition Doesn't Work" argument, which frankly strikes me as unworthy of its presenters. It simply doesn't follow that because a sweeping prohibition of all alcohol for all ages, decades ago, didn't work, that it is therefore a bad idea to prohibit alcohol for 18-20 years old. If the generalization that prohibition doesn't work holds, then why prohibit alcohol for 14 year olds? The issue is not whether it makes sense for society to tell a 40 year old that he or she can't have a drink after work. The issue is whether 18 to 20 year olds, as a group, are different from older adults in that they are at more risk for drinking-related problems. That issue is fair and raises empirical questions. "Prohibition Doesn't Work" is just rhetoric.
- Dale
August 27, 2008 9:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
14 year olds aren't adults.
One being at higher risk for drinking-related problems is not a basis for banning that group of people. Women are at higher risk for brain damage from alcohol consumption, but it is not logical to ban alcoholic consumption for women. Likewise for fully aware and consenting young adults.
Also a quick side-point which questions that 18-20 year olds are even at greater risk, refer here. You can find the studies cited on the bottom:
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/InTheNews/UnderageDrinking/20060830151926.html
- mburmei1
August 27, 2008 12:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Prohibition
From my limited understanding the prohibition cure was worse than the disease. Congress, instead of trying to remove the side-effects decided that it was better/easier just to repeal prohibition. The current limited prohibition as currently written is "wrong" only in that it contradicts established protocol related to private goods regulation for individual use. Additionally, it punishes people for partaking in an activity that many people, of all ages, can and do perform responsibly for entertainment and relaxation.
Given our existing framework of laws and regulations as a basis I do not see enough about alcohol that is different from existing drugs for it to warrant special treatment. Current drugs are either fully prohibited or restricted to use by adults, the age of which - while undefined legally - is effectively 18 since individuals are automatically emancipated at 18 if they so choose (or their parents kick them out).
- polobo
August 27, 2008 2:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.