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:
4
6
4
1
5
5
5
8
3
5
4
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
- From GHSA
By Governors Highway Safety Association - The States' Voice on Highway Safety
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Stats Needed
Prior to the voting age change, some states had drinking ages of less than 21. NYS allowed the consumption of any alcoholic beverage from the age of 18. Some states allowed beer only. And some of those states allowed 3.2 beer only.
What needs to be done is a study of those states that went from an age of 21 to 18, and only those states. Compare the accidents, arrests and fatalities, both before and after the age change, of those between the ages of 18 and 21 with the rest of the driving population on a per mile basis. Also compare the statistics of the 18 to 21 age group under the two different drinking limits as a raw number. Consideration should also be given to cross border drinking, ie NJ to NY
Until I see some statistics like this, I'm not going to be swayed by theories.
- BobC August 27, 2008 4:52AM
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.
Limited Focus
A bad law implemented for good reasons is still a bad law. If even a single person's liberties are trampled upon in the name of prevention can we still claim to respect individual liberties?
The focus of your numbers are purely from a drinking and driving standpoint though other crimes can be linked to drinking. The reason the law "works" is that it tramples upon enough people to be measurable but not enough to cause actionable outrage. The damage causing actions are already illegal and tying them to intoxication by invoking harsher punishments to impaired individuals we be the best public action. Otherwise, I feel there is some root cause (parenting, education, enforcement) that needs to be looked at.
Some other numbers (part = percentage + absolute ratio)
What part of the population have children?
What part of the adult/child populations commit crimes while intoxicated (actual and estimated)?
What part of the adult/child populations drink?
- polobo
August 27, 2008 9:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
just what we need...more drunks!
We obviously are in short supply of drunk drivers killing people if anyone believes the age should be lowered. The consumption of alcohol is already out of control. It's mind blowing to realize there are individuals who support this. Good grief what's next? sex and alcohol in public? I don't have to experience the awful grief of losing someone I love to a drunk driver in order to see how ridiculous this question is.
- kim42
October 2, 2008 4:11AM
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.