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
Reality-Based Education Works.
- 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.
Not only "this", but "work"
Not only has "this" not been well defined (and there can be many unexplored "this"es) but "work" has not either. Is the goal to prevent persons under 21 from drinking period (limited prohibition), to lower drunk-driving incidents, to lower all alcohol related crimes (weighted?), to minimize the number of persons drinking illegally (then make the age 0)? What is presenting itself empirically is that these - and similar - goals can mutually exclusive; or at least loosely correlated.
- polobo
August 22, 2008 3:00PM
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.
What kind of good (public/private) is alcohol?
Your "this" seems to represent inconsistent treatment of alcohol as well. There are two general kinds of goods in a society: public (taxpayer) goods and private goods produced and consumed (with possible regulation) by individuals. FAIK most laws regarding private goods either prohibit them or restrict their use to adults (generally acknowledged as being 18 years of age). Public goods legislation basically establishes permits. Permits impose conditions on all members of society who wish to use that specific good and any member who passes can use the good.
The inconsistency in this proposal is the alcohol is a private good whereas your proposed legislation treats it as a public good. To the degree that the Constitution has aligned public/private goods legislation in this manner your proposal may be no better than the current law which is at least consistent in it treatment of a private good (albeit with a too-high restriction age).
- polobo
August 22, 2008 3:15PM
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.
You are either an adult at 18 or 21.
If an 18 year old is able to go to war or even go into the porn industry , why can't they drink? It been said that an 18 year is not mature to handle alcohol but sending them war is better than them having a drink. They are more likely to be psychologically damaged from going to war than having a drink. The fact that this is a debate means that an 18 year individual is not seen as adult. Therefore in my opinion the law should be more specific you are an adult at 18 or 21. Not being an adult for somethings at 18 and an adult for other things at 21.
- Tamara
August 27, 2008 4:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Permits prevent drinking but laws don't?
This arguement is just silly. They're arguing that a revokable permit will keep people from drinking if they misbehave whereas a law permitting all below 21 to drink doesn't stop them!
And they're arguing to adopt something that hasn't been tried because there's no evidence against it!
This is a group with no reality contact - just a need to sell booze! And they've conned college presidents.
Why not propose things that DO work? Why not enforce laws against drinking instead of revoking them? Why not spend all that education money that's supposed to be effective on educating not to drink instead of educating to drink? Or educating how to drink when 21?
If all those European countries have such success, then how about some specific suggestions based on those successes? With all those countries, surely there would be a course such as suggested. Either these folks havent bothered to research their subject or it doesn't work - surely someone would have tried an education course in one of those countries?
- larrylangdon
September 4, 2008 9:10AM
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.