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:
It truly does seem absurt that an adult of 18 who can be drafted into compulsory military service to die for his or her (in the 21st century, who knows if the draft won't apply to females?) country cannot even console himself by sitting down legally with a cold beer or a lively shot of Jaeger. And, as always, the issue of the divorce between law and practice--'de jure' and 'de facto'--comes into play. As a young man myself, I can hardly think of any single individual who has made it to the age of 21 without a substantial drinking history. Why legislate something which is hardly taken seriously by anyone?
- Professor Chris July 11, 2008 5:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
I agree with Professor Chris. You can't really ask soldiers to die for us and then tell them they cannot have a drink in the United States. Its absurd. As we all know, they are drinking already not that it makes it right. But let's get our head out of the sand!
- slyv
July 12, 2008 9:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I do not believe that Age is what makes a person an adult. Neither does their ability to serve in the Military. The law of our country has made it so that our Kids 18-21 can die in the service of our country.
Just because we allow that does not mean we should make it easier for them to kill themselves and others with a loaded bottle of Alcohol.
- UltraConservative August 19, 2008 4:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
There is one problem. They are legal adults, not kids like you assume. And just like smoking a cigarette or joining the military, drinking alcohol is a personal decision that must be made by a legal adult who is fully aware and accepts the consequences of it. 18-20 year olds aren't incapable of drinking responsibly, so we should stop acting like it. As long as we educate them while promoting responsibility and maturity, they should be allowed to possess and consume alcoholic beverages, especially within the home!
- mburmei1 August 20, 2008 7:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If age doesn't determine adulthood, what does? Biologically, Humans are adults once they finish puberty ~13-16. Don't complain too much about 18 being too young.
- Nickel April 29, 2009 4:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I do not believe any of these regulations should be the measure of an adult, least of all drinking age. Drinking, by its very nature, is irresponsible. Yes, I am saying "responsible drinking" is an oxymoron. We drink to leave behind the responsibilities of the work day. We poison our body and alter our judgment.
Lowering the drinking age is slapping a band-aid on the problem so its legal in college, where the law isn't taken serious anyways.
- N Barlow August 19, 2008 4:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Moderate drinking not only offers no real negative side effects but it is extremely good for the heart and is associated with longevity. It's when one drinks in excess that it harms the body and leads to bad decision making.
Refer: http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/alcoholandhealth.html
Not only the above points, but in the safety of the home, perhaps leaving behind the responsibilities of the work day for an hour or two can be a healthy outlet.
- mburmei1 August 27, 2008 1:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
As I've read in several other comments, at 18, you're legally an adult. At that point you can serve in the military, get married, buy a house, etc. So, if you're deemed capable of handling these responsiblities by the federal and state governments, why can't you handle the responsiblity of having a drink or two? Like mmsomekid said above, "People seem to confuse drinking with getting drunk." Allowing parents to teach their kids at an early age and cracking down on drunk drivers would solve a lot of the issue.
- Geekrock August 19, 2008 11:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If supporters of the Amethyst Initiative had bothered to research 'binge drinking' they would have discovered that the UK’s binge drinking problem is greater than the United States’ and the UK’s drinking age is lower. No one in the UK suggests that a lower drinking age, i.e. easier access to alcohol by those who are abusing it, would result in lower abuse rates.
I want to know is why they don’t suggest raising the drinking age to 22 or 23, after most students are out of college? Its not like they're fooling anyone, they just want to hand off the problem to someone else, i.e. High School Principals, rather than deal with the problem themselves.
I strongly encourage you to read and forward the following article to college presidents: http://natchgreyes.blogspot.com/2008/08/american-college-presidents-seek-to.html
- Natch August 20, 2008 1:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If you would do some research, you would find out that they realized that the cause of "binge drinking" in the UK was primarily due to having an laughably early "last call." So people would drink several drinks at the end of the night. Recently they've allowed last call to be later, and have found a decrease in the amount of binge drinking.
- Abigail Adams August 21, 2008 9:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
We do not expect employers to monitor and correct the drinking habits of their employees so why should we expect college presidents, whose major goal is to provide quality educational facilities, to become monitors of their students. Aside from disrupting class (in which case the student can and should be tossed out or suspended) if the student behaves in accordance with all school rules and regulations then from the school's perspective there is nothing that they are compelled to do. The police and district attorneys are given the responsibility to investigate and enforce our laws; and parents are tasked with the responsibility of teaching these laws to their children and helping them to understand the how and why of laws.
- polobo August 22, 2008 2:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Not only does bumping the legal age further expand the number of persons being oppressed but for those who do break the law there is no real fall-back aside from the legal system. At least colleges are worried about their students but employers have enough to worry about without taking on the responsibility for the drinking habits of their employees.
Lower the age may indirectly shift the responsibility to High School Principles but it will also push it back onto the parents who are the actual criminals in the equation since it is they who did not instill respect for authority in their now rebellious children. Society's blame in this is that by having a legal drinking age we've delayed the manifestation of symptoms and thus removed parents from being a viable intervention group and instead forced colleges and law enforcement to act.
- polobo August 22, 2008 2:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Adult behavior is not defined by age, it's defined by responsibility. Our education system has created artificial adults by allowing adult freedoms to young people without applying adult consequences. Binge-drinkers in the real world have serious difficulty finding employment or maintaining relationships. These potential consequences outweigh the desire to misuse alcohol; and so, most adult binge-drinkers bear the label "alcoholic."
By contrast, a student faces few real, immediate or comprehensive consequences for binge-drinking. Universities that are serious about the safety of their students should implement no-tolerance policies for binge-drinking and its accompanying behaviors, and stop wasting time lobbying on this issue. This law is not the problem; I doubt that either changing it or allowing it to remain will address binge drinking.
- MHays August 22, 2008 1:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Public behavior is what is key to your statement, not the cause whether it be binge drinking, drugs or brain damage. If a student is disrupting classes then the college can and should punish the student and remove them from class. This is the responsibility of the professor and should be supported by the president and administration. This is no different than workforce punishment since it is unlikely that a applicant would be asked "are you a binge drinker?" and thus a decision could not be made solely upon an answer to that question.
- polobo August 27, 2008 8:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Alcohol is a substance that can alter your judgment if consumed. Now let's ponder on that for a second...When teenagers at 18 decide to join the military they are thinking clearly about the consequence of their decisions. I will stress that point again, they are thinking clearly. Alcohol is no different than other drugs that are illegal such as marijuana. We can not trust teenagers from age 18-20 to drink responsibly, especially considering the fact that most of them do not have economic stability. There are so many things that can go wrong when teenagers get drunk such as drunk driving, fights and even rape. The bottom line is we can not lower the drinking age because most of the teenagers drink before the age of 21 and cause problems such as car accidents, so we can not give them further freedom and let them drink before the age of 21.
- Miga August 27, 2008 5:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You appear to be linking together multiple unrelated items. Why does their "economic instability" affect their ability to be trusted. Why are you lumping together all 18-20 years olds and labeling them untrustworthy to make decisions regarding alcohol but not other decisions? The actions cited are illegal whether drunk or not (driving while impaired) and their is a moral implication to preventing crime at the expense of other's freedom. If alcohol is truly that wrong/bad then prohibit it to all and solve the consequences of such an action (marijuana) or treat it like other limited prohibition drugs (cigarettes) and let adults consume it at their own risk.
- polobo August 27, 2008 8:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I remain uncommitted...kind of. In my view, alcohol is a drug, like marijuana. Yet, it is treated differently by society. Because it is treated differently, we have to accept that our young people will drink. No, most are not ready at 17, 18, 19 or 20. I would argue that many who are 21 and over are not ready. Like European countries, we need to teach responsible drinking and take the glamour out of this "prohibited poison". With that in mind, it would make sense to lower the age to 18 and maintain our vigilent enforcement of laws pertaining to how people who drink affect others. Again, my drouthers would be to ban alcohol sales...along with tobacco sales. They have both been proven to be dangerous drugs.
- msreason September 9, 2008 8:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Drinking age should be 18 you can get married have childern,fight in the military ,vote,Why can't you have a beer with your frends.
- countryboy July 21, 2009 6:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Taking the assumption that drinking causes harm to persons under 21 (physiological reasons for restrictions fail in that people "age" at different rates so those who may not be impaired may still be prohibited from such actions) does not mean the U.S. must resort to law in order protect persons from self-inflicted harm. Many activities that can/may harm (e.g., smoking) are not banned for adults but instead regulated; making a concerted effort to inform persons but allowing them to make decisions for themselves.
Most of your other "rights" were oriented toward granting children privileges that adults already have. The exceptions to eligibility to run for "(high) public office", when we have made illegal age discrimination in the workplace, seem contradictory. Additionally, the only way to actually serve in office is to be elected so if the majority of the voters do not want a young person in office it will never happen.
- polobo August 22, 2008 12:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The "studies" you quote describe damage related to repeated use or misuse of alcohol by young people, and justifies why parents need to educate their kids about alcohol and abstinence or moderation. They can't do that when they are threatened with arrest.
It does not justify government prohibition for a group of young adults. These adults should have the right and responsibility to make this adult decision. If they make the wrong one, just like the rest of us, they will pay the adult price.
- ClearAmerica November 18, 2008 11:40AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Adulthood is a very clear concept, “the moment when children legally assume control over their persons, their actions, and their decisions.” Simply because children can acquire certain privileges before they become 18 doesn't change the fact that once you become an adult you should realistically acquire the responsibilities of adulthood.
- mburmei1 December 4, 2008 7:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The right to drink isn't given to people at age 21 by the politicians they voted against. Liberty is what some call a God-given unalienable right, what others call an inherent natural right, but either way, liberty – the freedom to do whatever does not violate anybody's rights – is a right. The politicians get away with violating this right only because they have legions of gun-toting mercenaries in bulletproof vests to intimidate the citizens into giving up this right.
- TomAlciere February 16, 2009 6:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The thing is, drink responsibly!!!! 16 or 21, people are all drinking. no stopping it. stop making excuses. each persons life and their road ahead is their business. they make bad decisions, it doesn't mean john smith 2 states over will make the same decision.
- nysfirefight89 February 23, 2009 1:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
What would happen if an 18-year-old arrested for minor consuming ask to be tried as a juvenile? You can't be tried as a juvenile you are an adult! But how can you be tried as an adult for minor consuming? It's an oxymoron.
- mike1948 July 25, 2009 11:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Your so right. I just don't get it!
- countryboy July 25, 2009 2:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I am wandering if this is a false assumption? It really seams to me that this whole argument is centered around Binge drinking. I have read a great deal of the "Evidence" on both sides of the debate. I have made a Educated conclusion based on that reading. I am against changing the Law. It is my personal oppinion that people, young or old, are going to binge drink no matter what the law says. (From my own College years Experience) I would have to say that during my first 4 of my 12+ years in college, I never once had the experience of seeing binge drinking, not to say that it did not happen. But, What I am wandering is if they are trying to cure a symptom of a bigger problem or just make the bigger problem bigger. You do not cure disease by fixing the symptoms. You cure the disease by attacking the disease.
- UltraConservative August 22, 2008 6:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
My college experience was going from a state with a 21 year old drinking age to college in a state with an 18 year old beer drinking age. Like you, I saw little evidence of binge drinking. I am certain that it happened occasionally but never actually witnessed it myself. Instead, the majority of us simply went to a bar close to campus where we gathered with friends to complain about professors, debate about sports, or listen to music.
Our drinking was done within the view of law enforcement in controlled areas. No one had to drive to bars (or out to farms as the students do from the college town I live in now).
I believe it was a better way.
- Texburgh August 25, 2008 9:02AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
With the legal drinking age currently being 21 years old University policies are forced to be in line with enforcing that age. As a result of this age limit, students are forced to drink off-campus or in secrecy to avoid punishment. Forcing students off-campus often means higher incidences of drunk driving and students being placed in bad situations while being intoxicated. At least if the age was lowered Universities would be able to address the drinking issues publicly on campus and offer help to students who need it. Drinking in a public setting promotes moderation more than a private setting does.
- Bri2010 September 4, 2008 8:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I agree with this Whole Heartedly. Granted, you cannot stop someone from drinking if they so choose to drink. That is why we are called a "free" country. However, I agree that lowering the drinking age won't make teens 18-20 or any teen age responsible consumers. Drinking responsible is a choice. A choice that is not often made because the affects alcohol has on the mind of any one who consumes it. It will, however, make it easier for them to go and buy it themselves. The other thing it would solve is the breaking of the law by 1. those consuming it underage 2. those buying it for them. What is the greater benefit?
- UltraConservative August 22, 2008 6:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
As the title suggests, CR isn't simply suggesting we lower the age overnight and leave it at that. We're advocating to implement a volley of education programs which could entail proper drinking, responsible drinking, when it is appropriate, the chemistry of alcohol, how it effects you, and more. Not only this, but licensing programs as well along with introducing alcohol at a younger age in controlled environments (like the home under parental supervision).
- mburmei1 August 26, 2008 8:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I respect and agree with your ideas and methods, as a private organization. Where you are going to have issues are the same places that current proponents of safe-sex education have problems; getting the public to agree on a government sponsored education plan. Where do you recommend this education takes place and who will supply the curriculum? I have not read any of your organizations public materials so forgive me if this is addressed elsewhere on the Internet.
I personally disagree with licensing programs for the reasons made clear in my other posts (mainly that licensing a private good is not acceptable policy). Would I be willing to accept such a plan as opposed to the current Legal 21, maybe, though I am not in a position to actually affect that compromise.
- polobo August 27, 2008 8:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Youth drink with the goal to get drunk."
I suppose at 20 I could be considered a "youth", yet that is not my goal while consuming alcohol. Since I involved myself with CR upon turning 19 my binge drinking habits died away almost overnight despite being immersed in a culture of underground excessive college drinking. And now having experienced both styles of drinking I have to admit I greatly prefer stopping after 1 or 2 drinks as opposed to excessive amounts. If something as simple as CR can convince me to change so drastically I have no problem believing an in-depth, hands-on education and licensing system can have impressive effects.
- mburmei1 August 26, 2008 8:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It is not just a matter of off the Highway. It is every where. "Binge" driking has nothing to do with the law. That is a hypothosis formed by Amythest Initiative. In my opinion, they have taken a bunk of data, combined it, and formed a false conclusion.
As I posted earlier, the statistics for drinking in my community show that the same problem is present among those age 12-16. It does not make any more since to change the legal age from 21 to 18 than it does to change it to 16.
The law is not the root of the problem. You do not solve problems by curing a symptom of the problem. You solve the problem by going to its root. The root is the parents, plain and simple.
- UltraConservative August 19, 2008 4:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Underage drinkers are afraid to call for help in a crisis in fear of getting repremanded by the police (which they are not sympathetic for) and that taking time away from law enforcement to patrol more dangerous crimes. By having the limit be 21, you are essentially criminalizing an activity that is legal to the rest of the adult world, creating even more of an incentive for underage kids to want to try it. Underage drinking will not go away, and there is a huge difference between 16 and 18. At 18, kids go off to college. Instead of living in a dream world where all rules are followed, you must acknowledge that the system in place right now is unhealthy and is more dangerous than if the drinking age was lowered and drinking was legalized at 18. You're right, the root of the problem is the parents, because they are too ignorant to realize that their children become a part of the real world once they hit 18.
- uofascott August 22, 2008 11:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Part 1 of 2 (cannot fit in 1000 chars)
Laws need well-defined goals that mesh with the tenets of our society AND abide by the restrictions on government found in the Constitution. Even with well-meaning goals a law is still wrong if it fails the second test.
Many of the proponents of the law cite a decrease in criminal activity that was committed while the perpetrator was intoxicated. One possible idea to communicate this fact is to treat crimes committed while intoxicated more harshly than those committed otherwise. This is similar to how a killing committed during the commission of a felony is automatically charged as first-degree murder.
- polobo August 22, 2008 1:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Part 2 of 2
Likewise, if the goal of the legislation is to protect people from harming themselves (binge drinking and dying of alcohol poisoning) then that legislation differs in principle from most other legislation in that we (society) are restricting actions that do not directly harm society. Most laws that attempt to do so are rejected by the Supreme Court for First Amendment reasons.
If you accept that American citizens are adults at the age of 18, and agree that based upon the First Amendment the government should not restrict the actions of individuals that do not pose a direct threat to society, then Legal 21 laws should be struck down as being unconstitutional. Since drinking can be done without becoming intoxicated and without committing crimes its restriction is unfairly punishing individuals who have not committed any crime.
- polobo August 22, 2008 1:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thanks for making the point that the risks of binge drinking far exceed the carnage on our roads. Drinking to the point of intoxication has become the nomative way young people use the drug, which has far-reaching consequences--even if they survive the episode. The impact of binge drinking on brain development, unwanted pregnancy and STI's and violent incidents should not be overlooked or minimized.
I believe it is the way that this pattern of consumption is depicted in advertising, TV and movies, and other venues influencing popular culture on one hand--and the lack of comprehensive prevention programs on the other hand--that has brought us here. We need to push back against these influences.
Changing attitudes, not lowering the legal drinking age, will help our society to address the problem. We decided as a society years ago that we would not allow tobacco advertisers to glamorize use of this legal drug, and the rate of use among young people declined sharply. We need to make up our minds that alcohol should also not be allowed to be marketed to our kids.
- Concerned Skeptic September 4, 2008 12:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Under-21 students might drink the same amount of alcohol in a night would the drinking age be lowered, but they would drink this amount over a longer period of time. The Age 21 law forces students to "pre-game" by drinking to get drunk, but doing so for an hour or so BEFORE going out for the night. Normal adult social lives include the drinking with the socializing, but this is not usually an option for someone under 21.
- Daniel Demetri August 23, 2008 5:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Data is flawed. I am a Former State Trooper, worked the night shift my career and arrested alot of DUI suspects, sometime the same person multiple times. A DUI is the following:
1. Bad luck (the ratio of police to drunks on the road is flawed)
2. Good luck (if you have the skills to detect "truly" drink drivers)
3. Skilled (if you can stumble into mud and make it a gold mine)
Kids will drink and DO DRUGS (yes do drugs), the laws DON'T make a difference. There are establishments that sell to minors (and eventually get caught, but another replaces it)
SOLUTION: www.18or21.com
- FormerTrooper September 15, 2008 12:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I'm not really sure why you would argue that the drinking age should be lowered from 21. What is your agenda here? Who can argue that not serving drinks in bars and restaurants and not selling beer to 18 year-olds is a bad thing?
Do 18-20 year-olds have a big problem with it? Do parents have a big problem with it? Perhaps beer sellers have a problem with it, but who else does?
This specific argument claims that the law marginalizes parents. Well I'm a parent and don't feel marginalized and I don't think I can name one other parent who would like to see the drinking age lowered.
Would I ever choose to have my 18 year-old drink a glass of wine at a family gathering? Maybe. Would I feel like I'm breaking the law? Of course not!
- marloma July 11, 2008 4:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Actually, I am a parent of a 17 year old and I have a problem with the 18 drinking age. Ever visit you local grocery store around high school graduation? See all the parents buying kegs for their kids HS graduation parties. Like you, I would like my daughter to have a glass of champagne at family events but it IS BREAKING THE LAW and our children know it. You may not feel like you are breaking the law but you are. What are you teaching your child? I think maybe a graduated drinking age would be appropriate, just like driving. First, only with parental supervision then just beer and wine and then finally everything. I would like to work with my daughter to ensure that she knows what effect alcohol has on her in the privacy of our home, without breaking the law.
- againes August 21, 2008 6:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If you can't let your daughter have a glass of champagne at a family event you should work to get the law changed.
In my state, it is legal for parents to serve their children alcoholic beverages at home, no matter what their ages. But they cannot if they are not in their own home, e.g. Sunday dinner at a relative's house.
Thus my parents gave me an education about drinking that stood me in good stead when I went off to college at 17.
But they could have done even better if the laws were those of a nearby state, where not only do parents have the right to teach their kids about drinking while under their supervision at home, but anywhere including bars and restaurants. The only requirement is that the person's parent be there to supervise. I think it should be the law in every state that underderage drinkers may drink anywhere so long as they are under parental supervision.
- Abigail Adams August 21, 2008 6:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I would say that I disagree with this as well.
However, I believe that the law is the law and if it says that you cannot drink until you are 21, then you cannot drink until you are 21.
What is my responsibility to my children? Teach them that drinking at any age is not good. Teach them that there are reasons not to ever start drinking. I am a firm believer in education on every thing.
Exampl: I began at a young age teaching my children about guns and the responsibilty of owning and using them. Why? Because are a family of hunters. They now have a respect for them and as a result, know how to properly handle them.
- UltraConservative August 19, 2008 4:56AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
My daughter also knows how to handle weapons responsibly and we taught he well before 18 how to clean a gun and shoot and how to secure it. I would like to teach her the same about alcohol and that is my responsibility as her parent to choose, not the government.
- againes August 21, 2008 6:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I wrote about this above, but feel the need to repeat. If a person is old enough to carry heavy ordinance, drive tanks, and take lives, the person is old enough to have a drink.
Are all 18 year olds prepared for alcoholic beverages? No. But not all 18 year olds are prepared for warfare either. But we do not discriminate against that. We actually call it patriotic and doing your duty. Do not get me wrong. I agree that it is 100% patriotic and believe we should all serve our country. But if we are entrusted to be defenders of the free world at 18, we should be able to have a beer at the end of the day after defending it.
- Gideon From The Dirty Onion August 19, 2008 7:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
First off, the opening statement of this objection states the same fact presented and then admits the flaw. Prohibiting your children is the only option. That is what CR is arguing is wrong. Parent's legally only have that option, not the option of teaching their children responsible drinking habits. Almost all of the closing statement that lists the risks of alcohol doesn't even apply here. The risk of dying in a car crash requires that the parent let their child go driving after drinking with them. The risk of contracting an STD and getting pregnant from drinking with your child assumes a far more horrible situation inside of the home. As far as depression, suicide, and developing a dependancy, studies are showing that these would only be a risk if you are getting your child drunk, which is not exactly teaching them responsible drinking now is it?
- PhilyG January 29, 2009 10:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Even if "one study estimates that only two in every 1,000 instances of underage drinking results in arrest or citation," that forms no basis for lowering the drinking age. Only a very small fraction of inmpaired drivers are arrested or cited. Since drivers in their teens and early 20s have the highest rates of automobile accidents, including fatal accidents, does it really make sense to make alcohol legally and much more readly available to a large proportion of this high-risk element?
Having failed to meaningfully address the scandalous on-campus binge-drinking problem, the academes of the Amethyst Project now point to what is in large measure a consequence of their own institutionalized failure as justification for abandonment of a standard that most studies show to have been beneficial in reducing death and serious injury on the highways. This is not an "egghead" approach; it is just a boneheaded approach!
- bighoss August 19, 2008 10:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
My question is this: How in the world does the legal age of 21 erode respect for LAW? That is like saying that drugs being illegal erodes respect for LAW. That is like saying having a speed limit erodes respect for law.
My belief is that respect for Law is something that should be taught at home but is left out in our society. When our Children see us not respecting the law, they will learn that and as a result not respect it.
People are going to break the law whether it is 18 or 21 for drinking, just the same as they do for under-age driving, smoking, etc. Changing the Law won't change that.
- UltraConservative August 19, 2008 4:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Actually, part of the reason that the speed limit was raised from 55 to 65 on the interstates was because the 55 limit was widely disregarded, wasn't enforced, and many felt it did breed disrespect for the law. I remember a newspaper columnist (it might have been Bob Greene) making that very argument, after observing that he wasn't able to find out what the speed limit really was-- the speed where you would actually get a ticket.
The issue is that laws should not be arbitrary. And if they are perceived to be arbitrary, then people will not have respect for them whether they obey those laws or not. It is a simple issue of fairness, because how can an arbitrary law be just? Would you have respect for a law that said that red haired people must sit in the back of the bus? Of course you would not!
- Abigail Adams August 21, 2008 6:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Case and point really!! They raised the speed limit to 65 to stop the lawless disregard for the speed limit and it did not help. I have driven the roads of our country as a professional driver before and seen the utter disregard for the speed limit. It did not help near as much as expected.
The same goes with lowering the drinking age. All it will do is make it easier for those that have a extreme problem with alcohol (18-20) to easier access it. It will not stop binge drinking any more than raising the speed limit stopped speeding.
According to statistics, the age at which people first try alcohol is somewhere around 14. That is not good. http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/AA67/AA67.htm
- UltraConservative August 22, 2008 6:01AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You will have to admit that 55 for many roads is an obnoxiously slow speed. And all that law did was criminalize every person who went 56+ on roads that were clearly capable of handling speeds up to 65. Just because it's law doesn't necessarily mean its just. Remember at one time we isolated a particular group of people and made it that they had to sit in the back of the bus. It didn't matter if that individual of a certain skin color was good or bad; he had to sit in the back because of that skin color and nothing else.
Have you considered the fact that once alcohol becomes legal for a certain group of people, it no longer has a veil of mystery or attractiveness like before. More people will be drinking in general, but the quantity in which they drink will go down. 18-20 year olds are clearly capable of drinking responsibly if given the chance, I and many others are proof of that. Instead of arbitrary concepts like "21 means 21" we should focus on "Don't drive MEANS don't drive!"
- mburmei1 August 27, 2008 12:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Don't know where you are driving, but for the most part the speed limits are obeyed where I live-- and if you do see speeding, it might be 75 in a 65 zone, but you sure don't see the situation you would regularly see in the 1980's where everyone on the road would be doing 30 mph over the limit. I also think the speed limit is more effectively enforced now.
Furthermore, as a society, I don't think people are as sympathetic to speed limit scofflaws to the extent that they were when the speed limit was 55.
Incidentally, in that report you cite they note that the average age of first alcohol use in 1965 was 17 1/2. Remember, in 1965, drinking in some states was legal at 18. The data in that report doesn't go back far enough, but it looks like the average age of first alcohol use has been going *down* since the nationwide 21 age requirement was imposed.
- Abigail Adams September 5, 2008 1:08PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Where I live, I can guarantee that 8 out of 10 vehicles going down the road are exceding the speed limit. It is apparent when you are going down the road in a 70 mile an hour zone with the cruise set at 70 and people are "blowing your doors off" and blaring down on the horn as they pass by.
Where I live, the drinking problem is not with people 18 to 20, it is with people 12 to 17. I and many countless others will fight this law to keep it in affect to the very end. It has been proven affective. You do not end something that has proven affective, you keep it going.
- UltraConservative September 11, 2008 3:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I am a 19 year old sophomore at a state school. I earn straight A's and am in the Honors Program at my University. I vote , pay my taxes , and I have always followed the law to the letter in MOST every regard.
But I drink every single weekend.
Underage drinking on college campuses is so mainstream that the sheer volume and ease of underage drinking today would blow the minds of most of the people who grew up in the 70's. Underage drinking is rarely considered as "doing anything wrong" by most of my peers - I know many underage people who refuse to smoke (legally), speed, or even utter curse words but will consume alcohol with abandon on a Saturday night. Those individuals with a desire to drink will do so, regardless of age, on a college campus. At a party, there is no difference in behavior or levels of consumption between those freshmen who are 18 and the 22 year old seniors - the age of the attendees only becomes known when the "beer run" is needed.
That being said, I am responsible about my drinking. Fortunately my parents were savvy enough to help me make informed decisions regarding alcohol and introduced it to me early. Also, the mere thought of driving drunk, regardless of my age OR level of intoxication, has never crossed my mind - my early education from my intelligent and realistic parents has made sure of that. When I turn 21, the veil of mystery will be lifted and I will no longer be forced to break the law in order to do what I feel is my right as a mature, intelligent, capable adult. There is an inability to apply this erosion of law to others as other laws (save for perhaps marijuana legalization ) have failed to reach the same stigma with those that it affects. The simple fact is that this is not considered a true "law" in the same way something like theft is - the arbitrary nature of it seems to negate it's viability in the minds of even the most honest and well-behaved college students.
Why, then, should the drinking age be lowered if people are going to drink anyway? Respect for law-makers and enforcers is certainly an obvious benefit. In addition, the 18 year old drinking age (or graduated drinking "licenses") enables schools , parents, and community members to take a greater part in realistic, intelligent, honest discussions with their minors about responsible drinking. When a child is away at school, the opportunity for parental education is gone. It's time to be realistic.
- Sarabird March 30, 2009 5:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
What does it matter if America is out of step with the world? We do give answer to any other country in the world. We only answer to the other citizens in this country. I really do not feel that we should step into line with what other nations are doing. Our laws are our laws. They have been made for a reason. They work here for us. That said, I say, who cares what the rest of the world thinks. Leave it the way it is.
- UltraConservative August 19, 2008 4:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It matters what the rest of the world thinks, if we want the rest of the world to look up at us as leaders in this world, we also have to listen to what they have to say. We don't necessarily have to do it, but we should listen and do our own testing to support or not support it.
The drinking issue is being brought up again because it DOES NOT work for us here.
I'm tired of ignorant christians who try to force their views on everyone else. People deserve the right to make their own decisions, and if we want them to make the right decisions we should be teaching them how to do it responsibly.
- incognitouser February 22, 2009 6:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
We don't have to be in step with the rest of the world. All that's being said here is that we should rely on the parents to teach their children to be responsible drinkers. If the drinking age were lower, this could happen. But, since parents must wait until their kids are in college and, most-likley, away from home, it is impossible to properly teach them responsible drinking habits without breaking the law. Parents shouldn't have to make their children leave home without the proper tools needed to take care of themselves in a place where alcohol is the most available.
- Geekrock August 19, 2008 5:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Why is it necessary to teach them to drink responsible? Why not teach them to not drink at all? Isn't that more sensible? Not every one in this world has ever drank and there are a great number of people who view alcohol the same as a loaded gun, I being one of them. It is more than just telling them "Don't Drink". It is teaching them why not to ever start. Alcoholic beverages are a legalized drug the same a cigarettes. Neither of which are necessary at all.
- UltraConservative August 19, 2008 7:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I agree that alcohol isn't necessary, but it's here, and we have to deal with it. Yeah, we can tell our kids to not drink at all. Then they're going to wonder why everyone is making such a big fuss about it, and drink anyway. How many times have kids done something just because the world is telling them it's wrong? If we lower the drinking age and leave parents responsible, the overwhelming urge to rebel won't be so strong.
- Geekrock August 19, 2008 11:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
To an extent that is true. I think it is more than just teaching them not to drink, but teaching them what the end result is. I don't believe a person should tell their children don't do something without teaching them why they should not. Example: We teach our children don't put you hand in the fire. If that is all you tell them, ultimately they will test that and see what happens. Often, even when you teach them if you put your hand in the fire, and then tell them that if you do you will get burned, they will still do it. However, my experience as a Pastor has been that if you begin while they are young teaching them and not sheltering them from things, a larger majority never question and just don't.
- UltraConservative August 21, 2008 8:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Everyone should be taught "Cause and Effect," especially when dealing with matter such as these. But we should also teach restraint and that it's okay to drink, but not in excess. If kids know what will happen if they go overboard and are taught to control themselves, I'd imagine there will be a lot less problems.
- Geekrock August 21, 2008 10:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The problem is I do not agree that it is ok to drink at any age. I think that Alcoholic beverages are nothing more than a legal drug. Alcohol alters the state of mind of the individual drinking it. Having a Mother who was an alcoholic set in my mind a great deal of what I think of alcohol. Then as a Pastor, and having to deal with it up close and personal when counsiling people who are addicted to it, I would have to say my mind set is to do all I can to prevent its use in the lives of as many as I can.
- UltraConservative September 22, 2008 7:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I totally understand and respect what you're doing. I wish you the best of luck in your fight against alcohol.
- Geekrock October 9, 2008 4:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I do not agree with that logic at all. I believe in teaching children that certain things are wrong and why they are wrong. I believe in instilling in children a set of Moral Standards to live by. I have seen it proven time and time again that it works. Over my 13 years as a Pastor, I have been involved in the lives of 100's of children. How many of them have gone against what they have been taught? Not many. This is proven by the direction they have gone with their lives. I do not believe in giving children enough rope to hang themselves because they will do it every time.
- UltraConservative September 22, 2008 7:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I agree that it is the parents' right, as parents, to teach their children values. As a society, however, we've recognized that at some point a person is entitled to their own beliefs and values as long as their actions do not harm others. There are many devices and substances that are not "necessary" to living but that we nonetheless allow people to possess and consume. An iPod, cigarettes, and video games are some examples. Who are we to judge the entertainment habits of an individual who has not harmed us (a possibility of harm does not equate to actual harm)?
- polobo August 27, 2008 8:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
As stated above, alcohol is a reality in the lives of young adults. And as simple as "Just Don't" sounds, temperance and scare tactics just don't work. Similar to preaching abstinence instead of safe sex. It will happen regardless, at least put it in the safest environment possible and teach responsibility to prevent unwanted side effects such as pregnancy and STD's, which were already occurring under abstinence. If anything, holding it over a young individuals head will just fuel their desire to do it.
- mburmei1 August 27, 2008 12:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Teaching responsible drinking would open up access to a number of heart-healthy benefits, reduce their risk of CHD by up to 40%, among other health benefits. Moderate drinkers live longer than abstainers!
- bagpiper2005 September 22, 2008 3:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Where is the proof of this? I am involved with a group can Reformers Unanimous that deals with Alcohol, drug use, additions to sex, etc. and these are some things I have never heard. I would like to see the evidence of this and read it myself. I have personal proof that those statistics would not be true. My grandmother was a moderate drinker and she died of liver failure as a result of her drinking at the age of 55. My Grandfather on my mothers side was a social drinker and died at the age of 58 because of it. My grandmother on my dads side was an abstainer and lived to be 94, and my grandfather lived to be 96.
- UltraConservative September 22, 2008 7:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
...and if you are, I'm terribly sorry you believe that nonsense (I'm a former Mormon), but that's another topic altogether.
Social drinking and moderate drinking are different. Moderate drinking is no more than 2 drinks per day for men under 60, and 1 drink per day for women and men over 60. Moderation was not defined at these levels in earlier times (it is much defined as a much lower quantity now). There are also other factors involved in these things. If Tylenol (acetaminophen) was their primary pain reliever, combining that with alcohol is a deadly combination. Never ever take Tylenol if you drink any amount of alcohol (of course, I don't put any man-made pharmaceutical into my body, but again, that's another topic).
Here are some websites to educate yourself about the health benefits of moderate drinking, and why I drink alcohol as well, because I like it, and because it resolved my hypertension naturally, without drugs. It also helps to minimize the occurrence of my Graves' related symptoms.
http://www.cfah.org/factsoflife/vol8no12.cfm
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2007/kidney-health-benefits-from.html
http://food-facts.suite101.com/article.cfm /health_benefits_of_alcohol
- bagpiper2005 September 22, 2008 7:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I am sorry you feel it to be nonsense. It is the core of by beliefs as a Pastor and Church Planter. I am not ashamed to say I am a Baptist Pastor. I would not give it up for all the money, fame, fortune, etc. that there is in the world.
To me, this is not a debate of science, but of what is morally right.
- UltraConservative September 22, 2008 8:17PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
No, I am not Mormon.
That has nothing to do with this debate.
- UltraConservative September 22, 2008 8:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
September 11, 2008
Scotland Considers Raising Drinking Age to 21
AFP news service recently reported that Scotland officials are considering increasing the drinking age from 18 to 21, after two trails showed a decrease in alcohol-related incidents among young people as a result of increasing the drinking age. The news comes as the nation discusses the Amethyst Initiative, which seeks to revisit the debate on the legal drinking age and encourages lawmakers to lower it.
Alcohol-related deaths have more than doubled in Scotland in the last 15 years, while 40 percent of 15-year-olds and 15 percent of 13-year-olds surveyed by the government said they had drunk alcohol in the previous week. The announcement was made by Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond, who said the government was considering banning alcohol sales to under-21s to make "the streets safer and communities better" and counter mounting drinking problems.
In the AFP article, Salmond was quoted as saying: "The practical evidence is that restriction, that protection for young people actually helps reduce violent incidents, protects people and makes the streets safer and communities better.”
New Zealand has first-hand experience on the negative effects of lowering the drinking age. In a 2005 New Zealand-based study, researchers found that lowering the drinking age resulted in a 12 percent increase in alcohol-involved crashes among 18- to 19-year-olds and a 14 percent increase among 15- to 17-year-olds. In addition, hospitalization for road traffic crashes among 15- to 17-year-olds went up by 25 percent after the drinking age was lowered.
- Kathy September 11, 2008 4:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I'm actually on the fence on this issue. On the one hand, I understand and support the "if you're old enough to die for your country, you should be old enough to drink" position. I have actually lived this side of the issue, but I was stationed in places where I was allowed to drink before I was 21. I was able to restrain myself, though, and it never became a problem or issue.
On the other hand, the "America is out of step..." article misses the mark slightly. The problem is that American culture and European culture view alcohol in very different lights, and I don't think it has to do with adulthood. In Europe, alcohol is seen as a compliment to mealtime. It's like bread in America. In America, almost all ads and movies related to alcohol perpetuate the "party" side of it. In my humble opinion, that is the reason there are so many more teens here end up intoxicated when they drink. Until the perception of alcohol changes in this country, I don't think the results will, regardless of the legal drinking age.
- LagerHead June 16, 2009 3:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
September 11, 2008
Scotland Considers Raising Drinking Age to 21
AFP news service recently reported that Scotland officials are considering increasing the drinking age from 18 to 21, after two trails showed a decrease in alcohol-related incidents among young people as a result of increasing the drinking age. The news comes as the nation discusses the Amethyst Initiative, which seeks to revisit the debate on the legal drinking age and encourages lawmakers to lower it.
Alcohol-related deaths have more than doubled in Scotland in the last 15 years, while 40 percent of 15-year-olds and 15 percent of 13-year-olds surveyed by the government said they had drunk alcohol in the previous week. The announcement was made by Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond, who said the government was considering banning alcohol sales to under-21s to make "the streets safer and communities better" and counter mounting drinking problems.
In the AFP article, Salmond was quoted as saying: "The practical evidence is that restriction, that protection for young people actually helps reduce violent incidents, protects people and makes the streets safer and communities better.”
New Zealand has first-hand experience on the negative effects of lowering the drinking age. In a 2005 New Zealand-based study, researchers found that lowering the drinking age resulted in a 12 percent increase in alcohol-involved crashes among 18- to 19-year-olds and a 14 percent increase among 15- to 17-year-olds. In addition, hospitalization for road traffic crashes among 15- to 17-year-olds went up by 25 percent after the drinking age was lowered.
- Kathy September 11, 2008 4:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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
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
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
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
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
Part 1/2
Ever since 9/11 the government has been impinging upon the freedoms of individuals in order to protect them; even going as far as to illegally detain persons of interest without due process. The supreme court has ruled such actions unconstitutional. I posted another comment with a more general argument but to specifically address this claim I post again.
First, I'll take as being true the assertion that more actual accidents will occur if we lower the drinking age (I'll not consider the degree, makeup, or results of those accidents). This is a desirable goal but it exists in a vacuum. If the number of alcohol poisonings and rapes decrease at the same time then total crime may very well decrease. You also then have to value the relative severity of each crime. Much of the current debate has been started by the educational sector that is more directly affected by the later statistics as opposed to the former and they are justified in their bias toward those crimes.
- polobo August 22, 2008 1:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Part 2 of 2
Second, if there is an increase of 5,000 in accidents but 30,000 more persons begin drinking and 20,000 of those who already drink start to do so responsibly, because it is not longer "forbidden fruit", then there a net "gain" to our society. Gain in that we are no longer prohibiting adults from expressing themselves in a socially neutral way.
- polobo August 22, 2008 1:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
An occasional drink isn't the same as binging or drunk driving, so how about raising the driving age? A higher drinking age cuts down on abuse, so why not raise it to 40 or 50? Or join the army or vote at 21?
Going from a total ban and then at 12:01 on a birthday one can drink as much as they want sets kids up to overindulge because birthdays are celebrated. Drinking attitudes matter more than one's age.
Gradually introduce it with a limit of 1 wine glass with a PARENT and MEAL at 17 as in Europe, 19 for low alcohol beverages and 21 to purchase. Close loopholes allowing FAKE IDs good enough to fool some police.
I have stories of kids sneaking into the nightclub I worked at when the drinking age went from 18 to 21. I chose to cut down on my drinking 20 years ago to only once a week after seeing so many people drink too much.
How about an ad of Jenna Bush's fake ID saying - Many of our children flaunt the drinking laws. - (I worked with the policeman that confiscated it.)
- dotkhan August 23, 2008 9:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Data is flawed. I am a Former State Trooper, worked the night shift my career and arrested alot of DUI suspects, sometime the same person multiple times. A DUI is the following:
1. Bad luck (the ratio of police to drunks on the road is flawed)
2. Good luck (if you have the skills to detect "truly" drink drivers)
3. Skilled (if you can stumble into mud and make it a gold mine)
Kids will drink and DO DRUGS (yes do drugs), the laws DON'T make a difference. There are establishments that sell to minors (and eventually get caught, but another replaces it)
SOLUTION: www.18or21.com
- FormerTrooper September 15, 2008 12:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Banning alcohol for all ages would save even more lives....or would it. There are always tradeoffs between safety and abilities. If no one drove then there would be no driving deaths. We as responsible citizens(voting age adults) make tradeoffs between ability to get places quickly and lives lost. We don't often think of it that way but if no one drove then no DUI. We need to find a reasonable tradeoff.
- againes October 1, 2008 11:50AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The sited study failed to take into account the greatly increased Educational campaign that coincided with the increase in the drinking age during the 80's. It also failed to take into account improved safety standards of automobiles as far as I could determine. As such the study is useless. This is a problem with all studies based purely on statistical analysis. All such studies are suspect.
- tbcass January 27, 2009 7:02AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
What about the proliferation of seat belts or air bags? Are these factors controlled for in the studies?
- illusion June 11, 2009 8:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"It also failed to take into account improved safety standards of automobiles as far as I could determine."
- tbcass June 12, 2009 6:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Whose to say that the reason there has been less deaths and drunk driving accidents is because of the age being 21? I agree with your statement, that since the drinking age has been raised there has been less incidences resulting from alcohol, its inevitable. However whose to say that this is a direct result is from the age. Driving while inebriated is indeed a problem in our nation and the government has realised that. Hense the abundance of surfacing programs in schools that make children aware of the dangers of drunken nights, and the fact that a car is a 2500 lb bullet waiting to take lives and mixing alcohol with driving is not smart. The youth of today doesn't abide by the 21 law, every friday and Saturday night in every city in America thousands of under age kids purchase and consume alcohol so its really not a matter of keeping kids from drinking until they're twenty one, but an issue of educating these kids so they don't make unintellegent life decisions.
- jcj33 February 9, 2009 4:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Eliminate drunk driving and you'll save a lot more lives. The politicians I voted against have no right to punsih responsible drinkers for being under 21 instead of imposing tougher drunk driving laws on themselves.
Proof the drinking age doesn't save lives is on my site at http://udadd.com/memorial.html
- TomAlciere February 16, 2009 5:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
So if a Teen's brain is not fully developed, why are they allowed to fight in wars for this country? A gun is much more dangerous than a beer is.
- uofascott August 22, 2008 10:56AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
True enough! What about voting? If their brains are immature until their 20s, why do permit them to vote? By definition, the immature mind is incapable of making the important types of decisions that go into the determination of whom to vote for.
Personally, I think the driving age should be 21 and the drinking age 16 -- people should learn to hold their liquor before they get behind the wheel of a potentially dangerous instrumentality.
- JKFriedman September 4, 2008 11:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
So then forbid the consumption of any alcohol until people reach their mid-twenties. This would include wine as part of religious ceremony, etc.
- Sophophilic September 6, 2008 3:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The Nazis also offered "scientific" arguments as an excuse for violating people's rights. Some Holocaust victims remember the signs on the bier halls, "Juden Verboten" No scientific studies can establish that the United States of America ought not to be a free country, with liberty and justice for all. Scientific studies aside, the politicians I voted against have no right to tell me what I can and cannot drink.
- TomAlciere February 16, 2009 5:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If a person's brain does not stop developing until his or her early to mid-20s. And drinking alcohol can seriously damage long- and short- term growth processes. And if damage from alcohol during this time can be long-term and irreversible, then what about people who are 18 being able to join the military?
If I can choose to join the military where I could be:
- injured physically (lose a leg, arm, etc.)
- mentally (post traumatic stress disorder, etc.)
- tortured by the enemy
- missing in combat, potentially never seeing family and friends again
- killed in combat, definitely never seeing family and friends again
Then I don't see why I can't choose to drink responsibly once I turn 18. In my eyes, I would think being tortured, physically losing body parts, or dying in combat is a lot worse then drinking responsibly.
If the government decides that we can responsibly choose to join the military or not at the age of 18, then I would say that the government should also let us responsibly choose whether or not to drink alcohol.
- incognitouser February 22, 2009 6:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
1. A brain never stops developing. Alcohol is bad for ALL brains.
2. The law does not stop teens from drinking because no one in their right mind takes it seriously.
- Zmoney187
April 10, 2009 12:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
if thats the case then why dont we just increase the drinking age to 26 or 30 just to be on the safe side, this argument is absurd.
- camdaddy09 July 15, 2009 6:36PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The above neuroscientist's view is a study on how alcohol affects an adolescent's brain vs. how it affects an adult's brain.
The incomplete development of the frontal lobe in an adolescent's brain mainly has to do with judgment and analysis, so the argument isn't: "gee I wonder if an adolescent is affected as much as an adult if they have the same amount of alcohol in their system?"
The argument is that teens are not capable of making rational decisions about alcohol consumption BEFORE they get any in their system. I don't think anyone honestly thinks that because teens have minutely smaller brains than adults that alcohol intake is going to affect them more. What many people do think is that teenagers tend to take unnecessary risks (like downing a fifth of Bacardi in one sitting) because they think "nothing bad will ever happen to me."
Ask any developmental psychologist and they will likely tell you that most teenagers believe in "the personal fable" - a belief which consists of the idea that they are somehow unique; that they are going to change the world; that everyone is watching them; (and most dangerous of all) that bad things just don't happen to them. This is directly due to the fact that their frontal lobe (judgment and analytical thinking) is not fully developed.
Yes, there are some kids out there who are capable of making rational decisions at a younger than average age. They COULD be allowed to drink if it were not for the other 98% or teenagers who fall into the "average" category. So they'll have to wait an extra three whole years to drink. The horror.
- Livvy February 25, 2009 9:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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
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
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
It's also true that standards for automobile safety have increased significantly, in terms of how their manufactured. Laws about wearing seat belts are now enforced strictly as are laws about speeding. It is not the drinking age that has changed the decrease in highway deaths, but the other laws.
Maybe if people weren't allowed to get off with DUI's then they wouldn't drink and drive at all. In some places you don't even get your license suspended, just a ticket. Make the consequences of drinking and driving more serious and people are less likely to do it. To most people, the most serious consequence, potentially taking one's own or someone else's life, isn't something that is really considered. Having punishments that are harder to think "It'll never happen to me" about may help.
- aaglasse August 13, 2008 10:28AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
that alcohol related arrests or accidents were on the rise when (for example) the drinking age changes were staggered chronologically. In DC the age was 21 while it was 18 in Baltimore for a time. Naturally, the 18-20 set were driving into Baltimore, getting drunk, and coming back to DC, turning Route 1 (the old route from College Park to Baltimore) into a carpile. Oversight like this, coupled with a total lack of responsibility-based education, definitely had something to do with it in my mind.
- Schmevbo August 25, 2008 9:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This site really needs a footnoting function. Most of the studies you cite in your argument are not available online. But one is: Hedlund JH, Ulmer RG, Preusser DF. "Determine Why There are Fewer Young Alcohol-Impaired Drivers." Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 2001. DOT HS 809 348.
It does indeed conclude that the incidence of fatal accidents by underage drunk drivers has gone down over time, but it does not conclude that change was due to the increased drinking age laws (or the zero tolerance laws). The study compares the changes in the accident rate in the US with the accident rate in Canada (with 18-19 drinking age laws) and found that the rates are virtually the same in both countries. To quote the report:
"Canadian reductions in youth drinking and driving, measured both by fatal crash data and by surveys, followed virtually the same pattern as in the United States. But the Canadian reduction was not due to laws directed at youth: the drinking age did not change during this time, and zero tolerance laws were implemented after the reduction had occurred. This means that the changes must have resulted from some combination of the difficult-to-assess educational and motivational programs and from other factors outside of traffic safety. This conclusion suggests that a substantial portion of the reduction in the United States also resulted from these same causes."
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/FewerYoungDrivers/iv__what_caused.htm #g.%20canadian
- Abigail Adams September 6, 2008 6:40AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I think it's more important to educate people on responsible drinking than abstinence from drinking. It is obvious that college students will choose to drink, even when while we've been growing up we've been taught abstinence. If that's the case, then shouldn't the adults choose to educate us on how to drink responsibly? Including not driving while drinking (any amount).
- incognitouser February 22, 2009 6:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Perhaps it should be mentioned that the authors' of the article indicate that the other two effects (ALR and .08 per se) are likely methodological artifacts. THAT'S full disclosure! I would encourage everyone to read the article themselves.
- JSearles August 19, 2008 10:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I am glad that Choose Responsibility has been successful in convincing you to read further into the sources used by the government. Please let us all know if you find anything in that study that seriously counters CR's arguments.
The fact is that almost all of the statistics used by proponents of the MLDA 21 are before 1995 and are presented incompletely. Since the government and organizations like MADD receive millions of dollars in funding, it isn't surprising that the public has only heard their argument and limited facts.
- PhilyG January 29, 2009 9:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Actually, CR had nothing to do with my reading of this peer-reviewed artile. It's what scientsits do to keep up on the literature. It is disingenuous to fault a study for using the only data available. This was a study on the effects of policy and policies don't change on a regular basis. The data suporting the MLDA-21 laws are overwhelming. Here is the bottom line: lower the MLDA and adverse outcomes increase; raise the MLDA and adverse outcomes decrease. Pretty simple, really!
- JSearles January 30, 2009 10:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Should Abraham Lincoln consider whether crime statistics might rise if the slaves are freed? No amount of statistical analysis of historical crash data can establish that the government has a right to impose alcohol prohibition on an innocent person who never consented to it. In a free country, the citizen would decide what to eat and drink.
- TomAlciere February 16, 2009 5:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
After serving in the US Army,I DO think that if you're brave enough to enlist and possibly die, you should be able to drink. One problem is that sometimes, younger soldiers can't handle their liquor. That said, the military is equipped to deal with the problem. I've seen underage soldiers get hammered in the barracks, get stupid, and spend a night with the MP's mopping floors, puking the whole time. When they see the sun come up and have to go straight to PT and then a full day's work, most quickly learn it's not worth it. Furthermore, soldiers look after one another, and often stop these things from happening. I have bought beer for underage soldiers who I deemed mature enough to drink, but I drank with them, and kept an eye on them.The military deals with alcohol abuse in ways that I feel are at once strict and constructive. If they will take on the intense responsibilty that entails fighting for America, they should be able to drink. The military will take care of its own.
- PSYOP August 14, 2008 9:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Just wanted to point out that it's no longer true that you can't rent a car until the age of 25. Drivers under 25 have to pay more, but you can rent a car as young as 18.
- lostlo August 19, 2008 11:17AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
There was never a federal law which stated a minimum age of 25 to rent a car. It was always at the discretion of the rental dealership.
- mburmei1 August 27, 2008 1:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I'm irked by this posting. The claim is made in bold type that according to the AMA far less alcohol is needed to get a "teenager" (someone 13 years old?) drunk than someone in his or her 20's. But no citation to any AMA publication is provided nor way I able to find any backup for the claim.
I suspect that the full story is not being told here. Of course there is a metabolic difference between a 90 lb 14-year-old and the same person at 25, after a growth spurt and years at a desk job. But it isn't clear to me why that fact would show that moderate drinking is unreasonably dangerous for that person at, say, 19.
As for the graded rights, the ones to look at are those relating to bodily integrity and personal health decisions. Those all come in at 18 or younger, this one should as well if the effect on health is the primary concern. (Anyway the observations about car/hotel rentals are individual business decisions, not the law.)
- Abigail Adams August 21, 2008 7:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If a person's brain does not stop developing until his or her early to mid-20s. And drinking alcohol can seriously damage long- and short- term growth processes. And if damage from alcohol during this time can be long-term and irreversible, then what about people who are 18 being able to join the military?
If I can choose to join the military where I could be:
- injured physically (lose a leg, arm, etc.)
- mentally (post traumatic stress disorder, etc.)
- tortured by the enemy
- missing in combat, potentially never seeing family and friends again
- killed in combat, definitely never seeing family and friends again
Then I don't see why I can't choose to drink responsibly once I turn 18. In my eyes, I would think being tortured, physically losing body parts, or dying in combat is a lot worse then drinking responsibly.
If the government decides that we can responsibly choose to join the military or not at the age of 18, then I would say that the government should also let us responsibly choose whether or not to drink alcohol.
- incognitouser February 22, 2009 6:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I joined the military when I was 19, I've deployed 3 times, and I've endured intense training designed to induce an unprecedented amount of stress (stress indoctrination , they call it)
Many experiences that I've had had the potential to cause bodily harm. In fact, I can honestly say that I've faced my own mortality several times.
I've also had friends, acquaintances, and mere coworkers I didn't know, die while they were in the military. None of them died from gunshot wounds or military training. All incidences were due to drug / alcohol abuse.
My experience is not unique. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, dying in combat, capture/ torture by the enemy, gunshot wounds, and other military-related problems don't happen anywhere near as often as alcohol-related deaths and injuries. Underage drinking was a huge problem in my squadron. Ironically enough, so were DUIs. Huh.
And there was a visible difference between the age groups and their drinking habits. 25 year olds and up had a tendency to drink socially. A glass of wine here and there. Like....grown ups.
20 year olds and under, almost 100% of the time, had a propensity to binge drink.
- Livvy March 29, 2009 6:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I completely agree with the above post. How is it that we believe 18 year olds are mature enough to enlist in the military, to fight and die for our country......and yet, not mature enough to drink alcohol? If they are too young and immature to make up their own minds about alcohol use, why do we believe they are mature enough to make up their minds about serving, war and death? I believe that if a man or woman decides to, in my opinion, take on one of the hardest jobs out there, they at least deserve a beer when they get back. I think that is the least amount of respect they deserve.
- michecrawfo1 October 19, 2008 11:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I have served as a contracted trainer for Kentucky Alcoholic Beverage Control's STAR Curriculum for Responsible Server Training for the past five years. This was due to a city ordinance mandating that all vendors be trained every three years. Through a careful study reviewing drunk driving records and underage citations and onsite investigative aide inspections, this educational program (as well as other education interventions like TIPS, Safe Serve and Bar Code) have helped reduce down the underage drinking and drunk driving.
Environmental strategies like social host ordinances, keg registration ordinances, mandatory alcoholic beverage server training ordinances and support of law enforcement and the judiciary would be much more impactive than following the "normative model" advocated by the College/University presidents.
For more information, you may contact Sandra Watts at Kentucky Alcoholic Beverage Control Training Branch - (502) 564-4850.
- Gary Hall August 20, 2008 7:57AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I agree that it is very important to train alcohol vendors.
But I don't agree with the argument that bars are not a controlled setting just because half of drunk drivers drank in a bar (I guess the other half drank at home) and that bars sometimes serve intoxicated people.
What doesn't happen in a bar are things like passing out on the floor after drinking multiple shots and choking on your own vomit-- in most bars, someone is going to notice and take action! Similarly, to take sexual advantage of a drunk woman, you have to get her out of the bar and away from the watchful eyes of her friends rather than just dragging her into a nearby bedroom at the house party. It is also harder to ply her with a stronger drink then she is expecting, or refill it when she isn't looking if the bartender makes the drink and someone has to order each one.
- Abigail Adams August 21, 2008 7:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
First of all, the statement that half of the people arrested for drunk driving came from bars proves absolutely nothing. This means that it's a coin toss as to whether a drunk person is coming from a bar or a private setting. Well where else do you think they are coming from? All this should tell you is that people who decide to drive drunk will do it whether or not they are at a commercial establishment, at home, or at a friend's house.
As for the 3/4 of 8th graders say that it is "fairly easy" to get alcohol statement, this should raise many questions in anyone's mind who comes across it. If adults are truly stupid enough to give or sell alcohol to an 8th grader, this doesn't say much for the argument by PIRE that adult's minds are any more developed than teenagers, much less 8th graders. I don't think I have ever heard of or seen an 8th grader who looks over 18, much less 21. I find it hard to believe that this fact did not come from an altered or severely warped survey of Junior High students.
The fact is that bars and other commercial establishments that serve alcohol are guaranteed to either have a sober staff or be shut down very quickly. This results in a much higher chance that if something goes wrong, there will be someone with a clear mind to do what needs to be done to help the intoxicated individual.
- PhilyG January 29, 2009 9:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
So what if they overserve? If you drink, you drink. If you die, you die, just like it says on the license plates here in New Hampshire.
- TomAlciere February 16, 2009 5:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Being a high school senior in the United States and a native German gave me some inside into alcohol consumption on both sides of the atlantic.
While, as it was said, in the U.S. all drinking happens behind closed doors, the respondents to a poll (as "The European Myth" brings forward) ar far less likely to respond truthfully. They are breaking the law and who is likely to commit to breaking the law?
In my experience the amount of drinking did barely differ between the U.S. and German teens. (Interesting, as it is a lot harder to obtain alcohol in the States) U.S. teens more frequently drank hard liquor as obtaining an (alcohol-)equivalent amount of beer and keeping it concealed is a lot harder to accomplish.
One problem that is paramount in my perspective is the younger driving age. Teenagers are allowed to drive a car in the U.S. and need to do so, as public transportation is nearly unavailable. Thus drinking teenagers will drive without the ability to judge their impairment.
- zebrab July 30, 2008 2:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thanks for "The European Myth." This is information that some of us have been trying to get out for some time. It's important to combat this myth, because it remains entirely prevalent. At the very least, we can clearly argue that most European countries have youth drinking problems as bad as in the US and, in many cases, worse.
- Dale August 26, 2008 9:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I serve a very diverse community as a prevention specialist and am amazed at the life of this myth--even in the face of evidence proving it false!
It is interesting to hear from someone who has experienced this issue from different cultural perspectives. My own colleagues tell me that they were given small amounts of alcohol as children, but many note that it was this practice that gave rise to alcohol use disorders affecting them and other family members.
There is much evidence from Great Britain, Australia, and other countries around the world that early onset of alcohol use is not a safe practice that gives rise to reduced public health problems with alcohol.
Thanks for the post (I am familiar with the source document, which readers can access at http://www.udetc.org/documents/CompareDrinkRate.pdf
if they find the graphs hard to read here.)
- Concerned Skeptic September 4, 2008 12:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
{Young people in nearly all European countries report drinking in the past 30 days in a greater percentage than in the United States}
Yes 16 year old Europeans drink more than Americans . This is because its legal and they don’t have to lie about it. But if you who’d look at European teen and drunk driving the number will by lower than America. Not because they are more responsible, but because they may not drive a car yet.
{A greater percentage of young people in a majority of European countries report having five or more drinks in a session}
Ok drinking 5 drinks in one session. What is one session? Going to a bar on a Friday night is very normal in Europe, on average 16 year olds stay there about 5 hours ,this is only 1 drink an hour. This isn’t binge drinking. By the time the go home the alcohol of the first 3 drinks will be broken down by the body.
{There is evidence that some European youth have higher rates of alcohol-related problems because of their heavy drinking}
You’re young so you experiment, things will go wrong. But the report does not come with numbers. And if you who’d compare 16 Europeans with 21 year old Americans and look at the number of people that end up in hospital I think there will be no big difference. (No prove sorry).
The big question is.
Is there a difference in drinking habits in later live between Europeans and Americans?
- jelle
September 17, 2009 8:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Where is the evidence that this will work? I have read what people have posted. I have also read the statemenst made by Amethyst Initiative and do not see any related studies showing that lowering the age will help. What I do see is page after page of material on the internet that shows that the Age of 21 for the drinking age has done alot. One such site: http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/AA67/AA67.htm
Here is my question: You have an 18 year old senior in high school. Do you really want him or her to be able to readily access alcohol? Because of their birthdays, two of my three sons will be 18 when they are seniors and I can say as a Parent, I do not want them to be able to have access to buy it legally.
- UltraConservative August 22, 2008 6:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Because of their birthdays, two of my three sons will be 18 when they are seniors and I can say as a Parent, I do not want them to be able to have access to buy it legally."
You actually can't say as a parent, the government is doing that for you. Can it be assumed that you are okay with the fact that your sons can buy cigarettes and porn at 18 or would you like those items to be held back until 21 as well?
- PhilyG January 29, 2009 8:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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
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
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
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
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
Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let's keep it as is
As far as I’m concerned, I really don’t understand why people feel the need to drink at all, but then I do realize that I’m very much in the minority.
Regardless of whatever number is given to legal drinking age, there will always be those just a few years younger who will try to ‘pass for legal age’. Yes – right now there may very well be 20, 19 and 18 year olds who pose as older. However, if the legal drinking age were lowered to 18, then 17, 16 and even 15 year olds will try to ‘squeak’ through. This could be a really big problem. Teenagers today dress and appear much older than those of yesteryear although they do not yet have the maturity and wisdom which comes from experience. I say – let’s leave it at 21.
The only real benefit that I foresee in lowering the drinking age to 18 is a financial benefit to the alcohol industry.
- redondo July 12, 2008 4:08PM
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.
No Education = Bad Decisions
Who is a 21 year old supposed to learn appropriate alcohol consumption from? He's long since left home and it can't be in college as all the college presidents are saying. You have a generation of young people learning about alcohol from other 21 year olds at keggers and bars. It should be no surprise that college students are dying from alcohol consumption. Lowering the drinking age to 18 allows people to learn about alcohol from adults. Not by trial and error and from peers.
Your comment about the alcohol industry is dismissive. There is no benefit of this to the alcohol industry if adults of this country are allowed to teach the younger generation how to drink responsibly.
- ltp
August 25, 2008 11:52AM
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.
Maybe not...
When i first read your comment, i was sure that it was a bad idea. My gut instinct told me that lowering the drinking age would only allow more alcohol in the hands of children.
Then i applied your theory to my own life. When i did this, the results were favorable and seemed to make sense. Perhaps i was mistaken.
I then realized that i had intelligent and responsible parents. Imagine the repercussions if the parents were not seriously involved in their child's transition to drinking. A uninformed and unsupervised transition at that age could have extremely harmful side effects.
Because of the possibility that the parents will not necessarily be a positive role model for their child, the drinking age should be set at an age where the person drinking alcohol is able to make rational and intelligent decisions on their own.
Perhaps the drinking age should not be lowered.
- Jefe32
September 13, 2008 6:14PM
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.
Education and experience, not prohibition
When I was 18, I spent several months in Sweden, where the drinking age is 18. As a teenager, I drank alcohol at home, but many of my friends had to sneak off to parties and drink all they could when they had the chance. When I went out in the world and had the opportunity to legally drink, it just wasn't that interesting.
The ferry between Copenhagen and Sweden was the only place where I ever saw drunk, disruptive people in Scandinavia. There is no drinking age in Denmark, so there were often drunk Swedish teenagers on their way back from a drinking spree.
We need to take away from the fascination with alcohol. If parents have a drink with their kids and teach them important factors, such as knowing when to stop, it would be far less dangerous than forcing kids -- and legal adults -- to sneak around. Also, it might steer teens away from harder drugs, as it is often easier for a teen to obtain marijuana or crack than it is to get some booze.
- CandieKelty August 27, 2008 1:32PM
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.
Why shouldn't the drinking age be lowered?
There are so many different angles and opinions on a topic like this, it is obvious that this will be discussed for years to come.
I'd first like to point out that the United States of America is one of few countries, in the entire world, that has a legal age of 21 - 95% of other countries are 18 or younger - and our drinking age law is matched by ultra- conservative laws of Pakistan, Indonesia, parts of India and Armenia.
But, rather than arguing what other countries are doing, there are two fundamental questions that I would like answered: 1) at what age does society consider us as adults, and 2) to what extend do we allow our government to dictate what we do to our own bodies.
1) While this is a common argument made by those for lowering the drinking age, it is still a valid argument. Why is it that you are legally an adult when it comes to custody, jury duty, civic duty, you can purchase cigarettes (which kill more people a year than alcoholic related deaths), join the military, vote for our President - but you cannot purchase alcohol. When the drinking age was raised in 1984, was it solely traffic related deaths that pushed the law through and has it had a reverse affect?
2) I am completely for punishing those that break the law and maximizing punishment when breaking the law causing pain/suffering/death to others. However, I do not believe our founding fathers created the consitution with the current world in mind. Our government has granted liberties and taken away others based on what seems to be driven by lobbyists, money and power . I question if the drinking age has more to do with control and pleasing a select conservative/religous group, rather than the best interests of our youth or our rights as law abiding individuals.
I am sure it is obvious what side I am taking, but I will certainly take the "European Myth" article and post it onto my blog because both sides of the arguement should be heard.
My blog and website deal with drinking, drinking games , and college humor. It was not created as a means of glorifying excessive drinking or teaching kids how to do get loaded (but I'm sure some of you will disagree). Healthy debate has created this nation and I look forward to your comments on this site or mine.
- drinknird
April 19, 2009 1:12AM
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.
Take it from a recent college grad
21 seems like such an arbitrary number these days. What do you think the percentage is for adults under the age of 21 having tried alcohol? I would imagine it is staggering. My contention is the government places the driving limit (in most states) at 16, but then there is five years between driving a car and getting a drink? The reason there is so much underage drinking is because it is something new to try, something that is taboo, something illegal. Okay, now for my college experiences: I got to college at the age of 18, I was one of the few kids I am sure that had very little interaction with hang overs and binge drinking. So there we are, going to a party, all of us woefully under the age of consumption. What does that mean at a party? Nada. What I have learned is the importance of learning control before college with alcohol. Studies have been done that when something becomes the norm or is no longer deviant, the number of people that do the act decreases. Lower the age to 19.
- Sundevil
July 13, 2008 10:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
Perhaps Different Rights for Different People
At 18 some people can enlist to kill people overseas...but not everybody. At 16 some people can drive a car...but not everybody. At 21 females can rent a car with some agencies...but not males (they have to be 25). Some people can get motorcycle drivers licenses...but not everybody.
Why not extend the right to drink on a selective basis, just as we do with other things? So perhaps a highly trained soldier that society trusts with an M-16 can also be entrusted to have a Coors, while a 19 year old freshman at USC is not. Or a young police officer can share a margarita with his fellow officers, but a same age friend with a criminal history cannot.
Let's look at the fine demographics, and not global statistics, and make intelligent decisions about who we can trust with a cocktail and at what age.
- Kasidie July 24, 2008 9:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
"Licensing"
I think the idea of selecting 18 year olds to drink by "demographics" is a problem. But, the basic idea is something that the Choose Responsibility people have suggested: Perhaps issuing a conditional license" to 18-20 year olds who have completed alcohol education programs and have no priors. (I wonder also about the role of parental consent.) The license could be pulled, then, with any alcohol related infraction.
- Dale
August 27, 2008 10:42AM
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.
Why the age limit
If this is such a good idea then why should we not attempt to apply it to all age groups. Percentages not withstanding all age groups pose a danger when they drink and then drive or commit other crimes, why the arbitrary cutoff at 21 for the license aside from making it more likely to pass?
- polobo
August 27, 2008 2:23PM
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.
If only...
If this idea could somehow work it would be terrific. The thing that is so frustrating about this topic of discussion is that the law is not followed (so what is the point in changing it). 75 percent of college students have had a drink in the last 30 days. I don't need to remind you that not 75 percent of college students are above the age of 21.
- Jefe32
September 13, 2008 6:19PM
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.
Just like marijuana prohibition, it's pointless
Most of the world allows drinking at 18. Young people in this country and many others start drinking (at parties, etc) even before then. Would young people drink more if they were allowed to? I don't think so.
In Australia, you can start drinking at 18, but you can't drive with ANY alcohol in your system until you are 20. If caught you'll loose your license and get into lots of trouble. I remember being young and being very aware of this law. None of us never thought about driving after drinking. This is a law that works. Prohibition doesn't. This country seems to still not come to terms with this simple fact.
- Kigster Delicatessen July 24, 2008 12:20PM
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.
Can Vote & Serve Our Country - Can Drink!
The drinking age should be 18. If the US considers a person an adult at 18, and responsible enough to serve our country & vote, they can drink.
- tamklo July 24, 2008 12:34PM
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.
Old Enough To Die
If you are old enough to join the Armed Forces and old enough to operate automatic weapons, drive tanks, and blow stuff up with heavy ordinance...you should be able to drink and gamble. Either raise the age limit on the Armed Forces and gambling or lower the drinking age to 18. You are an adult who pays taxes and considered responsible enough to live on your own and make your own decisions - you are old enough to have a beer.
- Gideon From The Dirty Onion
July 25, 2008 11:44AM
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.
Alcohol has become dangerously forbidden.
My reasons for supporting this argument are twofold: First, I feel that is immoral for the government to be denying this to privilege to anyone who is old enough to sign a contract or get married, and second, because my parents (thank GOD) were savvy enough to allow me to drink under their supervision while visiting Canada (we live close to the border) and the UK. These experiences, beginning when I was 15, showed that having one or two drinks at dinner to complement conversation was vastly more enjoyable than getting shitfaced and a hangover. Because of this, I was able to learn in a highly controlled environment that moderate, socially acceptable drinking was far more rewarding than getting herpes at a college kegger. The only thing I have to say is that it was a shame that they had to leave the country to give me the appropriate knowledge I needed to enjoy myself in a safe manner. Also, it's a really bad idea to make people learn to drive before they learn to drink.
- DelBeano
August 1, 2008 9:30PM
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.
adult at 18 or not?
at 18 you can be drafted, sent off to another country, be forced to fight, and be killed in a war but cannot have a beer before you go?
- YellowKeyboard August 3, 2008 5:45PM
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.
Drinking is fun for 18-20 year olds because it's illegal!
You make it illegal, it won't be so much fun anymore. People that age love to break the law. They drive 100 MPH, drink, use illicit drugs, etc. Older teens/young adults are just rebellious by nature. Many friends in college no longer enjoyed drinking when they turned 21 for this reason.
Lowering the drinking age, in my opinion, would reduce said effect. Introducing them to alcohol earlier, and teaching them how to drink responsibly, is the best solution. Prohibition does not work, in fact it is counter-productive.
- bagpiper2005
August 12, 2008 2:40PM
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.
Keep it At 21
What makes a person an adult? Is it their age? Is is how mature they are? What is it? I know many 18-20 year olds who are no more mature being in the Military than they were when in High School.
Should we lower the age a person can drive because people under 16 are driving without a license to prevent that?
My opinion: Changing the laws will not prevent under-age drinking. It will make it worse. Statistics have proven that the law has saved lives. There are many countless studies to show just that.
In our community, we have a problem with drinking amoung the young people here. It is not those between 18-20, it is with those that are between 13-18.
My thought is that education works. I have taught my boys that alcohol is bad and I have taught them why. At what age do you begin teaching your children about these things? Statistics show you better start when they are young because the age at which they try the stuff is getting lower every year.
- UltraConservative August 19, 2008 4:42AM
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.
Old enough to kill...but not drink...
If you are old enough to be shipped off to a foreign country and kill people, leaving emotional scars which have made some people unable to function in society, you should be able to drink alcohol.
People seem to confuse drinking with getting drunk. If you start drinking before you go to college, you will know your limit. You will be able to drink, rather than get drunk. In college, a very large percentage of students drink regardless of the law.
We should lower the drinking age to 18, and have harsher laws regarding drunk driving.
- mmsomekid August 19, 2008 1:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
We need to appreciate values
I believe that strong values and good judgment are learned, not suddenly acquired. Being 21 doesn't mean one can suddenly drink responsibly. Nor does being under 21 mean one can’t drink responsibly. It is a subjective issue depending on experience, alcohol tolerance, and personal attitude. I was first given wine at a very young age, as is custom in Italian families. I did not spontaneously become an alcoholic. I was brought up cultured and taught to respect and find my personal limit with each alcohol in a safe environment. Now I know what to drink and how much. I don't binge or partake in unsafe activities like others I know who were never allowed to drink. Also, the American limit prevented me from my studies and work. As an aspiring vitner, I could not tour Napa nor fully participate in my classes. This law is silly and pointless. I've seen 13 year olds who drink more than I do. It's not like this law is stopping anyone. Lower the drinking age to 18 and allow Americans to grow up.
- KCliberal
August 19, 2008 5:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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.
Lowering it won't help
Lowering the drinking age to 18 will not solve the problem of binge drinking. How do I know? The legal age used to be 19 in my state and 18 in a neighboring state in the late 70's. I was able to drink legally in the neighboring state when I was a senior in high school and in my state as a freshman in college. We drank like fish. My friends and I would occasionally obtain ID's (borrowed from seniors who were 18 - no photos at the time) when we were juniors in high school and go to the bars in the neighboring state. The bingeing didn't really stop until we graduated from college and entered the working world. And even then it happened on occasion. Lowering the age will make alchohol more accessible to kids in high school. Statistics on fatal accidents involving 16/17 yr olds and alchohol show a marked decrease after the age was raised to 21.
- beentheredonethat August 20, 2008 9:52AM
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.
Where were your parents?
You were driving to a neighboring state at 17 to go drinking? What did your parents say? I was expected home by 9 pm on the weekend when I was a junior in high school, and you can bet that if I had come home drunk I would have been severely chastised. And there is no way in heck I would have voluntarily gotten into a car with someone who had been drinking. Anyway, I always knew that my parents would come get me if I needed a ride home no matter what.
But then, it sounds like you grew up in the 1970's. I understand people didn't think drunk driving was as big of a deal back then. People today understand that driving drunk is wrong. When I was in college in the 1980's there was always a "designated driver" in the group I went out with (usually me) and I think that is even more prevelant now.
- Abigail Adams August 21, 2008 6:44PM
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.
It's not all about you
The drinking age use to be 18.It was raised due to the number of alcohol related auto deaths and alcohol poisonings.It was raised to lower insurance rates. The boundries are crossed when someone at any age makes an decision to have a drink or more and get behind the wheel. Your decision just impacted someone else's life or the family of someone killed because of your actions. You're not talking about signing a contract or dropping a ballot in a box; you're talking about families in pain and sorrow, insurance companies being sued, hospital costs, funeral costs etc. The true issue here is how do we keep teens, middle aged adults or seniors from destroying lives because of their actions? You could cause an accident or not react to avoid one. If no one's life had ever been touched by the consequences of drinking, we wouldn't be discussing it here. Think about others. What if a child died? Alcohol is a selfish act with no regard for humanity.
- just my thought August 20, 2008 10:38PM
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.
"adult" decisions
No matter how many restrictions parents and government officials put on the drinking age, young americans will always experiment with alcohol. Being under the legal drinking age I can honestly say that drinking is more tempting. I also find it quite annoying that I am not considered "adult" enough to handle a couple beers. I'm just a few months shy of 21 but I do agree that the age should be lowered. I respect the opinions of others, but some are just very prejudiced. Defining someone as an "adult" all depends on the individual. I know people in their 50's who are no more mature than my 16 year old sister. What it ultimately comes down to is the individual. We all need to take responsibility for ourselves and actions, should we choose to drink, and I believe at the age of 18 or 19 we are very much ready to shoulder that responsibility.
- cjc23 August 21, 2008 11:06AM
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.
The Rights of a Teenager
I must agree with the other folks concerning age 18 to be adulthood. We fail to recognize our young adults for the resources they bring into this world. Here in the United States they can be tried as an adult for a crime, but other rights are not there. May be if we listened more to the young adults in this country, instead of forcing them into avenues, (i.e. sports) that they do not want to participate in. Instead we could give them a say in their own country. Young adults do offer ideas to run this world, and the United States needs to recognize that. When watching C-Span, you can't help but notice that our country is run by a bunch of old people. The young can bring refreshed ideas to the table and deserve rights and representation in the United States. One final thought, When you go to the polls in November, remember that John McCain's voting record indicates a 98% vote against issues that reflect families, young people, and women.
Nathaniel W. Parsons, NEOCA-Advocate
- nwparsons August 21, 2008 7:40PM
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.
Do any of the promoters actually have kids of their own?
You cannot change the cultural views and treatment of alcohol by lowering the drinking age. The age itself is unimportant. It is the way that we as a country treat alcohol that is guiding how our young respond to it. Some of the countries that are being referenced as examples have a lower high school graduation age. In this country, if 18 year olds have access to alcohol, then all of their Freshman, Softmore and Junior age friends will also have access to it. Easy access. I'm sorry, but I do not want my 15 year old son to suddenly have easy access to alcohol through his Senior age friends. If he's going to drink, I at least want it to be a challenge for him. I agree with another poster who asked - what is the purpose of this? If the purpose is to allow young people to "get it out of their system" prior to college, then we are basically promoting the notion that high school is not important. How very sad.
- hanabuso August 21, 2008 8:51PM
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.
Monitor your own kids!
Monitor your own kids! You should know their activities and their friends. Talk to them about alcohol and make them understand why you don't want them to drink it.
- Nickel
April 29, 2009 4:14PM
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.
EToH Rite of Passage
Look -in Europe kids drink with their families, at social gatherings, dinner, church festivals, and the list goes on.
The point is, that it is normal social non-bindge drinking.
The kids are socialized normally, and treat alcohol normally, from childhood, through their teens and into adulthood.
However, in America, the story is different. We have created a taboo for the kids. A Taboo meant to be broken as a rite of passage, a rite of crazed bindge drinking, with only one goal: get drunk fast. As long as the law prohibits freedom, and the taboo exists, American kids will act out this Idiotic Rite of Passage. The law does US more harm than good.
- Principia1687
August 21, 2008 10:04PM
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.
Lower legal age has a "Trickle Down" Effect to kids
I have enforced the drinking laws in our county for 34 years. That time span encompasses a drinking age of 21, then 18, and now back to 21.
When the drinking age was 21, before the change to 18 some 24 years ago, underage possession of alcohol was a misdemeanor arrestable offense, with a jail term and a fine. Sure young adults and college students drank, but they were VERY careful and circumspect.
When the legal age changed to 18, we found that many more 15, 16, and 17 year olds were having alcohol problems. These children had many friends, associates, even classmates who were 18. These younger children were frequently associating with their older peers and school buddies. In many cases the 18 and 19 year olds were dating their underage friends (usually girls). This situation made access to alcohol wide open for the juveniles.
Currently it is very rare for a 21 year old to supply alcohol to a juvenile (person under 18).
- Killjoy August 22, 2008 8:51AM
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.
Punishing the wrong group
A very noble reasoning but flawed in that you are actively impinging upon the rights of adults so that other people's children have a more difficult time breaking the law - this is unconstitutional.
Un-emancipated persons under the age of 18 are extensions of their guardian whose role is, among other things, to teach those children to respect and abide by rules/laws and to affect punishment for breaking them (if necessary by contacting the police).
As for the side-effects, if I'm going to have illegal drinking I'd rather have it done by persons 13-17 who still have guardians (and have less opportunity to hurt others) than by those who are otherwise left to fend for themselves. Colleges cannot contact the parents because the students are considered adults and thus have their right to privacy. K12 students can be reported to their parents and their parents can step-in to help rectify the situation before those lose all control because the child has become an adult.
- polobo
August 22, 2008 2:25PM
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.
Reply to polobo
If it were unconstitutional then the Supremes would have so found. True one group is suffering for the benefit of another group. But, in my long experience, the 18,19, and 20 year olds are not trustworthy.
Having 18 year old high school seniors socializing with 16 and 17 year olds, most of whom are drivers, is a recipe for much suffering. In the real world, those of us who have to deal with the results of a 16/17 year old girl who was peer pressured into drinking too much know how many young girls are sexually assaulted and traumatized.--The responsibility of the guardians, notwithstanding.
- Killjoy August 23, 2008 7:04PM
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.
Spirit vs. Technical Interpretations
I am probably being a little liberal in my use of "unconstitutional" but I would clarify my statement as being in opposition to the spirit of our constitution and our pre-existing laws. As a general principle we punish people for actions they themselves have committed. As an example guns can be used to kill people yet we have chosen not to outlaw gun ownership on the basis of the 2nd amendment. If someone does use a gun to murder then that individual is punished.
Ignoring the fact that changing the drinking age does not transfer proportionally the number of illegal drinkers would the rape of an intoxicated 20 year old be any more or less heinous than the rape of a 16 year old?
Peer pressure is part of growing up, but any actions one takes is still their responsibility and the consequences are theirs to bear. Parents, not government, are tasked with helping children to recognize and respond to peer pressure appropriately.
- polobo
August 27, 2008 8:17AM
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.
reply to killjoy
i find this offensive, because i am 18, and i am probably more trustworthy then some of the 20+ year olds i know. i don't know who you're looking at for a demographic for what you said, but i don't think you should lump all these people together just because they're under drinking age.
but, i can also see your point in a way. i've very depressed when i look around at the people in my school because a lot of the kids are coming into high school in the morning either with a fresh buzz or a hangover, most of them coming from dysfunctional families (not all)
- KOSKI09
February 18, 2009 1:09PM
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.
Pros and Cons
There are many ways to look at this subject. One being, if 18 year old kids can go off to war carrying firearms, etc. to fight and die for our country, they should be considered adults, and be allowed to buy alcohol. I would be interested in finding out what the age related statistics are concerning drunk driving accidents and deaths, or any alchohol related deaths.
- Glasscat
August 22, 2008 1:45PM
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.
No lowering
That is just an excuse for you people cause if you even go to war you won't drink there anyways and most likely won't be out until you're 21 or just dead. Besides at the age of 18 you're making good decisions to hopefully make a life and go onto college. You can't afford bad decisions then. Alchohol is just a no good excuse to get drunk and layed.
- SabiX103
October 30, 2008 11:28AM
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.
Rude
SabiX103....that's just rude. I personally don't drink OR use drugs. But that doesn't stop me from having friends that do drink. I previously said there were many ways to look at the subject, ALONG with an interest in finding out age related death statistics involving drinking. I did not say one way or another whether I was against or for! If I had the statistics, I would THEN make a decision whether it was wise to lower the drinking age or keep it at 21.
- Glasscat
November 5, 2008 2:23PM
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.
DUI fataities lower in Canada then U.S.
You don't need to go to Europe to prove that a lower drinking age has no ill effects. One could just travel to Canada where the drinking age is either 18 or 19 depending on the province. Canada has a lower mortality rate then the U.S. due to DUI.
I live 7 miles from the Quebec border and have watched the effects of raising the drinking age on the local youth.
Now, one only needs to take a 20 Min. trip to one of the border towns in Quebec on a Sat. night. There you will find where our towns young population spends their nights. They are dilligent about always having a DD. In this regard the educational system has paid off.
We have men and women that have served 2 tours in Iraq and are now married with children. They can be arrested for possion of a beer. What a joke!
- border resident August 23, 2008 11:22AM
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.
Are they adults or not???
My daughter was at a party not long ago and the poloice intervened. Everyone at the party was forced to take a breathalyser test. My daughter's test was negative. I still received a call from the police about my daugters attendance at the party. I asked the officer the age of my daughter he replied "19". I then reminded him that she was an adult and hung up.
- border resident August 23, 2008 11:42AM
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.
My apologies for going off topic but..
Hoorah!
- mburmei1
August 27, 2008 1:17PM
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.
hahaa
i wish you were one of my parents lol
- j30a1
September 27, 2009 8:53PM
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.
Motivation for Colleges that want to lower drinking age?
I'm suspicious of why many colleges are coming out in favor of a lower drinking age. I know that local colleges provide transportation to bar crawls, and are involved in other events where alcohol is served. I can't help thinking that their potential liability would be reduced if they didn't have to worry about an under 21 year old individual getting drunk and injuring themselves or others, after drinking at an event they were sponsoring or somehow facilitating. I think that is all there is too it.
- Bill August 23, 2008 4:37PM
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.
American Issues
I am against lowering the drinking age in America. Other societies have less issues with this because they do not HAVE as much as Americans. We are an addictive society ... we want more and more; larger quantities; whatever we can get. Other societies don't have this mindset or the availability of the quantities of things that we have. Secondly, I disagree on the premise that binge drinking happens because it is illegal. On the contrary, binge drinking happens because kids are free to make decisions for the first time and have not been trained by their parents, ministers, teachers ... society, how to make good decisions. When we start teaching everyone that there are consequences for their behavior, we will be in a much better way.
- revmommy
August 27, 2008 8:54AM
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.
Individual Issues
The decision to "binge drink" most likely has many personal and environmental concerns but the Legal 21 law and most of the supporting studies are more concerned with "drunk driving" as opposed to "binge drinking". As a matter of reality this fact (multiple concerns and an "addictive society") makes the abolishment of drinking impossible (nor is such abolishment necessarily a desirable outcome). As a consequence there will be abuse and death. The resources spent to lobby, legislate and enforce Legal 21 would be better spent devising better ways to prevent bystanders from becoming victims of the decisions of others. Those who leave themselves defenseless and in a vulnerable situation are only slightly less "culpable" than those to perpetrate the crime. Admittedly, this is a societal problem as well since we encourage individuals to rely on others to keep them safe (through deterrence and prevention) as opposed to expecting individuals to affect a meaningful self-defense.
- polobo
August 27, 2008 9:35AM
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.
Will this increase illegal access to alcohol by younger teens?
One concern I have is how dropping the legal age to 18 will increase underage drinking among youth under 18. I gather that if the minimum legal drinking age is 18, 18 year olds would be able to legally purchase alcohol. This increases the number of people who might be willing to purchase alcohol for underage drinkers, and these new proxy buyers will closer to the age of teenagers to young to drink legally. I am confident that lowering the legal drinking age to 18 will have the unintended consequence of increasing underage drinking among younger teens.
- Dale
August 27, 2008 9:33AM
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.
Addressed elsewhere
By your reasoning:
We are punishing one group of individuals because another group may become more likely to commit a crime. Children under 18 have more societal support mechanisms (i.e., parents) and less opportunity to do damage to others if they do become drunk. With the current law, illegal drinkers are too far removed from non-legal methods of intervention to identify and correct a problem before it becomes serious. There is also less likely to be a moderating force that the person will listen to (or who will speak up) when the do become intoxicated and start acting irresponsibly.
From this standpoint making drinking legal when children enter high school as opposed to their senior year would give the parents and children more time to work through issues (legally) and hopefully have those children ready once they leave home at 18. The danger to ones health can be handled via the FDA and not via Congress via labels and advertising.
- polobo
August 27, 2008 2:36PM
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.
kids under 18 already drink
in my school i know countless kids who are under 18 and drink. dont be blind. lowering the age will not have an effect on kids drinking underage, because they already do. hell i know a 13 year old who drinks with his parents, and he isnt a bad person, he is smart and gets better grades than i did when i was a freshman
- j30a1
September 27, 2009 8:59PM
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.
No, it should not.
I thought about addressing this issue with my "professional hat" firmly in place, but am choosing the simpler path of addressing it wearing my over riding "parent hat". As a Certified Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Professional, I could quote you lots of stats that indicate lowering the drinking age makes no sense whatsoever, but evidently a group of well-educated college professionals are not swayed by clear black and white information.
As a parent of 5 now adult children, perhaps this question will be more impactful: What about your average 18 year old makes you think this young man or woman would make a more responsible choice at the age of 18 than at the age of 21?!! I was 18 once, my husband and children were all 18 once. Our experience as individuals was that eighteen on alcohol can't possibly be less dangerous than eighteen without the effects of this mind altering drug.
Think, people! My best method while holding on to the reins of a racing team of hormone happy teens was to delay onset and hang tough for as long as possible.
And excuse me, what do voting and joining the military have to do with drinking? These are 3 totally different rights and responsibilities. The right to each is not in any way related to the right to the other two.
There are so many more promising methods (some we've even tried and found to work!) to curbing under age drinking. Lowing the drinking age to 18 would be foolishness. How about we try some things that work!
llv
- llv September 2, 2008 7:40AM
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.
Reply to liv
I am really offended by a couple of your terms. For example "hormone happy teams". I happen to be a teenager, and I feel that this is very rude. I understand you are a parent, but, being a parent, you should know HOW MUCH OF AN IMPACT YOUR ACTIONS AND WORDS HAVE ON YOUR CHILDREN. YOU are the number one role model. I don't care for alcohol , and yet my parents have offered it to me on more than one occasion, and I am well below the drinking age. This doesn't mean anything though, because they are trying to teach me to be responsible with substances that can impair judgement. If the parents would educate their kids , not that alcohol is bad, but that alcohol should be taken in moderation, as with everything, then all of these alcohol-related accident statistics would be lowered. I believe that the drinking age should in fact be lower than the driving age, because then the children know how to handle alcohol before they drive a vehicle drunk. If the alcohol age is 5 years above driving age, then those who have just become legal for drinking will be overconfident in their driving abilities, and THIS will cause accidents, not the over-consumption of alcohol. It is the overconfidence of those who are legal drinking age.
- debator101
June 11, 2009 8:08PM
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.
NO!!! Please
Okay, folks we have been down this road before when it was 18-----then the gov't wamted it raised to 21 save lives on the highway and would punish states that did not stay @ 21 by taking away their road fund money.......
So have all the lives that needed saving "BEEN SAVED" AND the college presidents and others now "they are drinking anyway" so lets lower the age and let them get leagal earlier so they have more change at road deaths etc,,,,,,Where is the justice for the DEAD & INJURED? Most may not have insurance.........who pays????? the families or will the insurance companies get in the game and now yu need insurance aganist the "drinking driver who is under age". That really should put some money where it counts......still not in the victim's pockets.
So who pays for roads now; underage drinking drivers or EVERYONE??????
Protect Lives------Save our ROAD dollars---don't MIX insurance and drinking--------
21 may be legal but with limited life experiences under the belt!!!!
18 is not legal and is in the process of learning life which consisit of laws and rules---stay clean and 21 will come soon enough.
------------LETS GIVE A CHANCE FOR 18 YO TO LIVE UNTIL THEY ARE 21----------
- bricks September 2, 2008 8:39PM
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.
Proposition to put drinking age at 18 flawed?
If young adults nationwide are ignoring the legal consequences of underaged drinking when the cap is at 21, what happens when we lower the cap to 18? Will proponents a decade from now argue that young adults are ignoring the cap of 18, and that the legal age should be 14? Play off of argument lowering the legal age: "We should have students learn about responsible drinking from their parents before they enter high school (instead of college)." I think the legal age has a graduated effect, a 3 year cushion that is ignored, but lower than that it is considered unacceptable. There is anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but on the absolute terms the legal age keeps teenagers from buying alcohol over the counter and lowers overall access, which is the goal of the law, to keep alcohol out of the hands of most young adults so that it doesn't become an addictive part of their life as they transition to adults. Its a popular argument that a lower age limit would also decrease the "excitement/deviant" aspect of alcohol consumption, but this should remain a stereotyped/speculative/anecdotal response unless there are significant statistics to back it up.
- thaisondang September 3, 2008 1:48PM
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.
Advantages on both sides of the issue
I agree with the comments that something must be done to take away the excitement of drinking. As someone who's family was raised in England, I was drinking beer around the house, with parental supervision and permission, long before I was 21. When visiting relatives in England we routinely went out to pubs with cousins who were over 18 but under 21. Did this make me a more responsible drinker? I think so, although there were definitely times when I had more than I should while at college, however, I was not driving at the time. One thing I did notice in England the last time I was there, was that even hardcore drinkers did not risk drinking and driving, as the punishments were very harsh. I agree with the suggestion that colleges cracking down on on-campus drinking will just push it off campus where there is more likelihood of people driving. Perhaps a middle ground is permitting persons over 18 to drink beer and wine (I'm not sure about harder alcohol because it is much easier to drink large quantities of it faster) but make the punishment for drinking and driving draconian. Most on-campus students wouldn't care as they would be pedestrians for the evening. I realize there are laws against drinking and driving but obviously, at 250 lbs, I can have a beer or two on the way home from work and it will make little difference to my BAC and driving ability. Not so for a 120 lb to 170 lb college student. And there is no law against me doing so, although there are legal limits for BAC. I say make it illegal for a person between 18 and 21 to have ANY alcohol in their system while driving and then ENFORCE the law. First offense they lose their license for a year, second they lose it until age 21. That of course will not stop the people who drive without licenses, just as people do without insurance but that is another issue. I think the above solution walks the middle ground. 18 yo's COULD drink, but could not drink and drive...at all!
- MoonTwpMan September 9, 2008 6:22PM
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.
There are several health benefits to moderate drinking
These are not just limited to red wine either. The alcohol itself has several heart-healthy benefits, including increase in HDL cholesterol levels, which in turn reduces risk of heart disease and stroke (by as much as 40%), and in the event of a heart attack or a stroke, reduces mortality risk by about 20%. Also moderate, regular drinkers are less likely to have hypertension and tend to have better longevity than their abstaining counterparts. Note, however, I said moderate drinking. Drink heavily definitely negates these effects and introduces new risks.
Of course there are exceptions to this. Pregnant mothers should not drink alcohol, as well as people on certain medications such as prescription sleep aids, and/or those with a predisposition to abuse.
I take a drink per day, not just because I like the refreshing aspect of it, but I drink as much for my health as I do because I enjoy a nice drink. Lowering said drinking age would give more responsible individuals access to these health benefits, which has a positive effect overall, as there are far more responsible drinkers than abusers.
- bagpiper2005
September 20, 2008 2:46AM
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.
Ultraconservative is highly irrational...
...seriously, let's look at what this guy believes and you'll soon see just what a whack-job he really is!
He believes earth is 6,000 years old (unrelated to this debate but needs to be brought up). Debunking science with irriational faith? Strike one.
He believes that despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, alcohol is detrimental in any amount. Debunking science with irrational faith once again? Strike two.
He doesn't believe cops are doing their job. Well...truth of the matter is, the legal intoxication limit continues to go down. Strike three.
That's just how irrational this guy is and anything he says should be taken very lightly and laughed off.
- bagpiper2005
September 26, 2008 8:50PM
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.
This idea almost killed me 35 years ago.
We've heard all these arguments before. When Massachusetts lowered the age from 21 to 18 back in '73 or so, the bars overflowed with teenagers. I know...I was one of them. It was a disaster. Don't we learn from our own history? It's like Bill Clinton's repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act back in 1999 -- which was put into place in 1933 to prevent a repeat of the stock market crash of 1929, which ushered in the Great Depression -- we're now repeating those days with another financial disaster in the making! This is insanity! Drinking alcohol is not the same as serving in the military! Or voting!
- TerminalNewEnglander
September 30, 2008 2:12PM
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.
au contrair
Serving in the military is much MORE dangerous. People are trying to kill you and you are trained to become a killing machine. An un-informed voter has its own dangers, particularly the inclination to follow cults of personality and charismatic leaders. If we truly believe that 18 year olds are adults, then they should have the right to drink.
- Nickel
April 29, 2009 4:34PM
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.
it doesnt matter
i think it should be lowered but not to 18 i think it should be 19 so most are at least out of high school
i am not 21 but im not dumb i can tell when i've had enough i dont drink to see how drunk i can get and i never even think of getting in my truck
we just go out to our camping spot and sit around a fire and bullshit
i know there are a lot lf stupid people out there but there are also a lot of responsible ones
it doesnt matter how high the legal age is people will always be able to find buyers
- lesmeistera
October 27, 2008 6:53PM
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.
Remeber when states had rights?
The drinking age used to be dependant on the state, but the fed's got involved and passed an act where they would reduce the federal highway funds to any state that didn't raise their age to 21. My guess is that this was probably the result of lobbying by Mothers Against Drunk Driving or some similar group. This is just one more incident where a small number force their will on the masses. We need to settle on an age for legal maturity and 18 seems to be it for everything but drinking. Sure, drunk drivers kill. My brother was killed by a drunk driver. But I think changing the drinking age doesn't help. Education helps and more enforcement helps. While traffic fatalities have remained fairly constant over the past 25 years, the percentage of alcohol related fatalities have been reduced. I believe this has been because of years of education and enforcement rather than the age change. http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
I say this because the reduction was gradual over many years, not a big spike after the age change.
- walt1999
November 4, 2008 10:56AM
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.
Most of the world allows drinking at 18 because they are responsible
Come on. We can't be responsible for our debt. We can't be responsible with fetuses. Do you really think an 18 year old, still young at heart, would say no to a binge drinking party?
- The Other Conservative Guy
November 29, 2008 12:31PM
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.
We are not all irresponsible
I'm 19 and a freshman in college. I'm surrounded by drinking all the time. While I drink on occasion, I would say "No" to a binge drinking party. It's stupid and unsafe. I'm responsible enough to make that decision. It's not that hard. On the contrary, I know adults who drive under the influence of alcohol more often than any of my peers. Age does not determine responsibility. My parents taught me how to be responsible and make safe choices, but that doesn't mean I can't have a little fun now and then. I believe that if the age were lowered, parents would be more apt to teach their children safe drinking habits, rather than complete abstinence from alcohol, which clearly isn't working.
- jlhall2
December 2, 2008 12:17PM
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.
Well that is what YOU chose.
Well good for you for surrounding yourself with good people.
BUT they are too young to drink, and they still have not fully become adult yet, psychologically wise. They are still prone to peer pressure. You can't take the risk
- The Other Conservative Guy
January 22, 2009 9:57PM
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.
No
In your first argument, you list perceived problems with (presumably) your generation. It is not the exclusive realm of young people to be irresponsible with their debt. I don't know how you can be irresponsible with a fetus,as they tend to be pretty hard to lose, but even so, abortion is hardly the sole realm of those under 21, though they certainly have much more reason to have an abortion. The fact that Americans are irresponsible does not justify punishing young people. Your point that many young people would not say no to a binge drinking party is detrimental to your argument. How many people under 21 die of alcohol poisoning because his friends didn't want to rat him out to authorities that could have saved his life? How many people under 21 attepmt to drive themselves home when they are too drunk because they are afraid of getting caught when they call a cab, or a friend, or their parents, to get home? The artificially high drinking age kills people. As far as peer pressure goes, is there a magic age when you stop caring about peer pressure? I have seen old men peer pressured into doing things they didn't want to. Everyone is prone to peer pressure, not just young people. Your arguments would be better suited to a total ban on alcohol. If you are old enough to live on your own, sign legal contracts, smoke, be tried criminally as an adult, and fight, kill, and die for your country, you are plenty old enough to have a couple beers.
- richardsonkr
January 23, 2009 8:18PM
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.
Alcohol messes with your brain cells
Your brain isn't fully developed until you're 25. Don't you think that you should wait until you're at least 21 before you start messing it up?
- madninjamonkey
December 16, 2008 7:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
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.
Good point
This is the only good argument on the "NO" side of this issue, however 18 year olds are allowed to smoke cigarettes. How is that less harmful?
- Nickel
April 29, 2009 4:38PM
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.
If you can die
If you can enlist in the army and die for your country at war at the age of 18 then you should definitely be able to enjoy a beer with some buddies.
- mattbertrams
January 13, 2009 10:40AM
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.
Don't be so quick to judge
18 year olds are allowed to buy and smoke cigarettes and seeing the adults around them and organizations like truth and "live above the influence" keep them from abusing this right. People die of lung cancer from smoking all the time and teens learn about this early on through parents, teachers, counselors etc. Knowing this one cannot automatically assume that 18 year olds will abuse alcohol if it was made legal to them. I think it would help them learn earlier on not to abuse the right because the adults around them will teach them before they go off to live on their own. We can't expect anyone who has been sheltered from something for so long all of a sudden be allowed to do it without abusing it. It's like when a 16 year old gets his/her license, before the license comes the permit. The permit helps them learn right from wrong so that when they do have their license and are put out with innocent pedestrians they have more of an idea of what they're doing and how to do it in the safest way possible. Be keeping all alcohol from anyone under 21 were putting people more at risk of abusing the drug. Even if the law isn't changed from 21 to 18 I believe it should at least be altered to where 18 year olds are allowed to drink when around adults at least.
- brandisingsweet
January 15, 2009 10:55AM
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.
Do teens really have that much responsibility?
You could technically say porn is legal for 18 year olds, but I think it is worng period.
What I am trying to say is that even when they turn 21, they get crazy and go binge drinking. What does 18s do with beer?
It does not hurt to wait a little longer.
- The Other Conservative Guy
January 22, 2009 9:27PM
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.
Second Class Citizens
Either the age of majority should be raised to 21 or the drinking law lowered to 18. A minor is not considered to be responisble for their own actions, their parents/or guardian are,
But an adult is presumed under the law to be able to handle their own affairs so by what system or moral ethics is used to refuse to allow an adult citizen the oportunity to purchase a legal substance?
- kentuckydan
May 8, 2009 10:04PM
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.
the only argument to fight is the driving fatalities and this is how
yes we all know the argument, age of majority vs safety of citizens. or or examine the argument with the core democratic values of
for lower age=pursuit of equality, liberty, Justice vs common good and Life=current age.
Now when does the law go too far into the rights of people??? Yes this law is used to save people so it says and lets say that tougher enforcement, idea of dd and realization that drunk driving is bad, change in alcy advertising had no effect on the lowering of fatalities and that is all based on the drinking age even if canada had similar effects even though no change in drinking age happened.
Ok lets hold this true. Now everyone who uses this as there major arguement let me ask u if u would also support all this legistlation with the same idea as the 21 year old age based on the safety of people based on there psych/physiological needs. Heres my idea: Any person with prehypertension(above average blood pressure) or is classified as unhealthy would be not allowed to buy or consume: fast food , soft drinks, candy, cigarettes etc and is shown on their license whether these things can be bought or not.
AGE DISCRIMINATION is what the drinking age is and what I have proposed is HEALTH DISRCIMINATION which doesnt exist yet IT IS THE SAME CONCEPT but should be even more acceptable bc the health benefits are great but the right to freedom is limited. but people would then buy these things for there unhealthy friends and then penalties would be stiffened and bam its the same idea as drinking age lol. but MANY MORE TIMES people would be saved by this law extending life expectancy by years. and if u can say that that idea would work then wow freedom is not something of any importance to you.
The truth is there is immature people at every age who make mistakes and people die oh yah lets not forget eveyone dies anyways but people die and
underage adults and adolescents will always drink and you know why bc its an excuse to be..., and just like in other adults drinking Moderately, increases extroversion, open to new experience, agreeableness and lowers neuroticism (Big 5 personality) allowing people to be more social thats why many a people underage or not drink simply put its fun
- Sandborn
May 11, 2009 12:29AM
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.
This is a stupid argument!
You can kill yourself with Tabacco legally before 21 and you can be thrown into an uneeded war and be killed before you are 21. Either lower the age or change the system.
- bhall
June 17, 2009 1:07PM
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.
MLDA 21 hypocritical
It's hypocritical to hold people criminally responsible and possibly draft them into the military at age 18, but to then turn around and tell them they're too young to have a sip of wine or beer at a baseball game for three more years.
- silverfang838 August 5, 2009 7:24PM
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.
War
The best argument I've heard for the drinking age to be 18 is.
You can go to war at 18, I think you should be able to have a beer too.
- ttut21
August 17, 2009 4:10PM
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.