I don't know if this is the right forum but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
How do you feel about the legal drinking age in the United States? Is 21 too old to let people legally purchase and drink alcohol? Do you feel that it is fair that an 18 year can enlist in the military and risk their lives for the country but not be able to drink alcohol?
I'd like to hear what DD thinks about this because there's usually a good discussion on topics here.
Last edited by Killroy; May 27th, 2007 at 06:21 PM. Reason: resized\rehosted image
Personally, I wish alcohol was illegal. Even though I was one of the underage drinkers, and have done my fare share of porcelain god worshipping, now having a kid of my own has forced me to take a look at things in a different light, and from a different perspective.
But let's not stray to the drug topic and try to stick with the question Tolo has asked. Is 21 a fair drinking age, and should it be lowered. To that question I say that it should stay as it is. There is a reason why 21 was picked.
21 was picked because of studies done with alcohol and animals. Particularly when the brain was in it's learning\growing phase. Studies showed that alcohol abuse during this time severely hampered learning capabilities and could permanently damage the brain's ability to so. So, the general consensus at the time was that by the age of 21, a humans brain, for the most part, has past that particular phase of growth and the use of alcohol was not as big of an issue (in regards to stunting).
Do I believe or agree with this? Well, I didn't see all the studies, but it sounds pretty logical to me. A simple Google search on alcohol abuse and the brain pulls up more than enough studies and research (including the one I linked above) to read through and all with the main theme of alcohol abuse does some nasty shit to a brain that is still developing.
Secondly, people who start using alcohol at a young age have an increased likelihood of developing drinking problems.
And finally, since everyone seems to love stats, in the early 70's (where I remember only having to be 18) a number of states lowered their drinking age from 21 to 18. In many of these states, research documented a significant increase in highway deaths of the teens affected by these laws. So, in the early 1980's a movement began to raise the drinking age back to 21 (in which I remember being PISSED). The states that moved the age back up to 21 found that teenage deaths in fatal car crashes dropped up to 28%.
In 1982 when the many of the states had minimum drinking ages of 18, 55% of all fatal crashes involving youth drivers involved alcohol. Since then, the alcohol-related traffic fatality rate is half of that.
Most of this last info came from the MADD site, but they also list their sources. But I don't need the info. It just makes since. And for those of you who want to bring up the fact that other countries have their age at 18, consider that the most of these countries do not have a society in which almost every teenager has a car, and uses it daily. Also, the UK is now having residents attempting to get this age raised because of things like:
But no matter what your position is here in the States, opposition to the 21 age limit is not only small, but unlikely to change any time soon as any state that lowers the drinking age would lose 10% of its federal highway funding. :)
- Alcohol-related conditions such as liver disease have doubled in less than a decade, to 262,844 a year
- The number of people taken to Accident & Emergency with alcohol-related injuries has also doubled to 148,477 a year
- Excessive drinking by young people has seen a 20% rise in hospital admissions in England over the last five years
Last edited by Killroy; May 27th, 2007 at 06:19 PM.
For Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do.
Nice post Morbid! It was informative...and I've nothing to say.
I knew and agreed with what you posted Morbid. The problem I have is, why is it okay for an 18 year old to get sent into war and possibly end up dead but it isn't okay for an 18 year to drink because of what you mentioned. Surely, anyone that is shot in the head or blown up isn't going to have a chance to completely develop or reach that stage of growth.
I just feel that if you're able to die in a war, you should be able to drink alcohol and be given the same rights as anyone of age.
Well, perhaps the age to enroll into the military should be 21...Originally Posted by Tolo
Or just do what the Marines did, and lower the drinking age.
In any event, an 18 year old kid cannot drive worth shit. Period. Statistics show this over and over again. Drunk 18-year-olds are even worse.
Or we could raise enlistment age AND voting age AND getting your drivers license all to 21. Would you agree with that, Tolo?
Last edited by Killroy; May 27th, 2007 at 07:08 PM.
For Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do.
I don't understand though...who set these standards? It seems awkward and jumpy...everything here is straight 18-19 and there's little variation.
Well, the drinking age was discussed already, but voting is 18, enlisting in the military is 18, to buy cigarettes is also 18, and if I am not mistaken, the average age to drive (not counting a learners permit) is 18 as well, but that can vary state-to-state.
For Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do.
That's all fine and dandy that they can drink on base and other places while they are on active duty but what about when they aren't serving? I feel like they should be given the same right in and out of the military. It sounds really cheap or cheesy I guess but "they earned" their freedom.
I agree 18 year olds can't drive for shit. Trust me! In any case, people shouldn't be driving drunk at all. 18, 21, or 45...There's no excuse for it.
I'd be for raising enlistment or at least lowering the drinking age all around for those that served in the military. If you can fire a gun and possibly kill someone, yoiu should be able to handle a Budweiser.
I don't think the problem with the drivers is the actual age but the training and test. The tests for the local DMV are a joke. Basically 4 right turns and a parking job. That's it. You don't go on the freeway or shit. I really don't think that's a great way to test a person's driving skills.
I guess my point is that your argument is simply a "it's not fair" type of argument on why you should be able to drink at 18 rather than any arguments against all the statistics on why an 18-year-old should not be able to.
For Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do.
I'm not arguing that 18 year olds shouldn't be able to drink all the way. I'm not trying to ignore that statistics of 18 year olds...If it seems that way. I'm more on the side of bringing the enlistment age up to 21. It just sounds really unbalanced to be able to fight for a country when you don't have the same rights as someone who is 21. Eighteen year old are still developing, so they shouldn't be able to drink but being killed in war completely stops the development of the same person.
I'm probably repeating myself. :)
It's a good point but it's also an old one...
I'd like those 18 year olds that are fighting for our safety,
not to be drunk while they are doin' it!
Most of those who argue that point have never even considered joining the forces!
You're probably being sarcastic? haha...But it's okay for the 21 year olds to be drunk? :p
I've never considered joining the military, no. This isn't me trying to whine because I can't legally buy alcohol because I can get it anyway. But I think those who are in the service or have served should be able to purchase it legally.
I know it's an old point but I feel like there hasn't been any big debate on here like old times. :)
yes, I was being sarcastic. I didn't mean anything by it!
I just think most kids now days abuse pretty much everything "given" to them!
They expect it, it's their right! bullshit, try workin' for something!
If you can't tell... I have spoiled Step kids! ;)
Frankly this is the main reason why changing the drinking age won't really matter. If kids want booze, it isn't really that hard to get. I just spent a week at the beach with five guys all under 21 who managed to get three handles of liquor, and several cases of beer with almost no trouble. Sure the law deters underage kids from buying alcohol, but I'm not sure that it deters anyone from consuming it. In my time as a teenager I've yet to meet anyone who said no to a beer because "it was illegal."
My personal theory for why the drinking age is higher than the enlistment age:
Having an enlistment age of 18 makes perfect sense because most recruits come straight out of highschool looking to take advantage of the GI bill, get some training and world experience, serve the minimum time, and let Uncle Sam put them through further schooling. Raising the age would punish, not protect these youth. Many (my step-brother included) have lied about being a year older to get into the military after graduating a year early.
These are people that WANT to be in the military. Anti-war morons and alcoholic assholes always pose the "die for their country" conundrum as if nobody wants to be in the military and these kids are being drafted against their will. Raising the age is punishing the free will of others to satisfy one's own subjective code... a recipe for totalitarian intolerance.
So, why is the drinking age different? Because there are a lot of kids still in highschool that are 18 years of age. Having a drinking age of 18 means that every punk that got held back a year is going to spend some time in highschool with the means of providing juice for the rest of his hooligans. Who are driving for the first time. And feel invincible. And influence all of the kids younger than them. 21 is a good number because it separates the non-drinking highschool crowd from the heavily-drinking college crowd.
I know, I know, we all remember drinking in highschool. But if you think back, you have TONS of more memories of struggling to score booze and failing than you do of actually sitting around and drinking. You always had to rely on that loser pedophile college student that was dating the really hot Junior who thought she had a catch. And those guys are notoriously unreliable.
Besides, the argument that the two numbers should be the same just can't be made. Why should they agree with one another? For aesthetic purposes? They are for different things. It isn't like women get to drink at 18 and men at 21, we are talking about graduation age vs. maturity age. And most recruits don't get to see action at age 18, even during Vietnam most troops weren't this young. So the argument of "dying for their country" is vacuous for that reason as well.
Concluding: This argument is just posed by one of three kinds of people:
1. Alcoholics who are recruiting more fucking losers for their side
2. Anti-war fascists who need to FORCE others to live by their subjective moral guidelines
3. People who can't remember their own phone number and therefore want fewer legal ages to have to memorize
I want more alcoholic losers on my side.
They aren't as much fun as alcoholic fucking losers.
That'd be nice to have as well.
In fairness, Swivel does raise some good points. Raising the age of service to match that of drinking poses an unjust burden on those who would typically enter after high school with the goal of earning money for college. But, it would seem that his ultimate conclusion is that the drinking age ought to be kept at 21. And that is something I strongly disagree with.
True, for another month I'm still 17, so it might well be the case that my age is influencing my stance here. But I don't believe that to be the case.
To me, the idea of a drinking age of 21 seems pointless. Yes, military service and the right to intoxicate oneself are very different. But it still seems to me completely obscene that a person is entitled to go to war, to vote in an election, or to purchase tobacco products, before they can legally obtain booze. Two of those three carry major life-threatening risks in the same way that drinking does.
Swivel made the point of being able to supply booze to minors. Now, I personally don't drink. But if I so desired, I could obtain some within a matter of hours at the most. It is readily available to those of us still in high school. In many cases, parents buy it for their kids. And it only becomes easier at college. For example, the school I'm attending is a wet campus, and therefore allows booze. Naturally, this translates to a fair bit of it being on campus, making it easy to come by. On top of that, many of the nearby bars don't card.
A raised age is only asking for trouble. Let us be honest for a moment and admit, that for younger people, the main draw of such intoxicants is their illegality. And, because it is illegal, and therefore theoretically harder to get, they are more likely to take advantage or their rare opportunity to drink that they'll binge, taking in a very dangerous quantity of the stuff.
Beyond that, we'd be well served to look at the rest of the world. Virtually every country where it is not banned has a lower drinking age than in the United States. Some, such as Mexico, have virtually no drinking laws. Other, more developed nations, such as France and Japan, take a much more laid back approach. And as a consequence, the reduced stigma in its use makes it less appealing to abuse, leading to fewer alcohol inspired problems.
And, I think we should be mindful of why the age currently stands at 21. It is not federal law that mandates it, but rather that highway money won't be given to states whose minimum age is below that.
---
I'd also suggest that you all take a look at the following related site: http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/index.html
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
- HL Mencken
Why the age was set to 21 has already been posted and makes perfect sense. You can compare our age to other countries as well, but your statement of everything being ok in those countries is off the mark. The two "laid-back" countries you mentioned are experiencing a back-lash a bit different from ours in regards to health issues and the cost associated with them.
France is paying a lot of money towards alcohol abuse and one study showed that 75% of the French population consult a GP at least once every year. Out of that 75%, 5% of GP’s patients are classified as alcohol dependent. They are paying over 1% of the GNP because of alcoholism.
Japan had not done a nationwide survey of alcoholism until 2003. This was brought on after a noticeable increase in the number of alcoholics and worsening cases of drunken driving and sudden deaths after binge drinking.
So, just their culture is different from ours, doesn't mean they do not suffer the same effect. In fact, some will argue that these effects are actually starting earlier and why the UK has groups starting to try and get the age raised because of the numbers I posted earlier in this thread.
This doesn't even touch on the US car culture and that almost every teenager in the United States drives.
But the real matter is that I, and others, don't care to much how ridiculous it seems, or if it is "fair". An 18-year-old in the service is not a danger to the society it is serving. A drunk 18-year-old behind the wheel is. The raised age is not pointless at all and the numbers were already posted and easily accessed that prove it. Many lives were saved because of the age limit being raised. Like it or not, raising the age of drinking decreased teen driving fatalities. There is more to the legal drinking age than protecting the person who choses to drink alcohol.
The age is fine were it is at, and thank *deity* it wont be changing any time soon. In fact, I think the only new changes you will be seeing in any near future is the UK getting their drinking age raised.
For Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do.
Kids in Mexico can't afford a single beer, much less a case or keg. That's why they are sober and no laws are needed.
The argument can be better made that ALL alcohol should be illegal, rather than more legal by lowering the legal age.
I propose a plan whereby we raise the drinking age one year every four years. It would be like the Olympics, the Pres. election, a leap year, or the World Cup. That way, in a mere 80 years, the drinking age would be 41 and we would have gradual prohibition.
Drinking is stupid. The people that do it are stupid. It leads to rape, unwanted pregnancies, road deaths, lowered grades, spousal battery, child abuse and neglect, poor financial decisions. It makes it difficult for many people to hold down jobs, it makes people check out of society to live on the streets, it does nothing but harm and the only fucking good in the world that it does is make people feel good for a little bit. Give them an excuse to act like assholes.
What a ridiculous bullshit thing to argue for. "Hey, this shit wrecks society, BUT IT FEELS REAL NICE FOR A FEW HOURS, WOOO-HOOO! Let's get MORE PEOPLE involved!!"
Fuck that. Let's make the shit illegal. And not the way prohibition went, but the way we are attacking cigarettes with guilt-trips, bans on advertising, HUGE taxes, informative commercials, social pressure, etc...
I cannot get behind banning alcohol, 'cause I am one of the idiots who likes to drink it. I just want the age to stay were it is, in fact, get it to 25. I mean, if you find yourself addicted to any drug past the age of 25, your kind of an idiot.
For Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do.
Drunk 18-year-olds behind the wheel are a danger? Silly me. I was under the impression that drunk drivers in general were dangerous. And for that matter, a large percentage of sober drivers too.
Now, you make a claim that, were it true, might make a valid case for a drinking age of 21. You suggest that it has reduced fatalities. But this is patently false. The Asch and Levy study from Journal of Policy Analysis and Management has yet to be refuted in the 20 years since it was first published. It established that the death rate did not drop in the dramatic fashion we were led to believe, as it merely shifted the deaths into a higher age bracket to match the increased drinking age.
I think former Middleburry President John M. McCardell Jr put it quite well:To lawmakers: the 21-year-old drinking age is bad social policy and terrible law. It is astonishing that college students have thus far acquiesced in so egregious an abridgment of the age of majority. Unfortunately, this acquiescence has taken the form of binge drinking. Campuses have become, depending on the enthusiasm of local law enforcement, either arms of the law or havens from the law. Neither state is desirable. State legislators, many of whom will admit the law is bad, are held hostage by the denial of federal highway funds if they reduce the drinking age. Our latter-day prohibitionists have driven drinking behind closed doors and underground. This is the hard lesson of prohibition that each generation must relearn. No college president will say that drinking has become less of a problem in the years since the age was raised. Would we expect a student who has been denied access to oil paint to graduate with an ability to paint a portrait in oil? Colleges should be given the chance to educate students, who in all other respects are adults, in the appropriate use of alcohol, within campus boundaries and out in the open.
And please - hold your fire about drunken driving. I am a charter member of Presidents Against Drunk Driving. This has nothing to do with drunken driving. If it did, we'd raise the driving age to 21. That would surely solve the problem.Suppose what you said about Mexican kids is entirely true, and applies to all of the nation's youth, as it clearly does not. There are many other countries where the young can afford alcohol, and are legally allowed to purchase it, including Poland and Portugal. Beyond that, several other developed nations that would qualify as our peers, among them Austria, Belgium, and Italy, have 16 as the age at which one is legally allowed to use alcohol.Kids in Mexico can't afford a single beer, much less a case or keg. That's why they are sober and no laws are needed.
The argument can be better made that ALL alcohol should be illegal, rather than more legal by lowering the legal age.
I propose a plan whereby we raise the drinking age one year every four years. It would be like the Olympics, the Pres. election, a leap year, or the World Cup. That way, in a mere 80 years, the drinking age would be 41 and we would have gradual prohibition.
Drinking is stupid. The people that do it are stupid. It leads to rape, unwanted pregnancies, road deaths, lowered grades, spousal battery, child abuse and neglect, poor financial decisions. It makes it difficult for many people to hold down jobs, it makes people check out of society to live on the streets, it does nothing but harm and the only fucking good in the world that it does is make people feel good for a little bit. Give them an excuse to act like assholes.
What a ridiculous bullshit thing to argue for. "Hey, this shit wrecks society, BUT IT FEELS REAL NICE FOR A FEW HOURS, WOOO-HOOO! Let's get MORE PEOPLE involved!!"
Fuck that. Let's make the shit illegal. And not the way prohibition went, but the way we are attacking cigarettes with guilt-trips, bans on advertising, HUGE taxes, informative commercials, social pressure, etc...
Now, as interesting as your theory for banning alcohol may be, it certainly is not okay. All the causes you mention would exist, and in many people do, without the presence of alcohol. Moreover, the drawbacks of it do not make you or I any more entitled to outlaw it. I agree that drinking is stupid, and it isn't something I care to do. But that doesn't make the notion of further infringing upon individual liberty any less offensive.
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
- HL Mencken
So, sex with animals should be legal as well? Because some people say it feels good.
What about dog-fighting? The animals seem to enjoy doing it. Some people enjoy it. Why should we impinge upon the liberty of individuals to do stupid and dangerous shit when they have so much fun?
I suppose cocaine and heroine should be legalized, right? According to your arguments, the answer is "yes", and the legal age should be... oh... 16. Why should you be allowed to drive, and not be allowed to shoot-up?
Your liberty argument is vacuous, laws are designed to protect society at large, not to artificially restrict the rights of individuals. Alcohol damages society in dozens of ways, it should be illegal. Future generations will look back at us and shake their heads in dismay and disgust the same way we look back at slave-owners. You fuckers are on the wrong side of morality and decency, but your weakness is so great that you not only cling to your addictions, you attempt to justify them with poor logic.
And Killroy reminds me of Thomas Jefferson. One of those weak-minded hypocrites who owns slaves, but knows that slavery is a bad thing.
Prohibition wouldn't work. It didn't in the twenties and most of the smuggling has evolved into the shit we have now...
But! I believe we should not allow women to drive vans...yeah, I'm bashing my gender.Seriously they cannot even drive them...end the off-topic rant...
Your argument is illogical...I see your side yet I don't agree. Consuming alcohol is not immoral by society's standards whereas everything else you listed is (more notable, paragraphs one, two and three). One cannot change what is classified as moral within society...as it will undoubtedly cause uproar (logically) and would never be effective in a democratic society. Organized crime would rocket and the War on Drugs (although some say it already has been) would be rendered useless...
Regardless of any personal feelings I might have regarding the aforementioned policies, I would indeed support the legalization of all of the above. The revokation of rights from society at large due to the ineptitude of a portion of it is utterly absurd.
You justify the ban by pointing out the intentions of such prohibitions. But that doesn't make it right. I'd have to agree with HL Mencken, who said he "The worst government is the most moral." Whatever the intent, the law is not an appropriate one. Society still functions with the presence of alcohol. It isn't as though by keeping it around we're ensuring the end of civilization.
In the end you discuss a supposed addiction those of us disagreeing with you have. That is patently untrue. To be addicted, would one not have to use the substance in question? I don't drink, and don't want to. But I object to your proposal because I believe in individuals being empowered to make their own choices, including the wrong one.
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
- HL Mencken
And your usually intelligent responses have degenerated and your analogy is dumb.
There are responsible drinkers. What an adult does in the privacy in their own home, or in the company of other adults is their business. You may want to pass judgment on other adults and making them conform to how you feel they should live, but I am a firm believe in adults making their own decisions as long as they are not hurting anyone else. Let them drink themselves to death for all I care. You surprise me in that by your ideas, you are no different than the fundamentalist Christians who also think they know what's best for me and want to keep me from watching or doing things they do not agree with.
My point is merely to not make it easier or seemingly acceptable, for anyone under the age of 21 to drink. I can understand if there was some kind of an agenda, but anyone who actually thinks that letting people drink earlier would have no negative effects, or no effects at all, is clearly dis-illusioned.
The majority of your quote from John M. McCardell Jr was a retort to college binge drinking. His throwaway comment about underage drunk driving was ridiculous and shows how out of touch he must be with the youth of America considering how much the majority of cities rely on cars for transportation. PADD or not, I saw no statistics behind his statement.
For Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do.
wow, what a weird debate.
21 is a good age limit.
as an ex-servicemember who was stationed in Germany, i have seen what the effects are of letting 18 year olds fresh out of whatever drink indiscriminately. its not good. stupid teenagers are stupid teenagers no matter where they live.
as for me, call it what you want, but ill drink as much or as little as i like. after all, we cant all be brain surgeons can we? the world needs good-ole-boys too ya know.not to even mention the fact that im sure swivel has a bad habit or 2 himself. everyone does, so drop the high-horse antics , eh.
and if you dont like it ill get drunk and whup yer azz! yeeeeee-hawwwwwwwwwww
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks