New Political Debate: Drinking Age

[KillerGremlin]

This topic was on the radio earlier this morning, and not all that surprisingly it popped up on Digg.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-college-drinkingaug19,0,7039288.story

College presidents from about 100 of the nation's best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.

The movement called the Amethyst Initiative began quietly recruiting presidents more than a year ago to provoke national debate about the drinking age.

"This is a law that is routinely evaded," said John McCardell, ex-president of Middlebury College in Vermont, who started the organization. "It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory."

Other schools on board include Syracuse University, Morehouse College and Lake Forest College.

But before the presidents begin the public phase of their efforts, which may include publishing newspaper ads in the coming weeks, they are facing sharp criticism.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting science and, in the words of MADD CEO Chuck Hurley, "waving the white flag."

Both sides agree alcohol abuse by college students is a huge problem. Research has found that more than 40 percent of college students reported at least one symptom of alcohol abuse or dependence. One study estimated more than 500,000 full-time students at four-year colleges suffer injuries each year related in some way to drinking, and about 1,700 die in such accidents.

Moana Jagasia, a Duke University sophomore from Singapore, where the drinking age is 18, said reducing the age in the U.S. has merit.

"If the age is younger, you're getting exposed to it at a younger age, and you don't freak out when you get to campus," she said.

I figure this is slightly less ambiguous to discuss rather than tackling the subject of drugs. Plus I have added an attached poll for the apathetic.

I'm in America...I know GT has a pretty diverse group of members, so if you are from Europe or wherever tell us what your drinking age is and how you feel.

And, opinions are always welcome. Why should the drinking age be changed, or what should be the deciding factor.

Discuss.

[Bond]

The issue with harmful behaviors concerning drinking in America is more of a cultural issue than a law issue. I'm not so sure if a change in the legality of underage drinking would change the cultural aspect of this problem.

That being said, I've given this issue a great deal of thought in the past, and haven't been able to decide on a position.

[KillerGremlin]

The issue with harmful behaviors concerning drinking in America is more of a cultural issue than a law issue. I'm not so sure if a change in the legality of underage drinking would change the cultural aspect of this problem.

That being said, I've given this issue a great deal of thought in the past, and haven't been able to decide on a position.

So, a question to maybe ask is:

If we lowered or absolved the drinking age would we remove the mysticism associated with drinking and in effect lower the amount of alcohol abuse amongst teenagers?

Another fair question to ask is: with no drinking age would teens drink under more supervised/safer environments?

Changing the drinking age could, over time, change the cultural views on alcohol.

[Teuthida]

If we lowered or absolved the drinking age would we remove the mysticism associated with drinking and in effect lower the amount of alcohol abuse amongst teenagers?


I think it would. After I turned 21 I've had no urge to drink.

It should be 18 if only because that's when one legally becomes an adult. Either make 21 the new age for that or 18 for being able to drink.

[Typhoid]

Why is there no "19"?
Blasphemy.

Anyways, I think 19 is the pefect age to have it be legal. It works pretty damn fine here in BC, and if you think about it - it makes sense.


18, I think is too early. Why? Kids can still be in highschool when they're 18 - if their birthday falls in the first few months, and I think that could make things pretty tragic for a few people.

I don't see why you're able to pick the leader of your country when you're 18 (or in some cases younger) yet your country doesn't allowe you to consume alcohol for another 3 years after that.

I'm a firm believer in "The sooner you drink, the sooner it gets out of your system". I'm 21 now, and I'm pretty much fed up with bars and clubs because I've been to them for the past 2 years. And there are adults in the US who can just legally go to them now, and might not get sick of them until their mid-20's.

I think having the age at 21 is really ridiculous in the first place. What's so significant about 21? You're already an adult, you're already in University or College, you're already possibly living on your own, so why can't you go to a bar if you want to?

Silly, silly laws.

[Dyne]

19 is perfect.

Edit poll: 19 added.

[gekko]

So nothing about kids drinking has anything to do with this being the first time they're away from parental control? There was a study a while back where most Americans considered an "adult" to be someone 25 or older, and I completely agree.

With the rare exception here and there, most 18-year old kids have finally left the house, but have yet to take on any responsibility that actual adults have. They have this feeling they're all grown up as they continue to call home and ask for money, and don't need to worry about their health insurance, or life insurance plan, or trying to get enough money to cover their mortgage, or get their new baby the vaccinates he or she needs.

Personally, I think the mix of being away from home for the first time without having any responsibility is the perfect mix for partying, and partying brings alcohol. College kids will drink illegally, so I don't see how somehow legalizing it will get it out of their system faster. Same amount of problems, only they don't need to go through extra channels to get it.

I don't mind it being 21. I really think they just need to make up their mind. I don't agree with the inconsistency with being able to drive a car at 16, which can easily kill others, vote at 18, drink at 21, and then finally get your "No longer a hazard to society" car insurance drop at 25. They should pick an age and stick with it.

However, going back to the 25 year old being an adult mentality, I do believe the only way to stop college drinking, if it's such a problem, is to raise the drinking age to 25. Most people will be three years out of college by the time they can legally drink, and then you don't need to worry about all the immaturity being combined with alcohol, and it would be much, much easier to bust underage drinking.

That said, being 23 I will not give up scotch and beer for 2 years, but I have watched many Marine buddies become alcoholics, and then came back to college at 22 to watch many young 18 year olds not be all too smart when it comes to drinking... specifically driving.

If you ask me, leave the drinking age where it's at, and allow college kids to get plastered and get alcohol poisoning. I don't care if someone drinks until they are passed out on the floor puking... as long as it's not my house. I think the much bigger problem is the ones who drink and drive, and that includes much more than college kids.

It's pretty sad when 1 in 8 people in Minnesota has been convicted of a DWI. I never liked the current system, 0.08%. Oh, but that changes per person, so no one can be sure. I went to a beer festival not that long ago, and they did the smartest thing I've ever seen: Free breathalyzers as you leave. So you thought you were sober, blew 0.1%, the honest man (or woman) can return to the festival, enjoy some music and grab a brat, and wait it out. I think breathalyzers should be available to all, so the people drinking and driving are deliberately doing it, and the honest person who feels like having a drink or two at the bar before going home isn't intentionally breaking the law and endangering the lives of others. If that's such a problem, then why not make it illegal to drink and drive? Force DDs, cab rides, and buses, at least then people don't have to chance it, and again, it doesn't make people want to drive to the bar, thinking they'll be good to drive home.

That's my 2 cents, but you didn't give me the option of raising the drinking age, so I didn't vote.

[KillerGremlin]

So nothing about kids drinking has anything to do with this being the first time they're away from parental control? There was a study a while back where most Americans considered an "adult" to be someone 25 or older, and I completely agree.

That's a good point, and I think it can go both ways. Throughout your entire post you treat alcohol like something that people need to abuse, and that is part of the complex social problem with alcohol. Why can't someone just enjoy a beer, I know I do. Should I have to wait till I am 25 to enjoy a beer?

Personally, I think the mix of being away from home for the first time without having any responsibility is the perfect mix for partying, and partying brings alcohol. College kids will drink illegally, so I don't see how somehow legalizing it will get it out of their system faster. Same amount of problems, only they don't need to go through extra channels to get it.

I think if we lowered the drinking age we would possibly change our social outlook on alcohol. Maybe kids would drink socially with their parents at an early age and learn their limits and pick up some responsibility on the way to college. This way they don't drive to frat parties or stay under the radar or exploit the fact that they are at college and they can drink because their parents aren't there.

However, going back to the 25 year old being an adult mentality, I do believe the only way to stop college drinking, if it's such a problem, is to raise the drinking age to 25. Most people will be three years out of college by the time they can legally drink, and then you don't need to worry about all the immaturity being combined with alcohol, and it would be much, much easier to bust underage drinking.

The statistics are a pretty good indication that having a drinking age of 21 isn't stopping people who are 18, 16, or even 14 from drinking. Call me skeptical but people will still get alcohol if the drinking age is 25. And, all those cornfield campuses go out of there way to not bust kids from drinking. There's nothing to do in a field on weekends, except drink. Colleges know this. Frat life has become a social norm amongst colleges in America, and I would assuem elsewhere. This is a deeply rooted social issue and in many ways casts a negative light on people who don't necessarily want to binge drink but just want to enjoy alcohol.

That said, being 23 I will not give up scotch and beer for 2 years, but I have watched many Marine buddies become alcoholics, and then came back to college at 22 to watch many young 18 year olds not be all too smart when it comes to drinking... specifically driving.

I'm all about upping the penalty on drunk driving. I think if you are driving drunk you should be tried for attempted murder, because that's what it is; it's like firing bullets into a forest, you may luck out and not hit anybody, or you might kill someone.

If you ask me, leave the drinking age where it's at, and allow college kids to get plastered and get alcohol poisoning. I don't care if someone drinks until they are passed out on the floor puking... as long as it's not my house. I think the much bigger problem is the ones who drink and drive, and that includes much more than college kids.

This all goes back to the social mysticism around alcohol. With the parents gone kids go crazy! Nothing like getting wasted. I can think of very few freshman including myself who did not go over their limit some point during fresman year.

It's pretty sad when 1 in 8 people in Minnesota has been convicted of a DWI. I never liked the current system, 0.08%. Oh, but that changes per person, so no one can be sure. I went to a beer festival not that long ago, and they did the smartest thing I've ever seen: Free breathalyzers as you leave. So you thought you were sober, blew 0.1%, the honest man (or woman) can return to the festival, enjoy some music and grab a brat, and wait it out. I think breathalyzers should be available to all, so the people drinking and driving are deliberately doing it, and the honest person who feels like having a drink or two at the bar before going home isn't intentionally breaking the law and endangering the lives of others. If that's such a problem, then why not make it illegal to drink and drive? Force DDs, cab rides, and buses, at least then people don't have to chance it, and again, it doesn't make people want to drive to the bar, thinking they'll be good to drive home.

That's my 2 cents, but you didn't give me the option of raising the drinking age, so I didn't vote.

Breathalizers are a good idea. Again, I completely agree that driving drunk should carry larger penalties.



Anyway, the bottom line is that alcohol is a drink. Just like soda, just like water, just like coffee. And, in moderation it is not a bad thing. Red wine has been shown to have health advantages, beer tastes good, and hard liquor can be enjoyed...yes, enjoyed, without getting drunk. If we could somehow remove the mysticism surrounding alcohol and remind people that you don't have to drink to get drunk to enjoy alcohol, maybe more people would drink responsibly. I think at the end of the day the people who want to abuse alcohol are going to abuse alcohol. And, I think a lot of people who are free from their parents get lost in the herd and end up going over their limits or making poor choices.

And yeah, I'm 20 and I want to be able to enjoy a beer. Not a shitty watered down beer...but a delcious, craft brewed beer. Something I can drink during a football game or with a meal. But that's too much to ask for in America.

[Acebot44]

I was looking up a bunch of info that I had heard earlier to present to you guys when I found this link (http://www.asfar.org/zine/6th/cover.html) which pretty much summarized everything really well.

# As reported in the last issue of Youth Truth, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which forced states to raise their drinking ages to 21 or lose federal highway funding, was signed into law in June 1984. Since then its proponents have trumpeted the success of the measure in preventing death and harm among young people. According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the organization primarily responsible for pushing the act through the legislature, the nationwide "proportion of drivers 16-20 years of age who were involved in fatal crashes, and were intoxicated, dropped 33 percent" from 1988 to 1998. But, they are quick to remind us, more needs to be done. In spite of such dramatic decreases in youthful fatalities, "young drivers" who "make up 6.7 percent of the total driving population ... constitute 13 percent of the alcohol-involved drivers in fatal crashes" <http://www.madd.org/stats/stat_youth.shtml>.


Statistics may be used selectively to conceal information. In MADD's statement above regarding the 33% drop in the "proportion of drivers 16-20 years of age who were involved in fatal crashes, and were intoxicated", they fail to mention that the proportion of these intoxicated drivers aged 21-24 and 25 or older dropped drastically as well, according to the Centers for Disease Control <http://aepo-xdv-www.epo.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0039652/m0039652.htm>. MADD's mention of the "young drivers" who are overrepresented in alcohol-related fatal crashes does not specify an age range; according to several sources, drivers aged 16-20 are involved in about 13% of all alcohol-related fatal accidents, so that is probably the group they mean. But they fail to mention that this is about the same percentage of non-alcohol-related fatal accidents they are involved in - which would indicate that driving experience, rather than alcohol, might be the problem for this group. They also ignore the 21-24 year olds, whose share of alcohol-related accidents is even higher.

Statistics are mightily confusing. Various sources may present comparisons of different periods of time, or different age ranges, or numbers and percentages with slightly different definitions. Methods of gathering statistics may change, making accurate "before and after" comparisons impossible. MADD's own statistics on actual numbers of traffic fatalities <http://www.madd.org/stats/fatalities82.shtml> do not agree with the numbers given by the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration <http://silk.nih.gov/niaaa1/database/crash01.txt>. While MADD's figures show, for all age groups, a 34.5% decrease from 1982 to 1997 in alcohol-related crash fatalities, they also indicate that there was a 35.6% increase in non-alcohol-related crash fatalities during the same years, causing the highway death toll to remain about the same. This is badly at odds with FARS statistics for the same time period, which shows an increase in non-alcohol-related crash deaths of only about 16%, and a moderate reduction in the total number of accident fatalities.

Another problem with statistics concerns terminology. Does "intoxicated" mean having a certain blood-alcohol level that is measured, or must one be noticeably drunk? or perhaps an officer may record, during the investigation, his or her own suspicion, or someone else's testimony, that someone in the crash was drunk? does the term mean the same thing to all police officers, in all states, and in all statistical sources where it appears? And the term "alcohol-related" was the subject of a recent report by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention and the International Center for Alcohol Policies <http://www.icap.org/annfin.html>, which criticized as misleading and overly inclusive the definition provided by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, in which a crash is "alcohol-related ... if either a driver or nonmotorist (usually a pedestrian) had a measurable or estimated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 g/dl or above". A BAC of 0.01 is well below the lowest legal limit in any state (0.08). With this definition, the presence of this level of alcohol may be "estimated", and any person involved in the accident - even an innocent victim - could, if judged to have consumed alcohol, qualify the accident as "alcohol-related".

Having taken all of these problems into consideration, it is still pretty clear that since the signing of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, fatal traffic accidents, which were already on the decline, decreased even more substantially - for all age groups! According to FARS statistics, during the years 1975 to 1984, the number of fatal crashes per 100,000 people in each age group decreased 7.8% for 15-20 year olds and 7.9% for people 21 and older; during 1985 to 1994, the decreases were 12% for 15-20 year olds and 12.6% for people 21 and older. In fact, the total U.S. per capita consumption of all alcoholic beverages, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, continually and significantly declined after reaching an all-time high in 1981.

How could keeping people from drinking until the age of 21 stop so many fatal accidents for people over 21? It probably didn't. After the nation's drinking age was raised to 21, the 21-24 age group quickly assumed the greatest share of alcohol-related fatal accidents. In The Scapegoat Generation (p.210), author Mike Males presents his findings that the first year or two after a person can legally drink alcohol - regardless of what age is chosen - is the period in which that person is most likely to be involved in an alcohol-related accident.

For the rest of the population, these accidents decreased. A whole host of factors could have contributed to reducing impaired driving and promoting traffic safety in general. There were reductions of highway speed limits and improvements in auto safety equipment, such as shoulder harnesses and airbags, along with media campaigns extolling safety measures. There were, for all drivers, increased enforcement of drunk driving laws, roadside checkpoints, and harsher penalties, also widely discussed by the national media. (Prior to the 1980s, people did not use the expression "designated driver" - in common use today.) The potential for lawsuits against establishments who continued to serve alcohol to over-imbibing patrons (however unfair one may feel such lawsuits are!) gave rise to "server training programs" to assist bartenders in recognizing and dealing with intoxicated customers; bar owners were also motivated to help these customers find alternatives to driving home. Many community and school-based programs began to appear, to educate people about the risks and effects of alcohol; some were found to be ineffective, but even the poorest programs contributed to the public awareness of this renewed concern and caution about alcohol.

While overall traffic safety definitely seems to have improved in the past 20-25 years, there appears to be little change in the consumption patterns of alcohol by people under 18. In his above-mentioned book (p. 204), Mike Males compared survey responses by high school students asked comparable questions about their drinking in 1952, 1978, and 1991. For each of these three years:

the percent reporting they'd "ever had a drink" ranged from 87-90%
the percent reporting drinking "weekly" ranged from 46-48%
the percent reporting "problems with drinking" ranged from 15-16%
the average "age of first drink" was the same in each survey - 12

A survey from the National Institute on Drug Abuse called Monitoring the Future, which compares students' responses from 1975-1999, tends to confirm (for the years it covers) the consistency of this pattern. One type of drinking behavior, however, does seem to be increasing somewhat: binge drinking. After a reported low point in 1993, the percentage of high school seniors reporting having five or more alcoholic beverages on a single drinking occasion within the previous two weeks rose gradually from 28% to 31%. This may not seem like much of an increase, but it is almost entirely attributable to the responses of male students, of whom 39% reported this level of consumption on one or more occasions in the past two weeks.

Surveys of college students show greater differences. In Wechsler, et al. "College Binge Drinking in the 1990s" (Journal of American College Health), v.48 no.1, 2000, p. 199-210), the authors found an increasing "polarization" between abstainers and heavy drinkers on college campuses, with fewer students who reported drinking moderately. Between 1993 and 1999, the authors recorded an increase of 24.7% in students who consider themselves "abstainers", and an increase of 14.5% in "frequent binge drinkers". In 1999, 44.1% of the students surveyed identified themselves as frequent or occasional heavy drinkers; 36.6% were classified as "nonbinge" or moderate drinkers, and 19.2% didn't drink at all.

A 1997 study, the College Alcohol Study of the Harvard School of Public Health, did find slight decreases in the number of students who binged, compared to 1993, but it also reported an increase in the frequency of binge drinking among these students, with more of them choosing "to get drunk" as their reason for drinking. Dr. William DeJong, an instructor at the Harvard School of Public Health, was recently quoted in *Advances: the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Quarterly Newsletter* (issue 1, 1999) as saying:

Just about everyone in the substance abuse field
says the nature of drinking has changed over the
past 15 years or so. Teens ... are doing what we
call industrial-strength binging. They use all
kinds of apparatus - funnels, beer bongs, pumps.
There's an intensity to it that you seldom saw
years ago.

These comments should surprise no one who understands human nature! Fifteen years before the above statement was made, there was no National Minimum Drinking Age. Prior to that, alcohol use by high school students - within limits - was looked upon as a normal form of experimentation and a mild exercise in rebellion. Drinking by 18-20 year olds was a legal, acceptable part of their adult lives, something they were expected to learn to do responsibly. But since the mid-1980s, people under 21 have been considered so incapable of handling alcohol that they are no longer even permitted to touch sealed containers of beer or wine on their jobs. Any drinking by anyone under 21 has come to be considered criminal behavior. When one is labeled "irresponsible", when one engages in behavior that is considered "criminal", the concept of moderation ceases to have much meaning.

and here (http://www.drunkdrivinglawyers.com/drunk-driving-facts.cfm) here are some nifty stats

[Typhoid]

Raise the age to 25, and any minor caught within 50 metres of alcohol is arrested and shot and made a spectacle of.

[Dylflon]

I say 18 because at 18 you're allowed to join the army.

If you're old enough to die overseas for your military, you're old enough to drink.

[gekko]

You could also argue that if the first thing someone does in their adult life is sign away years of their rights, they are not in sound mind and shouldn't be given alcohol :p

[Vampyr]

I say 18 because at 18 you're allowed to join the army.

If you're old enough to die overseas for your military, you're old enough to drink.

Was going to post that too. It's an old cliche reason, but it's absolutely correct. You're legally an adult, it's bordering on discrimination to make you wait until your 21.

[Professor S]

I believe in consistency. If you are an adult at 18, then you should have all the rights of an adult. If not, switch everything to 21, but it should be consistent.

[manasecret]

If 18, 19, and 20 year-olds were smart enough, they would realize they have the power to vote and thus the power to coerce their politicians into changing this law that discriminates against them and takes away a freedom that everyone else enjoys freely.

Unfortunately they're spending too much time trying to find a fake ID, buying alcohol illegally, and then binge drinking to do anything smart like that. :p

I include myself in that group, when I was that age.

[Jason1]

So, a question to maybe ask is:

If we lowered or absolved the drinking age would we remove the mysticism associated with drinking and in effect lower the amount of alcohol abuse amongst teenagers?

Another fair question to ask is: with no drinking age would teens drink under more supervised/safer environments?

Changing the drinking age could, over time, change the cultural views on alcohol.


Okay, I have been given this a lot of thought lately also, and since im only 21 now I have recent experience on the matter. While I might have felt differently a few years ago, after some thought, I dont think lowering the drinking age to 18 will make kids drink less often, in less quantities, or less at all. When I drank underage, I never thought "Since im not suppoused to be doing this, im going to drink a LOT" I can see where the other side comes from, im actually going to do something I normally dont do and agree with Bond here. Its more of a cultural issue. Kids like to drink, and they like to do it a lot, especially college aged kids. I mean, when you turned 21 and it was legal to drink, did you all of a sudden stop drinking large amounts? Of course not, its still fun to drink a lot wether its legal or not. If this happens (which it absolutley wont happen in the foreseeable future, no way whatsoever), I feel it will just lead to more DUI deaths.

There were nights in my youth when I wanted to drink, but couldnt get alcohol. I can only imagine how much more I would have drank if I could have legally bought it.

[Typhoid]

This is what I basically think it comes down to: Upbringing. Nothing more, nothing less. You can make an argument that peer pressure is a factor, but if the kid is brought up right by the parents with proper morals and all that, peer pressure won't effect them as much, as their choice in friends might be more "proper".

Kids will do one of two things, depending on how their raised: Be like their parents because their parents do it; or be nothing like their parents because they resent their parents for doing something.

I think the problem is that for the majority, nobody parents kids anymore. Which leaves a vast group of kids being raised by TV, and their friends parents, which is bad in itself, because another person's mom and dad won't instill the same values on you as they would with their own kids.

There is nothing - at all - you can ever do to get rid of drinking and driving. Kids will do it, adults will do it, premiers will do it. It's just something that will happen. If you don't want your kids to drink and drive, give them ultimatums as a parents, talk to your kids. Be a fucking parent to them, don't blame a substance they went to because either A) You drink all the time as a parent or B) Never took the time out of your busy schedule to even talk to your kids about the seriousness of alcohol consumption.

The problem lies only in parenting. That's my two cents.

[KillerGremlin]

Okay, I have been given this a lot of thought lately also, and since im only 21 now I have recent experience on the matter. While I might have felt differently a few years ago, after some thought, I dont think lowering the drinking age to 18 will make kids drink less often, in less quantities, or less at all. When I drank underage, I never thought "Since im not suppoused to be doing this, im going to drink a LOT" I can see where the other side comes from, im actually going to do something I normally dont do and agree with Bond here. Its more of a cultural issue. Kids like to drink, and they like to do it a lot, especially college aged kids. I mean, when you turned 21 and it was legal to drink, did you all of a sudden stop drinking large amounts? Of course not, its still fun to drink a lot wether its legal or not. If this happens (which it absolutley wont happen in the foreseeable future, no way whatsoever), I feel it will just lead to more DUI deaths.

There were nights in my youth when I wanted to drink, but couldnt get alcohol. I can only imagine how much more I would have drank if I could have legally bought it.

I agree with the 18-year old logic; if you are an "adult" at 18 by law, you should be able to drink. Otherwise, you're not really an adult....I'm talking about by legal definition by the way, not the subjective age at which someone becomes an adult.

Now, ideally, I'd like to see the drinking age go away altogether. But it won't happen because people will not accept personal responsibility. Here are the big benefits I see of removing the drinking age or removing penalties from catching minors drinking:
-kids will drink in safer or supervised environments
-kids won't be afraid to call their parents if they are drinking (this is a social stigma...some parents would be upset if their child drank, some wouldn't)
-we can slowly instill the idea that alcohol is not a magical drink at a young age

alcohol is a drink...and, when used in excess can have problematic results. same goes with sugar, or caffeine, or speeding.


In my ideal world, my fairy tale, we would charge DUI offenders with attempted murder - because that is what a DUI is.

Less drunks on the road, more teens drinking at home where they can be supervised. Less trouble.

The fact is, people will ALWAYS abuse alcohol. It does not matter what restrictions you have in place....people do not like moderation. Most everyone who drinks that I know have drank too much or gone past their limit. I guess it is part of our social culture surrounding drinking. I'd rather see people pushing that limit in a supervised environment rather than sneaking around or going to frat parties.


Anyway...that's my 2 cents on a subject we will not be able to resolve.

PS I'll be 21 in a few months....I'm excited to be able to go buy beer without going through someone.

[manasecret]

In my ideal world, my fairy tale, we would charge DUI offenders with attempted murder - because that is what a DUI is.

In that case, even driving sober should be considered attempted murder. The number of people who die from vehicle accidents every year is so high I can't believe it isn't talked about more. (http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/toptens/accidents/accidents4.html) It's amazing to me that any of us are even allowed to drive vehicles, considering how dangerous it is.

I guess driving drunk would then be considered aggravated attempted murder?

[Bond]

Seriously, there are so many people who should not be allowed to drive a vehicle (like a lot of my friends). There's also a lot of 80+ citizens who should have their license revoked.

[manasecret]

When I said any of us, I meant that -- you, me, and everyone else should not be allowed to drive. Everyone thinks they're the best driver in the world.

I think what we should do is replace our individual driving system with the mass transportation system from Minority Report. Anyone remember that?

[KillerGremlin]

I always thought if MADD wanted to accomplish something they would push to raise the driving age. How many 15 and 16 year-old kids use level-headed rationalization while driving?

But more to the point, driving is already deadly...adding alcohol to the mix only escalates the problem. I'd call it "unintentional attempted murder." I think it would be reasonable to charge the bar or party host for letting someone drive home drunk too. What is the person called who helps someone plan a murder? "Accomplice in murder." That sounds about right.

[Vampyr]

In that case, even driving sober should be considered attempted murder. The number of people who die from vehicle accidents every year is so high I can't believe it isn't talked about more. (http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/toptens/accidents/accidents4.html) It's amazing to me that any of us are even allowed to drive vehicles, considering how dangerous it is.

I guess driving drunk would then be considered aggravated attempted murder?

Pretty bad reasoning. The amount of people who are alive that die is also staggering, but you don't outlaw living. You could also say that people walking out the front door of their house are putting themselves and others in danger, but you don't outlaw going outside just because accidents happen.

There's a difference between going outside and going outside holding the trigger down a fully loaded machine gun, which is comparable to driving sober or driving drunk.

[Jason1]

Okay, I see your point KillerGremlein, but just because the drinking age is lowered does not mean kids are all of a sudden only going to drink at home with the parents in a controlled environment...frat parties will still go on, and kids will still drink in excessive and or potentially dangerous amounts...

[Bond]

Okay, I have been given this a lot of thought lately also, and since im only 21 now I have recent experience on the matter. While I might have felt differently a few years ago, after some thought, I dont think lowering the drinking age to 18 will make kids drink less often, in less quantities, or less at all. When I drank underage, I never thought "Since im not suppoused to be doing this, im going to drink a LOT" I can see where the other side comes from, im actually going to do something I normally dont do and agree with Bond here. Its more of a cultural issue. Kids like to drink, and they like to do it a lot, especially college aged kids. I mean, when you turned 21 and it was legal to drink, did you all of a sudden stop drinking large amounts? Of course not, its still fun to drink a lot wether its legal or not. If this happens (which it absolutley wont happen in the foreseeable future, no way whatsoever), I feel it will just lead to more DUI deaths.
Exactly. And whenever the government tries to control culture it just doesn't work (see: prohibition). I think lawmakers should view this issue through a very utilitarian mindset, and that will result in the maximizing of the good for all citizens.

[KillerGremlin]

Okay, I see your point KillerGremlein, but just because the drinking age is lowered does not mean kids are all of a sudden only going to drink at home with the parents in a controlled environment...frat parties will still go on, and kids will still drink in excessive and or potentially dangerous amounts...

I assume that to be the case....I doubt any age restriction will stop binge drinking or abusive drinking. It just goes hand-in-hand with college, and with the freedom of being away from home. Oddly though, I still think we could help a percentage of people by exposing them to alcohol at a younger age or in a safer environment. It has been my experience/observation that college is not the best place to learn your drinking limitations.

I do think that many people try to stay a few drinks below their limit...I know I do. When I want to drink to get drunk I try to drink as few drinks as possible and get in that comfortable zone. I'd rather not wake up with a splitting hangover. But I also enjoy drinking a beer with dinner...I enjoy wine...and I'm trying to start to enjoy hard liquor. You don't have to drink in excess to enjoy alcohol. Beer and wine are sophisticated drinks that can be enjoyed with a meal.


Like Bond said, I think this is a complex social problem. Hence why I think we should keep the drinking age at 18 or 21.

[manasecret]

Pretty bad reasoning. The amount of people who are alive that die is also staggering, but you don't outlaw living. You could also say that people walking out the front door of their house are putting themselves and others in danger, but you don't outlaw going outside just because accidents happen.

There's a difference between going outside and going outside holding the trigger down a fully loaded machine gun, which is comparable to driving sober or driving drunk.

Ok, first off let me clarify and say that I was being glib and I don't really think that driving should be made illegal. Life as we know it wouldn't exist without vehicles, so we can't just outlaw them even if we could. (Sound familiar to drinking?)

My intention was to bring up just how dangerous driving is. Assuming the stats from Acebot's link that 17,448 died in 2001 from alcohol related vehicle accidents and the stat from my link that 43,200/year is also from 2001, that means 40% of vehicle deaths were related to alcohol. That still leaves 25,752 deaths from sober drivers, and it's not like you can really separate getting drunk from the driving part. The deaths caused by drinking and walking home is virtually zero compared to driving drunk. Driving is still the dangerous part of the equation here. So your analogy doesn't really hold up.

A lot more can be done to make driving safer that simply isn't done because people would throw a hissy fit if it were implemented. Do you have red light cameras around where you are? I think they're great, but the amount of people who bitch and moan about getting caught running red lights is laughable. Here's an idea, guys -- don't run red lights!

But I digress. I think we should implement similar systems to control speeding. Speeding cameras are a simple method. We could also introduce chips that force cars to not go over a posted speed limit. These are easily feasible systems. The speeding cameras have been tried from over a decade ago near here. But what happened? The public outcry put it out of commission.

Sorry to hijack the thread. I guess I should make another debate thread about this, but I'm not very good at starting discussions.

[BreakABone]

I say make the drinking age 2. They have to start somewhere.

Reminds me of the summer, I taught pre-school kids shoulders. :D

[Bond]

I assume that to be the case....I doubt any age restriction will stop binge drinking or abusive drinking. It just goes hand-in-hand with college, and with the freedom of being away from home. Oddly though, I still think we could help a percentage of people by exposing them to alcohol at a younger age or in a safer environment. It has been my experience/observation that college is not the best place to learn your drinking limitations.

I do think that many people try to stay a few drinks below their limit...I know I do. When I want to drink to get drunk I try to drink as few drinks as possible and get in that comfortable zone. I'd rather not wake up with a splitting hangover. But I also enjoy drinking a beer with dinner...I enjoy wine...and I'm trying to start to enjoy hard liquor. You don't have to drink in excess to enjoy alcohol. Beer and wine are sophisticated drinks that can be enjoyed with a meal.


Like Bond said, I think this is a complex social problem. Hence why I think we should keep the drinking age at 18 or 21.I think that's why lawmakers just need to look at detailed statistics and analysis of those statistics, and craft a law that makes the drinking age (whatever), that will do the most good and the least harm. I don't see how one can go about this issue other than a purely utilitarian way.

That being said, the government is probably the least effective institution to help substance abuse problems in America. Like Typhoid said, it's families, it's private organizations, communities, etc. They have been, and always will be, far more effective than any law or government. And those private people and organizations can change the culture, but the government can't.

[Jason1]

I will admit, that in many cases (not all), kids who grew up with strict parents then all of a sudden go away to college, are oftentimes the wildest because their not used to it. People who had been casually exposed to drinking at an earlier time are less likely to go ape shit crazy in college.

Then there's the other side, those that actually continue to abide by their parents rules after they are out of the house...lame!

[mickydaniels]

Then there's the other side, those that actually continue to abide by their parents rules after they are out of the house...lame!

What's wrong with that?