No you cannot.
Well, rail all you want, but there is an insanely high correlation between teenage drinking and traffic deaths. Lost any friends or relatives to teenage drunk drivers yet? Got an alternate solution than trying to limit the number of drunk teenagers? We could lower the drinking age and raise the driving age.
What’s the big attraction in drinking anyway? It’s not exactly a necessary activity. Consider that you’ve probably been brainwashed by beer advertisements into thinking that beer means a rollicking good time with mostly naked chicks. The reality, based on my college days, is that teenage alcohol use usually means walking carefully to avoid the puddles of puke in the dorm after parties.
Why does everything have to be “fair”? I have no problem with age descrimination. Why not let 16 year olds drink, since they also have the right to drive? How bout let them vote and join the army too? How bout 12? Call it unfair all you want but on average, the younger you are, the less responsible you are. Now someone is gonna chime in about their irresponsible 30 year old cousin or the 12 year old who single handedly supported a family of 10. But im speaking of averages not exceptions.
Squeaky wheel politics is no way to run a nation. MADD is small but very vocal. I wish they’d shut up.
I’m 35, and I feel that the argument from the 18+ is valid. The boomers managed to get lower drinking ages with virtually the same argument. It wasn’t until the boomers had 18 yo’s of their own that the laws changed. If it was valid in the sixties, it’s valid in the ots.
Quit your fucking whining you hypocritical biddies. Do they forget that they have two 'D’s in their name? They seem to have dropped the drunk driving argument (since they have won most of these battles) and are now just assailing alcohol alone. Somebody please find these people a real job. If they maybe attempted to do something constructive, rather than assailing the nation with guilt-factor lobbying and Strong-armed politician castration, I would have a modicom respect for them. Take a clue from John Walsh, and take an active role in working constructively towards something rather than standing on the sidelines constantly bitching and moaning about every. goddamn. thing. YES I understand that you probably joined said organization due to the loss or maiming of a loved one, but that does not preclude you from actually putting some thought into what said organization has been up to lately before blindly giving them tabla rasa approval to continue marching down a road that ended miles ago? Could someone step forward and maybe point out that their original mission has become blurred, and a bunch of Sally Struthers style fucking whiners has taken over the hen house? There is no thought involved in their lobby, it is knee jerk reactionism. It’s no longer a movement of concerned and caring parents, it’s a giant fucking insect that reacts in predetermined ways to external stimuli. A feverish, blind insect that feeds off larger and larger corporate donations and a histrionic need for power and influence. Back! Back I say you nittering bake-sale mentality Special Interest entity! Slither back into your suburban living rooms and give this country respite from your evil ways.
You just defeated your own argument. Despite the law, there is an “insanely high correlation”. How is this a “solution”? It’s not working! Why should I have to present an alternate solution in order to have all adults have equal rights, when yours doesn’t even work (and even if it did, it would still be arguably wrong).
I personally believe that the drinking age is a problem because it encourages the most dangerous kind of drinking – binge drinking. It’s very, very difficult to drink responsibly if you have no access to alcohol except at keggers and frat parties. It also causes you to learn about alcohol consumption in a very negative environment.
Alcohol has an obvious double standard in our society. I’d like to see our teenage drunk driving statistics compared to Europe, where the drinking ages are lower, and where children trying alcohol (wine) is much more acceptable. If we demystify alcohol as a “cool” “adult” thing, it would be much safer.
[qupte]What’s the big attraction in drinking anyway? It’s not exactly a necessary activity.
[/quote]
We live in a country where freedom and equality are goals of government, not necessity. I simply don’t think that we should have different laws for different sets of voting adults just because it is popular.
**
Well, congratulations on embarassing yourself. This is completely untrue, because I:
1.) Do not drink beer; and
2.) Am female!
Have you been “brainwashed” by MADD and other hysterical anti-drinking organizations? I’m sure you’ll say no. Let’s be adults and not accuse other people with unfounded claims, okay ?
That’s irrelevant. Marijuana is illegal, but still easily obtained; sodomy laws still exist, yet go unenforced. Does that mean they are automatically just, unchallengeable laws? Hardly!
(I’m sure you also don’t need reminding that personal anecdotes do not provide compelling evidence to support your argument.)
No, but I did lose my Uncle, who was a teenager at the time, to a 40 year old woman drunk driver.
Every time people quote studies about drinking, drug use, media violence, or whatever, I want to shout at the top of my lungs,
Correlation does not equal causation.
There’s an incredibly important difference between the two that almost always goes overlooked to support the view of a certain group.
Sex isn’t a neccesary activity either, and arguable a more risky and life altering decision than simply consuming alcohol. Consider unwanted pregnancies, babies are an obligation which last a LIFETIME. Same with certain viral STDS, and yet we still grant 18+ year olds the freedom to choose what they wish to do sexually with other consenting adults.
If an 18 year old wants to hook up with a 45 year old ex convict with AIDS, the state can’t do a damned thing about it, because he/she is considered an adult who can make informed decisions about who to have sex with.
The 45 year old is perfectly free to give the 18 year old AIDS or pregnancy, but if he chose instead to supply that same 18 year old with beer, OH NO IT’S SUPPLYING A MINOR WITH BOOZE! OH MY GOD LOCK HIM UP!
Doesn’t anybody see the complete absurdity of this situation? Has the entire country gone MADD (so to speak?)
Now this is definitely the straight dope on the issue. When I was underage (I started college at 17 after skipping a grade back in grade school), I had few opportunities to drink. I was in the marching band, which in college is just a drinking club. So there was about one kegger per week I’d attend. Since that would be the last opportunity I had to get drunk for at least another week, I had to make the best of it each time…meaning I engaged in ALOT of “binge drinking.” Thankfully, I had responsible people around me (the benefit of going to parties hosted by band members who knew me and were with me all week at practice.) After a half-year or so, I learned my limits. I continued to “binge drink” by the definitions of some (my colleges’ anti-drinking propaganda defines it as having more than 4 drinks in a night), but my drinking was definitely more controlled and responsible all the same.
Now that I’m 23, I rarely just “drink to get drunk.” If I want a beer, I can get a beer pretty easily. If I want a bourbon after a hard day, I can have it.
I would propose we raise the driving age to 18 and lower the drinking age to 16. That way, people would be exposed to alcohol at an age when they couldn’t get behind the wheel. They’ll learn their limits, tire of binging, and by the time they start driving a pretty fair percentage would be responsible with alcohol. Those that wouldn’t be responsible are the same that wouldn’t under our system today, so it can’t hurt.
As an aside, I continue to be baffled by alcohol policy. In an era in which we can consider legalizing marijuana, a time when many people support personal liberties and lifestyle choices, we seem to have progressed nowhere since the 1930’s. MADD might as well be Carrie Nation, that tea-totaling holier-than-thou Kansan (no surprise there) who went around smashing kegs in bars. At least the kegs are metal now.
Hey MADD…take your “I know what’s best for you”, self-appointed arbitrer of morality, fascist temperance movement…turn that thing sideways, and stick it right up your candy ass. Go back to your Protestant churches and spew your crap to someone who might listen.
I like your idea Rex. The driving age is way too young. Yes, let teens legally drink, but they either have to bicycle or rollerblade home. 
They are also required to go to ‘teen only’ bars.
I’ve decided to wait until I’m 21 before I actively try to change the laws. I’ll get a petition going. The state of Oregon is one of the most liberal states out there, and one of the easiest to get a petition on the ballot.
If I, with the help of some volunteers, and round up about 65,000 signatures, I could get the issue on the ballot and perhaps into the national conciousness.
Besides, once I’m 21 I couldn’t be accused of suporting the measure purely out of self interest.
For now, I can enjoy the bootlegging, “smokey and the bandit” like feeling of beating the system.
I’ve decided to wait until I’m 21 before I actively try to change the laws. I’ll get a petition going. The state of Oregon is one of the most liberal states out there, and one of the easiest to get a petition on the ballot.
If I, with the help of some volunteers, and round up about 65,000 signatures, I could get the issue on the ballot and perhaps into the national conciousness.
Besides, once I’m 21 I couldn’t be accused of suporting the measure purely out of self interest.
For now, I can enjoy the bootlegging, “smokey and the bandit” like feeling of beating the system.
Ah, here you go, more or less. The stats aren’t broken out for teenagers. But it’s pretty clear that France’s ‘enlightened’ attitude towards alcohol doesn’t do much to reduce drunk driving.
US: http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/databases/crash01.txt
France: http://www.eurocare.org/profiles/franceeupolicy.htm
From the French statistics: “Over one-third of deaths from road traffic accidents (that is, 4,500), one-quarter of suicides and half of all homicides may be directly linked to alcohol. (INSERM, 1993)”
In the U.S. as of 1999 the alcohol-related traffic accident rate was 30% and dropping. (That rate has fallen tremendously since '82 which, perhaps coincidentally, is about when drinking ages started rising.)
If you want to wade through statistics, the eurocare site seems to have profiles for all the EU countries.
RexDart, if you’re serious about lowering the drinking age to 16, I don’t think that’s a good idea. You said yourself that people learning to drink find out where the line is by going over it. High school is more physically demanding than college, and high school students shouldn’t be taxing their strength with alcohol.
Now, a question: Does the law only state that a minor can’t be sold alcohol, or does it also require establishments that serve liquor to deny entry to minors? A while back, I posted a thread asking “Whatever happened to 18 to enter, 21 to drink?” It would seem that the owners have the right to choose whether or not to ADMIT minors and not serve them alcohol, or just bar all minors.
I understand all the logic, so let’s not go over it again. But I was very frustrated when I was in that age group. I wanted to go out and dance or hear a live band or just meet new people. I could get alcohol, but I couldn’t get into a club. I wanted to go out and stay sober, not stay in and drink! Luckily, though, I was on the cutting edge of the coffee-house trend.
It does seem like a good idea, though, to have alcohol-free ALTERNATIVES, so that it’s less of a sacrifice to not-drink. When I lived in dorms, I saw a lot of the evil that alcohol can do. Violence, hostility, injury, poisoning, sexual assault, property damage… I was never inclined to protest the drinking age; this behavior was proof that alcohol is dangerous, and moderation, at most, should be the keynote. But when you have two choices: do all the same stuff you did in high school sober, or wrangle some alcohol and do those things drunk, plus a few new things, it really takes either an iron will or no taste at all for alcohol to choose the first option.
Also, I had to raise hell with the activities people at my first college, first to get them to provide a non-alcoholic beverage at dances along with the grain-alcohol punch, then to make it something other than the mixer for the punch, by itself, which was sticky and nauseatingly sweet and just made you MORE thirsty!
[anecdote]When Friend was 16 or so, his recently-turned-21 sister called him from a roadhouse because her ride had left without her and she couldn’t afford a cab. The instant Friend walked in, the bartender started ordering him out from across the room. It didn’t help that Sis was asleep in a booth by this time. But this was a ROADHOUSE, y’know? They wouldn’t even think about serving a minor.[/anecdote]
I always found the argument “if I am old enough to be in the military I am old enough to drink” pretty weak. Physical development and mental maturity are not correlated at all. If a 50 year old wanted to join the marines and was denied on account of age would it make sense for him to say “if I’m old enough to drink I’m old enough to join the marines” ? Suppose the law limits certain activities which are physically demanding (rodeo or whatever) to those under a certain age. What’s wrong with that?
Belonging to a society means you get benefits but also obligations. An 18 year old has received everything from older generations and has not had the opportunity to give anything back yet. If the survival and defense of the society that raised him and gave him everything he has requires him to assume a certain risk by joining the military, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that and it is totally unrelated to whether he has other rights or not.
Other 18 year olds also assume certain risks when they become firefighters or anything else. Every job has a risk although, obviously, a soldier in battle has a greater risk.
So, to me, society does have the right to say you are old enough to be a firefighter and not old enough to drink alcohol. Whether doing that is a wise policy is a totally separate point which I am not arguing. All I am saying is that there is no contradiction in doing it.
It seems to me though that American culture has such a problem with alcohol abuse that anything that can be done to change that should be tried. I think a great part of it is the image and perception of alcohol as a drug. People do not learn to drink responsibly they just want to get wasted. I might suggest a more gradual initiation. Say, at age 16 you are allowed to have one glass of wine or beer when dining with your parents. This would mean you can celebrate with your family, and your consumption of alcohol is responsible, not just getting drunk. Then, at age 18 you can have one drink per meal when in the company of someone over the age of 25. That way people would have several years of responsible alcohol consumption before being totally free to show how stupid they can be.
And a 65 year old will be receiving everything from the younger generations. Social Security, medicare, Depends. I’ll go along with your argument, as long as can start stripping rights away from those retirees once they no longer are productive members of society. First loss will obviously be alcohol, that should happen 3 years prior to retirement just to make things fair. Then, at 65 the voting rights go (My thoughts on the AARP are similar to those on MADD, so I’d love to rid the nation of that scourge) at 69 the driving rights go (Can I get a hallelujah!)
We shovel money into our youth so they can become productive members of society for years to come. We shovel money into our seniors for what? So they can die?
If I agree with your take, it’s the “giving back” that precludes 18 year olds from drinking. Hell, I know plenty of 50 year olds that haven’t “given back” squat to our society. Why are they allowed to drink? At least these 18 year olds in the military are giving back to our country, that’s more than you can say about 80% of the civs out there.
Let’s get these damn rights shaped like a parabola! The closer in age you are to the pinnacle of the productive age curve, the more rights you have. WOOHOO! I’m at the top of the parabola! I’m 35! I can do coke and rape and pillage! My rights are more than yours! Sure, I’m above the age of the majority, but I’m A super citizen now! GIMME THAT WATCH! GIMME THAT MONITOR oooooooh, flat screen I"M BETTER THAN YOU!
Very true. But let’s be carefull not to let the obligations outweigh the benefits.
Infants haven’t given anything back yet, why not shovel them into engines as fuel for the war effort?
You know what I think? I think they should send 65+ year olds into combat. Because 18 year olds are in the prime of their life, and sending them off to war when they have a lot of living left to do just isn’t fair. But since they aren’t going to do that, they should give us an additional perk to the job. Haven’t you heard the saying: "Let us drink and be merry, for tomorrow we may die!"
“Sorry Soldier, you’re too young to vote! What? You think you should be able to, since you’re being sent off to war? What the hell does voting have to do with being drafted!”
That argument didn’t work too well during the Vietnam era, so the 26th amendment passed.