How?
There’s also that they’re in school with 13 year olds.
When I was in college, the fact that there were people around who could get alcohol legally meant that everyone could get alcohol easily, even those who were underage.
It seems to me that the same would happen in high schools if the drinking age were lowered to high school age students. If the 18-year-olds get it legally, the 14-year-olds will get it easily. (Yes, I know, there are many young teenagers who have no problem getting the means to get drunk. But for many, there’s still a barrier that will get thrown wide open.)
Oh, well I’m not necessarily opposed to that. I don’t think it would hurt to make the driving exam more comprehensive, but that’s really a seperate issue from that of the drinking age. It doesn’t have to be an either/or proposition. It’s possible to make the driving exam harder AND leave the drinking age at 21.
I don’t understand this sentence. The utility of allowing 18 year-olds to drive is, as I said, that it allows them to buy food, work, etc. These things are necessary. Being drunk, on the other hand, is not necessary. I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
Surely you believe there is some age at which they should not be allowed to buy guns or drink alcohol, do you not? Should 5 year-olds be allowed to buy guns? 10 year-olds? 12 year-olds? So your point is not that society can’t set ages at which people are allowed to do certain things, right? You’re merely saying that all things must be allowed at the same age. I fail to see a valid reason for such a presumption.
So, there are two kinds of people who have ever had a drink, alcoholics and the ones that are in denial? I have always thought this was the most brilliant part of the whole anti-alcohol crowd: Either you agree with them or you are in denial.
What, exactly, am I in denial about? After literally hundreds of data points, I am in denail about whether I am dangerous when driving drunk? If so, the evidence doesn’t seem to be in your favor.
-VM
Ok. Make it 19 then.
It just doesn’t make sense to me that society is willing to hold your feet to the fire and make you responsible for pretty much everything else but when you want to kick back at the end of the day with a few beers it says “no, you’re too immature to take responsibility for drinking alcohol. Oh yeah, you’re drafted by the way!”
I think this is probably the most interesting point to discuss. Just remember, you specifically asked what I believe. I think the key distinction that we are making is between someone who is legally adult or legally a child. I also think that the primary benefit of this is the authority it gives the parents to raise their children as they see fit–and to, for the most part, make decisions about what they can do and what consequences they should face. If the kids could do whatever they wanted once they are out of your sight, we might have to start tying them down.
The point that people are making about being able to join the military, go to jail, etc. is the key one. We are selecting an age where your parents no longer answer for you and you answer for yourself. You are free to make decisions about your life and you are subject to the consequences. To me, setting the drinking age to a different age than the age of “adulthood” is a way of making people partial members of society, and it is also a way of saying that we are not sure what an adult is.
If we don’t trust their judgment at 18, then we shouldn’t be giving them the other adult privileges and responsibilities either. If we do, then holding back this particular one seems arbitrary. Plus, as I described earlier, I think that in many ways it does more harm than good.
As regards the other stuff, my irritation is with all the psychobabble bullshit that surrounds things like alcohol and “drugs”. Drinking is something you do–it is a choice that you make–and it doesn’t make you any less responsible for your behavior. So, it is not the drinking and driving that causes harm, it is the hitting of other people with your car. For some people, one may be a side effect of the other, but the key point is that you are not “allowed” to hit other people with your car under any circumstances. If we dealt better with people who do this, many of the other things we talk about (alcohol, speeding) would become much less significant issues.
For what it’s worth, I am also okay with a parent choosing to allow their kids to have alcohol on occasion–and that it should not be a crime. I DO agree that the way alcohol is held back adds a great deal of “titilation” factor to it for kids. If we didn’t make such a big deal about keeping it from them, it wouldn’t be as exciting of a way to rebel. And if they were raised to understand its effects and risks, they would be less likely to hurt themselves with it. Kids will always find ways to rebel, and there will probably always be some who die in the process. In life, the stakes are always high.
-VM
Here’s an idea that just occured to me, but that I haven’t given much thought to. Why not make it legal for 18-year-olds to drink alcohol, but keep the age to purchase it at 21? That way we wouldn’t have the problem of 18-year-olds buying for their 14-year-old friends. And things could continue going on at colleges just as they have been, with older students buying for younger ones, but without it having to just be a matter of the police choosing to look the other way.
That always bothered me. On the weekends we (most of us) used to go out on pass and get snockered. The 18 and 19 year olds could not tag along. These were people just as good, just as tough, just as mature (or not)as any of us. If we had a war going, they would have been just as much at risk as the rest of us. It just struck me as wrong - expecting someone to shoulder the same responsibilities but not getting the same benefits or privileges.
It might well make sence to set different ages for different things, but for the fact that we have established 18 as the age of legal adulthood. Having done this, it follows that 18 year olds should have all of the privleges of adulthood. What is the justification for withholding the right to drink for three extra years?
Whatever the legal adulthood age is, that’s the age at which one should receive all of the privleges of adulthood that have not already been granted. In other words, it is okay to grant one or two privleges early; it’s not okay to delay one.
Another problem with the 21 drinking age is that it’s unenforcible. Does anyone think that 18, 19, and 20 year old Americans are actually stopped from drinking by this law?
YES! I’ve thought this for years. Not everyone is capable of being a good driver. Licenses should be harder to get and easier to lose.
Yes, that is indeed a problem. The fact that in many areas of the US, one cannot get along without driving causes many probems: drunk driving, people who drive despite the fact that they are poor drivers, our dependence on oil that won’t last forever, trafic jams, air pollution, suburban sprawl, etc. Many problems would be solved or reduced if we re-arranged things so that people could live without driving.
[QUOTE=Blalron]
It just doesn’t make sense to me that society is willing to hold your feet to the fire and make you responsible for pretty much everything else but when you want to kick back at the end of the day with a few beers it says "no, you’re too immature to take responsibility for drinking alcohol.
[/quoe]
I don’t know what you mean by “hold your feet to the fire”. It’s really your parents’ decision whether they want to continue to support you after you turn 18. And you’re certainly not forced to vote. If voting is too scary, you don’t have to do it.
My personal belief is that the draft in unconstitutional. There shouldn’t be one at all. So that’s a whole different subject.
That’s easier said than done, though. You’re forgetting that whole countries in Europe aren’t much bigger than one state here. It’s a little impractical to have a comprehensive nationwide system of public transportation when the country is so spread out.
How would you “deal better” with these people?
By the way, I vehemently disagree with your notion that the “hitting another person” is the only problem. Driving drunk severely increases your chances of causing an accident. I mean, let’s not be obtuse - we’ve all seen drunk drivers; you can spot one in an instant. To say the drinking isn’t really the problem is just denial, IMO. It’s like saying, “The problem isn’t that I dropped an anvil on your head; the problem is gravity.”
No, I drink, but I am not an alcoholic. I also am not in the habit of driving home drunk every night.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. The denial I am referring to is people who say, “It’s not dangerous for me to drive drunk, because I am an exceptionally good driver.” That’s just unmitigated bullshit. And I’m not in any “anti-alcohol crowd”, I assure you. I happen to like drinking. I just don’t happen to suffer from any delusions that I can “handle” driving drunk because I’m somehow better than other mortals, or that because I have lucked-out and not gotten into an accident yet, that therefore I never will.
Wait, what the bloody fuck am I doing? I’m arguing with a guy who thinks drunk-driving should be allowed. :smack: Why am I even humoring you? Good bye.
I’m going to take a hard line here. If someone has a record of drunk driving or just grossly incompetent and negligible driving, then that person should have the license revoked. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege that can be taken away. The right of pedestrians and other drivers to stay alive far outweighs the “right” of the drunk driver or outright moron to have a license.
That should have been negligent, not negligible. :smack:
I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing. Nevermind states. Within any given metropolitan area, ideally, it should be possible to get around via public transportation. It should be possible to walk or use public transportation to get to school or work, and to get to places like the grocery store, hardware store, drug store, movie theatre, mall, etc.
The whole drunk driving problem would be greatly reduced if most people, when going out drinking, were able to walk to and from the bar, tavern, pub, restaurant, whatever, or use public transportation.
The whole getting bad drivers off the road thing is exacerbated by the widespread assumption that driving is so totally essential that it really can’t be denied to anyone except in very extream circumstances. If driving were less essential, it would be easier to see to deny the (supposed) privlege of driving to bad drivers. (I say “supposed” because, while we say it’s a privlege, we act as though it were a right.)
I totally agree.
I think there is a percentage of the population that, for one reason or another, just isn’t capable of being consistantly good drivers. Those people shouldn’t be driving. Suppose we actually denied licenses to bad drivers? Think of the benefits.
> Fewer cars on the roads. Therefore, fewer traffic jams, reduced gas consumption, reduced air pollution.
> More and better public transportation, due to increased demand for it.