If an 18 year old is an adult, why is their right to consume alcohol restricted? The only other justifications we have under law for restriction of rights is incarceration or insanity (in the case that they are a threat). Can the restriction of some adults from drinking be likened to age descrimination? Why not make the legal [for everything] age 21 [instead of 18], that way we alienate no one. The idea of raising “adulthood” to 21 is just as illogical as a drinking age above “adulthood.”
But seriously? Restricting a right from an adult had by the public at large only a few years older based on age is as logical as telling an adult that they can’t vote because they don’t have a penis.
Theres one thing you forget here: we already teach moderation and responsibility in drinking, but there are still quite a few who do not drink responsibility. I lived in Europe and there is one thing different about Europeans who drink from the many Americans that I’ve noticed. (Disclaimer: this is simply from what I’ve noticed, so I’m sure there are exceptions and I do not speak for the majority) What I’ve noticed is the stigma around alcohol is much different in that part of Europe I lived in. For kids it wasnt a big deal to have a sip of beer, or have access to alcohol. In America it is. Growing up I found that American kids strived to get drunk, or brag about being able to access alcohol. Does that mean we should make alcohol easily accessible to everyone? What are you, drunk? To think that European atittudes about alcohol will somehow find their way into American social norms is ludicrous. Europeans, or I should say Germans, because thats who I witnessed, drink alcohol during meals and festivals. Almost always it was warm beer, and with food. They did not drink for the sole purpose of getting plastered. Go to any major American city and you will see the majority of people who drink, do so because they are with their friends and want to get drunk. Yes, people drink wine with meals, but they are IMHO not the majority. Many of these people, are responsible about their drinking, but many are also not. What makes you think some hormone driven kid who can barely control their emotions handle the responsibility associated with alcohol? Yeah, right.
No offense, but could you be more of a moron? Adults make laws preventing kids from doing something stupid, not because they are being selfish. That doesnt stop someone from underage drinking, but it does deter some. As for being 18 years old and not being allowed to drink; 18 is not 21. No, im not going to post a site with scientific research, but for a great deal of people that age, they are far more mature and responsible when they are 21 than when they are 18.
FYI: I’m a college freshman, and 17 years old. Interesting profile, eh?
In South Africa, everything happens at age 18:[ul]
[li]Voting[/li][li]Driving[/li][li]Drinking[/li][li]Criminal Prosecution[/li][/ul]The end result is that every year there are a series of horrific accidents as young people who have just learned to drive go out and booze it up with thier mates and try to drive themselves home. In the light of this, it may not be such a bad thing to separate the ages of legal drinking and legal driving.
Whether 16 to 21 is too long to wait is a moot point…
You’re absolutely right, Pathros. I live in France, and one rarely, if ever, sees people abusing alcohol here. Apart from homeless tramps, no-one ever goes out with the intention of getting drunk, which is pretty common in America (in my experience). Teenagers drink in bars or at parties but it is not considered a big deal at all. It is never an important aspect of the bar or party. They never drink to the point of getting sick. I believe that it is because they are permitted - and even encouraged - to drink wine on important occasions or holidays from childhood onwards. Seven-year-old children have a glass of wine at dinner with their families on special occasions. They never develop a fascination with alcohol as American teenagers do. There is no deviousness or rebelliousness associated with it, as Tarmac indicated exists among American kids.
Are the different attitudes due to cultural differences between Europeans and Americans? I suppose it’s a debatable point, but I’ve always been of the opinion that the restrictive view which Americans take of underage drinking is a cause, not a result, of these differences.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tracer *
**Mangetout wrote:
That’s the one thing it’s not. The Victorians had no restrictions. Public drunkeness was a great social evil. Hence the passing of the alehouse acts.
Incidentally I don’t think I could have got through my late teens and early twenties without alcohol, imagine all the awkward situations that would occur.
So how do US teens get round it? Get an elder brother to buy it? Know a “sympathetic” shopkeeper? Or do they turn to other social lubricants eg bob hope?
This is a textbook example of specious reasoning. Well, to the extent that any reasoning was conducted here, it was specious, anyway.
Point the first: “18 is not 21.” Well, duh. By definition, this is true. Blue is also not red. What relevence this has to the question at hand, I fail to see.
Point the second: The question at hand is whether it is proper to deny otherwise law-abiding Americans the right to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages even after they have reached the age of legal majority. Which is why your “18 is not 21” comment is irrelevant; it’s arguing backwards.
Point the third: If you’re argument is, “People are generally more mature at 21, and 18 is not 21, therefore the drinking age should be 21 rather than 18,” you’re arguing in a circle. Furthermore, I think, despite your protestation, you should support your assertion.
Point the last: If that is in fact your reasoning, then it can as easily be used to defend an argument that the drinking age should be 30. Or 40. Or 50. People are, after all, generally more mature at those ages than they are at 21.
Not really. There are probably several thousand of you in the United States alone. I was once a 17-year-old college freshman as well.
The only reason that 18 is selected as the age to be an adult is that is the age that most people graduate from high school. If people graduated at 21, I would bet that you wouldn’t be considered an adult until you were 21.
The age restriction is setup to try to keep alcohol away from minors.
Why not require rental car companies to rent to 18 year old? Most of them will make it difficult (or more expensive) to rent a car if you are under 25.
If you don’t want to die for your country before you have a beer, then wait until you’re 21 to join the military.
Seriously, the laws are different in Texas. For example, I am legally allowed to have a beer with my children. They are not allowed to purchase alcohol, but there is no restriction againt me providing my child with beer. I am planning on removing the stigma of alcohol prior to them going to college. (Assuming my wife agrees with me of course). They will be allowed to have a beer with dinner. But they will be prohibited from driving anywhere afterwards. Once they have a beer (or wine, etc) they will know they have to stay at home.
I never saw my dad drive after he had been drinking. That to me is more important than what age you are drinking. I never saw my dad get plastered. He’s right, no matter how much fun you have the night before, it’s not worth it. If I have a headache the next morning, I know I drank too much.
If all children had the kind of role model that I had then drinking at 18 would not be a problem.
However, my sister on the other hand is an excellent case for banning the sale of alcohol to anyone under 25.
As another poster once said, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel full of monkeys holding fish and bending over.
Why is it not? And if you say, “It’s not in the Constitution,” then my reply is, “Have you ever heard of the Ninth Amendment?”
I . . . do not think that this is true. I would like to see a cite for this, please.
You’re comparing apples to cinderblocks here, I’m afraid. There are not (to the best of my knowledge) statewide laws which require providers of automobile rental services to restrict their services to those above a certain age. That is a business decision made by those business owners on the basis of actuarial data.
There are, however, statewide laws in all 50 states which require sellers of alcohol-containing beverages to restrict their service to those above a certain age.
Great idea. Can I also wait until I’m 21 to register for Selective Service? Nope, I sure can’t–gotta register at 21. If there’s a draft, I guess I’ll tell them that I’m not going until I’m 21. (This is, of course, purely hypothetical–I’m 32.)
In my entire post, this is the only thing you could find to pick apart, my comment about age? Its not arguing in a circle, its actually a valid reason for alcohol laws. Look, in America people are generally irresponsible about drinking. Setting the age at 21 years old, says that at age 18, you are mature enough to vote, mature enough to be considered an adult, mature enough to fight in war, but not mature enough to drink. Why? Because Americans are typically immature about drinking to begin with, and until anyone shows me otherwise, it would prove much safer for society by keeping the law at 21 years old. Granted, people will always break that law, but it provides a much stronger deterrant.
You are right. BUT, the majority of 17 year olds are juniors in high school. This brings up another possible social problem. If you allow an 18 year, high school senior to drink, how much more tempting would it be for the 15-17 year old underclassmen to want to drink?
The original point of that comment was to show that I have no problem with the liquor laws, and I go to college, therefore am exposed to extreme amounts of it.
It was the part I disagreed with. I wasn’t aware I was required to pick apart things I agree with. :rolleyes:
No, it really, really isn’t. See below.
This is, in my opinion, simply not true. We can both get into the anecdote game all you want, but in my experience as an adult, most people I know do not drink to get drunk.
Why is it the government’s job to tell us this anyway?
Again, by that reasoning, we would be even safer by setting the drinking age at 40. Better yet, we’d be even safer by banning alcohol altogether. Except, well, we tried that, and many cities became decidedly less safe.
We would also be safer by requiring all cars to be made out of Nerf, but we don’t do that, either.
By that reasoning, we should allow 15-17-year-olds to vote, too. Or take the vote away from 18-year-olds.
This brings up a glimmer of a hint of a memory of something… something about the government not having the right to impose taxes on some products purchased by minors? Ehh. Sorry, bad reference.
I’ve always felt that the drinking age isn’t there to keep minors from drinking a beer, it’s to keep them from drinking nine beers. That whole moderation thingy that some kids have a problem with. If we got them used to the idea, at 10-15, that a beer was okay, they’d try it and figure out whether or not they liked it, then when they hit the age where they could buy their own, they’d make smarter choices on how much to buy.
I don’t recall seeing anybody mention the physical maturity of drinkers yet? Is that an issue?
A friend of mine from Indiana told me they had a law on the books that you could drink beer, mead, cider, or wine at any age, provided you made it yourself. No cite, may still not be on the books.
I’m not stupid enough to say it’s not in the constitution, whenever I say that someone will surely find a spot where I am wrong. However, I don’t see how it is a right to drink. I don’t see anything in the 9th ammendment that states you have a right to drink do you?
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Maybe I should have made it more clear that I was hypothesizing why I think the age was set the way it is. It’s an argument that I hear a lot and I have yet to find a better reason.
Well, yes there is, it’s called a drivers license. That is not related to the topic at hand. That comment was based on the fact that many people consider driving a “right”. I think it is a privilege, just like drinking. No one is required to sell you alcohol.
Has a “draft” happened since selective service was introducted? It still exists in theory. I doubt that it will ever be used again. But hey, if somone goes overseas due to a draft, they can have a drink and quit whining.
Yes. However, he was her father, but she never looked at him as an example how to act. So while he was her father, he was not her role model. Her friends were her role models, and many of the people she was friends with had poor excuses for a father.
Pathros said it all.
It is a big taboo to drink underage in the US, so of course, 14 and 15 years old will go in the woods to drink the beers a big brother bought for them. I grew up in France and never hid to drink! Thus I don’t think I abused it. Of course I got drunk at parties, of course we also have drunk driving… but I believe it isn’t as “bad” as the US.
When I first got in the States (in college mind you!) I just saw everybody drinking to get drunk, and admitting it. That’s all it was about! I never understood that, I mean, I did not share this view.
I’m not trying to be obnoxious here, but do you understand what that sentence means? It means, “Just because we didn’t spell out a right here doesn’t mean you don’t have it.” So, unless there’s been some sort of Supreme Court ruling that there is not a right to drink (and for all I know, there has been), we can assume for the purposes of argument that there is.
I mean, it doesn’t say that you have a right to go home tonight and watch “Ally McBeal,” but you do. Don’t you?
I think the social concept of 18 as an adult predates widespread secondary education, but again, I could be wrong.
Let’s phrase it another way: There are not statewide laws that require providers of automobile rental services to restrict their services to people who hold valid driver’s licenses but have otherwise not reached a certain age. There are, however, statewide laws which require sellers of alcohol not to sell to persons who have otherwise reached legal majority but have not reached another, arbitrary age.
No, but those people who do offer alcohol for sale to the public are not permitted to sell it to otherwise legal adults who have not reached the arbitrary age of 21.
Look, you were the one who brought it up. You said: “If you don’t want to die for your country before you have a beer, then wait until you’re 21 to join the military.” I was pointing out that, given the legal context, the government can compel me to join the military prior to age 21, and in fact they require me to register for the purpose of doing so. Therefore, your argument is not completely valid.
Yes. However, he was her father, but she never looked at him as an example how to act. So while he was her father, he was not her role model. Her friends were her role models, and many of the people she was friends with had poor excuses for a father. **
[/QUOTE]
Errr, the point is that one cannot rent an automobile in the United States until one is 25 years old.
And also from Dilbert:
OK, let’s make sure we’re on the right track here. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments ensure that just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution, it has not ceased to exist. It is my right to kiss my SO, but the Constitution does not explicitly tell me I can. Fair enough so far, right?
Ah, you ask, how to determine something is a right? You address this a little further down:
Of course not. But that is not a determinant of what is a right. No one is required to sell me a firearm, either, but I nevertheless have the right to own one.
So, I’ll place it back on you, Dilbert: Why on earth would eating and drinking of anything not be my right? I don’t have a right to a beer? So, I can’t brew my own either? Kahlua-filled chocolates? Chicken cooked in sherry? I have no right to any of that?