I started to do some Google research with the intent of getting some evidence that Europeans’ better experience with alcohol is due to its more lenient alcohol laws. Like you, my anecdotal belief was that things were better over there.
I should have considered my actual experience (I’ve been to some wild parties in Europe). It appears that Europeans, Germans in particular, do worse than Americans when it comes to alcohol.
According to the WHO, Germany has a considerably worse alcohol problem than the US. Germans consume 12 liters of ethanol a year, on average, compared to the US’s 10.5. Alcohol dependence in Germany has an SDR (anyone know exactly what that means?) of 6.2/100,000, compared to the US figure of 2/100,000. Cirhhosis and chronic liver disease in Germany has an SDR of 22/100,000, compared to the US’s 10/100,000. The WHO report on youth drinking and alcohol-related car crashes in the US and Germany were presented differently, so I will not make a comparison for fear of ignorance of statistics causing me to err. Here are the US figures.
I also had a concern that Germany’s figures were aberrant, as they cover the mid-90s and may have been skewed due to the absorption of East Germany, with its higher levels of social problems. But the US beats France, as well. the French consume 14 liters/year. Their dependence rate SDR is 4/100,000, and their cirhhosis and liver disease rate SDR is 18/100,000. Again, drunk driving and youth drinking statistics are presented differently, so I won’t make a comparison.
Alcohol is the number one killer of males aged 15-29 in Europe.
Ironically, all this may militate against my original position, which was that the US drinking age should be lowered to European norms. It’s not definitive, as other factors may be the cause of the US’s better track record concerning alcohol, but I’m leaving the issue alone.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mangetout *
In England
[li]Alcohol may not legally be given to children under 5 years of age except on [medical instruction.][/li][li]Children between ages 5 to 14 may consume alcohol at home (presumably with parental consent).[/li][li]Young persons of ages 14 to 16 may go into a licenesed bar or pub, but may not consume alcohol there.[/li][li]From ages 16 to 18, they may purchase and consume beer or cider to accompany a meal in licensed premises.[/li][li]18 and up - may purchase and consume wine, beer or spirits.[/li][/QUOTE]
Sounds like a hell of a good system to me. Can’t see why this wouldn’t work as well here as in England. If teens have been raised so that alcohol isn’t some type of forbidden fruit, they’d have a lot less motivation to binge on it when they can get hold of it, IMHO.
Well thats a matter of opinion. In college the majority of people I see drink to get drunk, and other dopers have agreed to that same observation.
You’re right, but we decided which is a good age to set the law at, and its been set at 21, not 18. An 18 year old is not as mature as a 21 year old, and perhaps a 21 year old isnt as mature as a 40 year old, but comparing the ages of 18 and 21, there is a much higher leap in maturity, one that people see prohibits 18 year olds from being able to drink responsibly. (I’m sure not all 18 year olds fit this description, but a majority do.)
I think you are just extending my reasoning a bit to far here, and for the sake of making my arguments seem unreasonable. Why did we allow 18 year olds to vote? Was it because they wanted to look hip, or because they were being sent to war and wanted to have a political say in those type of decisions? What benefit to society would we gain by allowing 18 year olds to drink? None. Not to them, not to the rest of society. We DO have a lot more to lose, though.
As to what SuaSponte said: I wouldnt doubt that Europe has more disease as a result from drinking. Alcohol is much more prevelant and accessible there. My question is: Do they have the same social problems because of it? You avoided answering the drunk driving point, but its a good thing to bring up. HOw about other forms of deviance resulting from drinking?
Heres another point. If we allow younger people to start drinking, how many more will become dependant upon it? How much higher would violence because of alcohol rise?
Yes, but I didn’t say “in college,” I said, “as an adult.” In any case, it’s the considered opinion of a number of reasonable people at the Straight Dope and beyond that the reason so many college students engage in excessive and binge drinking is precisely because they are denied the opportunity to grow up as responsibly drinking teens.
Well, first things first. “We” did not decide to do anything. The Federal government goaded the state legislatures into doing something. Prior to 1987, the drinking age in many, if not most, states was 18. Under pressure from MADD and other advocacy groups, the Federal government became convinced that our freeways were overrun with drunken teenagers, and that the drinking age needed to be higher. Thus, they voted to deny Federal highway construction and repair funds to any state whose legislature did not raise the drinking age. There was no “we” in the equation.
The result was largely the same as it was under Prohibition; there might be fewer teens overall drinking, but the ones who are drinking tend to drink to excess more frequently.
I’m definitely going to have to ask for cites describing and detailing this “leap in maturity.” You’ve asserted it several times, and since the law is not based in any such reasoning, but you seem to consider it a reasonable basis, you’re going to need to support it. Otherwise, it’s simply a distraction.
Says you. We would gain, perhaps, a decrease in alcohol abuse (not consumption, but abuse) among Americans aged 15-21. If that were to happen (and I am of the opinion that it would), we would see commensurate decreases in juvenile violence, juvenile crime, date rape, and many other social problems. We would also gain the expanded tax revenue at the Federal and state levels from a larger number of buyers of alcoholic beverages.
It’s only been a few years, and so I remember college, and I’ll agree with you, with a caveat. From my experiences, a lot of people in college who drink who are under 21 drink to get drunk fairly frequently. After they turn 21, and can legally purchase alcohol, they drink to get drunk much less often. After they graduate college, most of the same people who drank so heavily don’t drink very much at all.
I would not have quoted it if I didn’t understand what it meant. Just because it’s not specifically included doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a right either. It says you have rights that we didn’t include. I don’t read it as “anything we didn’t include is your right”.
Gosh… I wish I didn’t have the right to watch “Ally McBeal”, but that’s neither here nor there.
There are more restrictions on alcoholic beverages than simply age. There are laws that stipulate which places can sell them. In some states you can’t sell liquor and beer in the same store (not restaurants, state regulated stores). Do all of these infringe on my rights as well?
I doubt that it does, but I don’t have any concrete eveidence either.
However, simpley because you are on their list that they can choose from, it does not seem to be in practice. I brought up the military thing because of my BIL whining that he couldn’t drink at his wedding. It was his choice to join the military.
That is exactly what I’ve asked. I have yet to get an answer. No, I don’t believe it should be anybody’s right to have access to something that causes a major concern for public safety. It should be a priviledge. Businesses have to apply for a license for the priviledge to sell alcohol. In certain areas, you are required to be a member of a club before buying alcohol as businesses.
Yes, I know someone will bring up guns as being a right although they contribute to a public safety issue. Yes, there are accidental gun deaths. However, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever accidentally killed a family on the way home from a football game with a gun. Do background checks infringe on rights?
Why should you have those rights? You can’t make chicken without sherry? I’ve had better chicken without sherry. You can’t have coffee flavored chocolates?
I’m not against alcohol in the least. I enjoy making my home brewed beer. However, I don’t think it is a right to do so. I think it is a priviledge I have for living in the USA. If I was required to have a license to do so, then I would obtain a license. If I had to have inspections, I probably wouldn’t bother.
I’m not against guns either. No, I don’t own one. I doubt I ever will. Most of my friends do. It doesn’t bother me.
As a nit-pick, this isn’t true. It’s up to the rental company to set the age they will rent to. Most of the time that age is 25, due to insurance reasons, but there are companies that will rent to 21 year-olds. Enterprise Rent-A-Car is one.
Well, I wasn’t avoiding it - I just couldn’t answer it. For example, the US stats gave both the rates of alcohol-related car crashes and the percentage of car crashes related to alcohol. For France, the only information provided was total car crashes. The US was the only country for which information on incidents of binge drinking was provided. Etc. OTOH, only France provided stats on how many hospital admissions were related to alcohol (25-30%). I assume this is because the WHO was relying on local statistics, and the governments either didn’t look into certain issues, or considered certain issues more important.
Both cites I gave provide one hell of a lot of information, and I suggest you read them - very interesting stuff. I just avoided making comparisons where the information provided did not correlate.
That’s the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever heard. Well, no, not really, but it’s up there.
Let’s take this argument to its extreme conclusion. AFAIK there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly states that I don’t have the right to murder people. So I guess I have that right, don’t I? Go ahead and check it. Please, correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that it does not say anywhere in there that I don’t have that right. So since it’s not specifically enumerated then I guess I have that right.
Much more germane would be the 10th Amendment. That any power not given to Congress are reserved to the states. And since these are state laws that we are dealing with, it’s all very Constitutional.
If you want to debate whether the highway fund extortion used to get those state laws in place violate the spirit of the Constitution, then let’s start a different thread and I’ll probably agree with you.
Well, I don’t think it IS working in England. I remember many a night when I and my 18-23 year old British friends would hit the pub and come back completely trashed. Or when we went up to the river house in Dittisham (off the River Dart) we remained intoxicated for a large portion of the four day weekend.
The real difference, IMO, is that in Europe, people don’t find drinking to be a problem. As was put to me by a 45 year old co-worker, “You Americans have the most ridiculous ideas about alcoholism. Just because someone goes to the pub and has a few drinks after work everyday, doesn’t mean someone has a problem.” The gentleman in question had to be helped to the underground every day after coming out of the pub he was so intoxicated. And yes, it was every frickin’ day.
That leads me to believe that the differences are whether people choose to see that there’s a problem or not. Americans frown on binge drinking and think there’s a problem with it. British see the same binge drinking and see that it’s just fun and games and social activity.
See, I don’t believe it is a taboo. I’d like to think of it as an “official taboo”; one of those things that is officially decried, but winked at in many circumstances. No, nobody wants kids getting drunk, but when I was underage and drank with older folks, it was more of a “ahh, those were the days” nostalgia.
Okay, how 'bout Australia? I believe their laws are similar to Canada’s (legal drinking age = 18, please correct me if I’m wrong), but I witnessed tons of underage drinking the semester I spent there. It was just as bad as the U.S. Those Aussies drink hard, regardless of age. A lower drinking age does not necessarily mean those of that age are able to drink more responsibly.
Me? I’m divided. If 18 year-olds could show that they could handle the responsibility, I’d be all for it. So far I haven’t seen it - witness Oshkosh, WI’s riots a few years ago when there was quiet talk about lowering the age. They didn’t, and 18/19 yo’s rioted. Talk about proving responsibility. And yet, current laws don’t seem to be doing anything. Would a simple lowering of the age fix our problems? I think no, for many of the reasons already stated - it’s American society that needs fixing.
And maybe it is perception, but I don’t think for a moment that the British gent someone mentioned previously wasn’t an alcoholic. It seems to me he obviously had a problem - whether he thought so or not is another story. And I don’t know that current WI law allowing minors to drink at restaurants if their parents purchase the alcohol is exactly right either. From what I’ve seen in my hometown, this doesn’t foster respect or responsibility, it’s just giving minors another person who’ll buy it for you. Half the time, the parents are alcohol abusers as well.
Anecdotally, I’ve seen the same sort of behaviour that everyone else has - after 21, people aren’t as interested in it as before. Perhaps if the U.S. could get some serious drink-driving laws (that were actually enforced in small towns like those in rural western Wisconsin - really, it’s ridiculous. A drunk minor killed a father of two young children in a car accident, and the officer almost didn’t require a BAC test or arrest the kid. Ick.) we’d see some progress. And perhaps not - 'tis a thorny question.
I’d say Sua’s stats speak for themselves - yes, the U.S. has a problem, and yes, perhaps it’s backwards. But so do the European countries so lauded as being forward.
Americans are allowed to drive when 16.
Americans are allowed to vote when 18.
Americans are allowed to die for their country when 18 (?).
Americans are allowed to vote for their president who is allowed to send them to war when 18.
Americans are allowed to buy semi-automatic machine guns when they are 18.
Americans are allowed to buy their first beer when 18
(if at all, remember, there are plenty of dry counties out there).
Americans can buy drugs no matter what age.
Americans are not allowed to look at breasts on non-cable TV.
We can argue about sensibility of this age or that age and I am sure we can disagree on this or that but nobody can tell me that this list makes any sense whatsoever.
I am always surprised when we start talking about freedom in America and what our presumptions on this perceived freedom are.
18, 19, 20, 21+: Persons permitted (and required) by law to be treated as adults.
18, 19, 20: Adults restricted by law from enjoying privilages of other adults based on the date of their birth.
Someone, please help me with the logic:
All persons over 18 are adults.
All adults are equal under the law.
No adults between 18 and 20 are permitted to consume alcohol.
Yes, it is understandable that we have a stigma about drinking in the US and binge drinking exists, but it exists in part because of this legal injustice. How else can youth become like those of other countries if the laws and practices are not changed to reflect the atmosphere of these other countries. Again, I refer to Canada, practically part of the country, where the “adult” age is 19.
SuaSponte, I’d like to elaborate on your statistics a little bit. France does have a high rate of cirrhosis. French people do drink a lot. However, French kids have the same attitudes towards drinking that French adults do. They don’t think that drinking is a big deal. They party harder than adults, as all young people do. But alcohol is not the focal point of the night. Most of us agree that in America, this is not the case. American adults drink responsibly, but American teenagers and college students drink to get drunk. In my opinion, this is because they have not been taught to view alcohol in a responsible manner by their parents. Of course, this would only happen if attitudes towards alcohol in the United States were to change. I suppose it’s possible that lowering the drinking age would not be sufficient to change these attitudes, but I think it could help.
One of the reasons there are more alcohol-related deaths in Europe could be that drinking and driving is not taken as seriously in Europe as it is in America. In fact, French police are pretty lax about law enforcement in general, compared to American police. No-one is ever fined for traffic or parking violations, for example. I simply cannot imagine French police ever pulling erratic drivers over to question them about alcohol consumption. But there is no reason that a lowered drinking age should be accompanied with a more lenient attitude towards drinking and driving. In fact, I think the laws should be tightened if the drinking age is lowered, to avoid the problem grimpixie mentioned of inexperienced drivers trying to get home after a night on the town.
As a UK citizen I must admit that I grew up around beer so never really thought of it as a taboo (plus, my dad was a rugby player, so I kinda grew up in the rugby club - first time I was drunk I was aboout 3, drinking dregs from glasses!). I started drinking in pubs since I was about 14, but I would only have a few - as I approached 18 I drank more.
All this stuff about 18-21 maturity I don’t understand, as regards drinking anyway. Between 18 and 21 I wouldn’t say that my drinking habits changed at all - the main reason I drank a lot more at college was more to do with the atmosphere than anything else. I didn;t always have to get up for school, I was around people my own age all the time, et cetera et cetera. It wasn;t so much to do with the availability of beer, more the availability of opportunity.
Don’t know how much this adds to the argument tho…sorry