Casinos are 21&up. Clubs vary. Some are just 21&up, others 18&up. The latter normally charges the 18-20 crowd more though under the premise that they won’t be spending money inside on alcohol.
Hell no! Teenagers are dumb and dangerous enough without giving them free reign of alcohol, too.
Sure, if they want it, they’ll find a way to get it, but that’s a little different than giving them open access.
No, I didn’t read the whole thread. This has probably already been said, just lobbing in my $0.02.
HELL NO.
And I find it astonishing how many Dopers are trying to tie being able to be drafted to be able to legally drink together.
First of all, the draft hasn’t been used in over 30 years and there is a good chance that it will never be used again, so that pretty much takes the whole, “if you are old enough to fight for your country, you should be able to drink” argument and blows it to pieces.
More importantly, 18 year olds are more immature than just about every other age and that includes 16 year olds.
They think that they have all of the answers to all of life’s questions and problems and that evryone else on the planet is stupider then 2 week old ear wax.
They are irresponsible, self indulgent, self centered, and they all always fall back on the old, I’ll just say…" excuse, believing thaqt those three words are somehow magic and will wash any any problems,troubles or bad circumstances the 18 year old finds themself in.
Not hardly.
No it doesn’t. The draft could be instigated at any time, the only reason it hasn’t been it because there hasn’t been a need for it, but the possibility is most certainly present. If you believe otherwise, try talking to the fine folks down at the Selective Service and ask for all 18-24 years olds to be removed from the potential draft list and see where that gets you. Secondly, if you have the option to volunteer and die for this country, you damn well should have the option to drink as well.
Or they could become addicted at a much earlier age – at an age when they have far less self-control.
I think it’s hopelessly naive to think that people will learn to drink responsibly by starting to drink at an early age. Fuggedaboutit.
<hijack>
Perhaps you should review the Selective Service web site and study what it takes to authorize a draft. On paper it looks pretty simple. The reality is far from it.
You will also find on the web site that selective service includes those males 18 to just before one turns 26. We cannot forget a couple extra years of cannon fodder now, can we?
</hijack>
That said, I support raising the legal age to 21 for all things; draft, drinking age, voting, the lot.
While maturity may be an individual thing, a society cannot function at such a level. Some arbitrary lines must be established. Often times, such superficial arbitrariness at first is not, but ground in hard facts. While there are certainly lies, damned lies, and statistics, minimum legal drinking laws has statistical support.
The voting age was lowered to 18, along with the legal age later, at times when youth had a surprising level of maturity (being drafted at 18 for an unpopular war and unable to vote until 21 does sober up people). However, all these years later IMHO that same age bracket has regressed in maturity and their recalcitrance to grow up is becoming a problem with the greater society. We’ll just help you along in your self-imposed regression by returning legal age status to those who are more able to accept it.
Once again, I’d like to point out that not all 18-year-olds are allowed to die for their country. Only a precious few are given this privilege, having passed a long and painful training process which is designed (among other things) to weed out those of lesser maturity.
Hence, one cannot claim 18 is a suitable gauge of maturity. It isn’t. Not by a long shot.
Sure they can. Regardless, anyone who wants alcohol at 18 can readily access it. The illegality of it is not a barrier, it wasn’t for me nor anyone else I knew. My point is that lowering the age of drinking would not have nearly the profound effect you seem to imply.
The process of instigating a draft is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that it’s a very real possibility, despite the improbability of it occurring anytime soon.
Casinos in Washington are 18 and up.
Then wouldn’t you expect European countries to have far more alcohol-related deaths and injuries?
The problem with those statistics is that the accidents they’re measuring dropped in Canada at the same time as in the United States, even though the drinking age in Canada was and still is 18-19. That implies raising the age wasn’t responsible for the drop in accidents - or at least wasn’t solely responsible. (cite)
That presumes a false dichotomy, though. It’s not as though the only choices are “Teach children to drink at a young age” and “Let them suddenly become exposed to drinking at 21.”
Besides, do we honestly think that children will start to drink gradually if we lower the drinking age? No way, no how.
That’s a very non-rational and immature statement.
I might point out that you don’t volunteer to die for your country, but rather you volunteer to serve in a branch of the armed forces of your country.
Yes, there is a chance, and a fairly small one at that, that you will die while in the armed forces, but you won’t necessarily be dying for your country.
Here’s an example: you are down at basic training and you get your first 36 hour leave, so naturally you go out and get absolutely boiled and manage to kill not just yourself, but 2 other people by driving drunk.
Is that dying for your country?
I think not.
Dying because of incredible stupidity, yes.
Back up your beliefs with facts and you may just have a point.
You do realize that there are people of the legal drinking age in the military, no? Do you truely believe there is that large of a mental difference between an 18 and 21 year old? Despite this, you’re functioning off a merely hypothetical level; an extreme one at that. However, nothing you stated contradicted my original quote point that " if you have the option to volunteer and die for this country, you damn well should have the option to drink as well " as people do die defending this country and/or carrying out missions associated with this country, as evidenced by the situation in Iraq.
I notice that you’re not asking the same of people who believe the opposite. Quite a double standard, I’d say.
Think of it. WHY should we believe that setting the legal to 21 would cause people to “suddenly” get into drinking, whereas lowering this limit would cause them to ease into it gradually? There is simply no reason to believe this to be true, and no rationale has been offered.
Indeed, since teenagers are notoriously immature, it’s far more reasonable to posit that younger drinkers will be MORE likely to dive recklessly into excessive drinking.
I already presented reasons why this conclusion simply does not follow. Merely stating “Sure they can” is not a valid rebuttal. It’s on a par with sticking fingers in one’s ears and chanting “La la la! Can’t hear you!”
Unfortunately, that seems to be the most persuasive argument that you have.
Which is irrelevant to the topic at hand. People who are dead set on violating the law will, but not all 18-year-olds are dead set on doing so.
Which, again, is irrelevant. The fact that some will blatantly violate a law does not render that law invalid.
Really? Where did I make any claims about the “profound effect” that such laws would have? Can you cite the relevant statements which I made?
Well? Ready yet?
No? Didn’t think so.
I made no claims about how profound the effects of lowering the drinking age would be. That would be an irrelevant argument anyway. As far as I’m concerned, even if the effect is relatively minor, it’s still worthwhile.
From my personal experience, teen-aged and twenty-something alcoholics find it much easier to get themselves into AA / NA than do forty-something alcoholics.
No Stats to cite but lots of personal experience.
As long as compulsory military service through the draft is legal and still possible, JThunder, then more than just a few can find themselves in danger of dying for this country’s official and unofficial wars. True, the draft hasn’t been active for many years, but 18 year-old males still must register with Selective Service in case the draft is put into effect again.
Take a gander back at Vietnam, and you’ll see that more than just a precious few were conscripted. And if you also take a look at the Vietnam Wall Memorial, you’ll see more than just a precious few with their names engraved on it. The “weeding out” process wasn’t quite as thorough as I feel you were trying to make it sound–at least not for that war.
Since the government feels that 18, 19 and 20 year-olds are mature enough to handle guns and other devices meant to deal out death, then I feel it’s hypocritical for the government to also say, “Nah, you’re not old enough to get drink. We don’t trust you enough to even have a berry-flavored wine cooler.”
Take the draft away and I think we have a different argument. But don’t tell me that I am allowed to kill and be killed but I can’t get sloshed.
If I’m to take a bullet for you, then I’m gonna have a drink for me.
Even then, the government isn’t allowing ALL 18-year-olds to die in defense of their country. There is still a process of checks and balances, set in place to identify and kick out those who lack enough maturity and discipline to do so. They don’t simply hand a gun to an 18-year-old, after he has been drafted. So even if we grant the scenario that you described, it still does not mean that all 18-year-olds have enough maturity to drink.
Moreover, do remember that people who serve in the military do so under controlled, supervised conditions. This alone distinguishes military service from casual drinking, which is a generally unsupervised activity – one for which there would be no equivalent system of checks and balances.
Which is, again, irrelevant. The government doesn’t say that 18-, 19- and 20-year olds are mature enough to handle firearms, shoot people and die for their country. What is says is that certain people of that age range are mature enough, under controlled, supervised circumstances.
my WAG:
The problem isn’t only the law. The legal drinking age could be 12 or 40, but the fact is North American society is somewhat afraid of alcohol. It is a social taboo which has nothing to do with the age of the drinker. For some reason, North Americans are convinced that alcohol is inherently evil and so people must be protected from it at all costs.
Yes, it has it’s bad sides, but like it or not, it is a part of society. It has been a part of civilization since the dawn of agriculture. It is readily available. Kids can get to it, regarless of the law, and there are many people who don’t care too much for the law. My mother was offereing me alcohol (at dinner) when I was in my early teens, if not before that. Lowering the drinking age means that less teens will break the law, but it won’t make them more responsible about it.
What WILL make teens more responsible is proper education, and a chance to explore. Contrary to some people’s comments in this thread, I DID start drinking GRADUALLY. I also went through a binging phase, and now I pretty much only drink wine, with dinner, or I might drink at the odd party. I ended my binging phase before I was 18 - before I was even legal in Québec! Many of my friends are like this, too. My understanding is that a lot of Europe’s young adults have experienced alcohol in this manner.
Remove the social taboo, remove the “fear” of the evils of alcohol, remove the panick-stricken response by parents when they find out their kids had a beer - teach kids how to be responsible rather than always saying NO to them, and I think there will be a difference in how they choose to consume alcohol. When its forbidden, not only by law, but by their own parents taboos, then kids will seek it out all the more, at least from what I’ve seen. Take away that “magic first beer” moment that people look for as soon as they are out of the house, and they wont be as idiotic in how they go about drinking it.
Ok, I know I’m blathering on, and I likely don’t make much sense. Basically, I think the whole of society needs to lighten up about their feelings towards alcohol. It isn’t inherently evil, and it won’t guarantee the downfall of your child.