BrianS and Mr. Evil Breakfast, I’d just like to point out that although I agree with your position, the arguments you’ve been using that teenagers “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.” and “are dumb and dangerous enough without giving them free reign of alcohol, too.” are two of the most generalized and ignorant statements I’ve seen here.
Not quite…we have no assurances that the happy couple actually owns a trailer.
If I were living in the United States, I´d vote for it. Around here, I wouldn´t vote for it, as I wouldn´t want to raise the drinking age (for beer at least) from 16 to 18 
Maybe I misunderstand the draft/forced military induction process then. As I understand it, when a draft is going, men between the ages of 18 and 26 are chosen from a lottery. Once chosen (and assuming they don’t meet any of the possible exemptions or deferrments), the men are put into basic training where they are taught (among other things) how to use a gun and kill a person. Because of this, I’m not seeing how the government isn’t telling these men that they think they’re mature enough to handle weapons, shoot people and die for whatever war is prompting a need for a draft.
The fact that the men are actually trained to handle that gun means that the government trusts them with it; otherwise, why train them to use guns and other weaponry? (Besides, as My Lai and the recent “shoot a man’s car full of holes and then run it over with a tank because he was possibly looting wood” proves, controlled and supervised circumstances is not a panacea for bad decisons; especially with instruments designed to bring about death.)
That’s sorta beside the point, though. My main point is that if you’re good enough to die for this country (and let’s face it: when you’re drafted, you’re being told that, like it or not, you’re good enough to die), then you deserve to be able to take a drink. Because, hey, dying stunts your growth; you end up dead before 21 and you will never be able reach that age. And if giving those men the right to drink means allowing all men and women between 18 and 20–regardless of being drafted–the right to drink, then I think that’s perfectly acceptable; it’s a consequence of telling a man, “Yeah, you. Come here to possibly die.”
That said, I also have no problem with raising the draft age to 21. Assuming that getting rid of the draft forever is not a consideration.
Way to stereotype! I agree with Garfield226. Unfortunately, this is the kind of discrimination that is tolerated on the SDMB.
JThunder, I must say that Duderdude2 is in the right and not you. The way things are supposed to work in the USA is that we give people freedoms unless proven that those freedoms cause harm to others. The burden of proof is on those who want to take away the freedoms. Duderdude2 is in favor of restoring a right that Americans had at the dawn of this nation. You are in favor of continuing to deprive them of this right, hence it should be upon you to prove that the harm to society from a lower drinking age outweighs the granting of a freedom. The only reason most states are 21 now is that the Puritans gained control in the early 80’s and blackmailed states with Federal highway funds.
My personal experience lines up well with the study cited in the link by **world eater ** that the only way to get a handle on drinking is to have experience drinking. The age of starting to drink has little effect. The students at college I knew who had no experience with alcohol in high school were the ones most likely to go far over the edge.
The cite by Duckster is typical of the anti-alcohol studies I have seen. They make the inherent assumption that drinking is baaaad and that lowering teen drinking rates is the Holy Grail. They then throw in a statistic about Single Vehicle Nighttime crashes for the age ranges desired, point out that it lowered after the drinking age was raised, and Voila! The raised drinking age saved lives! But wait a second… the SVN crash data does NOT record alcohol related crashed, they are only using SVN crashes as an INDICATOR. They then blanketly state “Indicator went down, QED less drunks were crashing.” But they have no actual data that shows that. The are making a logical assumption that may or may not be factual. Did the period in question also see a rise in airbag or seatbelt use?
Other flawed studies I have seen draw conclusions using age ranges OUTSIDE the ranges in question. (an example I once saw was something along the lines of “The drinking age was lowered to 18, alcohol related accidents rose 20% for the 18 to 24 year old age group.”)
An given 18 year old is no more or less likely to be mature than a given 21 year old. The person too immature to drink in a societally appropriate manner at 18 is also going to be too immature at 21. I know a few people who are 35 and 45 who don’t drink responsibly.
This issue will only be solved when our Robotic Monkey Overlords implant RFID chips into us that can be scanned to see if we passed our Drinking Exam.
Yeah well they happen to be quite true, given Gen Y’s disregard for following the basic rules that govern modern society.
I think you had better re-read this thread, then. Not a single person claimed that there are NO people who started to drink gradually. Ergo, your counter-example doesn’t really prove anything.
The question is whether lowering the drinking age would prevent people from suddenly getting plunged into drinking – that is, whether it would cause youngsters to drink gradually at 18 or so, as opposed to drinking suddently at 21. object to that claim because there isn’t a single reason to believe it.
Besides, as I said, it’s a false dichotomy. It’s not as though the only choices are a sudden exposure to alcohol at the age of 21, or a gradual exposure at the age of 18.
That’s exactly the point. They must pass basic training first, before they are allowed to shoot other people. Even after basic training, these individuals must still serve under a chain of command, and under varying levels of supervision.
In other words, not all 18-year-olds are deemed responsible enough to carry a firearm. Ergo, one cannot invoke the draft as sufficient grounds to declare that 18 years is a sufficient age to start drinking.
None of which, as has been pointed out, means that those who pass basic training and are under supervision don’t make giant mistakes with those weapons. Training and supervision doesn’t mean one is mature enough to handle the responsibility.
And I think you misunderstand me: I’m not suggesting that, initially, all 18, 19 and 20 year-olds should be able to drink because a large portion of them can be drafted; I’m saying that if you expect one to possibly die for you, then I expect you to allow him to drink.
However, I realize the legal headaches it’d create allowing only a certain subset of 18, 19 and 20 year-olds to drink, so I’m saying that it’s an acceptable concession to allow all 18 year-olds to drink.
Either that, or like I mentioned, raise the draft age to 21 (or abolish the draft, period).
Your comment is a contradiction. The process of implementing a draft is what determines its possibility.
Do you honestly believe that Congress (House and Senate) as well as the President can pass legislation implementing a draft without the People raising a stink? Then there are the circumstances which would compel the Congress to introduce the legislation in the first place. Barring an all out attack upon the US mainland by a foreign government and/or a clearly defined terrorist group (with foreign government support as well?), I seriously doubt the “real possibility” of a draft.
However, I will concede the American People’s inability to demand for accountability with the present war in Iraq (yes, I do mean present tense here), let alone honest clarification concerning the war on terrorism, might lead this country through the back door to a draft. Even so, I believe there are sufficient numbers who would not go gently into that good night and do their best to arouse the population to such tactics.
All things said, a draft should be the least of your worries right now.
Um, I don’t think anybody’s pointed out that this guy’s a dick.
Mr. Evil Breakfast, please think this through some more. Your ideas are insulting and illogical.
The average teenager is, yes, less mature than the average adult. He is, yes, going to be less responsible with alchohol. There are a few teenagers who embody what you described, Mr. EB. But there are always a few of the worst, out of any group.
Going back to the core question, I believe the drinking age should be nineteen. Eighteen-year-olds are seniors in high school, and likely have many younger friends. This isn’t a good combination. At nineteen, the kids are out of high school, and this age is much closer to the legal age of everything else. Good balance; I’d vote for it.
I’m not claiming otherwise. Once again, I’d like to remind you of the issue at hand. The question is whether the possibility of military service at 18 is sufficient grounds to deem that someone is responsible enough to drink. As I’ve pointed out, not everyone who’s 18 is responsible enough to serve in the military.
Is is possible that some people who undergo basic training will still commit horrendous mistakes? Certainly, and I never claimed otherwise. Obviously, no such system is perfect. This does nothing to defend your claim that 18-year-olds are responsible enough to drink.
Once again, I think you’re confused about what I’ve said. I never claimed that all 18, 19 and 20 year-olds should be given drinking rights because they’re responsible as a group or individually; I said that if you’re old enough to die for this country, then you’re old enough to drink. If the government is willing to put you in harm’s way, then you deserve to legally drink.
Does the draft mean that every underaged person will be conscripted? No. But because a good number have that chance, then an acceptable consequence of that draft is that all members of that underage group would be allowed to drink. Or, as has been mentioned, change the draft age to match the drinking age.
I don’t think theres anything wrong with allowing 18 year old to drink, and frankly, I feel sorry for the American teens. I’ve been drinking in pubs since I was 16 and I’m doing fine!
The drinking age really doesn’t matter. When I was 16 I started drinking seriously. I was always able to get drunk when I wanted. It was probably more fun because it was illegal. My father died drinking and driving when he was 41. My grandmother died of cirrhosis of the liver, an old woman. A legal drinking age could not have prevented their deaths. I quit drinking when I was 24. I got drunk one day and rear-ended a carload of people. I woke up in jail the next morning and came to the realization that if I did not stop, I would probably be the third generation in my family to die an alcoholic death.
What is the point in discussing the statutes pertaining to a substance consumed to make you stupid? Forgive my rant, there is a saying that there is nothing more self-righteous than a reformed whore. THAT’S ME!
No.
drinking alcohol from 18 never did us Brits any harm!
i was drinking at home and in pubs/bars from about 16/17.
no, but seriously, i went to uni with an american guy and he really couldn’t handle his drink. he’d be wiped out when the rest of us were only just starting our evening. you poor guys.
you should lower the age of consent in the states while you’re at it
I am for lowering the drinking age. It would take the fun out of drinking as much as you can before you get caught. It would also allow the parents a measure of control for those 18-21 year olds still living at home. I would rather have my kids learn how to drink in an environment where I can keep my eye on them instead of sending them off to college and have them go on a binge just because they can get away with it.
Do you have anything to back this up (apart from old fogey “youth these days” bitching) or are you just engaging in… well… old fogey “youth these days” bitching.
The drinking age is 18 here, and my experience mirrors other posters from countries with a similar drinking age. Sure, me and my friends did a bit of underage drinking, sometimes too much, but bu the time we were about 17 or 18, we’d got over the drinking stupidly stage and could enjoy alcohol responsibly. The only people I can ever remember really overendulging in alcohol were those around the age of 16, and I think it’s far better to get that sort of thing out of the way at that age rather than wait until yr 20, can drive, are living independently and should know better.
Look, I’m 20 years old, and I don’t drink stupidly. Nor does anyone else I know. We don’t need to. We can have a drink whenever we want, so why chug down beer after beer until you pass out when we can just go out and have a good time?