Lowering U.s. Drinking Age To 18

[Black487]

I'm going to cover several points on this and then lets hear what you all have to say.

For background information, review this short link of world drinking ages.
Link: http://hangoverguide.com/factbook/worlds -drinking-ages.html

As you can see, the United States is relatively alone in having the world's highest drinking age. A vast majority of modern industrialized countries have their drinking age at 18, some such as Germany and France even go as low as 16, and 14 for Switzerland.

First point: What makes Switzerland's 14 year olds and Germany's 16 year olds more mature than the United States 18-20 year olds?

Common arguments (and for good reason) are if someone is legally old enough to have the following responsibilities: Die for your country, be forced to register for the national draft, pay taxes, hold jury duty, sign legally binding documents, get married, own a home, elect our representatives, adopt a child, and be held accountable for your actions, one should be old enough to have a beer after doing them.

Second Point: If you are Legally an adult, doesn't that mean you are old enough to drink?

The 21 year old age limit, although with good intentions, is not working. In fact it's a complete failure. Minors are still drinking in large. However instead of drinking in public areas like bars where they can be monitored and even have certain limits, drinking has been forced into the shadows and in privacy where it can't be monitored. Not only this, but we are forcing them to drink without any education on the matter. This lack of education is what causes immaturity and over indulging (binge drinking). Another problem is the 21 year old age limit is creating something called the "Forbidden Fruit Effect". Essentially, alcohol is mysterious and sexy to minors. It has been put on a pedestal and held over their heads above even military service and voting. This forbidden fruit effect causes 18-20 year olds to indulge even more on the rare chances they have access to alcohol, which can lead to poor decisions. Lowering the drinking age will take away that mystery that we are shrouding alcohol with.

Third point: Isn't the 21 year old age limit forcing our "minor"-adults into drinking in hiding where it is unmonitored and even more dangerous.

Essentially, we are making alcohol a bigger deal than it really is. What the government really needs to stress embracing it and treating it maturely so we can all enjoy it in moderation. Bring it into the home, open a bottle of wine during dinner, educate our kids on it. Some states make it illegal to allow their children to have alcohol even in the privacy of their own home. How are we supposed to educate our youth if we are banning things like this from the most important classroom?

Fourth point: Isn't the 21 year old age limit preventing any kind of positive culture change towards alcohol?

Some arguments suggest that drinking isn't even healthy for you, well these are entirely wrong. As a matter of fact alcohol in moderation can be extremely healthy for you. An article below goes into greater depth, but a quick overview consists of: Moderate drinkers tend to have better health and live longer than those who are either abstainers or heavy drinkers,

"In addition to having fewer heart attacks and strokes, moderate consumers of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or distilled spirits or liquor) are generally less likely to suffer hypertension or high blood pressure, peripheral artery disease, Alzheimer's disease and the common cold. Sensible drinking also appears to be beneficial in reducing or preventing diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, kidney stones, digestive ailments, stress and depression, poor cognition and memory, Parkinson's disease, hepatitis A, pancreatic cancer, macular degeneration (a major cause of blindness), angina pectoris, duodenal ulcer, erectile dysfunction, hearing loss, gallstones, liver disease and poor physical condition in elderly."

Yes the list sounds quite amazing but it all can be found in the article and well sourced by Prof. David J. Hanson, Ph.D.

Article: http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Alcohol AndHealth.html

Fifth Point: Despite what you may think, moderate drinking is actually healthy for you.

The government gave the states an option, either A) Raise the age to 21 or B) The Federal Government will cut federal funding for highways as a penalty. Essentially this is blackmail. It may seem like a lost cause, but what may surprise you is that some states are actually considering going back to the 18 year old drinking age regardless of the threat by the federal government to cut funds.

Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr /18/usa

We will discuss more as people bring up their opinions on the matter.

[svenisgod]

well i for one think that US should stop thinking its so good by being different and go with the crowd once in a while definately lower the age it would be a good thing

[RedSkunk]

You are confusing the letter of the law with the intent.

A drinking age of 21 is not to prevent 20-year-olds from drinking - it doesn't - but to limit the number of 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. And this, it does, as the number of young teens drinking on a regular basis did in fact statistically decrease after the age limit was raised. A drinking age of 18 increases accessibility to young teens exponentially as we then have 18-year-olds in high school legally able to purchase alcohol for their younger peers.

Moderate consumption is not particularly harmful, given. But moderate consumption is essentially unaffected by the drinking age. Parents, on a case by case basis, can make the decision to allow their child alcohol. Age restrictions are not meant to prevent a responsible 18- or 19-year-old from having a glass of wine with dinner at home with his/her parents. I know of no such instance where someone has been charged for this.

Additionally, I am unaware of any study that shows consumption of alcohol to be beneficial to young teenagers. Early teen drinking has been linked to alc
oholism later in life, however.

You have not adequately demonstrated how an age limit of 21 "shrouds alcohol in mystery" or prevents a "positive cultural attitude" towards alcohol. Even if we assume these things are true for a moment, lowering the age to 18 would not necessarily change a thing. The largest single input in regards to children and mature drug use, is their parents. Better parenting at a group, societal level is dependent on factors far more reaching that an arbitrary age limit.

The single argument that holds water for lowering the drinking limit from 21 to 18 is the adulthood one and the inconsistency between drinking and smoking, warfare, etcetera. Therefor I've held for awhile now that we ought to raise the smoking, draft, and voting age to 21. A similar argument to drinking applies to smoking - I think the less accessible cigarettes are to young teenagers the better. I also don't think teenagers are, on a collective basis, mature enough to fight in wars or vote intelligently. The voting thing is alleviated by the fact that youth don't vote. But as long as we're looking for consistency in our laws, right?

[poxpower]

What they could do is forbid kids under 21 to buy anything stronger than, say, 15% or 20%.

You'd have a hard time getting a kid alcohol poisoned with beer, but kids are probably dumb enough to down shooters of liquor on their first time and thus really fuck themselves up bad :O

Bleh, I think 19 is a good age, depending on the school system. As soon as they leave high School basically. In Ontario, they have had one extra year compared to us in Quebec, so we could drink at 18 because we usually left high school aged 17 or 18 while they had to wait one more year.

I just find it pretty ridiculous that people in the U.S. would go to college, live alone, drive a car, have a job and still not be able to buy beer. That's really stupid-looking to the rest of us.

[JackPhantasm]

At 4/30/08 02:57 PM, poxpower wrote:
I just find it pretty ridiculous that people in the U.S. would go to college, live alone, drive a car, have a job and still not be able to buy beer. That's really stupid-looking to the rest of us.

My thoughts. Provided to you by poxpower.

The mantra "i can die for my country, I should be able to buy a fucking beer." mantra comes to mind.

[Proteas]

At 4/30/08 04:38 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: The mantra "i can die for my country, I should be able to buy a fucking beer." mantra comes to mind.

The way I look at it, that mantra is bullshit. Can you die for you're country? Sure.

Do you plan on doing anytime soon?

*silence*

Then why should you be given just as much respect with regards to alcohol as members of our Nation's Armed Forces? Because if anyone between the ages of 18 and 21 in this country deserves the right to buy beer for themselves, it's them.

And as much as the topic starter put forth his points and defended them, I have as yet to see anything that gives an explicit reason WHY the age should be lowered or raised. "Oh, it doesn't work, they're drinking underage anyway so we should lower it." Well, as Redskunk showed, underage drinking leads to an increased incidence of Alcoholism, if anything lowering the age would be counter productive. Having a low drinking age in European countries might work for them, but you have to take American culture into consideration when discussing this issue ESPECIALLY when a study such as that one is cited.

[MisterEpic]

I say lower it. That would make me happy.

[stafffighter]

At 4/30/08 05:09 PM, MisterEpic wrote: I say lower it. That would make me happy.

Which is, boiled down, exactly the argument everyone who wants to lower it has. It's somewhat comperable to pot. Blah de fucking blah, you just want some

[poxpower]

At 4/30/08 05:07 PM, Proteas wrote:

And as much as the topic starter put forth his points and defended them, I have as yet to see anything that gives an explicit reason WHY the age should be lowered or raised.
Well why would it be 21 only in the U.S.?
It smells of religious zeal to me, same as the prohibition, same as not being able to buy or sell alcohol on Sundays in some places.

The age for every other legal adult thing is lower, why is it 21 for alcohol? What happens when you turn 21 other than the right to drink alcohol? People go to College before, they learn to drive before, they get to vote before, they can have sex, a family etc etc but they can't drink for 'fear' that a couple of 14 year olds will drink a couple beers if you lower it to 18?

I would say 18 or 19 is a reasonable age.

At 4/30/08 05:15 PM, stafffighter wrote:

Which is, boiled down, exactly the argument everyone who wants to lower it has.

Well, yeah, alcohol rules.
What other reason could you possibly have to want to drink alcohol than liking it and wanting some?

[Proteas]

At 4/30/08 05:25 PM, poxpower wrote: I would say 18 or 19 is a reasonable age.

And based on the study Redskunk provided, what benefit is there to lower it?

It's a simple retort to a simple argument; if minors are illegally accessing alcohol, and studies have shown that teenage use of alcohol can and does lead to alcohol abuse later on in life, why should the age of consumption be lowered? You wouldn't be making the situation any better, pox, you would simply be condoning a problem by making it legally acceptable behavior.

The risks outweigh the benefits in this matter.

[Earfetish]

I can't imagine how crappy it must be in the states with your 21 drinking age. Although Americans I've known have all been big on drinking.

In England we're not really a good example, because the 21-30 age bracket act like wankers when they're drinking, but that's far more related to culture. And if you can manage to inject your culture with a sensible drinking culture, then you're on the road to success.

I think 18 is a fine age to drink and I think in England you need to have more parents teaching their children about sensible drinking, rather than keeping it hidden and naughty. And you are way out of line with other nations, but I can imagine suddenly reducing the drinking age to 18 might have a knock-on effect for a few years. And I know the only reason you changed it was to stop teen drunk driving.

[Professor-Burgees]

If minors under the age limit are able to access alcohol, thats a separate issue, and tightening restrictions on age-checking and such are in order (here in the UK shops are now careful to keep an eye on groups of youths who separate and allow a few overage people to buy their alcohol for them - if they see someone associating with people who look to be under 18, then the whole group is IDed before a sale). The fact of the matter is that there is no reason to deny someone alcohol who has already been granted every other major right of adult life.

[poxpower]

At 4/30/08 06:11 PM, Proteas wrote:

And based on the study Redskunk provided, what benefit is there to lower it?

People from 18 to 20 can enjoy drinking it without hiding?

[Proteas]

At 4/30/08 06:57 PM, poxpower wrote: People from 18 to 20 can enjoy drinking it without hiding?

That's the best you can come up with? Risk creating a new generation of alcoholics because you want 18 to 20 year olds the ability to drink without hiding it?

Lame.

[poxpower]

At 4/30/08 07:12 PM, Proteas wrote:

That's the best you can come up with? Risk creating a new generation of alcoholics because you want 18 to 20 year olds the ability to drink without hiding it?

Then let's raise the age to learn to drive all the way to 30, that will surely cut down on the rate of accidents caused by teenagers and people in their 20s.

Newsflash: taking away the freedom to drink does indeed reduce alcoholism, but it also takes away YOUR FREEDOM. freedom to do something FUN, and SAFE when in moderation.

It's RIDICULOUS. If an 18 year old can be considered responsible enough to vote, live completely alone and shoot a gun at people then it's ludicrous to claim they can't control their alcohol intake.

[SmilezRoyale]

You are forgetting the very reason the drinking age was raised, driving accidents related to alcohol. It's not about what alcahol does to you [I don't care if you drink yourself to death, which, by the way, though improbable, is impossible] As long as you do it without hurting someone else. Unfortunately, your death does actually hurt your parents emotionally and financially. [As well as legally if, say... grampa sues them for being bad parents or something]

It's very simple, we can either raise the drinking age to 21, where the chance of driving accidents are lower, or raise the driving age to 21.

What is more important to you? Driving, or drinking.

[Brick-top]

Coming from experience, drinking limits are totally irrelevent. You've got just as much chance of getting alcohol illegally as you are legally.

[Proteas]

At 4/30/08 07:37 PM, poxpower wrote: It's RIDICULOUS.

What's ridiculous is that you're arguing for the reduction of legal drinking age and the only thing you have to support your argument is how preposterous you think you're opponents stance on the issue is. Lowering the drinking age has no benefit to modern society beyond stroking the egos of our friends and neighbors the world over who just so happen to be the only ones (beside minors in this country, weirdly enough) really calling for the age to be lowered.

Face it, you've got nothing going for you in this argument except tired old catchphrases and bumper sticker logic.

[cellardoor6]

I saw we ban alcohol altogether and legalize LSD and Psilocybin mushrooms.

... And then just see what happens after a few years.

[Niddler]

If anything, it should be raised by ten years.

My girlfriend drinks (illegally, as she's 20), and smells like alcohol and shit all day. Yet another reason to hate that bitch. She tries to drive drunk every other day or two, even when I explicitly tell her not to, and I end up hauling her sorry ass back home, and having to explain to her parents (yup, she still lives with ol' mom and pop) just why their daughter is drunk out of her fucking mind, and passed out in my arms.

God, I can't stand her.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 4/30/08 08:17 PM, Brick-top wrote: Coming from experience, drinking limits are totally irrelevent. You've got just as much chance of getting alcohol illegally as you are legally.

That's true, but it has more to do with the capacity and the amount of enforcement of the law; rather than what the law entails. For example, murder would be as easy to commit if it was legal than if it was not, if there was no police force or no law enforcement at all. [including vigilantes] Enforcement has it's limits.

________________________________________
________________________________________
___________

http://www.healthallianceonalcohol.com/b ooks/teen_driving/book.php

i can't be the only one who finds these numbers to be frightening.

[poxpower]

At 4/30/08 08:12 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

What is more important to you? Driving, or drinking.

Here the age to drive is 16, and 18 to drink.
Never heard of us being horrible alcoholics or having a really high rate of drunk drivers under 21 as compared to the U.S.

At 4/30/08 08:25 PM, Proteas wrote:

Lowering the drinking age has no benefit to modern society

Alcohol has no benefit to modern society, why not ban it?
Why keep the age at 21? Why not raise it? What's your rationale there?

People like drinking, it's a great, enjoyable activity that is done privately, you have no business telling someone who can vote, drive, work, mary and have a family what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own home.

[JackPhantasm]

At 4/30/08 05:07 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 4/30/08 04:38 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: The mantra "i can die for my country, I should be able to buy a fucking beer." mantra comes to mind.

The way I look at it, that mantra is bullshit. Can you die for you're country? Sure.

Do you plan on doing anytime soon?

*silence*

The fact that your eligible is the point kind of. With all of this topic completely.

[mrhardrock]

i say lower it to 19 because i agree with u on the thing about highskool and all that stuff but i think 14 and 16 is way to low i mean u r a legal adult at 18 but then u could buy it for kids in highskool that r younger than u and all that stuff good point

[Proteas]

At 4/30/08 08:43 PM, poxpower wrote: Never heard of us being horrible alcoholics or having a really high rate of drunk drivers under 21 as compared to the U.S.

Does the whole college frat boy attitude with regard to alcohol run rampant in Canada like it does here in the U.S.?

No?

I guess that's... *gasp*... major cultural difference between the United States and the rest of the world that would play a large factor in whether or not our lawmakers would ever consider lowering the age of consumption.

Alcohol has no benefit to modern society, why not ban it?

We tried that, organized crime went up as people started making it illegally. Thanks to 21st amendment, we can't ban it again.

Why keep the age at 21? Why not raise it? What's your rationale there?

Considering that alcoholism runs in my family and I've seen what it does to people, I'm all for raising it.

People like drinking, it's a great, enjoyable activity that is done privately, you have no business telling someone who can vote, drive, work, mary and have a family what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own home.

True, but seeing as how the government is responsible for ensuring the safety and general well being of the public at large, they do have a vested interest in the matter. And I doubt you're going to convince any lawmakers of your stance that lowering the age would be beneficial to society as a whole, particularly with your line of reasoning, which basically consists of...

OMG SOMEONE'S IGHTS TO GET WASTED ARE BEING VIOLATED!!!

At 4/30/08 08:46 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: The fact that your eligible is the point kind of. With all of this topic completely.

Simply being able to enlist doesn't automatically give you the same respect or admiration as someone who has, which is why I consider that line of reasoning crap.

You want to buy beer at age 18? Go to Texas and join the military at Fort Bliss, then we'll talk.

[JackPhantasm]

At 4/30/08 09:12 PM, Proteas wrote:
Simply being able to enlist doesn't automatically give you the same respect or admiration as someone who has, which is why I consider that line of reasoning crap.

The fact that I am a citizen of this country should be enough.

You want to buy beer at age 18? Go to Texas and join the military at Fort Bliss, then we'll talk.

Why does respect = alcohol.

You should think that through.

I don't really care at all. I turn 21 next month haha

[Proteas]

At 4/30/08 09:22 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: The fact that I am a citizen of this country should be enough.

So simply because you're a member of this country, I should afford you the same respect I do for someone who actually IS in the armed forces and think you should have the same right to buy alcohol under the age of 21 as they do?

You're on crack, pure and simple.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 4/30/08 08:43 PM, poxpower wrote:

Alcohol has no benefit to modern society, why not ban it?
Why keep the age at 21? Why not raise it? What's your rationale there?

People like drinking, it's a great, enjoyable activity that is done privately, you have no business telling someone who can vote, drive, work, mary and have a family what they can or can't do in the privacy of their own home.

Banning Alcohol didn't work... Somone mentioned here that teen acess to acahol decreased as a result of raising the age. 21 isn't an arbitrary number; it was selected for the very reason that it became a problem; teen driving accidents relating to drinking.

You don't HAVE to ban alcahol from 35 year olds, because while the risk of DWI is still there, it is much lower, and much less profound.

[poxpower]

At 4/30/08 09:12 PM, Proteas wrote:

I guess that's... *gasp*... major cultural difference between the United States and the rest of the world that would play a large factor in whether or not our lawmakers would ever consider lowering the age of consumption.

Wow I wonder if it has anything to do with them getting to drink for the first time just as they are all alone with a decent amount of money.. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Haha it's funny, you're saying americans are too stupid to drink responsibly so that's why we have to ban drinking till the age of 21. And not just any americans, college americans, the elite. Plus, by that reasoning, people not in College should get to drink while people in college shouldn't?

Considering that alcoholism runs in my family and I've seen what it does to people, I'm all for raising it.

Right, your family can't control themselves, so let's punish everyone else.
There's an article in the newspaper, some dude threw away 5 puppies in a garbage bag, so they had to be rescued. Time to ban dog-ownership!
My dad died of smoking, we should raise the age of smoking to 30. Same with cars. I know like 10 people who died in a car crash, we should definately raise the age for that.
Oh and ski. And dirt bikes. And drowning.. people need a permit to swim now.

And I doubt you're going to convince any lawmakers of your stance that lowering the age would be beneficial to society as a whole, particularly with your line of reasoning, which basically consists of...

I'm not trying to convince 'lawmakers", especially not idiots like Bush who'd ban stem cells research because there's a ghost spirit in my girlfriend's ovaries

America is the land of the free, not the land of the cushioned over-protected idiots who can't make a choice for themselves. It's pretty clear that the only reason people try to ban things like alcohol, gambling, smoking, fast foods, sports cars etc. is because they heard of some horrible sap story involving someone who ruined their lives because of stupid choices or some unpreventable accident.

It's that same dumbass line of thinking that made people, for instance, kill tons of sharks when Jaws came out. They saw the movie, they heard the stories of people getting attacked, so on they went with their boats killing sharks for glory, because hey, can't hurt US to have less of them, right? I couldn't possibly convince anyone that having more sharks in the water is beneficial for us.

So let's prevent reasonable people from enjoying their youth for 3 years, banning them from night clubs, pubs and liquor stores and denying them knowledge about alcohol moderation because hey, no doubt it will spare us a couple horrible stories about some dumbshit kid plowing his car into a minivan full of pregnant moms while drunk on Miller Lite.

[poxpower]

At 4/30/08 09:34 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

mentioned here that teen acess to acahol decreased as a result of raising the age.

well, obviously. However I bet the mystique around alcohol has risen quite a bit.
If pot was legal, I bet people would smoke less of it. Pot is super-lame.

21 isn't an arbitrary number; it was selected for the very reason that it became a problem; teen driving accidents relating to drinking.

oh really?
stats:
http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insur ance/drunk/

There's a pretty high number of idiot kids driving drunk under the age of 20 ( like a fifth of casualities from driving accidents).
Then the biggest: 21-24, closely followed by 24 to 34, and still closely followed enough by 35 to 44.

Wow I guess about 1 a third to a fifth of people are stupid all the way to their mid-40s. Well, now you know how far you should ban alcohol!

It's a well-known fact that most bad drivers, most criminals and most people who do bad things are usually in the 16-40 range. That's human nature, no amount of banning random things at random times will make them smarter.