<p>I've gotta say, as a high school senior who drinks, lowering the drinking age is a bad idea.</p>
<p>I will be 18 in a month. And to think in a month I would be legally able to buy alcohol and drink it with, for example, my family is too weird. I'm definitely neither old enough nor mature enough to handle that responsibility. It seems ridiculous that I'm saying this, when in fact I DO drink, but I honestly cannot see many high school students handling well the responsibility of legal drinking. Many drink illegally, but having classmates who can legally buy alcohol would make it much easier to obtain.</p>
<p>Example: One night last week my friends and I were partying. There were 8 of us. Guess how many threw up? 6. A prime example that we are not mature enough to buy alcohol ourselves. Sure, we still got some, but there have been nights when not being able to buy it stopped us from drinking.</p>
<p>Not all 18-21 year olds ARE too immature to drink. I was 18, it was legal, had a casual drink with my parents over dinner (wine), beer with friends (a beer or two after classes on friday), even went to 2 for 1 nights at local college bar and got watered down drinks, usually 1. We didn't have to drive although my alch content was prob .015. Making that a crime the same as possessing or using POT is ridiculous and usually the case in most states. I trust My kids to be responsible. They are over 21 but I watched too many good kids wiht very very low numbers get records, have their drivers licenses suspended for a year (mandatory with underaged drinking even if no driving in Ga) and pay thousands in fines and attorney fees....senseless. Yes there will always be irresponsible PEOPLE of all ages who drink and drive....we don't prohibit but one group. Personally I dont' drink, my husband doesnt drink and my kids have grown up seeing that you can have fun without it. I see too many families where the parents drink like fish, party like they are still in a fraternity and drive after drinking regularly. I fear these parents/adults on the roads FAR more than the youth. They instill in their children that drinking excessively is ok and driving after it is ok. They model behavior to party hard, to drink much.</p>
<p>BTW in war we constantly endanger and kill innocent people....ie Iraq, Afganistan, every war has casualties. I dont' encourage drinking but i don't feel prohibition is the answer....responsible drinking should be taught and modeled. Right now, the forbidden fruit drives it under ground and hunch punch is the drink of choice because you can make it in large quantities cheaply. I would rather my child be able to have one beer over dinner with buddies if they wanted.</p>
<p>The truth is that lawyers (I am one) get the rich off and have the charges reduced. The others, end up with a record and pay thousands, get their licenses revoked...no matter if they had one sip.</p>
<p>"Example: One night last week my friends and I were partying. There were 8 of us. Guess how many threw up? 6. A prime example that we are not mature enough to buy alcohol ourselves"</p>
<p>And 3 more years without drinking would have magically revealed to you what your limits are? This somewhat brings me to another point. Another problem with the system is that the heavy punishment for underage drinking in a sense promotes heavy usage to make it worth the risk. Drinking basically becomes the main activity instead of "social enhancement", or whatever you may want to call it. I think if they lowered the age, at least some people 18-20 would be able to enjoy drinking in a more casual, relaxed environment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Example: One night last week my friends and I were partying. There were 8 of us. Guess how many threw up? 6. A prime example that we are not mature enough to buy alcohol ourselves. Sure, we still got some, but there have been nights when not being able to buy it stopped us from drinking.
[/quote]
Irrevelant, anecdotal evidence. </p>
<p>In the big picture, this is an abuse of federal power. Leave the drinking age strictly to the state without any thuggery from the Feds. Or even better, eliminate it. You don't have a minimum age on smoking, or a lot of different things. This is simply bs pushed by MADD and other radical lobbyist groups to further their agenda. Before you spout a rant about teens dying in car crashes, killed by drunk drivers, whatever, remember. Those who will sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither (paraphrased quote by BF)</p>
<p>Quote: "In countries like Vietnam, the drinking/smoking age seems inexistent and is never enforced and going into an internet cafe you often see 10 year olds holding a cigarette. Do we really want something similar to this to happen in the United States?"</p>
<p>~AznPwyd</p>
<hr>
<p>You need to realize that there is a very big difference from ten year olds and people who are say 20 years old and 364 days. The former is a child and in the custody of a parent or guardian, who is allowed to make decisions for them. The latter is legally an adult, and an American citizen with all the legal rights and responsibilities that entails. </p>
<p>Unless there is a specific clause in the Constitution that makes an exception to the rule (i.e. the requirements for serving in Congress, no state can "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." By punishing adults and citizens who are 19 for one action and not punishing 22 year olds for that action, the state violates the 14th Amendment in my view.</p>
<p>Quote: "It seems ridiculous that I'm saying this, when in fact I DO drink, but I honestly cannot see many high school students handling well the responsibility of legal drinking."</p>
<p>~ Ephemeral2</p>
<hr>
<p>Well, high school students... I think most people age 18-20 would already be done with high school. So, you're observation as the the character of students at your high school really doesn't have much relevance in this debate.</p>
<p>How can people be so sure that lowering the drinking age will make people not so likely to binge drink? On the flip side, my argument that it wil make alcohol more accessible to youth can also face the same arguement. Conclusion: We cannot say for sure whether lowering the drinking age will have a positive influence on the drinking rate. I suppose we should try it out and see how many vehicle accidents and deaths occur from the law. Then we can decide which is a better minimum drinking age.</p>
<p>
[quote]
How can people be so sure that lowering the drinking age will make people not so likely to binge drink? On the flip side, my argument that it wil make alcohol more accessible to youth can also face the same arguement. Conclusion: We cannot say for sure whether lowering the drinking age will have a positive influence on the drinking rate. I suppose we should try it out and see how many vehicle accidents and deaths occur from the law. Then we can decide which is a better minimum drinking age.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or not. Its not the government's business to meddle in these affairs. Esp. not the federal govt.</p>
<p>This old fogey was 18 when the drinking age was raised in my home state to 19, then eventually to 21. As a senior in hs we debated whether the drinking age should be raised, I was assigned the "yes" side. Of course, we all wanted it to stay 18. But after doing research, our side in the debate absolutely destroyed the other side. Why? Because every single piece of scientific evidence on drunk driving deaths, alcoholism, etc, favored raising the drinking age. My best friend was on the "no" side, before the debate she told me they would lose because ALL the evidence was on our side.</p>
<p>BUT.... as I recall, the main reason for raising the drinking age was NOT to keep 19 - 21 year olds from drinking. It was to make it harder for high school kids to drink. It's easy for a 15 year old to find an 18 year old to buy them alcohol, they're probably friends with 18 year olds. But not too many 15 year olds are hanging out with 21 year olds. The further out the drinking age is from high school graduation age, the harder it is to for high school kids to get alcohol (at least that's the theory). You can laugh all you want, but if it's easy for hs kids today to get booze, imagine how much easier it would be with an 18 year old drinking age.</p>
<p>I'm willing to bet 75 - 90% of Americans have no problems with a 19 or 20 year old having a beer or two while watching a game or eating pizza. But that's not the purpose of the law. And seriously, has your life been damaged because you have to drink a soda at the ballpark? </p>
<p>(The Constitution argument is bogus. The feds regulate the drinking age by regulating federal highway funds, which they are completely entitled to do. If your state wants 18 year olds to drink legally, your state can make that happen. They'll just have to forfeit any and all federal highway funding. This is a lesson that can be passed on to all you teens who want to do whatever you want and have your parents pay for it: money always comes with strings attached.)</p>
<p>If money is in the State Treasury, the State controls it. If the money is in the Federal Treasury, the Feds control it. If the Feds have the power to collect federal taxes, they have the power to control what is done with that money. </p>
<p>You want money from the Federal Treasury, you play by Federal rules. If you wanna pay for your own roads, then you can do whatever you want with seat belts, licenses and drinking age. That's how the Federal Gov't controls most of what they control. States are free to ignore "No Child Left Behind" if they want to... but they won't get any federal grant money for education. Same principle. </p>
<p>Frankly, its much less of a stress than the "Interstate Commerce" clause which the Feds use to control a lot of things that technically probably fall to the states according to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Frankly, its much less of a stress than the "Interstate Commerce" clause which the Feds use to control a lot of things that technically probably fall to the states according to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah thats what I was getting at. Feds can magically invent anything in the Constitution to do anything.</p>
<p>Well, this young whippersnapper, was 16 a few weeks ago when he argued that the age should be returned to 18. I won (although I admit it was only 14-11).</p>
<p>Now, if it the purpose of the law was indeed to combat drinking by minors, one has to ask: Why does the law target 18-20 year olds? If that's the purpose the law isn't very narrowly tailored. It affects millions of people, who may or may not have broken the law. Doesn't it make more sense to say... Increase penalties on those who do provide alcohol to minors, or maybe have some kind of public relations campaign to combat that?</p>
<hr>
<p>Quote: "The further out the drinking age is from high school graduation age, the harder it is to for high school kids to get alcohol (at least that's the theory)... imagine how much easier it would be with an 18 year old drinking age.</p>
<h2>~ Lafalum84</h2>
<p>Of course with that, I also have to imagine how hard it would be if we were to set the minimum drinking age at 150. It'd be nigh impossible for kids to get their beer then. That's the argument taken to its logical conclusion.</p>
<hr>
<p>Quote: "This is a lesson that can be passed on to all you teens who want to do whatever you want and have your parents pay for it: money always comes with strings attached." </p>
<h2>~ Lafalum84</h2>
<p>First, I disapprove of the curmudgeonly "kids these days" attitude of that statement.</p>
<p>Second, You do realize that the government which so generously provides highway money to the states*took that money from the states in the first place*, right? Yknow, taxes and inflation and all that? I think next April 15th my wonderful parents who are paying that government should attach a few strings of their own, like say demand that at least 20% of that money fund projects in the state of New York, or something of that nature.</p>
<p>I have not read all the pages of this debate, but I heard about this issue while visiting UF a couple of days ago, and it surprised me to see this is already becoming such a discussed thing. I'm all for the 18 drinking age, and I don't think the colleges are really coping out. What I'm wondering is if it could really be changed with this much influential college support, or will the law decide that it's not really important to listen to the bright side of this matter?</p>
<p>"You can laugh all you want, but if it's easy for hs kids today to get booze, imagine how much easier it would be with an 18 year old drinking age."</p>
<p>So why isn't the age to legally smoke at 21, as well? Must be pretty easy for a 15 year old to get his hands on a pack of cigs.</p>
<p>"(The Constitution argument is bogus. The feds regulate the drinking age by regulating federal highway funds, which they are completely entitled to do. If your state wants 18 year olds to drink legally, your state can make that happen. They'll just have to forfeit any and all federal highway funding. This is a lesson that can be passed on to all you teens who want to do whatever you want and have your parents pay for it: money always comes with strings attached.)"</p>
<p>Are you seriously advocating the Federal government using extortion to get out of having to follow the Constitution?</p>
<p>^Being picky here, but the legal age to smoke isn't 18, afaik. The legal age to buy smokes is 18. I am somewhat certain you can smoke at any age legally.</p>
<p>I would be all in favor of changing the law to dis-incentivize driving drunk as opposed to all types of drinking (responsible or otherwise). Increase the penalty for driving drunk, and lower the drinking age. In fact, I might be in favor of a sort of 'learner's permit' for drinking. Maybe, schools should offer a drinker's ed course senior year, just like they offer driver's ed junior year, and students would have to pass some sort of test of knowledge about responsible drinking habits.</p>
<p>dilksy, it's not extortion. It's basic rules of how the world works.</p>
<p>If you want the NY Yankees to pay you to play baseball, you have to cut your hair. Steinbrenner's money, Steinbrenner's rules.</p>
<p>In Mass, Catholic Charities found out a couple years ago that if you want the state gov't to contract with you to place foster children for adoption, you have to allow gay couples to adopt. Catholic Charities said that violated their beliefs. Mass said if you want a contract with the state you have to follow the state's rules. Result: Catholic Charities no longer handles Mass state adoptions. State's money, state's rules. </p>
<p>It's not extortion. If the money is in the Federal Treasury, the Federal gov't decides what to do with it. Technically, it's the taxpayers' money, but technically we taxpayers have elected Congress to represent us and make decisions about our money that is in the possession of the Federal gov't. If you want the Feds to give you highway money, then Congress/Feds says you have to have a seatbelt law and a drinking age of 21. </p>
<p>"So why isn't the age to legally smoke at 21, as well? Must be pretty easy for a 15 year old to get his hands on a pack of cigs." Well, now that you mention it, raising the smoking age to 21 makes a lot of sense and perhaps states should consider it. It probably hasn't come up because a 19 year old smoking doesn't usually leave innocent bystanders dead or maimed.... at least not right away.</p>
<p>Well, with that logic, let us also pre-emptively jail all blacks from the ages 13 to 25 cuz we know they have higher chance on average to be gangstas. Or in the least, prevent them from obtaining firearms until a certain age, or their own car ... we should also ban Muslims and Middle-Easterners from airplanes, because all this profiling will make us safer, right?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It probably hasn't come up because a 19 year old smoking doesn't usually leave innocent bystanders dead or maimed.... at least not right away.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A 19 year old drinking doesn't 'usually' leave innocent bystanders dead or maimed either. People don't seem to understand that 98% of high school and college students who drink are careful enough to plan how they will get home ahead of time, use a DD, and would never even think about getting behind the wheel. The vast majority are very safe about it.</p>
<p>Why do you make your drunk driving argument apply only to 18-21 year olds? Doesn't a 40-year old man who is driving drunk provide the same danger as an 18-year old man driving drunk?</p>
<p>I just hate it when people can't distinguish the difference between drinking, and drinking and driving. Major difference, people. One is a major problem and needs to be addressed head on. The other is a personal decision that most people handle well. Guess which is which.</p>