<p>If every piece of evidence supports the rasing of the drinking age, then why choose 21? Why not even later, thus leading to even fewer drunk driving deaths? If you're old enough to vote, buy cigarettes, kill a man for the army, and marry anyone of your choice, why cannot you not buy alcohol.</p>
<p>There is a problem with the idea that the alcohol is the problem, not the individual. It takes away responsibility from the idiot and punishes those who aren't going to be irresponsible drinkers. Punish the criminal behavior of drunk driving and sexual assault severely and lower the age to 18 (on the grounds that it is absurd to ask the 18 year olds of this country to die and kill on foreign soil but tell them they are too young to have a drink). </p>
<p>Drinking does not make people irresponsible, but irresponsible people drink, and they can be any age.</p>
<p>I have to disagree with you ferretforfrancs, drinking does make people irresponsible because it takes away your ability to think clearly and make sensible judgements. Responsible people drink if they drink moderately.</p>
<p>But responsible people don't go and get hammered to the point where they can't think clearly.</p>
<p>I don't think there should be a drinking age. neener neener neener</p>
<p>thats a good idea, jman2360, lets have our 5 year olds drink beer!! =)</p>
<p>yep, i think so too</p>
<p>Immanuel Kant, the great father of deontological ethics, would strongly disapprove of this arbitrary and inconsistent use of minimum ages.</p>
<p>I think it should be lowered to 19, not necessarily 18. The reason is basically that there are a substantial number of high school seniors that are 18... this would give high schools students younger than that much easier access to alcohol.</p>
<p>You could have a "rationing" law. Perhaps they would be able to consume alcohol in designated, supervised areas, but not purchase it "to go".</p>
<p>Interestingly MADD misused federal stats as support for this while not acknowledging the same stat is for ALL AGE GROUPS--not 18-21. There is no proof that this has reduced the number of ALCH related deaths in that age group. On the contrary alch poisoning and such has hit an all time high in 2006 on campuses. Why? because drinking has gone underground and people don't report when someone is passed out because they too will be arrested.....or they are drinking in remote areas. Bring it out of the closets and into the open where it can be supervised. College campuses can provide transportation systems which remove the drunk driving issues. Colleges can also use punitive measures for the issue of drunk driving near campus by suspending students found guilty of this offense for a semester. THOSE type of laws/rules address the very thing that MADD claims to want to fight....but they are just flexing those lobbying muscles for a broader purpose....whatever that is.</p>
<p>I think it should be lowered, possibly even lower than 18. Raising the drinking age has raised the level of curiosity of it, has raised the want to do something that's illegal, and to try it in an unsafe setting. I have a friend who has family in Canada, and comes from a country where the drinking age is 18 but is loosely followed/enforced by the authorities. And guess what? The culture from these countries compared to the U.S. as concerns drinking is entirely different. Far less binge drinking. Drinking is seen as an enjoyable exercise, kind of like sitting back and enjoying a fine cigar for the taste, instead of downing a pack of Newports to get the nicotine high. Totally different.</p>
<p>Now I wouldn't be surprised if you saw an initial rise in drinking related deaths following such a resolution, because you'd have a whole generation used to the culture of skirting the law to drink. But I think in the long run...</p>
<p>Then again, this probably depends as much on the parents teaching their kids to drink as responsibility as it does the kids. So who knows.</p>
<p>EDIT:
Actually, I love the idea of provisional licenses, just read that article.</p>
<p>Ya playing for the Yankees isn't in the same ball park as tax $. Its not even the same game, or league. Private contracts are much different from governmental ones. If I have a rule that you must wear a pink thong and balance a beachball on your nose if you want to enter my house, then you must. The government can't make you do that. Goes along similar lines.</p>
<p>
[quote]
thats a good idea, jman2360, lets have our 5 year olds drink beer!! =)
[/quote]
There is no minimum smoking age in the US (afaik). How many 5 year olds do you see puffing away?</p>
<p>Those under 21 already have sufficient access to alcohol such that when the legal restrictions cause them to want to binge (this is the crucial point, remember it!) alcohol is readily available.</p>
<p>What I find ludicrous is to believe that teenagers have enough judgement to use lethal weapons in the Army, but not enough to be trusted with a beer.</p>
<p>By other definitions, 18 is adulthood. It will make more sense to 18-year-olds (and others) to have a definition consistent with other laws and beliefs. I think it will also reduce the excitement of binge drinking. I agree with the college presidents.</p>
<p>
[quote]
College presidents from about 100 of the nation's best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From a very practical standpoint, lowering the drinking age removes a WHOLE LOT of administrative hassle, monitoring, wrist slapping, lawmaking and the like from the plates of the college presidents/administrations, making their lives a lot easier.</p>
<p>Always ask what does someone have to gain in a proposal that they proffer.</p>
<p>Interestingly MADD misused federal stats as support for this while not acknowledging the same stat is for ALL AGE GROUPS--not 18-21. There is no proof that this has reduced the number of ALCH related deaths in that age group. On the contrary alch poisoning and such has hit an all time high in 2006 on campuses. Why? because drinking has gone underground and people don't report when someone is passed out because they too will be arrested.....or they are drinking in remote areas. Bring it out of the closets and into the open where it can be supervised. College campuses can provide transportation systems which remove the drunk driving issues. Colleges can also use punitive measures for the issue of drunk driving near campus by suspending students found guilty of this offense for a semester. THOSE type of laws/rules address the very thing that MADD claims to want to fight....but they are just flexing those lobbying muscles for a broader purpose....whatever that is.</p>
<p>Good point. What does MADD have to gain by this when the statistics do NOT support their position. Extremist views being forced on one segment of the population 18-21. We saw this before in history, prohibition, McCarthyism, selecting one group as opposed to the behaviors....Then MADD Tying it to federal highway funds as a way to strong arm states into accepting???? why dont' we then have a law about any person caught driving while under the influence over .08 that they automatically have their license revoked for 3 years if they drink and drive at the .08 level with NO possibility of reduced sentences? Let's tie that to federal highway funds. Would that be fair? would all of you adults out there think this would be ok? Lets decide what the goal is.....if it is to prohibit Drunk driving then set the national standard for that and attack it. Its not with this law. Like I said, I fear more of the adults who drink heavily and drive in their party routines and DRIVE after their friday night happy hours than I do the 18-21 crowd.</p>
<p>
[quote]
alch poisoning and such has hit an all time high in 2006 on campuses.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Has the legal age changed recently? What was it before, and was there rampant drinking on campuses then?</p>
<p>How long has the legal age of 21 been in effect? Does it vary by state?</p>
<p>I think they should raise the army minimum age to 21. Then no one can complain that one can die for their country and not have a beer. Problem solved. Further discussion is useless.= l</p>
<p>The legal age has not been changed recently. They are probably seeing trend has been upwards sloping towards alcohol poisoning and maybe downward sloping for drunk driving since the drinking age was set to 21 since about 1988 by all states.</p>
<p>I am focusing on the drunk driving problem for a second, and not actually lowering te drinking age. To be real, teens are going to drink, even under 18. Does anyone here watch one tree hill and remember hwo they handled it in high school. They had a car that would drive around and pick up the kids who couldn't drive home by themselves because they were drunk but the kids didnt have to call their parents.</p>
<p>The drinking age of 21 sets the tone for fake IDs. Most of these youngsters have fake IDs that allow them to drink, therefore they start breaking the law early, for fake IDs are a federal offense. By lowering the drinking age to 18 and doing in a responsible way (teaching children early as 14 about the dangers of drinking) will eliminate fake IDs and hopefully teach responsibility to these youngesters.</p>