<p>
</p>
<p>I am not fond of it, but if someone else wants to use it, fine by me; I am not responsible for his actions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Speaking from personal experience you would be surprised how many of the people who believe in Jesus also actively drink a lot.</p>
<p>But lowering the drinking age won’t make the human species any less stupid. Prohibition wouldn’t make the human species any smarter either(Although it might make a couple of students more productive in school).</p>
<p>So, it is a lose-lose situation. People are stupid with or without alcohol. Alcohol just shows clearly to everyone how stupid we are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? Is there no longer a minimum age to buy tobacco products and no one told me?</p>
<p>^It is only logical to assume that the quoted comment is referring to the meat smoking age. While not legislated, it is understood that those under 8 should rarely smoke meat over a barbeque. Therefore, it is not an entirely “real” age limit, as there are the occasional 6 year old meat-smoking prodigies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this about sums it up.</p>
<p>A big purpose of the 84 law was in response to MADD. Drunk driving rates decreased when the age was raised to 21. </p>
<p>The issue with an 18 age- alcohol more assessable to high schoolers.</p>
<p>My opinion: increase the age of adulthood from 18 to 21. </p>
<p>I see both sides. It’s nice to be able to drink legally, but you spend a lot more on alcohol when you’re legal. </p>
<p>There isn’t much to say that hasn’t been said at some point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My guess is only among the 18-21 age group, which does absolutely nothing for their argument. We’re right back to the fact that 18 is the age of legal majority. If MADD wants to change that, they should go for it - good luck though - I’m guessing the military, pretty much all businesses, and anyone else with half a brain would be strongly against that proposition.
Otherwise, they shouldn’t argue for arbitrary ages at which to allow purchase of legal substances.</p>
<p>Change the age of adulthood to 21? Are you crazy? What possible justification could you have for that argument? Keep in mind that non-adults can’t work full hours, nor take out anything in their own name, etc. I was ready to be out from the legal binds of my parents by 16, let alone 18. 21 is absolutely ridiculous. Could you imagine needing parental permission to do something in college? Because that is what it would be like for all those under 21 in college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But is this causation or mere correlation? Since 1984, car safety has greatly improved, and so has general driver education (or at least one could argue). Studies have shown that the law does not prevent minors from drinking–just that when they do, they binge drink instead of drinking lightly. Therefore, wouldn’t it be more likely for a binge drinker to get a DUI than someone that just has a buzz? Just a thought.</p>
<p>What I don’t get is that the government trusts 18 years olds to carry an M16 and fire that weapon in Afghanistan but it doesn’t trust me with a simple can of beer. That just doesn’t make sense.</p>
<p>This also seems to me to be a federal overreach, a loophole in the constitution if you will. This issue should really be up to the states to the decide, not the feds, but the feds force states into compliance with federal money.</p>
<p>It’s really a non-issue.</p>
<p>If you are caught drinking you get a minor slap on the wrist, if even that. If we were locking up kids in jail over beer, sure it would be a bigger issue. But lets not go overboard.</p>
<p>I agree that the philosophy is silly, especially considering all the things I can do once I’m 18, but hey…eventually you will all turn 21, and you won’t care anymore.</p>
<p>Captain Bringdown, here. </p>
<p>Everytime this topic comes up, people will state, based purely on anectodal evidence, that Americans are somehow “bad” at drinking while Europeans are have it figured out. I therefore feel compelled once again to post the following link, which is based on actual sociologic research:</p>
<p>[With</a> Drinking, Parent Rules Do Affect Teens’ Choices : NPR](<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127222042]With”>With Drinking, Parent Rules Do Affect Teens' Choices : NPR)</p>
<p>Quote from the article: “To underscore these findings, a recent survey of 15- and 16-year-olds throughout Europe finds that the majority of European countries have a higher rate of teen drunkenness than in this country.” </p>
<p>Does anyone have any hard data to the contrary (based on something more than your junior year abroad) to suggest that rate of alcohol abuse is actually lower among young Europeans than Americans?</p>
<p>Personally, I’d lower it to 19.</p>
<p>Teen drinking does not equate to alcohol abuse. Those sanctimonious twats can mind their own bloody business.</p>
<p>“My guess is only among the 18-21 age group, which does absolutely nothing for their argument. We’re right back to the fact that 18 is the age of legal majority.”</p>
<p>It is the argument. Raising the drinking age saved lives of young people. The purpose was to prevent deaths among young people. </p>
<p>“Change the age of adulthood to 21? Are you crazy? What possible justification could you have for that argument?”</p>
<p>One argument behind the 21 drinking age is the brain is continuing to develop its decision making areas. It would be great, then if you get an underage it’s not on your record. A DUI when you are a minor would be easier to expunge. Why should you be considered an adult if your decision making has not fully developed? All those stupid things people get arrested for in college wouldn’t result in a permanent record. Also, 21 is the cutoff for length of punishment for a juvenille crime. They need to standarize adulthood.</p>
<p>alcohol consumption and sale is illegal for people under 21 and tobacco sale is illegal for people under 18. a cop is not going to stop a 17 year old smoking cigarettes on the sidewalk</p>
<h2>One argument behind the 21 drinking age is the brain is continuing to develop its decision making areas. It would be great, then if you get an underage it’s not on your record. A DUI when you are a minor would be easier to expunge. Why should you be considered an adult if your decision making has not fully developed? All those stupid things people get arrested for in college wouldn’t result in a permanent record. Also, 21 is the cutoff for length of punishment for a juvenille crime. They need to standarize adulthood. ~ Tiff90</h2>
<p>There is no such thing as a true expungment, as in the record is impossible to locate. Any criminal record can be uncovered, and HR departments have re-written their language for background investigations which asks, “Have you ever been charged and convicted of a crime in the last 10 years, including offenses that have been expunged or prior to your 18th birthday.”</p>
<p>Of course, that is just one example of standard language, but you see my picture.</p>
<p>Anyways, raising the age of adulthood just because of alcohol is ill-advised, to say the least.</p>
<p>For example, a 18 year old person, who recently graduated from HS and wishing to live on their own wouldn’t legally be able to sign a lease to their own apartment, or engage in any other contracts without parental consent.</p>
<p>So we’d have kids having a 3-4 year window post-high school before they could start living independently. </p>
<p>Tiff, probably in a year or so you will turn 21, and you will no longer give a crap.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure consupmtion is not always illegal - depends on the locality. Might want to check me on that.</p>
<p>[Technolog</a> - Survey: Teens think drunk driving more risky than texting](<a href=“http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/20/5143788-survey-teens-think-drunk-driving-more-risky-than-texting]Technolog”>http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/20/5143788-survey-teens-think-drunk-driving-more-risky-than-texting)</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting related article I found on Yahoo.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an entirely different argument of course, but this is a load of crap on the HR department’s part - for all legal intents and purposes, an expunged conviction never happened, and you can legally answer no to the question “have you been convicted”. But this wording is trying to get you to reveal it anyway.</p>
<p>What about the situations where someone was convicted but later proven to be completely innocent (e.g. a miscarriage of justice)? Why should such a person have to ever reveal the conviction, under any circumstances?</p>
<p>I like something similar to Will_S’s suggestion about a diploma first or at least education:</p>
<p>Many states have a required (paid) drivers ed program that must be completed prior to a license or they have to wait until they are 18 and can pass the DMV written/driving test.</p>
<p>Working from this model, I suggest a similar program:</p>
<p>Parents must approve an alcohol education program (and not just a one day thing either) - this would let parents make choices about if their child is responsible enough (or if it fits with the beliefs of their family, etc) to drink.</p>
<p>Once the child has gone through the program they can drink - earliest at 17.</p>
<p>If they do not go thru the program they can legally drink at the time they either obtain a diploma and pass a written test about the effects or turn 21 and pass a written test.</p>
<p>So tiff, you’re perfectly fine with not being able to move out on your own, requiring that colleges get permission to take you out of state from your parents, have them jointly listed on all accounts, etc for another 3 years after high school? </p>
<p>Because I, for one, am most definitely not. I haven’t really had any parental support since I was about 16 and I had to jump through all kinds of hoops to get things as simple as getting a credit card until my 18th birthday. I am 19 now and could not imagine being legally still under my parents’ thumbs. Neither could they. I mean, don’t get me wrong, my parents and I have a great relationship, we just aren’t really around each other enough to make them do the things that you NEED an “adult” for.</p>