What do you all think of the drinking age in the United States? I think it should be lowered to 18. If you can die for your country, you should be able to drink a beer. And other cultures seem to have way less alcohol problems and they're the ones who are so much more open about it.
I don't care either way, but this argument was made during the Vietnam war, the drinking age was lowered to 18, and then suddenly for some reason a few years later, when people grew up, they voted to take it away from their kids for some reason. Why not ask your parents? I'm pretty sure it had something to do with a massive increase in drunk driving related accidents among those under 21. Because I fail to see any other reason why we would lower the age to 18 for only a few years just to have the same generation that got it lowered, raise it back up again. We already lowered the drinking age and the policy failed and society decided to raise it. Why lower it again just to repeat the process? Some forms of freedom are decided to be too messy for society.
Why don't other countries have these problems? Or do they? Canada's drinking age is 18, and so is most of Europe, some countries even younger. Why have they not voted to raise it? What is unique about our culture that we are so irresponsible with our liquor?
Look I don't know. We already lowered it once and it got raised back up a few years later, so if you want answers to your question.. google it or go ask the previous generation who got it lowered, only to raise it back up again a few years later.
I see nothing wrong with the age limit as it is, and there really isn't any point in lowering it. Yes you can argue in the context of liberties, but it's practical to leave the issue alone as DUI arrest and alcohol related incidents increase after 21 (duh). So why widen that demographic? Many under 21 already drink, and always will, but they are involved in less alcohol related incidents. If 18 year olds could legally purchase and consume alcohol they would, and their involvement in alcohol related incidents will increase. Why do that?
I agree, lower the age to 18. It will create jobs. And it is good for insurance corporations, medical companies, and auto body repair shops. In the long term, the teen alcoholic will either smart up, or continue to help create jobs for social security workers, DHS workers, hospital ER workers, and homless advocates. These alcoholics create jobs. In addition, most will smoke ciggaretts which will create even more jobs. Some may say this is not a good way to create jobs, but I disagree. It is not only good for creating jobs. It will create more money for the investors of vice products. Also, it will weed out the unfit for society, and put them on the streets and/or in prisons. Hopefully they will kill themselves via suicide to end their co-dependancy on ETOH and other humans. They will be more prime examples we can use to show our kids what alcohol can do. In addition, they will bring in money to all sectors of investment including pharmasuticls, tabacco, coffee, any medical insurance corporation, and it will provide more job opportunities for rehab centers and hospital ERs. So, lowering the age to 18 would be the best thing for a capitalistic culture like the USA. Just think, it will also make teachers and professors happy by reducing class size. And still get paid for it. Right? they will sign up for college pay their money and drop out. Hence, less students to teach = smaller class, and more money. Lowing the Age is Gods way and Darwins way of weeding out the un-fit for society. Hell, meth and ice use may go down as a result.
Following the same logical path DUI's for all age groups would go down if alcohol was prohibited just like Marijuana. Yes? Why not do that?
Do you think a black market could produce alcohol at the levels the free market does? If alcohol where prohibited, certain crime would fall, others would rise. I support legalization/regulation/taxation of marijuana in the same basic way alcohol is handled.
If your old enough to serve your country, put your life on the line and make life and death decisions in the battlefield or at home, then you should be able to kick back and have a drink.
Simply because you're 18 and could potentially serve in the military? Or because you're 18 and in the military?
Under certain conditions, some military personnel under 21 can drink. I can't really argue with that. I don't think it should be extended to civilians simply because they are service age.
While it is states that have raised the drinking age to 21, it is due to Federal coercion by threatening to withhold highway funds if the states didn't comply with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. The same coercion was used in lowering the BAC to .08. The Federal Govt knew it didn't have the authority to enact such a law, so it simply stated that the states had to enact such a law or 10% of their highway funds would be withheld. Hey, whose money is it anyway? It's hard to argue that the result hasn't seen a decrease in traffic deaths, but the way it was achieved has given the Federal Government even more control than was delegated by the Constitution. It's a classic case of doing the wrong thing for the right reason. People should understand that this is a very underhanded way our government operates to set a precedent so that it consolidates power at the federal level well beyond its Constitutional limits. This will all come back to bite us in the butt one day in ways not imagined. It is no small principle that should upset everyone.
I don't know why the US has gone for 21. That seems somewhat restrictive, to say the least! The UK has it as 18 (or 16 in a restaurant with a meal), and personally I'd consider lowering it 16 for 'local' pub-type 'on the premesis' consumption, so that the 16-18 year olds that are currently getting hold of it (as they always will!) and drinking it unsupervised (in parks and on street corners) can sit in a safe atmosphere in a local pub instead (and since they can marry, join the army and so on at 16, it makes sense to me). Keeping the 'off licence', 'nightclub', and 'town-centre bar' age at 18 would also give a boost to the 'local' pub sector, which has been suffering over recent years (and they are the best places for youngsters to drink at sensible levels, in a safe atmosphere, with landlords and other locals stopping them from going over the top). 21 just seems a ridiculous minimum drinking age to me. I can't see any reason for it being so high.
It is the openness that their kids see as not that rebelious to drink. Our prudeness to alcohol that really gets kids to think they are cool for breaking the law. Plus, the other cultures have much strickter punishments for DUIs as well.
Only places I know military members can drink at 18 is overseas in Europe. Being in Korea, if you are caught drinking under 21, you will get in trouble. The first time I was there, the drinking age was 20. The second time I was there they changed the age to drink (for US military members on base) to 21, and then wondered why the underage drinking became a problem.
That's true for the UK too - people hitting the legal drinking age then going absolutely mad with binge drinking (causing trouble for themselves and others) is a significant problem. In many parts of Europe the drinking culture is different, and seems more about 'a little and often (often a few glasses of wine on a daily basis)' than going out on a friday night to get hammered (and they include their kids at home in that to a greater degree than in the UK, and I guess the US - some wine with dinner is considered much more OK for everyone, not just 'adults', and kids learn that drink isn't something 'taboo' or 'clever', but just part of everyday life). That's why i'd like to see supervised drinking from 16 - young people, in a safe and relaxed atmosphere in a local pub, learning that drink is a social thing to enjoy, not a display of how ruined you can get to make you all 'hard' and 'rebellious'. It's the old story - the more you make something appear 'bad', the more it appeals to some young people. That's doubly true if the older generations are saying 'it's OK for us, but you're just not allowed, so there!'. How do they expect younger generations (younger generations of 'adult', that is!) to react to that kind of thing? The results are kind of inevitable!
I realize there are a lot of adolescents who want to drink. Lowering the drinking age to cater to them is stupid. Oh, I know it'll get votes for the Democrats but it's still stupid.
Its not to "cater" to kids, it is to take the "rebellion" away from those that drink just because they aren't allowed. Most people drink under age to get (*)(*)(*)(*) faced because they don't know when the have the chance to drink again, so the binge drinking accures. Drinking is like owning a gun, raise your kids to respect them and there is a greater chance there will be less acciedental deaths due to playing or abusing either of them.
To add to my opinion, I believe that many 18-20 year olds would binge drink less if the age was 18. Look, that age group will always get alcohol anyway, especially in college. Now, if they have the opportunity to drink with some friends, they will get wasted, because they don't get the opportunity much. I'll be honest: I'm 17 and the few times I've been able to drink as much as I want, I've drank way too much (that's not to say to lower the age that low though). If the legal drinking age was made 18, then it will be like "I'll just have a beer or two, I can always drink tomorrow". But even besides all that, I just think once you're 18 you deserve the basic liberty to kick back and enjoy a beer.
While I believe it makes sense to place the drinking age before the driving age, it would have to happen slowly over time, and I think 21 is way too high of a driving age. I'm 17 and I believe I am perfectly capable of driving. I got my license over a year ago, and I've never gotten into an accident or have gotten pulled over.
