More Active Posts
Front Page
Is it time to lower the drinking age?
 |
 43 Comments |
If an individual can join the military at 18, should he/she also have the right to drink?
That’s the question several states are revisiting as they give their drinking laws another look–which is fueling criticism from many who say such a move could have “tragic consequences”:
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, setting the driving age at 21 has decreased fatalities among 18- to 20-year-olds.
Those who have their first drink before they are 19 are significantly more likely to become alcohol dependent, to drive after drinking, and to sustain injuries that require medical attention than those who did not drink before 19, according to data released by Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
What’s your take on lowering the drinking age–Is it a bad idea, or long overdue?
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |  |
Share this: |
Don’t blame racism
I have seen this pendulum swing so many times it is somewhat silly.
If we are interested in minimizing alcoholism and accidents, a reasonable case can be made for increasing the drinking age to 25.
I can also make a reasoanble case that the state should not be in the business of creating a drinking age.
I can even go so far as to argue that letting people enter the military at 18 is inappropriate and they should be forced to wait until they are 21 and of what is often thought of as the age of majority.
In the end, you make the rules, and then you attempt to enforce them reasonably.
I think Musing is correct. It can be argued that the drinking age should be increased. Insurance companies hike premiums on drivers below the age of 25 because the area of the brain that assesses risk, does not fully develop until then. The alcohol factor would only make that worse.
I’m with Musing. How come people don’t use this same argument to raise the age of entry into the military instead of lowering the drinking age?
Just some quick thoughts:
- Permit drinking in the home under the direct supervision of parents at 14
- Raise the driving age to 17
- Raise the age for military service to 20, the biblical age of military service. As Doug Wilson has noted, lots of 18 year old kids think killing is cool. Give them 2 years to cool their jets some and learn a bit more about the world.
- And while we’re at it, eliminate some of the age restrictions on working outside the home that have crept in over the last 20 years or so.
What Frank said, especially about introducing alcohol to children at home in small amount so they learn to respect it, rather than them sneaking around parental authority and abusing it.
I think it’s long overdue. If you’re an adult at 18, you should be able to have the same freedoms as every other adult. If we want, we could debate about when adulthood should officially begin, but right now it’s 18, so I think government should be a little more consistent.
I have no statistics, but I’m guessing that the current drinking laws are not doing much to prevent teenage drinking. The kids who are inclined to drink excessively are already doing it. Making it illegal, in my opinion, only makes it a more attractive pursuit.
I agree with Franks’ points. Better that kids be exposed to alcohol under the supervision of their parents rather than behind their parents’ backs.
Frank-
I agree and would add to your list: raise the voting age to at least 20.
I would say no booze for Johnny unless he has a valid over-20 driver’s license and a voter’s registration card.
You’re old enough to kill, but not for votin’
You dont believe in war
But what’s that gun you’re totin’?
-Barry McGuire
(who is still out there touring folks. He is a Grandpa and very much alive and well celebrating our Savior in his songs!)
Interestingly enough, both Ft Huachuca AZ (Sierra Vista AZ) and Ft Bliss Tx (El Paso Tx) allow 18 year olds to buy booze on post.
The idea behind this policy? Since both are on the border and these soldiers can and do go across to Mexico (where if you’re tall enough to reach the bar you can drink alcohol) why not let these men drink in the USA??
I was able to drink legally at 18 in New York State, but not vote. (in 1970) Considering who runs for office, drinking before voting might be advisable! We also allowed kids to bring their guns to high school (leaving them locked in their car trunks) on the opening days for pheasant and deer seasons back then.
I don’t remember any drunk teenagers shooting up the schools. Parental involvement and allowing children to learn responsibility by increasingly practicing it as they grow work in any era.
I’m 47 now. The minimum drinking age was 18 when I was 18. My dad took me to one of our fave restaurants for my “first legal one” on my 18th birthday. Yeah, only years later did I recognize my personal problem before I surrendered to Jesus. But it’s still about personal responsibility.
To compare the age to which people can go fight a war with the national drinking age is totally bogus.
Like Ken, I was able to drink legally in NY when I was 18. None of my schoolmates died in drunk driving accidents, either while still in school or in the years between then and 21. My grandkids are 18 & 19: 4 or 5 of their HS mates have already been killed, and several more have lost their licenses, due to driving drunk. Kids are getting alcohol in spite of the law, so what would be the point of changing it? I agree with Frank, take the temptation out of it by teaching them to drink responsibly at home.
18 is the legal age of adulthood. It’s the age where you are responsible for your own decisions. You can buy and mortgage property without a co-signer. You can sign a contract without a co-signer. Why shouldn’t you be able to:
1. join the armed forces
2. drive a car
3. drink alcohol
4. and VOTE (if you can buy property, you definitely should be able to vote)
I too was raised in NY. 18 was the drinking age back then. In my high school, the only kids who were killed were the ones who were driving too fast on dangerous rural roads. Rarely was alcohol involved. But I’ll tell you, alcohol was easy to obtain if you wanted it. I graduated at 17 and most of my friends were 18. I had an October birthday. It was no fun being left out when my peers wanted to go to an establishment that carded at the door.
I joined the army when I was was 17 - 5 days short of my 18th birthday. In Alabama, you could drink beer and wine at 18 but not hard liquor. Then I ended up in California where the drinking age was 21. I can only remember a few occasions when I was denied a drink because I was under 21. It never happened at the clubs on post.
I think they raised the drinking age in NY and that affected my siblings.
I thnk that there should be consistency accross the board. The public drinking and driving without a permit and voting and military ages should all be the same. Minimum 18, max 21.
As things are, 18 makes you a pseudo adult.
I also think 16 is a good age for drivers permits and also a good age to intruduce alcohol in small amounts at home, along with a healthy respect for it. I drank at home occasionally during the summer after I graduated. With my parents. No big deal.
Have you noticed that this drinking age question only comes up when the country is at war and many of those dying for their country are less than 21 years old?
I have no problem allowing military folks to drink at on base clubs when 18. They tend to be better behaved there and, I know I was, know if they get out of line on base they are in big trouble.
This takes away the same old ‘look how horrible it is that these young boys die needlessly before they can even have a legal beer’ the left always brings up during time of war trying to act like they care about the troops - when they obviously do not care about them in the least.
Keep the drinking age at 21 everywhere else except on military bases.
It is not time to lower the drinking age. It is time to raise the enlistment age.
Keep the drinking age at 21 everywhere else except on military bases.
It is not time to lower the drinking age. It is time to raise the enlistment age.
But what about the concept of adulthood? Should not all adults have the same freedoms? We only let “adults” vote. Only “adults” can sign contracts.
But an “adult” who buys a home cannot drink alcohol in his own home. I find that odd.
Gil M (7): I agree and would add to your list: raise the voting age to at least 20.
Frank: Bingo.
llama (16): Have you noticed that this drinking age question only comes up when the country is at war and many of those dying for their country are less than 21 years old?
Frank: I’d recommend some Gold Bond for that chafing …
Increased fatalities among 18- to 20-year-olds, alcohol dependence, and other alcohol related problems are truly tragic. It is not time to lower the legal drinking age.
Yes, Didymus, our government must keep us safe from our consuming ways…the very government that would rather encourage us to consume with our money than produce with our money.
Having attended a funeral for an 18 month old baby and her 26 year old father, I’m in favor or leaving it alone. We have a rule. It saves lives. Enforce it.
NJLawyer,
You DO realize that you’ve just contradicted your own assertion. If you JUST attended a funeral for these two, then how is it that this “saves lives?” Two people died UNDER THE RULE WE HAVE and you’re in favor of leaving it alone?
Of course, we could recognize that justice isn’t simply about “saving lives.” There are more reasons than deterrence for punishment and I’d rather have justice than safety. One problem with our court system is that we don’t apply “an eye for an eye” anymore. That’s unfortunate.
I’m closer to what Frank in Phoenix wrote. There’s a difference between physical maturity and mental maturity. I’d say raise the voting and military service to ages 20 or 21, in line with drinking privilege.
No, Wiglaf, I didn’t contradict myself. My post was too short. Those two died a very long time ago. In fact, the baby’s older sister, who was slightly disfigured in the same accident, approaching 40 herself. My purpose in mentioning the deaths was to put a “face” on what happens when people drink and drive. I still remember that baby lying in her coffin with the same dress she’d had on for Easter a few months earlier. Other examples would be to remind you of all the hazings that go on at college campuses. You can argue for lower drinking ages all you want, but you’ll never convince me that the damage, the deaths, the grief, etc. is worth it.
If I could raise the drinking age to at least 25, I would. (Actually, I favor that breathylizer attachment to one’s vehicle which will prevent the vehicle from starting if the person is drunk. I think that’s nifty.) If I could, I would outlaw all drinking on college campuses. Nevertheless, 21 is still better than 18. If it saves one life leaving it at 21 and not lowering the age, whether it is the life of the drinker or an “innocent,” it’s worth it.
It’s a beverage. Have a coke instead.
Frank, I agree we should raise the age for military service to 20 and eliminate the age restrictions on working outside the home. But why set an arbitrary limit of 14 for drinking under parental supervision? Children should be allowed to drink at any age, when under parental supervision. (Of course, the parents may completely ban alcohol, if they wish.) Parents are already responsible for their children in so many other activities, which pose greater risk for children, such as taking medications, chopping wood, mowing the lawn, and riding in the car with a parent in the driver seat.
NJLawyer,
I’m don’t think that raising age limits addresses the root problem; kids aren’t growing up. The government doesn’t let kids work. The government doesn’t make it easy to start your own business. You’ve got to get a local permit, a state permit, and a federal ID. Add to this regulations requiring licensing and insurance. Add to this the complications of the tax code and the now over the top child labor laws. Plus we have a government that encourages spending rather than saving and consumerism rather than production. Raise the age all you want. It will only complicate getting to adulthood and increase the group of people breaking the law. Being a responsible adult at age 25 will become anachronistic; something your grand parents did. By raising the age, you only compound the problem of immaturity.
Like I said before, our laws need to take back “an eye for an eye.” The fear of death can cause people to mature really fast, but it needs to be just. Right now, I can’t say that the system is just. It’s quite broken.
We also need to stop turning control over to the government. When we do that, we lose control over ourselves.
Wiglaf, wise posts.
I don’t really have an opinion on the drinking age issue, except that parents should have responsibility over allowing their own kids to drink. And I agree that the child-labor laws are ridiculous, and that discouraging adulthood is a bad idea.
One issue, I think, is the thought that DWI is a “minor” crime. I once heard that it’s hard to get a conviction from a jury, because probably everyone on the jury has done it at least one himself. I hope that’s not true, but it’s a scary concept! We need to treat it as a very serious matter, and then probably the drinking age would be less important.
The government doesn’t let kids work.
Parents can make kids work all they want - mow lawns, work at home, volunteer. The government just ensures businesses don’t work your kids like adults.
You’ve got to get a local permit, a state permit, and a federal ID. Add to this regulations requiring licensing and insurance.
Yeah, that’s tough. A couple of permits and some licenses to ensure you don’t rip off people and insurance to ensure you don’t sue people unnecessarily. To me, that’s saving people money.
Plus we have a government that encourages spending rather than saving and consumerism rather than production
Huh? The government has all sorts of savings plans: 401K, Roth, 529, etc. It’s not the government’s fault that people don’t use them.
As for production - guess what, the free market dictates consumerism over production. That’s what you want, right? A free market that says it’s more profitable for a company to send manufacturing overseas and market its wares here, where consumers can afford to pay more.
“Having attended a funeral for an 5 year old boy and his 25 year old mother, I’m in favor or prohibiting it altogether.
“If it saves just one life, it will be worth it.”
Just sayin’, is all …
Lester,
Spoken like a gen-you-wine servant o’ th’ public …
A (27): Frank, I agree we should raise the age for military service to 20 and eliminate the age restrictions on working outside the home. But why set an arbitrary limit of 14 for drinking under parental supervision? Children should be allowed to drink at any age, when under parental supervision.
Frank: You’re right, my use of the age of 14 was pretty much arbitrary. Perhaps I used it because, in this day of hyper gummint regulation (smoking in your own car with kids present constitutes “child abuse”) and inane zero-tolerance policies (no guns in school, including those miniature plastic ones that come with GI-Joe dolls), people just expect the gummint to set some sort of rules, standards, guidelines and laws for everything. They simply wouldn’t know what to do without the feddle nanny’s “guidance.”
Do we think most parents have the wisdom to discern between giving their curious 6-year-old a sip of beer, allowing their 14-year-old to drink a glass of mingled wine with dinner, or allowing their 18-year-old to sample three or four single-malt scotches with dad (and then not to permit him to leave the house that afternoon) — all under their loving supervision?
I think there should be enough info available from across the medical field — from the “establishment” to well-researched and -documented “alternative” views — to inform people about whether it is truly medically dangerous to do any of these things (or other variants on the theme), so that most parents could really be trusted to make their own calls.
Unfortunately, there are (and always have been) poor and uncaring parents who might push things a little too far, or just plain step way over the line. And so we — like the good sheeple we are — look to congress, or our Dear Leader, or the Federal Office of Somethingorother (how about the BATF? After all, “alcohol” is right there in their name!) to tell us what we are allowed and not allowed to do.
Speaking of the BATF, I’m more than a little surprised they haven’t handed down a rule — or at least some stringent guidelines — restricting and defining at what age parents should be allowed to start training their children in that other implement of death, the gun. I’m sure that there are more than a few nanny-state do-gooders who believe that having guns in the house constitutes child abuse …
The drinking age should not be as high as it is. The DUI/public intoxication consequences should be just as strong (maybe even stronger) but the concept of “minimum drinking age” is broken.
Drinking is a “pastime” (for lack of a better word) that should be “discovered” by the child WITH THE PARENTS’ GUIDANCE. Half of the time, the kids drink BECAUSE it’s rebellious. If there were NO drinking limit then parents could walk the kids through it and help set the standards for the rest of their life. (”Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”)
As it is now, the kid goes off to college (or wherever) and starts boozing illegally. This system is idiotic on the face of it. They learn absolutely no moral responsibility associated with drinking.
NJL at post #26
College campuses ban drinking in all but the “over-21″ dorm, and look how much good that’s done.
To quote Brad Stine: “I know, let’s ban crime!”
That being said, lowering the drinking age significantly (or getting rid of it altogether) would have DISASTROUS results. An entire generation with this new “privilege” that still smacks of rebellion is suddenly opened up. An ENTIRE GENERATION of Americans would grow up as boozers and irresponsible do-nothings.
The answer to this debate is much more difficult than just “yes” or “no”.
CORRECTION: second sentence of the last paragraph:
Suddenly this new “privelege,” still smacking of rebellion, is opened up to a whole new generation.
Tombob,
Or it might immediately lose its mystery and rebellion, at least for the kids who aren’t currently drinking. My guess is it wouldn’t suck in a whole lot of new kids–not the ones interested because of “rebellion” anyway, because they’re already drinking.
Spoken like a gen-you-wine servant o’ th’ public …
Thanks brother. When you can’t debate an idea or argument, resort to name-calling.
Five years in the military and ten in law enforcement. No, I’m not ashamed of being a public servant.
How ’bout - enlistment at 18, but no active duty combat before 21? (just a thought)
Drinking age? - 25
College campuses ban drinking in all but the “over-21″ dorm, and look how much good that’s done.
You don’t think it has done good???? I do! I have seen frat deaths due to alcohol poisoning. Not pretty.
Wiglaf, really!!!! ?????
“The government doesn’t let kids work. The government doesn’t make it easy to start your own business.”
The government doesn’t let you grow up? Come on! What’s the expression? MAN UP! It’s not the government’s duty to raise responsible kids, it’s the parents’ duty. And the older the kid is, the more it is the kid’s duty. It doesn’t matter what the government does or doesn’t do. It matters what parents do.
I never worked at a job until after secretarial school. That didn’t make me irresponsible. I’ve never driven a car in a drunken state, I’ve never taken an illegal drug, and I’ve never even puffed on one cigarette. You don’t need to have a job to grow up. You need some guidance, and if the parental guidance is there all along, you won’t do jello shots, etc. You’ll be secure enough to say no. I was, and I was a rather shy person. But I knew the difference between right and wrong, and I’d been taught about consequences. It isn’t the government that doesn’t let kids grow up — it’s parents who don’t do their job.
A child needs to be taught all along.
Lester (38): Thanks brother. When you can’t debate an idea or argument, resort to name-calling.
Frank: I wasn’t name-calling. I was commenting on your remarks at (31) about all the glorious things government does “for us” — such as business licensing, savings plans, etc. I’ts almost as if you wonder how people ever got by without the government licensing of African hair-braiders (the AZ beautician test doesn’t even cover African hair braiding, but a woman who does nothing but braiding still had to study for and pass the entire AZ beautician’s test) or “allowing” us to defer our taxes until we reach 59 1/2.
Rather than imposing just taxation (which I define as no more than the 10% God requires of us — see 1 Samuel 8:11-18), in order to pay only for legitimate government activities, the government screws us to the wall with taxes, fees, etc. twelve ways from Sunday, then offers to “help” us by offering us the Vaseline … er, I meant “tax-deferred savings vehicles” like IRAs, 401Ks, etc. The point: If government took less of our income in taxes, and stopped inflating the currency, people could save for themselves without that kind of government [ahem] “help.”
I have no beef with genuine public servants who truly do what they can to serve those who pay their salary.
What I do have a beef with is Caesar’s bullies and the bully agencies they work for, whose motto is usually something like, “I’m from the government … and I’m here to help!”
(Whether you want it or not.)
Lester (38): Thanks brother. When you can’t debate an idea or argument, resort to name-calling.
Frank: Like they say, “What’s sauce for the goose …”
But then again, maybe it’s not exactly a “goose and gander” thing. It seems to me that recognizing and acknowledging someone’s status as a public servant is different a different matter from calling someone a “paulbot” or assuming they must smoke pot just because they want to see marijuana decriminalized.