Do you think there would be a large financial impact if we lowered the drinking age to 18? (between, increase)

[delusianne]

Dear God no, are you serious? We've got plenty enough problems as is. Just sneak around to drink and get high the way everyone else had to Kids are so undereducated and so over-susceptible to advertising and friends - worst possible idea.

Kids should just give themselves a chance to go to school, etc. rather than sliding faster and faster down this...icky slope.

OP, short A to your Q - terrible for the economy and for every other aspect of this society.

EDIT - I think it's a cynical plan to get more revenue for the states - and maybe, if they're just overbidding right now in order to get the drinking age lowered only for the military (stupid idea too), maybe it's also a way to sucker kids into the Army. Or loosen you all up for a draft.

[70Ford]

It should be their choice to slide. We can share our values and teach our children about life's pitfalls....but we can't live their life for them. It's not fair to treat them as "adults" in one context and as "too young to make an adult decision" in the other.

That's called hypocrisy.

[allforcats]

There would be a higher DEATH AND MAIMING rate on the roads if the drinking age were lowered to 18. There are far too many alcohol-related deaths and injuries right now; don't encourage increasing them.
The human brain, particularly the part that can imagine consequences of actions and figure out possibilities, does not stop forming until age 22. Give the kids half a chance and don't make drinking legal at a lower age.

The insane "argument" that they can die for their country at 18, so they should be able to kill off their brain cells and kill others at 18 -- is bullpucky. They don't CHOOSE to die but are sent to die by government, and they go because they have been programmed to believe that government is a good thing and should be obeyed like dieties and parents -- but they WILL chose to drink because drinking is, irrationally, admired in this culture. Our schools, and often our parents, teach us little to nothing about how, and why, to cherish ourselves.

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by allforcats

There would be a higher DEATH AND MAIMING rate on the roads if the drinking age were lowered to 18. There are far too many alcohol-related deaths and injuries right now; don't encourage increasing them.
The human brain, particularly the part that can imagine consequences of actions and figure out possibilities, does not stop forming until age 22. Give the kids half a chance and don't make drinking legal at a lower age.

The insane "argument" that they can die for their country at 18, so they should be able to kill off their brain cells and kill others at 18 -- is bullpucky. They don't CHOOSE to die but are sent to die by government, and they go because they have been programmed to believe that government is a good thing and should be obeyed like dieties and parents -- but they WILL chose to drink because drinking is, irrationally, admired in this culture. Our schools, and often our parents, teach us little to nothing about how, and why, to cherish ourselves.

Yes! This is the post

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by 70Ford

It should be their choice to slide. We can share our values and teach our children about life's pitfalls....but we can't live their life for them. It's not fair to treat them as "adults" in one context and as "too young to make an adult decision" in the other.

That's called hypocrisy.

That's a classic kid argument - so classic it's cliched.

If you're talking about why are 18 year olds recruited for the military, it's because they're young, healthy, strong, and malleable. They haven't begun to think for themselves yet in any meaningful way, and between 18 and 22 they're in optimum physical shape.

allforcats's post says it all, and you might also ask an alcoholic if he or she thinks it's a good idea.

[flu189]

As far as Vermont goes with the state facing an impending deficit and nobody in charge knowing what to do any bills here proposed concerning this will go nowhere as long as federal highway money is tied to the drinking age. Vermont decades ago held out at 18 when neighboring NH raised their age to 20 in 1979 with no grandfather clause. At that time I entered the service and for many years afterwards the age on base/post was kept at 18 regardless of local/state laws. Even reserve posts like Grenier Field in NH with a small PX could sell to age 18 with the unenforced stipulation that under 20 or 21 consumption had to take place on post. Fast forward to the present and even large active military installations now all have gone to age 21 and the EM/NCO clubs have virtually disappeared from their hey day. By regulation now commanders on post can authorize very limtited privilege for under 21 consumption at designated events or functions, but even that is very rare for fear of liability of something goes wrong.

[forest beekeeper]

Originally Posted by flu189

... Fast forward to the present and even large active military installations now all have gone to age 21 and the EM/NCO clubs have virtually disappeared from their hey day. By regulation now commanders on post can authorize very limtited privilege for under 21 consumption at designated events or functions, but even that is very rare for fear of liability of something goes wrong.

I retired in 2001. However as of 2001 that simply was not the case.

I served from 1976 until 2001, and on all bases that I have been on. If the local jurisdiction allows younger drinking than so does the base commander, AND if any jurisdiction within a 30 minute radius drive allows it then so does the base. [good examples of this 'radius' are San Diego and NAS Whidbey Island].

[harry chickpea]

Originally Posted by allforcats

There would be a higher DEATH AND MAIMING rate on the roads if the drinking age were lowered to 18. There are far too many alcohol-related deaths and injuries right now; don't encourage increasing them.
The human brain, particularly the part that can imagine consequences of actions and figure out possibilities, does not stop forming until age 22. Give the kids half a chance and don't make drinking legal at a lower age.

The insane "argument" that they can die for their country at 18, so they should be able to kill off their brain cells and kill others at 18 -- is bullpucky. They don't CHOOSE to die but are sent to die by government, and they go because they have been programmed to believe that government is a good thing and should be obeyed like dieties and parents -- but they WILL chose to drink because drinking is, irrationally, admired in this culture. Our schools, and often our parents, teach us little to nothing about how, and why, to cherish ourselves.

"The human brain, particularly the part that can imagine consequences of actions and figure out possibilities, does not stop forming until age 22."

You are essentially agreeing with my posit that if the age of majority in general was increased to 21, it wouldn't be as egregious as a split age for certain aspects of majority. If you want to do so, fine, but understand the ramifications.

In some people, forming the links you mention takes a lot longer or never forms. Sociopaths in particular have little or no concept of consequences. In other people, those links are formed early on. Finding kids like that is pretty common in every area of the country that I've seen. The law has to make a demarcation point somewhere, and 18 is a reasonable age.

The INSANE argument that "There would be a higher DEATH AND MAIMING rate on the roads if the drinking age were lowered to 18." is based on pop science in mainstream media, and neglects to follow through to a logical conclusion. Some people have difficulty forming those logical threads until much later in life. Thankfully, most judges happen to be older than that age of unreasoned crusading.

If what you say were true, then logically, the lack of those links in under 22 YOs means that all criminals between the ages of 18 and 22 don't understand that their actions have consequences, and therefor, to avoid cruel and unusual punishment, should be treated by juvenile justice system standards.

That 20 YO that breaks into your sister's home, kills the husband, rapes your sister, beats the cat, kills the goldfish, and steals the beer, and eats the pizza should be sent to their room... or maybe if you are tough, to juvenile detention for a time-out and therapy. I sure hope you are against the death penalty, and I'm sure you are outraged that the teen who killed his grandmother and grandfather in cold blood wasn't allowed a review of his 30 yr sentence by the Supreme Court. THAT is the logical extension of your argument based on lack of brain connections.

"They don't CHOOSE to die but are sent to die by government"

In the age of the draft, that was often true. This, however, is an all volunteer military and a darned good one at that.

Frankly I resent your implying that my nephew didn't understand what he was getting into, especially since my brother was a West Point graduate, and his grandfather on his mother's side was one of those of the great generation that fought for your ability to be alive and free, and debate here.

Your position comes from a mindset of fear. You FEAR that kids won't understand that .08 is the legal limit and will drive drunk. I ask you, in all sincerity, if they don't understand or obey THAT law, what on earth is making you think that those same kids will understand and obey laws saying they can't drink until 21???

Is there some magic to those words "You can't drink until you are 21" that will make idiots stop and say "Well gorsh, I won't do that, I'll just stay home and suck weed?" You promote an overkill of laws in an attempt to intimidate. "If you won't follow the law of don't drink and drive, then I'll take away the right to drink entirely... before you even have a chance to prove you won't drink and drive." Why not do the same with cellphones? "I'm sorry, you can't have a cellphone in your possession until you are 21. Recent studies have shown that driving while on the cellphone is as dangerous as, and possibly MORE dangerous than drunk driving." Again, the same pop science that you are quoting is screaming this link right now. Never mind that some 18 to 21 YOs don't drive anyway. Your arguments, while perhaps well intended, are punitive moralistic nonsense based in unreasoned fear.

MY FEAR is that your unreasoned fears, and those of MADD, diminish all our rights as a people, demean our intelligence, and help to promote a system of laws treating us by the image of the lowest possible denominator, where nerf balls are considered deadly weapons.

If you live, you will eventually die. No one has ever left the immediate vicinity of the planet alive. I won't. You won't. I choose to live a vibrant life and accept reasonable risk in return for freedom and a chance to interact with the environment, instead of living my life whimpering in a corner. I won't keep you from that corner if you want to go there, but don't try to keep me from my life or expect to legislate me into that corner with you. I'll fight you tooth and nail every inch of the way, and I'll win. Americans are like that... or at least they used to be.

[StillwaterTownie]

Originally Posted by 8 SNAKE

The biggest boom that I could see would be for bars and night clubs that currently restrict entrance to those 21 and up.

Especially in college towns.

[decafdave]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

"The human brain, particularly the part that can imagine consequences of actions and figure out possibilities, does not stop forming until age 22."

You are essentially agreeing with my posit that if the age of majority in general was increased to 21, it wouldn't be as egregious as a split age for certain aspects of majority. If you want to do so, fine, but understand the ramifications.

In some people, forming the links you mention takes a lot longer or never forms. Sociopaths in particular have little or no concept of consequences. In other people, those links are formed early on. Finding kids like that is pretty common in every area of the country that I've seen. The law has to make a demarcation point somewhere, and 18 is a reasonable age.

The INSANE argument that "There would be a higher DEATH AND MAIMING rate on the roads if the drinking age were lowered to 18." is based on pop science in mainstream media, and neglects to follow through to a logical conclusion. Some people have difficulty forming those logical threads until much later in life. Thankfully, most judges happen to be older than that age of unreasoned crusading.

If what you say were true, then logically, the lack of those links in under 22 YOs means that all criminals between the ages of 18 and 22 don't understand that their actions have consequences, and therefor, to avoid cruel and unusual punishment, should be treated by juvenile justice system standards.

That 20 YO that breaks into your sister's home, kills the husband, rapes your sister, beats the cat, kills the goldfish, and steals the beer, and eats the pizza should be sent to their room... or maybe if you are tough, to juvenile detention for a time-out and therapy. I sure hope you are against the death penalty, and I'm sure you are outraged that the teen who killed his grandmother and grandfather in cold blood wasn't allowed a review of his 30 yr sentence by the Supreme Court. THAT is the logical extension of your argument based on lack of brain connections.

"They don't CHOOSE to die but are sent to die by government"

In the age of the draft, that was often true. This, however, is an all volunteer military and a darned good one at that.

Frankly I resent your implying that my nephew didn't understand what he was getting into, especially since my brother was a West Point graduate, and his grandfather on his mother's side was one of those of the great generation that fought for your ability to be alive and free, and debate here.

Your position comes from a mindset of fear. You FEAR that kids won't understand that .08 is the legal limit and will drive drunk. I ask you, in all sincerity, if they don't understand or obey THAT law, what on earth is making you think that those same kids will understand and obey laws saying they can't drink until 21???

Is there some magic to those words "You can't drink until you are 21" that will make idiots stop and say "Well gorsh, I won't do that, I'll just stay home and suck weed?" You promote an overkill of laws in an attempt to intimidate. "If you won't follow the law of don't drink and drive, then I'll take away the right to drink entirely... before you even have a chance to prove you won't drink and drive." Why not do the same with cellphones? "I'm sorry, you can't have a cellphone in your possession until you are 21. Recent studies have shown that driving while on the cellphone is as dangerous as, and possibly MORE dangerous than drunk driving." Again, the same pop science that you are quoting is screaming this link right now. Never mind that some 18 to 21 YOs don't drive anyway. Your arguments, while perhaps well intended, are punitive moralistic nonsense based in unreasoned fear.

MY FEAR is that your unreasoned fears, and those of MADD, diminish all our rights as a people, demean our intelligence, and help to promote a system of laws treating us by the image of the lowest possible denominator, where nerf balls are considered deadly weapons.

If you live, you will eventually die. No one has ever left the immediate vicinity of the planet alive. I won't. You won't. I choose to live a vibrant life and accept reasonable risk in return for freedom and a chance to interact with the environment, instead of living my life whimpering in a corner. I won't keep you from that corner if you want to go there, but don't try to keep me from my life or expect to legislate me into that corner with you. I'll fight you tooth and nail every inch of the way, and I'll win. Americans are like that... or at least they used to be.

whew....you mind if I keep this for future arguments? Off CD of course