Drinking age lower to 18? (restaurants, dangerous, stores)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm amazed at how many people say lower it to 16, 12, 2 etc. Seriously, do you all not get it? They are still maturing at 18. They don't know how to do anything responsibly at 18, sorry but it's the truth. I'm thinking those that are saying that are probably the ones that are 18.
I'm equally amazed at how many people believe we can teach our children moderation and responsible consumption by forbidding it until they reach 21 at which time we give them unrestricted access to liquor and say "good luck!"
I'm amazed at how many people say lower it to 16, 12, 2 etc. Seriously, do you all not get it? They are still maturing at 18. They don't know how to do anything responsibly at 18, sorry but it's the truth. I'm thinking those that are saying that are probably the ones that are 18.
People mature at different ages. Some people are NEVER capable of doing anything responsibly.
Others have brought up the Constitutional issue of the feds forcing states to have a 21 drinking age by withholding funds from states who don't. Suffice to say I am NOT a fan of South Dakota v. Dole and hope that someday the SCOTUS overturns it or there is a constitutional amendment to overturn it. That case, which said the nationwide 21 drinking age was constitutional, had a few unexpected votes - Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist, who normally supported states' rights and federalism, voted that the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was constitutional, while Thurgood Marshall, a liberal who generally was not inclined towards diminished federal power, was part of the minority who said that a national drinking age was unconstitutional because it violated states' rights to do what they saw fit.
The drinking age should be left up to the states. Considering California's fiscal crisis being an order of magnitude worse than any other state (even Michigan and Nevada), I would easily support CA lowering its drinking age to 18 or even 17 just because it would mean more tax revenues, would save some jobs, and help small business.
I think that it should be lowered because at 18 you can already do pretty much anything and are considered an adult so whats with getting beer. If your considered an adult than you should be able to drink if you mess up than your considered an adult and should be more responsible.
People mature at different ages. Some people are NEVER capable of doing anything responsibly.
Just yesterday I sat observing in our local county court where there were 52 adults facing drinking charges. That is just one day in a county with maybe 20,000 people. Just hearing their fines, probation and jail times made me shake my head especially at repeat offenders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitegiant
If your considered an adult than you should be able to drink if you mess up than your considered an adult and should be more responsible.
Should be and being more responsible are 2 different things. Just because somebody is an adult does not make them responsible right?
Just because some answer the call of duty, does not mean that everyone deserves the benefits of service.
Following the logic of that argument... we should give the GI Bill to everyone over the age of 18 because "they might be drafted".......
It angers me when some use the possibilty of a draft as an excuse for receiving the benefits of service, while assuming none of the risks and sacrfices that actual members of the armed forces make.
Good men fight so that every American may have the freedoms guaranteed to them. The day that a man's rights are contingent upon a certain level of service, the day I am leaving here. Saying that veterans deserve a different version of American rights is a dishonor to the spirit of service.
Plus, do you seriously want to do down that road? Women and gays can't serve on a front line, do they deserve fewer freedoms? What about the handicapped? No drinking for you Michael J. Fox. Drinking, smoking, free speech and freedom of religion are not benefits of service -- they are rights bestowed by a free society on persons who are deemed adults. More importantly, if the government is going to set the standard that adult males, of a certain age, have even the slightest obligation to do something as important as fighting a war; well, they should stick to the standard they set. It isn't the actual act of service that is important to this particular argument, it is the precedent that is sets.
I'm amazed at how many people say lower it to 16, 12, 2 etc. Seriously, do you all not get it? They are still maturing at 18. They don't know how to do anything responsibly at 18, sorry but it's the truth. I'm thinking those that are saying that are probably the ones that are 18.
Let's go with that dogma then. Since, in your opinion, drinking should be contingent upon responsibility -- then those young people that are responsible should be allowed the freedom to make good decisions. However, those who make bad decisions shall have those privileges revoked. Thus, the drinking age should be lowered to the age of majority in the respective state (usually, 18. I believe Nebraska is 19.) If any person is convicted of any alcohol related offense, their identification should have some sort of an indicator on it that forbids the sale of alcohol to its holder. After all, we are talking about decision making. A DUI is a sign that a person made an irresponsible decision. Ditto for a drunken assault. There would be almost no deaths from alcohol-related crashes. Bars would be deprived of the sort of people who tend to make trouble in them. All would be right.
Let's go with that dogma then. Since, in your opinion, drinking should be contingent upon responsibility -- then those young people that are responsible should be allowed the freedom to make good decisions. However, those who make bad decisions shall have those privileges revoked. Thus, the drinking age should be lowered to the age of majority in the respective state (usually, 18. I believe Nebraska is 19.) If any person is convicted of any alcohol related offense, their identification should have some sort of an indicator on it that forbids the sale of alcohol to its holder. After all, we are talking about decision making. A DUI is a sign that a person made an irresponsible decision. Ditto for a drunken assault. There would be almost no deaths from alcohol-related crashes. Bars would be deprived of the sort of people who tend to make trouble in them. All would be right.
How would that law be enforced? Would it be illegal to provide alcohol (other than as a bar/restaurant/store employee) to someone with the "indicator"?
How would that law be enforced? Would it be illegal to provide alcohol (other than as a bar/restaurant/store employee) to someone with the "indicator"?
Yes. In Minn., anyone under the age of 21 has a red box around their license photo that reads "UNDER 21". It could just as easily say "NO LIQUOR" The law would have more holes than Swiss cheese, but the law we have now does too. At least this one would be supported by logic and reasoning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
