Lower the drinking age to 18 (examples, goverment, recession, work)

[Minnehahapolitan]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

I didn't read through all 17 pages...I didn't post on this thread until about the 15th page.

However, the prinicple is this - murder, for example, is a crime that has both an action and a result.

Drunk driving, by itself, is only an action with no result.

Underage drinking is the same.

Your argument is basically that something should be a crime only if there is a result. You are a hypocrite yourself for thinking that drunk driving should be a crime.

There is ALWAYS a bad result from drunk driving, ones abilities to control a car are impaired. There is not ALWAYS a bad result from a 16 year old with a beer.
You don't care, though. Your mind was made up even before even you knew it.

[afoigrokerkok]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

There is ALWAYS a bad result from drunk driving, ones abilities to control a car are impaired. There is not ALWAYS a bad result from a 16 year old with a beer.
You don't care, though. Your mind was made up even before even you knew it.

A result would be killing or hurting someone or damaging property. Preventing someone from operating a car while impaired is a protective law...just like banning persons under the age of 21 from drinking is a protective law.

I most certainly do care. Drunk driving should be taken far more seriously than underage drinking.

Just wondering (and you, of course, do not have to answer this question if you don't want...I'm not trying to be intrusive)...have you ever known or been close to an alcoholic? Have you ever personally known immature kids who have had life-altering consequences from drinking?

[dcashley]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

You are a hypocrite yourself for thinking that drunk driving should be a crime.

Have you ever been to the scene of an accident where a drunk teenage driver killed a some of his friends in an accident?

[joey2000]

Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan

I think that kids should be able to drink at whatever age from a legal standpoint.

lol - yeah if a toddler wants that bottle of whiskey, parents shouldn't have a legal right to stop them. 8 yr old Johnny wants to go buy beer for him and his buddies? Let er rip!

Brilliant!

If things like this were left for individuals to decide, they would sort themselves out.

Since "sorting itself out" would include a LOT more fatalities including those of innocent people killed by more drunk teenagers on the road, I'll pass.

Originally Posted by kb09

Your logic is faulty. If we lower the age, it doesn't mean everyone who is 18 and has a car will knock down five shots of vodka, grab the keys, and go for a road trip.

So if EVERYONE doesn't do it, why worry about it?

Brilliant!

And how will that solve the problem?

There is no "solving the problem." It's a question of minimizing it.

How will sticking a kid in jail for two or three days do anything to teach them a lesson? How will it change their attitude towards underage drinking?

Reality check: IT WON'T.

Yeah I can't imagine that having an impact.

So much for reality.

In fact logic appears to be pretty much flying right out the window of this thread; nice try af, but you should be able to realize you're wasting your time. later

[afoigrokerkok]

I agree that my ideas are going a bit too far. I'm still not going to support lowering the drinking age. It needs to stay at 21 and we need to come up with ways to minimize and reduce underage drinking...I know it will never be eliminated...but it COULD be reduced with some work.

I stand by my idea of urine/saliva tests (which are already done in some high schools). As far as the bracelets, that really is too much. I was halfway joking about that.

The punishment for underage drinking should be a fine. In some states (including mine), there's a driver's license suspension for it as well. The kids can do a "deferred adjudication" program where they can avoid the license suspension if they take alcohol classes, do community service, etc. Well let's at least add urine/saliva tests to that...not the bracelets...but the cheap tests. And if they get caught drinking while being tested, then suspend their license. Don't put them in jail though. I WOULD support increasing the length of the license suspension to say...a year or at least 6 months. With no type of hardship license available whatsoever (and eliminate hardship licenses for people who get DWI's as well).

I should also add that I support educating kids FAR more about the dangers of alcohol. Have them actually hear the parent of a teenager who was killed in a DWI accident come talk to them, have someone who was seriously injured in a DWI accident come talk to them, have someone who was raped (if the rape involved alcohol) come talk to them, have someone who had a child, brother, sister, spouse, parent who was an alcoholic commit suicide (and believe me tons of suicides involve alcohol and alcoholics) come talk to them. Also teach them about the effects of alcohol on a developing brain and why they're worse than the effects on an adult brain.

[afoigrokerkok]

Originally Posted by dcashley

Have you ever been to the scene of an accident where a drunk teenage driver killed a some of his friends in an accident?

No. Thank God I haven't.

I did know a guy in high school who was in the hospital for something like two weeks I think after a drunk driving accident. In college, there was a girl who I didn't know personally, but knew who she was, who was raped at a party by a guy who had way too much to drink.

My father is an alcoholic....he's in his late 60's now...the most depressed miserable person I've ever known. When I was a kid, he would take me on trips in his car where he would actually drink a beer while driving...and not just one...he'd bring several and drink 2-3 during a 30-minute drive sometimes. He'd also sometimes bring whisky in styrafoam cups. I'd be willing to bet anything he started drinking as a teenager. I haven't seen him in 3 years or so. I talk to him on the phone about every 6 months. He's just too impossible to deal with. Alcoholism isn't a game...it can destroy almost everything.

[kb09]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

I agree. This technology though is fairly new. My guess is that the cost would go WAY down after it was around for awhile and more widely produced.

You admit they don't have full time jobs. Well if they're so "adult" they should.

YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. You're even admitting that you're guessing that the cost would go down (and as you know a guess is well...a guess). Who knows if it will? The point is, is that the taxpayers (mostly middle class americans) will have to pay for this tripe! It doesn't matter if the cost for the technology goes down to a penny after five years. From day one up to five years, it will be billions (yes billions) wasted on a system that has an iffy chance of working. And as I said before, I will be damned if one cent of my money has to go to it.

And what is the point of mentioning that they are adults (after 18 of course) there are plenty of people that are in their fortys and they make below 30, 000 (my father is one of them).

Your point?

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

The age of majority of 18 is built upon faulty and obsolute knowledge actually.

How so? Please explain yourself.

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

I would have less of a problem with lowering the drinking age to 19 than 18, to keep it away from high school kids. At the bare MINIMUM 18 or high school graduation, whichever comes later.

I just have to say...

Seriously, wtf?

Do you think that highschool kids DON'T have acess to alcohol as it is right now? Hell, there are middle schoolers who have access to booze as we speak! What makes you think that lowering the age will somehow make it somehow more available to them? They can go buy it themselves? Big whoop when they just get someone legal to buy it for them. It's the same outcome! Me no get your logic.

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

We clearly have an obligation as a society to protect a 16 year old from making such big mistakes. Yes they will drink (I did at that age myself actually) but making it illegal gives parents more power. They can say "you can't drink not just because I don't want you to and because it's bad at your age, but because it's against the law." In addition, it gives other adults a right to say "you can't drink" and helps curb drinking while not under the parent's supervision.

Usually it's that little clause that causes teens to drink. Because it is against the law and because it gets so much limelight, it sparks the rebellious nature in humans and makes them want to do the exact opposite of what you or their parents want.

As it is, underage drinking is not curbed in the least. If it were (and it's not) then why is underage binge drinking on the rise? Is that the curb effect taking place? Hmmm, again I wonder.

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

A 16 year old child is far from mature enough to have anywhere close to a complete understanding of the potential consequences of drinking.

And it's the same for some 21 year olds. Even you concede that their brain isn't fully developed by that age. There are some 21 year olds that act like 16 year olds and vice versa.

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

My idea in so far as general age restrictions are concerned would be to quit labeling anyone as an "adult" or "child" or "minor."

Seriously dude. It's not societal labels; it's what the law says. By law you are an ADULT the minute you turn 18 and before that you are considered a MINOR under the eyes of the law. What the hell is so hard to understand about that?

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

Simply have the specific law define what age something is legal at.

Um we already have that.

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

I'd support raising some age restrictions and lowering others...with most adult privileges and responsibilites introduced between the ages of 16 and 21 or so.

Folly.

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

The problem with making one age the same for everything is it gives kids a very false perception that they are suddenly adults on one day and can make the best decisions, can tell their parents they can do whatever they want (when they are still almost completely dependent on their parents for financial support), etc.

It's not a false perception, it is the truth. Once you are 18 you are considered an adult under the eyes of the law. Meaning: you can vote, you can marry, you can join the military, you can move out, you can buy cigarettes, you can buy pharmeceuticals, you can qualify for bank loans, you can get a credit card, you can work as many hours as you want a week...do you really need me to continue? It's not a false perception at all, but is what you are able to legally do. Once you are 18 you can make the decisions you want (whether they be good or bad) and you can tell your parents to f*ck off if you so please. Explain to me how that is a false perception of being a legal adult?

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

They think they are capable of things they are simply not.

Like what? Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

If we didn't choose one age to obsess over, I don't think this phenomenon would be nearly as prevalent.

You're one to talk.

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

End parents' financial responsibility for children at 18 or high school graduation, whichever happens last, and expand school attendance laws to require all kids to remain in HS until graduation so that all kids would have a HS diploma at the minimum.

Won't work. It's been proven that by the time a kid gets to highschool and has been a chronic truent child that they will not come to highschool no matter how many laws and restrictions you put on them (that are of course within the bounds of the law. Wouldn't want to do anything unconstitutional now would ya?). That's why parents only go to jail for keeping elementary aged kids out of school.

Plus, you have no way to go about making EVERY single kid stay in school and obtain a diploma.

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

Have kids prosecuted as adults for crimes at 18.

Um that's how it is now. I have to ask, do you know anything about what the laws actually say?

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

Keep age for tobacco products at 18. Keep the drinking age at 21. Raise the age for marriage to 21. Keep the minimum age for a handgun at 21 (in most states it is, in some it's 18). Raise the minimum age for military to 21. Keep minimum age for gambling at 21 in states where gambling is legal.

And what will all these magnificent age restrictions do?

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

And, in statutes with age restrictions, do not use the terms "adult," "minor," or "child." Simply use "a person under 18 years of age" or "a person under 21 years of age."

It's already the status quo to use 18 as a marker (cuz you know, that's when your legally considered an adult) if it doesn't differentiate. Duh.

Originally Posted by joey2000

So if EVERYONE doesn't do it, why worry about it?

Brilliant!

What in the hell are you talking about?

Originally Posted by joey2000

There is no "solving the problem." It's a question of minimizing it.

You are saying that (when really you are just trying to appease to the other side) when the tatic and the way you are going into it is exactly to solve the problem. Don't be a hypocrite and don't try to butter up your intent. Just be real about it and your opinion might actually be valued. If you really believed in harm reduction (which is minimizing) then you'd realize that educating, taking the emphasis, and lowering the age would one of the better (and cheaper) ways to go about it.

Originally Posted by joey2000

Yeah I can't imagine that having an impact.

So much for reality.

In fact logic appears to be pretty much flying right out the window of this thread; nice try af, but you should be able to realize you're wasting your time. later

And where is your logic oh great master of logic and thinking? Please! Contribute to the debate and enlighten all us stupid dumb folk that are too stupid to come in from the rain! Please oh please oh great one, enlighten us!

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

I stand by my idea of urine/saliva tests (which are already done in some high schools). As far as the bracelets, that really is too much. I was halfway joking about that.

No you weren't. Once you realized how much of an out there proposal that was you immediately dropped it. If you were truly joking you would've said that a few post back instead of playing the "oh well, that one? I was just joking, you know," card. Nice try.

[afoigrokerkok]

Originally Posted by kb09

Do you think that highschool kids DON'T have acess to alcohol as it is right now? Hell, there are middle schoolers who have access to booze as we speak! What makes you think that lowering the age will somehow make it somehow more available to them? They can go buy it themselves? Big whoop when they just get someone legal to buy it for them. It's the same outcome! Me no get your logic. .

Yes as I mentioned specifically in one of my posts...I drank in high school myself.

Originally Posted by kb09

Usually it's that little clause that causes teens to drink. Because it is against the law and because it gets so much limelight, it sparks the rebellious nature in humans and makes them want to do the exact opposite of what you or their parents want.

Making it legal would increase the teenage drinking. Period. Many people use that argument...but it's simply not true. Some suggest that binge drinking and teen drinking are not problems in Europe where teenagers can legally drink. They are.

Originally Posted by kb09

Seriously dude. It's not societal labels; it's what the law says. By law you are an ADULT the minute you turn 18 and before that you are considered a MINOR under the eyes of the law. What the hell is so hard to understand about that? It's not a false perception, it is the truth. Once you are 18 you are considered an adult under the eyes of the law. Meaning: you can vote, you can marry, you can join the military, you can move out, you can buy cigarettes, you can buy pharmeceuticals, you can qualify for bank loans, you can get a credit card, you can work as many hours as you want a week...do you really need me to continue? It's not a false perception at all, but is what you are able to legally do. Once you are 18 you can make the decisions you want (whether they be good or bad) and you can tell your parents to f*ck off if you so please. Explain to me how that is a false perception of being a legal adult?

My point is that they may be LEGALLY adults but they are not MENTALLY or EMOTIONALLY adults.

As far as the telling your parents to "f*ck off if you so please," this is the problem with kids today. They proudly announce "I'm 18, I can do whatever I want." At the same time, they expect their parents to continue to house them or pay for their living expenses and pay for college. Some 18 year olds also expect luxuries from their parents such as cars, gas money, clothes, spending money, etc. Then they turn around and say "I'm an adult, you can't tell me what to do." When I was 18, I knew my mom still made the rules. Period. She owned the roof over my head. The rules weren't terribly strict but I had to follow them.

Look at the laws yourself. In my state, the alcohol laws actually have definitions that say "adult means any person 21 years of age or older" and "minor means any person under 21 years of age." Not so clear. Other parts of the law use the number 18. But they are clearly not adults even legally for EVERY purpose.

Originally Posted by kb09

Won't work. It's been proven that by the time a kid gets to highschool and has been a chronic truent child that they will not come to highschool no matter how many laws and restrictions you put on them (that are of course within the bounds of the law. Wouldn't want to do anything unconstitutional now would ya?). That's why parents only go to jail for keeping elementary aged kids out of school.

Plus, you have no way to go about making EVERY single kid stay in school and obtain a diploma.

I understand that. At the same time, truancy in my state has recently become a criminal offense for high school students who are 18-20 years old (until 2007, it was only for those students under 18). They cannot drop out until the end of the school year when they turn 18 and can have criminal charges filed against them if they do not show up. IF they choose to enroll in a subsequent year if they don't graduate (they do not HAVE to enroll), as long as they are under 21 they have to remain enrolled until the end of the school year.

This is an actual law that exists and was enacted by the Texas Legislature in 2007.

And since ALL kids under 18 are required to be enrolled in school, kids by default have to go until the end of the year when they turn 18. A kid who starts senior year at 17 HAS to be enrolled because he/she is only 17. Since they turn 18 during the year, they have to finish the year out. Since the new law passed, they are not allowed to withdraw unless they plan to go to a new school. If the kid withdraws and doesn't show up at the new school (or doesn't withdraw but stops showing up), they get a ticket and have to go before a judge.

Originally Posted by kb09

Um that's how it is now. I have to ask, do you know anything about what the laws actually say?

I know better than you do. In Texas, 17 year olds are considered adults for the prosecution of crimes. They go to adult court, adult jail, adult probation, adult prison, etc. There are about 10 other states where the age for this is 17...not 18.

Originally Posted by kb09

And what will all these magnificent age restrictions do?

Very similar to now. The only ones I changed were military and marriage. Minimum age for a handgun in most states is already 21. Minimum age for gambling in most of the states where it is legal for anyone is already 21.

Originally Posted by kb09

No you weren't. Once you realized how much of an out there proposal that was you immediately dropped it. If you were truly joking you would've said that a few post back instead of playing the "oh well, that one? I was just joking, you know," card. Nice try.

I knew from the very beginning that the idea was too much. I was just trying to be real harsh to make my views on the subject more clear. I WOULD actually support the bracelets for drunk drivers, however. And, like I said, I support the urine/saliva tests for the underage drinkers.

[afoigrokerkok]

Just one more thing I have to say about this...the drinking age (at least in most states) was 21 until the 1970's when it was lowered to 18 in some states. It was raised back to 21 in the 1980's. Of course if 18 worked, there wouldn't have been a need for the Federal Minimum Drinking Age Act and the states to raise the age back to 21.

The general of majority was 21 until the 1970's as well. Back then, it probably would have made more sense to have 18 as the age. But ironically, 21 would make far more sense in today's world.

[dcashley]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

Just one more thing I have to say about this...the drinking age (at least in most states) was 21 until the 1970's when it was lowered to 18 in some states. It was raised back to 21 in the 1980's. Of course if 18 worked, there wouldn't have been a need for the Federal Minimum Drinking Age Act and the states to raise the age back to 21.

The general of majority was 21 until the 1970's as well. Back then, it probably would have made more sense to have 18 as the age. But ironically, 21 would make far more sense in today's world.

As people grow up, their sense of judgement improves. Some studies show that the typical persons' sense of judgement peaks when he's about 60 years old. We now know why teenagers are given to impulsive acts, and it has to do with the maturity of the brain. The emotional part of our brain matures first. The "thinking" part does not mature until someone is 21 or 22 or 23. Allowing teenagers to drink further reduces their decision making ability. The kinds of decisions that are impaired are not the same kind that keep you alive as a soldier on a battlefield--but are the kind that keep you from impregnating another teenager before either have a job or an education.

So, giving kids the freedom to drink comes with far more implications than giving kids the freedom to enter into contracts or to serve their country. I think nobody should be given the freedom to drink until they are into their 20's. 21 is the absolute minimum. Its not because I dislike teenagers and young adults--on the contrary, it is precisely because I want to see ALL of them become happy, productive members of our society.