Need some brainstorming help for writing topic: "lowering legal drinking age to 18"

[yoda291]

Try the cigarette industry's spin. Alcohol is taxable. It's hardly a necessity, therefore, increased alcohol sales would bring in more money. Couple that with the fact that drinking before you're 21 is hardly a respected law, and you have a plan that could bring in more money.

As far as spending this newfound money responsibly......

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Jugernot

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
If 18 year olds are old enough to vote, they should be old enough to drink.

Making a bad choice in voting doesn't kill someone if you're drunk. That kind of decision making comes with age.

You don't have to be drunk to kill someone...

 

[tcsenter]

Old enough to vote and drive, not drink alcohol? Weird. Too many adults can't seem to drink responsibly, plus the age laws don't seem to stop a lot of people, so what the heck, why not lower it.

Progressive driving privileges are being adopted in the US, pioneered by the State of Michigan. Why? Because it is successful, accidents are reduced.

It is rather flawed to say "because we do one thing wrong, well then we should do everything wrong". Sorry, no. And you can't kill anyone by voting 'irresponsibly', at least not directly, anyway.

I was in high school as the last remaining 20 or so states were raising their legal drinking age to 21. It is this way quite frankly because it is PROVEN to save lives. Drinking and driving accidents and deaths fell in most states, correlating very well with the change in legal drinking age. I didn't like it then, because I was a dumb kid in high school who saw this as an affront to my 'freedom', being purely self-centered as most teenagers are. Thank goodness dumb high school kids don't make public policy.

 

[Nocturnal]

Hmm, I did a research paper on a similar topic last semester. I didn't find a lot of things that helped prove the point of lowering the drinking age. And I really don't think you'll find any either. Seriously, think about it, read all the statistics, majority of the kids drinking and driving and dying are young teens who are roughly around 15-19 years old.

 

[? (=Þ)]

i know, a lot of the searches I've been running pull tons of results about all the bad aspects of drinking or studies of problems related to drinking.

sorta off topic, but in response to some replies:
I personally think a big part of the problems in the US is due to bad parenting, and alcohol should not be the sole thing to blame. I don't think they will always make the best decisions if a kid doesn't learn from parents and ends up learning first hand from peers. Personally, I see *some* people who are experiencing alcohol for the first time at college and going over-board with it, whereas I really could care less about drinking to have a "coolness" factor because I've been free to have drinks from time to time throughout high school. I will defiantely look into statistics and info from countries like france.

and for progressive driving... I think they really need to increase the standards for "earning" a drivers license as a better alternative for reducing driving accidents (though I doubt this will ever be feasable economically). For CA, I think it is way too easy to get a license now a days, and unskilled drivers are passed because the driving exam does not measure driving ability acurately.

anyways, for proposals to changing public policy (resolution part of my paper), I was thinking of working along the lines of:
combining lowering the drinking age w/ restrictions, better enforced laws (maybe strongly enforcing no-alcohol for minors under 18?) and/or more punishment for things like driving under the influence and giving alcohol to a minor. For drunk driving, maybe they should include more emphasis on alcohol and driving and have a "real" written exam (its waay too easy to get a permit in CA).

majority of the kids drinking and driving and dying are young teens who are roughly around 15-19 years old.

Nocturnal:
are those US stats, or worldwide?

 

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
18 year olds are old enough to fight a war and kill people...they should be old enough to drink....

Hey, it worked in 'Nam.

18 year olds should not have the right to vote or drink unless they are in the active military.

Agreed. And they shouldn't have the right to drive or have sex unless they're attractive females and have sex with only me.

Hehe. Seriously though I think anyone in college will realize that it's a reality that 18 year-olds WILL DRINK no matter what. However, maybe lowering the drinking age will lead to increased responsibility and caution instead of secretly drinking at a party and driving home in order not to have their parents find out. Then again, teenagers are stupid.

 

[brxndxn]

Seriously, think about it, read all the statistics, majority of the kids drinking and driving and dying are young teens who are roughly around 15-19 years old.

The drinking limit to test for DUIs in 15-19 year-olds is MUCH lower than the drinking limit used to test for adult. Some states are so low (or zero) that a single dose of NyQuil could give them a DUI. DUI rates for 15-19 year-olds are inflated.

The drinking age should be lowered because it singles out a small minority of the adult voting population and denies them of their rights. It should be lowered because this is a free country. It should be lowered to put the age into parents' range so that the parents can have more of an influence and discourage drinking problems. It should be lowered to lose the stigma associated with drinking.

In other countries with lower drinking ages, alcoholism runs less rampant. In the US, you can be charged for drinking under age at age 20, and still be on probation for a crime that would be impossible at age 22. The government is forcing views on us. There should be no drinking limit to give the choice to the parents. Perhaps putting more trust in parents helps them to rely not so heavily on government.

Of course, already said, you can be drafted and forced to fight a war at 18, then go home at 20 and be unable to have the same rights that Joe Bum has buying alocohol.

The high drinking age is an easy way to control the underrage population. ... Find them drinking, arrest them. (Most cops would not, however, but some actually do.)

The underrage population can never have a strong enough vote to overturn the drinking age because they will always be a severe minority. "I had to wait; you can too."

A drinking age of 21 screws with half of the college population where those under 21 are now forced to prove themselves by breaking the law.

Any law that makes 98% (supposed statistics for those that have drunk underrage) of legal citizens into law breakers is flawed and needs to be re-evalutated. (Speeding cannot be used to rebute this because speeding and driving laws need to be re-evaluated also.)

The US, supposedly free, has a lot of laws denying us of our privileges.

 

[hevnsnt]

how about: if they can drink they might not smoke as much pot.

 

[Spac3d]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate
Being a 21 year old and remembering that it was easier than hell to get drinks when I was 18 anyway, I'm going to have to side with the apathetic team. Yay!

I am 19 and I still find it difficult to find drinks. But drugs on the other hand, are ridiculously easy to get - I never have a problem finding drugs. Strange how our society is so different.

Spac3d

 

[C'DaleRider]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Seriously, think about it, read all the statistics, majority of the kids drinking and driving and dying are young teens who are roughly around 15-19 years old.

The drinking limit to test for DUIs in 15-19 year-olds is MUCH lower than the drinking limit used to test for adult. Some states are so low (or zero) that a single dose of NyQuil could give them a DUI. DUI rates for 15-19 year-olds are inflated.

The drinking age should be lowered because it singles out a small minority of the adult voting population and denies them of their rights. It should be lowered because this is a free country. It should be lowered to put the age into parents' range so that the parents can have more of an influence and discourage drinking problems. It should be lowered to lose the stigma associated with drinking.

In other countries with lower drinking ages, alcoholism runs less rampant. In the US, you can be charged for drinking under age at age 20, and still be on probation for a crime that would be impossible at age 22. The government is forcing views on us. There should be no drinking limit to give the choice to the parents. Perhaps putting more trust in parents helps them to rely not so heavily on government.

Of course, already said, you can be drafted and forced to fight a war at 18, then go home at 20 and be unable to have the same rights that Joe Bum has buying alocohol.

The high drinking age is an easy way to control the underrage population. ... Find them drinking, arrest them. (Most cops would not, however, but some actually do.)

The underrage population can never have a strong enough vote to overturn the drinking age because they will always be a severe minority. "I had to wait; you can too."

A drinking age of 21 screws with half of the college population where those under 21 are now forced to prove themselves by breaking the law.

Any law that makes 98% (supposed statistics for those that have drunk underrage) of legal citizens into law breakers is flawed and needs to be re-evalutated. (Speeding cannot be used to rebute this because speeding and driving laws need to be re-evaluated also.)

The US, supposedly free, has a lot of laws denying us of our privileges.

Unfortunately, your arguments are rather offbase.

First, drinking is a privilege, not a right as your third paragraph states. And how are 15 year olds driving unsupervised? I thought the driving age was 16 in most locales.

But, drinking is a privilege, not a right. And why compound a problem of havign the most accident prone group (age 16-24) increase their rate of having traffic accidents by allowing legal consumption of alochol.

Heck, even your arguments support what I just said. You say college students must resort to breaking the law to "prove themselves"? Prove what? That they, the aforementioned college students, have no responsibility and cannot stop themselves from breaking a law? That in itself shows the lack of judgement that age group has.....and combining driving with drinking, something the kids have seemingly no control over...they tend to binge a lot vs. more mature drinking (not to say some adults don't binge, just kids do it MUCH more.......when's the last time you've seen a 35 year old man standing on his head sucking on a keg?)

The argument of the military is specious. When you join, you can drink....on the military reservation. It's a privilege allowed those who serve in the military and not to those who don't.

The plain fact is the under 21 crowd shows a profound lack of judgement in things they do, as a group. They tend to drink more heavily at a sitting, tend to crash more than any other group, tend to believe they know more than they actually do.

21 is here to stay........unfortunately, because it should be raised to 25.

 

[dullard]

(1) You can already legally drink in every state at age 18. There are two places you can do it - church and at your own home. Thus if you want to drink, do it there. There is no reason you HAVE to drink anywhere else.

(2) The countries that have a problem with young drinking all have a set age limit that is high. Roughly around the age of 15-16, many teens start wanting to drink. In much of Europe, you can drink at that age without any problems. Thus drinking never becomes "cool" or a way to rebell against your parents. If it is allowed, it really isn't rebelling. Thus when they want to drink, they do. They rarely develop binge drinking habits. In America it is the opposite. When teens first start to want to drink, they can't. They do it to rebel against their parents. When they drink, it is only at certain times when they don't have supervision - ie parties. Since drinking is limited to certain days and times, the teens learn to drink as much as they can whenever they get the chance. Binge drinking habits are learned early. Binge drinking is what leads to drunken driving and most other alcohol problems. The high age of 21 has the side effect of teaching kids to binge drink. (Note: many Europe countries have the age limit at 16, but it isn't enforced so it basically means that there is no limit).

(3) Dropping the age to 18 won't do a thing to help the problems. It is roughly 15-16 when kids start drinking, so the "cool" factor won't be eliminated by dropping it to 18. The rebelling won't end by dropping it to 18. The binge drinking habits won't stop by dropping it to 18. You need to get the age to around 14 to eliminate these problems.

 

[911paramedic]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
This is a really easy topic to research, just crack a book. Drinking isn't a problem in other countries without or with lowered minimum drinking age. Start with that.

This is what I was going to say. You have to show if it is beneficial/harmful to have it lower. You could also show the cost of prosecuting/arresting minors that drink.

I don't think it will happen though, too much of a problem with drinking and driving.

On a side note, you can drink on base if you are in the military, at least when I was in starting back in '84.

 

[? (=Þ)]

Originally posted by: dullard
(1) You can already legally drink in every state at age 18. There are two places you can do it - church and at your own home. Thus if you want to drink, do it there. There is no reason you HAVE to drink anywhere else.

hmm... I never knew that? are you certain this is the always case?

I looked up one state, first search result I got back:
http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/partysmart/alcohollaws.php

4301.69 of the ohio code has:

(E) No underage person shall knowingly possess or consume any beer or intoxicating liquor, in any public or private place, unless the underage person is accompanied by a parent, spouse who is not an underage person, or legal guardian, or unless the beer or intoxicating liquor is given by a physician in the regular line of the physician's practice or given for established religious purposes.

(5) "Underage person" means a person under the age of twenty-one years.

hmm... does this make it legal to drink while underaged but ONLY with a parent present (and spouse/guardian)?? I always thought it was always illegal to consume and/or give alcohol to someoone underaged. This is new info I've never heard.

 

[Apathetic]

How about pointing out it is age discrimination. When you turn 18, by law, you are an adult. Period.

Dave

 

[911paramedic]

Originally posted by: Apathetic
How about pointing out it is age discrimination. When you turn 18, by law, you are an adult. Period.

Dave

You may be 18, but good luck even renting a car, LOL.

 

[JupiterJones]

Originally posted by: ? (=&THORN
I need some valid points to explore for a research paper. Some ideas? angles to approach it at?


and be serious guys, i dont need dozens of replies w/ various cracks. ~thanks!

You need to press the issue of one single age of accountability. This is the time when a boy becomes a man, and is thereby trusted to make decisions for himself: voting, gun ownership, smoking, drinking, marriage, enlisting, etc...

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
If 18 year olds are old enough to vote, they should be old enough to drink.

Exactly. But I think the answer is to raise the voting age to 21.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: C'DaleRider

The plain fact is the under 21 crowd shows a profound lack of judgement in things they do, as a group. They tend to drink more heavily at a sitting, tend to crash more than any other group, tend to believe they know more than they actually do.

21 is here to stay........unfortunately, because it should be raised to 25.

they tend to drink more at a sitting when drinking because they haven't been brought up with it. the drinking age should be abolished, but that won't help much because of societal view where parents won't teach responsibility anyway. eventually society would change so that parents weren't encouraging binge drinking by disallowing minor imbibing.

 

[nord1899]

Personally I've never been to big on the lowering to 18 bit. Why? Because then you have high school seniors able to legally drink, while everyone else in high school cannot (this of course assumes no one fails/skips a grade).

If the drinking age was to be lowered, I would say 19. By 19, you cut out the high school crowd and only screw over the college freshman for their first year. And hell, it easy to get drinks in college anyway.

Or if we really wanted to do it, we could abolish the drinking age all together. That way the mysticism of drinking won't be there and kids won't be tempted to do drink either because its something they aren't allowed to do.

 

[Rob9874]

Lowering the drinking age is a cool idea when you're under 21. I thought that way too. You always want to be able to do something you're not allowed. (Same reason pot smokers want to legalize marijuana.) But believe me, when you get older, you'll realize how stupid of an idea that really is.

 

[kami]

Just come to Canadia...19 is close enough

 

[Tripleshot]

Make it 45 and you have to be a eunich.

 

[johnjohn320]

I would also add that if you're old enough to go off and fight and die for your country, in fact you're required to sign up for that task within a month of turning 18, then you should be allowed to drink.

That's the argument they used to lower the voting age to 18 back during Vietnam.

 

[? (=Þ)]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Lowering the drinking age is a cool idea when you're under 21. I thought that way too. You always want to be able to do something you're not allowed. (Same reason pot smokers want to legalize marijuana.) But believe me, when you get older, you'll realize how stupid of an idea that really is.

still gotta argue for the principle though. I use myself since I'm always complaining about suffering for the stupidity of a few... I don't see why I, and other responsible drinking teens should be totally prohibitted from drinking because other people cannot be responsible drinkers.

for an older age group, what if they passed laws that prohibitted driving for people say 60 and older because some study shows *some* older people tend to be less capable of driving, thus they decide to prohibit all people over 60 from driving. Same idea of how many people will have a law enacted because of the actions of other people.

 

[Tripleshot]

Originally posted by: ? (=&THORN

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Lowering the drinking age is a cool idea when you're under 21. I thought that way too. You always want to be able to do something you're not allowed. (Same reason pot smokers want to legalize marijuana.) But believe me, when you get older, you'll realize how stupid of an idea that really is.

still gotta argue for the principle though. I use myself since I'm always complaining about suffering for the stupidity of a few... I don't see why I, and other responsible drinking teens should be totally prohibitted from drinking because other people cannot be responsible drinkers.

for an older age group, what if they passed laws that prohibitted driving for people say 60 and older because some study shows *some* older people tend to be less capable of driving, thus they decide to prohibit all people over 60 from driving. Same idea of how many people will have a law enacted because of the actions of other people.

60 ? No. But a better means test for senial older drivers? A big YES! And if you are 80 and above, a driving test every year.