The Legal Drinking Age

[thebin]

There is now a concerted push by more than a hundred university heads to lower drinking ages from 21 to 18. I was wondering where people stand on this.

I think it's a no-brainer. There isn't any possible justification for taking away the rights of people who are considered by the law adults because you might be able to prove it causes fewer road deaths. It would also reduce road deaths if we removed driving privilegles from males until age 30 or all senior citizens period- but we don't do that because we understand that liberties are not to be removed to satisfy lobbying groups like MADD, no matter how good their intentions or how unimpeachable their grief.

To me the above is the first order arguement. I sometimes don't like to bother getting into the second (still very strong) argument against state limits over 18 because I feel I shouldn't have to. But...it's flat out embarassing that Americans pretend 18 year olds don't or should not be able to drink. It's more than a joke, it's a puritanical cancer that reminds me of thevery few things I do hate about this country. Nobody in their right mind thinks anyone is waiting until they are 21 to have their first drink. Nobody in their right minds think's that what should have been the case for themselves. So why is it on the books? Why criminalize behavior that we all know is perfectly normal in the rest of the grown up world? The arguments that the "forbidden fruit" nature of alcohol in American culture are what leads to trouble drinking and drunk driving are beyond compelling.

[SirSaxa]

Aug 20, 2008 10:06:12 GMT -5 thebin said:

There is now a concerted push by more than a hundred university heads to lower drinking ages from 21 to 18. I was wondering where people stand on this.

I think it's a no-brainer. There isn't any possible justification for taking away the rights of people who are considered by the law adults because you might be able to prove it causes fewer road deaths. It would also reduce road deaths if we removed driving privilegles from males until age 30 or all senior citizens period- but we don't do that because we understand that liberties are not to be removed to satisfy lobbying groups like MADD, no matter how good their intentions or how unimpeachable their grief.

To me the above is the first order arguement. I sometimes don't like to bother getting into the second (still very strong) argument against state limits over 18 because I feel I shouldn't have to. But...it's flat out embarassing that Americans pretend 18 year olds don't or should not be able to drink. It's more than a joke, it's a puritanical cancer that reminds me of thevery few things I do hate about this country. Nobody in their right mind thinks anyone is waiting until they are 21 to have their first drink. Nobody in their right minds think's that what should have been the case for themselves. So why is it on the books? Why criminalize behavior that we all know is perfectly normal in the rest of the grown up world? The arguments that the "forbidden fruit" nature of alcohol in American culture are what leads to trouble drinking and drunk driving are beyond compelling.

When I was 18 (OK, it was a long time ago, but it was after Prohibition) the drinking age in NYC (hometown) was 18. The drinking age in DC (where I attended GU) for beer and wine was 18. In DC, hard liquor was 21 (but once in a bar and drinking, the distinction was often ignored). I never saw a problem with is.

Of course, in NYC we didn't drive. Subway, bus, taxi, walk.
And in DC, same deal. Walk to the Georgetown bars, legal beer on campus, etc.

If 18 year old kids can be sent off to be killed in wars overseas, no reason they can't have a drink.

As for MADD -- I support anti-drunk driving measures. Make the penalties higher. Do more checkpoints, whatever needs to be done. But, I don't think a legal drinking age of 21 makes is justified for that reason. Plenty of people over 21 drive drunk. Since everyone ignores the 21 year old age limit, it just creates a lack of respect for the law.... exactly what happened during prohibition.

[thebin]

I of course also support strong anti-drunk driving measures generally speaking, but the fact is a huge amount of MADD's collective efforts for a while now have gone into denying 18-21 year old American citizens what should absolutely be considered natural rights.

[JohnJacquesLayup]

I think a significant argument for the pro-21 crowd is that an 18-20 year olds mental capacity/maturity is not developed enough to responsibly handle the effects of alcohol, and the possible decisions that will need to be made while under the influence (not necessarily intoxicated) of alcohol. I'm not an expert, so I'll grant them that. From my personal experiences, the time from Senior in HS to Soph in College were not my (or my friends) most responsible years.

So granting the pro-21 group this premise, I've always wondered why the 18-20 age group can't handle alcohol, but they can handle war, being charged as adults for any crimes, voting, etc. Wouldn't they just logically move to change the age an individual is legally an adult to 21 years old?

[theexorcist]

How is drinking a "natural right"?

I still think that, with many people away from home for the first time, there's something to be said for limiting alcohol. Maybe the best decision is dry campuses for those under 21.

[thebin]

Aug 20, 2008 11:30:55 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

How is drinking a "natural right"?

I still think that, with many people away from home for the first time, there's something to be said for limiting alcohol. Maybe the best decision is dry campuses for those under 21.

If the right to drink and eat what you please isn't a natural right than nothing is. Boy you sure take a dangerously casual view of what the government should and should not let adults do if you can even question this. I also have no patience for people who drank themselves at 18-20 and now think dry campuses are a good idea. Dry campuses are for Utah. No thanks pal.

[thebin]

Aug 20, 2008 11:25:10 GMT -5 JohnJacquesLayup said:

I think a significant argument for the pro-21 crowd is that an 18-20 year olds mental capacity/maturity is not developed enough to responsibly handle the effects of alcohol, and the possible decisions that will need to be made while under the influence (not necessarily intoxicated) of alcohol. I'm not an expert, so I'll grant them that. From my personal experiences, the time from Senior in HS to Soph in College were not my (or my friends) most responsible years.

So granting the pro-21 group this premise, I've always wondered why the 18-20 age group can't handle alcohol, but they can handle war, being charged as adults for any crimes, voting, etc. Wouldn't they just logically move to change the age an individual is legally an adult to 21 years old?

Making the adult age across the board 21 (or more reasonably 19 or 20 tops) is something I can accept in principle. But it simply cannot be that one can vote and die in war and not buy beer. Anyone who can accept that disparity is being atrociousluy selfish as let's face it anyone who thinks that way is past the age they seek to bar from the same rights they currently enjoy. So as magnaimous as one can seem making some seemingly harmless support for vague public safety concens, what it really is is stripping 19 year olds of rights they themselves had at that age or wished they did. I'll I see is someone saying "someone else will lose this right, but never could it happen to me? Yeah sure, why not. I'll never be 20 again. And I'd rather not deal with drunk 19 year olds.

But of course there is an argument to be made that 18-20 year old kids act like babies with alcohol in this country BECAUSE the government treats them like babies by not letting them grow into drinking alcohol naturally as the rest of the sane world has for millenia.

[rosslynhoya]

Aug 20, 2008 10:16:01 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

If 18 year old kids can be sent off to be killed in wars overseas, no reason they can't have a drink.

Not sure if you know what decade it is, but "kids" don't "get sent off" to be killed in wars anymore

That said, I totally would support any move to let any U.S. servicemen drink alcohol regardless of their age. I'm not sure why that principle necessarily translates into a universal right to drink for immature brats on a college campus though.

[thebin]

Aug 20, 2008 12:51:21 GMT -5 rosslynhoya said:

Aug 20, 2008 10:16:01 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

If 18 year old kids can be sent off to be killed in wars overseas, no reason they can't have a drink.

Not sure if you know what decade it is, but "kids" don't "get sent off" to be killed in wars anymore

That said, I totally would support any move to let any U.S. servicemen drink alcohol regardless of their age. I'm not sure why that principle necessarily translates into a universal right to drink for immature brats on a college campus though.

The flaw in that argument, and it's no small one, is you are saying that all someone has to do is decide to enlist in the marine corps (which you can do at 17) and then you get to drink. But if you are an immature brat that decides to go to college, screw you.

By the way servicemen can buy alcohol on base at any age I believe. So the military sees the insanity of the 21 year old limit.

Wait....are you seriously saying you don't think college kids should be able drink on campus? How many total losers/hypocrites do we have on this board anyway? I didn't know so many of you believed in the massive moral authority of the state to tell people how to live their lives. The first thing you need to do if you feel this way is don't ever call yourself a conservative ever again.

Incidentally I do agree that we need to stop saying that "kids are sent" to war. We have a volunteer military and I have no patience for those who use hysterical arguments about who is or isn't "sending their own kids to Iraq" etc.

[sead43]

hoyatalk2.proboards48.com/index.cgi?board=bluegray&action=display&thread=16932

[theexorcist]

Aug 20, 2008 12:23:44 GMT -5 thebin said:

Aug 20, 2008 11:30:55 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

How is drinking a "natural right"?

I still think that, with many people away from home for the first time, there's something to be said for limiting alcohol. Maybe the best decision is dry campuses for those under 21.

If the right to drink and eat what you please isn't a natural right than nothing is. Boy you sure take a dangerously casual view of what the government should and should not let adults do if you can even question this. I also have no patience for people who drank themselves at 18-20 and now think dry campuses are a good idea. Dry campuses are for Utah. No thanks pal.

Nobody has a right to eat and drink what they please - the US government still bans that green liquer that made an appearance in Eurotrip due to health concerns. While it's probably itching for a court battle, numerous cities have banned foie gras and trans fats, too.

The expansion of "rights" is what really troubles me. There's a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not being able to buy Coors is not a trampling of your rights.

So, in summary, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[thebin]

thanks

[thebin]

Aug 20, 2008 13:30:56 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

Aug 20, 2008 12:23:44 GMT -5 thebin said:

If the right to drink and eat what you please isn't a natural right than nothing is. Boy you sure take a dangerously casual view of what the government should and should not let adults do if you can even question this. I also have no patience for people who drank themselves at 18-20 and now think dry campuses are a good idea. Dry campuses are for Utah. No thanks pal.

Nobody has a right to eat and drink what they please - the US government still bans that green liquer that made an appearance in Eurotrip due to health concerns. While it's probably itching for a court battle, numerous cities have banned foie gras and trans fats, too.

The expansion of "rights" is what really troubles me. There's a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not being able to buy Coors is not a trampling of your rights.

So, in summary, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

The expansion of prohibitions should trouble you far more than the expansion of liberties. Troubling.

[hoyatables]

So let me ask you this, thebin -- does your take on the importance of the expansion of liberties also extend to my right to say whatever I want in public? To burn the American flag? To perform scientific research on stem cells? To get an abortion? To have access to an attorney? To be protected from unlawful searches and seizures?

As far as I'm concerned, the right to buy a bottle of Jack Daniels at 18 is meaningless in the grand scheme of "expansion of liberties" unless I am free to then douse the American flag in it and light it on fire.

------

As for the more general topic, I don't think I really care one way or another. It's all rules versus standards. Rules are opaque to their purpose, while standards are imbued with their purpose. The choice of an age cutoff as a hard and fast rule isn't exactly a novel concept. See, e.g. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

The choice of a hard and fast drinking age purposefully ignores the fact that plenty of people below the age of 21 are capable of drinking responsibility. It also ignores the fact that PLENTY of people over 21 drink irresponsibly. Since it is impossible to develop a more precise standard that would actually measure whether an individual is sufficiently fit to handle liquor (a license to drink?), the state has chosen the age of 21 as what it believes to be a reasonable bellwether for such fitness.

It's perfectly reasonable to argue that the state's choice of the age of 21 is the wrong choice, and a different age should be chosen, for many of the reasons spelled out here. One could readily supplement the change with additional regulations aimed at the real purpose of the restriction, which is to curb the harmful effects of excessive alcohol consumption, both in itself and when paired with a motor vehicle. But it is a little silly, in my mind, to suggest that choice is an oppressive restriction on our liberties to wait a couple more years to have a drink.

[hifigator]

Most of my views have already been said at different points by others.

My opinion is that you are an adult at some point. Cultural differences in this vary widely. In some cultures, especially those with arranged marriages, you are an adult in your early teens. In any case, my point is that we need to decide what that age is and stick with it. When you are an adult, you can partake of those things excluded to minors. I think enlisting in the military, smoking a cigar, having a beer and voting should all come at the same age.

That being said, I understand the logic that there is an adjustment period to the "being out on your own." So if I put that altogether, then maybe a 19 year age limit might be the right course of action. But I would still stand by the age limit being the same for all of these. So a 19 year age limit, would mean that an 18 year old freshman at college isn't actually an adult. I think that would cause more problems than it solves.

[hifigator]

Tables, I pretty much agree with what you said except for this part:

But it is a little silly, in my mind, to suggest that choice is an oppressive restriction on our liberties to wait a couple more years to have a drink.

Silly or not, it is an oppressive restriction on our liberties to wait a couple more years -- in this case 3 years -- between when one is automatically an adult, can vote, can buy cigs, will be considered an adult in any legal infraction and can enlist in the military and train and use the most sophisticated and deadly weapons on the planet and yet is not mature enough to have a Bud Light. Sorry, no matter how you sugar coat it, that is what the 18 age limit says. And that is not only silly but wrong in my mind.

[hoyatables]

Aug 20, 2008 15:05:40 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Tables, I pretty much agree with what you said except for this part:

But it is a little silly, in my mind, to suggest that choice is an oppressive restriction on our liberties to wait a couple more years to have a drink.

Silly or not, it is an oppressive restriction on our liberties to wait a couple more years -- in this case 3 years -- between when one is automatically an adult, can vote, can buy cigs, will be considered an adult in any legal infraction and can enlist in the military and train and use the most sophisticated and deadly weapons on the planet and yet is not mature enough to have a Bud Light. Sorry, no matter how you sugar coat it, that is what the 18 age limit says. And that is not only silly but wrong in my mind.

Yes, but the United State armed forces don't have to let every individual enlist and use those weapons. The clerk at the 7-11 has far less discretion over to whom he or she sells the 12-pack of Coors Light.

[thebin]

"let me ask you this, thebin -- does your take on the importance of the expansion of liberties also extend to my right to say whatever I want in public? To burn the American flag? To perform scientific research on stem cells? To get an abortion? To have access to an attorney? To be protected from unlawful searches and seizures?"

As far as I'm concerned, the right to buy a bottle of Jack Daniels at 18 is meaningless in the grand scheme of "expansion of liberties" unless I am free to then douse the American flag in it and light it on fire. "

------


I'm not remotely sure what you are spazzing on about, but I support your and my right to do ALL of those things. I'm not remotely interested by the way in an imposition of rights that you think are more important than others. I'll take all of them all of the time.

[JohnJacquesLayup]

Just as my position is on smoking, I support any ban that would eliminate the dangers of second hand alcohol consumption in public.

[hifigator]

Aug 20, 2008 15:09:13 GMT -5 hoyatables said:

Aug 20, 2008 15:05:40 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Tables, I pretty much agree with what you said except for this part:

But it is a little silly, in my mind, to suggest that choice is an oppressive restriction on our liberties to wait a couple more years to have a drink.

Silly or not, it is an oppressive restriction on our liberties to wait a couple more years -- in this case 3 years -- between when one is automatically an adult, can vote, can buy cigs, will be considered an adult in any legal infraction and can enlist in the military and train and use the most sophisticated and deadly weapons on the planet and yet is not mature enough to have a Bud Light. Sorry, no matter how you sugar coat it, that is what the 18 age limit says. And that is not only silly but wrong in my mind.

Yes, but the United State armed forces don't have to let every individual enlist and use those weapons. The clerk at the 7-11 has far less discretion over to whom he or she sells the 12-pack of Coors Light.

OK, but I'm not sure that changes anything. Barring physical limitations or some kind of past history, the military will pretty much take everyone. Where they end up is a different story, but the point is that if they show proper intellect, understanding, self control etc... then they are candidates for handling and being in charge of such dangerous weapons, but no way should they be allowed to handle a beer. That's the part that is silly.

Now ideally as you imply, there should be some sort of competency test. Hell, I think there should be a competency test for keeping your driver's license every year after you turn about 55. There are some downright dangerous elderly drivers out there. The worst part is that in some demented way, many of them probably think they are doing a great job out there and are totally oblivious to the fact that they aren't really in control of their own vehicle very well. They might be going slower so they think that directly equals safer. Sometimes it doesn't.