Should the legal drinking age be lowered from 21 to 18?

[Alexander]

Poll question: Should the legal drinking age be lowered from 21 to 18?

[tritsofme]

1. If they're old enough to die for their country

They're definitely old enough to drink a beer.

This has always disgusted me.

[liberal N proud]

8. I remember that being used during the Vietnam era.

And I remember using it a few times.

I grew up in an 18 state, I am not so sure that we were mature enough to handle it but then some people never are.

[tritsofme]

10. As do I

And its as true now as it was then.

Around that time in IL the age for beer/wine was 18 while hard liquor was 21. That seemed fairly reasonable.

[proud2BlibKansan]

139. That was about the right to vote

Not about the right to drink alcohol. BIG difference.

[Lindacooks]

17. Statistics tell the story.

Issue: “If I’m old enough to go to war, I should be old enough to drink.”

Response: Many rights have different ages of initiation. A person can obtain a hunting license at age 12, driver’s license at age 16, vote and serve in the military at 18, serve in the U.S. House of Representatives at age 25 and in the U.S. Senate at age 30, and run for President at age 35. Other rights that are regulated include the sale and use of tobacco and legal consent for sexual intercourse and marriage. The minimum age for initiation is based on the specific behaviors involved and must take into account the dangers and benefits of that behavior at a given age. The age 21 policy for alcohol takes into account the fact that underage drinking is related to numerous serious health problems, including injuries and death resulting from car crashes, suicide, homicide, assault, drowning, and recreational injuries. In fact, the leading cause of death among teens is car crashes, and alcohol is involved in approximately a third of these deaths.

http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/NIAAACollegeMaterials/Panel02/Appendix_03.aspx

The three leading causes of death for 15- to 24-year-olds are automobile crashes, homicides and suicides -- alcohol is a leading factor in all three.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the 21 law has saved 23,733 lives since states began raising drinking ages in 1975.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0112/p09s01-coop.html

[T Town Jake]

20. And I'll be sure to eat my broccoli and wash behind my ears before I go to bed...

...issue: should a 19 year old soldier/Marine who has just returned from combat duty in Iraq - where he/she has handled high powered weapons and explosives - be told that he/she can't sit down to a glass of belly-wash beer at their local tavern?

Seems a bit absurd to me...

[Lindacooks]

Here's more facts for you, against ridiculous statements.

First, I'm not sure what going to war and being allowed to drink have in common. The military takes in youngsters particularly because they are not yet fully developed and can be molded into soldiers. The 21 law is predicated on the fact that drinking is more dangerous for youth because they're still developing mentally and physically, and they lack experience and are more likely to take risks. Ask platoon leaders and unit commanders, and they'll tell you that the last thing they want is young soldiers drinking.

As for the forbidden fruit argument, the opposite is true. Research shows that back when some states still had a minimum drinking age of 18, youths in those states who were under 21 drank more and continued to drink more as adults in their early 20s. In states where the drinking age was 21, teenagers drank less and continue to drink less through their early 20s.

And the minimum 21 law, by itself, has most certainly resulted in fewer accidents, because the decline occurred even when there was little enforcement and tougher penalties had not yet been enacted. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the 21 law has saved 23,733 lives since states began raising drinking ages in 1975.

Do European countries really have fewer youth drinking problems? No, that's a myth. Compared to American youth, binge drinking rates among young people are higher in every European country except Turkey. Intoxication rates are higher in most countries; in the Britain, Denmark, and Ireland they're more than twice the US level. Intoxication and binge drinking are directly linked to higher levels of alcohol-related problems, such as drinking and driving.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0112/p09s01-coop.html

[T Town Jake]

31. Oh, be still my pitter-pattering heart! I'm having the vapors because...

...a puritanical poster thinks I make "ridiculous statements"...

I'll lose some dear sleep over that tonight, alrighty....

...*snicker*....

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[T Town Jake]

35. Next up: "welcome to my ignore list...."

...right on cue, as I stated previously.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Lindacooks]

37. Actually, if you keep on *snickering* like that, you'l develop

Cheney's sneer.

And whether you're on my ignore list or not, I'm done with you. Your posts are immature, insulting, make no sense, do not back up ANYTHING with anything resembling statistics, facts, LEARNED opinion, etc.

Shame on you.

[T Town Jake]

39. Well, then. Hurrumph! I guess I'll go have me a beer now....

:beer: :toast:

[tritsofme]

25. Hogwash

I've never met a college student younger than 21 that had a problem getting himself drunk on a Friday night.

You could never convince me that a young person can die in war and be punished by the law for drinking a beer.

[Lindacooks]

30. Sigh. Why can't you people understand logical arguments

and logical reasoning? Here I'm posting all this information about research, statistics, and logical argument, and all I get back is some stupid glib statement with nothing to back it up.

[Buzz Clik]

40. I agree with you 100%.

[mongo]

57. But based on your "logical" arguments

and the fact that teens are more likely to be involved in car crashes, and that 2/3's of the accidents DON'T involve alcohol, wouldn't it be MORE logical to raise the driving age to 21?

[Lindacooks]

63. Sure it would.

And may I point out those are not MY arguments. They are statistics and facts.

[T Town Jake]

82. You maintain that you're some sort of liberal or progressive?

...what kind, exactly, if you please?

[Lindacooks]

137. More liberal than you, since I value people's lives.

Your posts indicate you value allowing anybody to do whatever they want whenever they want to. That isn't a progressive, it's a Libertarian.

[Alexander]

147. Once again, you resort to hyperbole and straw man nonsense.

"Your posts indicate you value allowing anybody to do whatever they want whenever they want to."

Show me, please, ONE case of T Town Jake sharing that viewpoint.

Are your arguments really so poor, that you have to resort to this crap?

[Dorian Gray]

107. I don't necessarily agree iwth you, Lindacooks...

but I have to say that your arguments are better thought out than some who snicker at your beliefs. :eyes:

This is a discussion forum, and though I am on the fence on this issue, I do think that infantile arguments while holding your ears and covering your eyes all the while refusing to listen to differing viewpoints isn't going to endear anyone to you. Puritanical? Perhaps, but statistical arguments shouldn't be so easily dismissed or ignored.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

179. What logical argument?

You say the drinking age shouldn't be lowered to 18, because alcohol causes 33% of fatalities in crashes involving teens.

Well, using that logic, nobody should drink, since alcohol is involved in 40% of fatalities in all ages.

:eyes:

I agree with above. This is hogwash.

[Hippo_Tron]

41. And I'm sure if you raise the drinking age to 30 it would save more lives too

So why don't we do that?

[tritsofme]

42. But if we ban the sale and consumption of alcohol altogether

Surely drinking related accidents would go down to zero!

[Lindacooks]

49. Illogical reasoning.

As usual.

I'd like to see one, just ONE of you people who are apparently for drinking and driving, show me something that supports your side.

You can't.

And that's why you resort to name-calling, and stupid comments, and flip statements.

[mongo]

59. Here's something that supports our side

Hell, it took over 100 years before our government could come up with a scheme where they could make drugs illegal and not run afoul of the constitution.

[Lindacooks]

65. Gee, could your argument be more broad?

That doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want whenever you want.

We have laws in this country that are based on solid reasoning and scientific evidence. If you don't want those laws WHICH PROTECT PEOPLE you should be on a libertarian board, not this one.

[uncle ray]

61. who said drinking and driving is okay?

nobody did.

the topic is lowering the drinking age, not the drinking and driving age.

[Lindacooks]

64. Actually, the topic seems to be making fun of me.

[T Town Jake]

80. The views you express SHOULD be made fun of...

...for the same reason we make fun of the views of fundamentalist Christians who think the fact that their neighbor might be gay is a threat to all that is decent and holy in the world.

Your "views" on this issue deserve exactly that level of ridicule, period.

[madmusic]

109. Like it or not, Lindacooks' statistics are what talked Clinton

Into forcing the drinking age of Washington state up from 18 to 21, else lose federal road funding. Washington didn't like it, but extortion works. It sucks, but to win this debate it is necessary to beat those statistics.

One solution might be that once someone joins the military, there are for all intents and purposes, 21.

[T Town Jake]

110. I think you're on to something there, although it was Reagan, not Clinton...

...who signed the bill in 1984 that cut off highway funds to states that did not raise their drinking ages to 21.

[madmusic]

118. 1984? Coincidence?

When the Ministry of Beer took over.

[krispos42]

168. That works for me.

Drinking age 21 unless an active-duty member of the military? Not a bad solution to the problem.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alexander]

149. Your posts are getting deleted because they are TOTALLY insulting.

Whine and cry all you want, when you refer to posters as "you idiot", claim that anyone with a different viewpoint "supports drunk driving" and respond to arguments with "fuck you" and call others' views "stupid", you DESERVE to have your posts deleted.

This isn't an argument or debate any more. This is you insulting people and expecting them to all of a sudden agree with you.

Look out for more deleted posts, the mods do not like this kind of behavior.

[T Town Jake]

161. Temper, temper...

...Tsk, tsk... :thumbsdown:

Let's play nice with others now, pretty please with sugar on top. :dilemma:

[mondo joe]

165. You seem agitated. Maybe you should have a drink.

Just something to relax with.

[Alexander]

86. No, the topic is about lowering the drinking age, and you need to get back on it.

[Alexander]

67. Nobody's "for drinking and driving". Take a look at YOUR OWN name calling.

I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion, as both sides presented decent arguments, but your last post is so off-base that I had to call you on your bullshit.

I'll not have this thread hijacked by ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments.

Get over yourself and your perceived moral superiority, and take a look at your hypocrisy.

[Lindacooks]

69. Who have I called names? Now start lying, why don't you?

I have been calm and reasoned in the fact of some personal attacks and flip, stupid statements. I did not call ANYBODY any names. I POSTED STATISTICS ABOUT HOW RAISING THE DRINKING AGE REDUCED TEENAGE DEATHS.

How dare you.

And let me guess. You have, oh, a high school education? If that??

There. I resorted to name-calling. Because you are RUDE.

[Alexander]

78. Lies? I'm merely using your own words. How is that a lie?

"you people who are apparently for drinking and driving"

Please give me one example, just one, of someone posting on this thread who has supported drinking and driving.

Just one, is all I ask.

C'mon, you can do it....or can you?

By the way, TYPING IN ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME is not the best way to convince people that you are, as you put it, "calm and reasoned".

As for my education, I stand by my comment about ad hominem attacks.

I appreciate your clairvoyance as well; apparently the high school degree on my wall isn't real. Neither is the letter the university sent me three months ago, saying I must file for graduation.

But nice to see you're admitting to the name-calling now.

[Lindacooks]

70. THIS is name calling?

"Illogical reasoning. As usual.

I'd like to see one, just ONE of you people who are apparently for drinking and driving, show me something that supports your side.

You can't.

And that's why you resort to name-calling, and stupid comments, and flip statements."

Now you go look at the names I'VE been called. 'Miss Moral Superiority' Miss Goody Two-Shoes'. Told to fuck off. Told to get over myself.

I didn't attack one single person UNTIL I WAS ATTACKED BY PEOPLE WHO CAN'T REASON.

Now YOU go get over yourself. And I've alerted you to the mods.

[Alexander]

84. I never called you any of those names. So what's your problem?

I started this thread in good faith, not even posting my own opinions about the topic. I did not want a flame war.

Regardless of the merits of the arguments for or against lowering the legal drinking age, you screwed up royally with this statement you made:

"I'd like to see one, just ONE of you people who are apparently for drinking and driving, show me something that supports your side."

I saw no reason to take sides until you made that ridiculous argument, going off topic.

This is a straw man argument, an ad hominem attack, and a flagrant display of immaturity all rolled into one. Thus far, absolutely nobody on this thread has supported drunk driving, and you know it. I would expect this tactic from the likes of Karl Rove, not a DU progressive.

And then you have the gall to turn on me, insult my education and reasoning skills, and frivolously alert the moderators when I don't support your hysterics.

If you can't debate this issue based on the facts, then don't debate at all.

Alert all you want, your posts are the best candidates for deletion so far on this thread.

[T Town Jake]

79. Ahhh...now we're "for drinking and driving" because we disagree with you...

...who's being "illogical" now?

...*snicker*....

[mondo joe]

98. "For drinking and driving"? Is that like being "for the Terrorists"?

Here's all the support that's needed: it's a judgment call. And some feel that a person who can be responsible for assuming massive debt, marriage or going to war should be granted this responsibility as well.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

103. But I'm not ignoring the statistics in the least.

I'm saying that on the whole, the issue of liberty wins out.

[krispos42]

169. We have to balance what's perfect with what's doable

We tried having no drinking age, then we tried banning alchohol altogether. Neither worked.

We are ultimately trying to decide here what is acceptable. And opinions differ quite a bit.

But nobody here has advocated driving drunk, so please don't set up that straw man. You are saying that 18-year-olds legally drinking translates directly into legalizing drunkdriving, and that's incorrect. I don't want drunk 18-year olds on the road any more than I want drunk 21-year-olds.

The underlying issue here seems to be that how much in the name of public safety are we willing to give up rights? There is no doubt that presumption of innocence in our legal system costs lives every year. There is no doubt that habeas corpus does as well. First Amendment does, too. And the second. So does the 4th amendment. And the 5th. And 6th.

Eating fried food costs lives. So does swimming. And living in a house with a staircase. And we can't forget that simply breathing the air in Los Angeles is like taking up smoking.

If your sole objective is to save lives, then all these rights and privilages simply get in the way. And then you start sounding like the Bush admnistration.

[meldroc]

47. Fuck that. I'll take liberty with a higher death rate.

It's attitudes like Lindacooks' that turn off a whole bunch of people from the Democrats - the classic "Nanny State" attitude.

I don't care if a few more 18-21 year-olds get killed. Liberty means that you get to make your own damn choices about drinking. At 18, you're old enough to enlist in the military and be asked to risk your life for your country, and to kill for your country. If the government thinks you're old and mature enough to make the decision to enlist, it's hypocritical to then turn around and say that you're not old and mature enough to make decisions about drinking. Like I said, it's not the statistics that's the fundamental issue. At 18, you're an adult, and should be given the rights of an adult, even if those rights mean sometimes people do stupid things and get killed.

You could reduce the alcohol-related death rate to zero if you lock every person in this country in a rubber room, but I certainly won't want to live that way. Freedom means we all get to take risks.

[Lindacooks]

48. Those aren't 'attitudes'. They're facts.

And statistics. You can't deal with facts? Apparently not. Because apparently all you can do is spout nonsense and insult people.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lindacooks]

68. Niiiiiiceee.

Name-calling is always the stronghold of those with facts and those who can reason.

Gasp! Stop! I'm struggling in the crushing grip of your reasoning ability!

:sarcasm:

[T Town Jake]

83. Excellent post.

:thumbsup:

[Alexander]

156. The statistics are cooked, and you're attacking people, not arguments.

See below on how these stats can be easily fudged. You might learn something.

That is, if you can get off your "anyone who doesn't agree with me 100% supports drunk driving" rant.

[dflprincess]

52. If 18-21 year olds just killed themselves on the highways

your argument might work. Unfortunately, it's not always the drunk driver that gets killed or maimed.

Rather than arguing that the drinking age be lowered, maybe we should argue that the minimum age for military service be raised. New studies indicate that the brain isn't fully developed until 25 and the last part to develop is the part that says "Hey - that would be a really dumb thing to do." (Weird, like the insurance companies always knew that after all, at what age do car insurance rates drop?)

[Lindacooks]

72. Actually, that makes my point.

Not only do they kill themselves, they kill others. Right in my small town, in the last five years, there have been 4 teenagers killed by drunk driving. The drunks were other teenagers. When a high school population is only about 400, that's a lot of death caused by underage drinking. Which increases when the drinking age is lowered. And decreases when it's raised. As I cited in studies. Which every one has ignored in favor of name calling because they don't have anything on their side.

[dflprincess]

76. Whoops - I hit the wrong post to reply on

I actually meant to respond to one above yours

[Alexander]

88. So what if we simply crack down on drunk drivers?

You get caught driving drunk, you lose your license. End of story.

Why do all 18-20 year olds need to be punished, just because a few of them fuck up?

BTW, many over 21 can't seem to handle themselves either - George W. was a 30-year old man when he got busted for DUI.

[bling bling]

111. It's not that simple.

You would be putting a large number of men, women, and children at a much higher risk for injury or death while depending on the cops to be the safeguards between the new population of drunk drivers and everyone else.

Sure, people over 21 drink and drive. But that's not really the point. The point is that the lower in age you go, the more risk there is to society. An 18 year old only has 2 years of solo driving experience. And many kids don't even have that much experience because they had to save up to buy their own car to drive. Put them out on the highway, inexperienced, with their increased levels of testerone and combine that with alcohol and the risk simply doesn't justify the benefit of them being able to drink a toxic beverage legally.

If the military is willing and able to allow service men and women to drink alcohol on military bases here and abroad that's fine with me. But I really don't see the problem in making everyone else wait until they are 21 to legally drink alcohol. It's been the law and working fine for years so I don't see any big upside to lowering the age.

[benEzra]

119. You're assuming that a minimum drinking age of 21...

prevents people 18-21 from drinking. A bit of observation would show that that is not, in fact, the case.

The demographic group with the biggest binge drinking problem is arguably the 18-20 year old set. Why? Perhaps because they feel they have to drink "underground", or because throwing down as much alcohol as they can is a way to rebel against a hypocritical Establishment? I don't know. But I do know that a lot of European nations with less puritanical views toward alcohol consumption than ours have much lower rates of alcoholism, and alcohol-related morbidity and mortality, than the United States.

FWIW, I am a non-drinker, and my wife is the daughter of an abusive alcoholic. He took his last drink on my wife's 16th birthday, and has been dry since, but through her I've seen the bad side of alcohol, trust me. But I've also seen the bad side of puritanism on a lot of levels, and I think in the end, a puritanical society is worse than a society that allows its ADULT citizens the freedom to make their own decisions.

I'm not sure where I'd come down on the 18 vs. 21 drinking age, but I do know that the current system is NOT preventing 18-year-olds from drinking. It's only preventing them from drinking responsibly in traditional social settings, which may or may not be counterproductive.

[Lindacooks]

135. Thank you. It's nice to see a little reason on this thread

rather than name-calling. Which is the only thing the 'lowering the drinking age' crowd has been able to do.

[Alexander]

140. So "reason", I see, is hysterics, hyperbole, whining and name-calling.

You have demonized anyone with an opposing view to the point where anyone with a more moderate viewpoint - like myself - has decided to vehemently disagree with you, your "debate" tactics, and your failed arguments.

Nice job. Would that make you a uniter, not a divider?

[GirlinContempt]

150. Yes, your reason was very sound.

We need to keep the drinking age up because it saves lives however other age related dangerous situations are not related, and if you think they are you should agree with me, even though I claim they aren't related.

[Alexander]

143. People 18-20 already drive drunk. The law doesn't stop them.

Drunk driving is illegal.

Drinking under 21 is also illegal.

Do you think people who illegally drink underage are more likely or less likely to drive drunk, because of fear of Johnny Law?

It reminds me of the arguments for banning pot - that because people who smoke weed are more likely to do harder drugs, therefore pot should be banned.

In reality, it's a Catch-22. You're already breaking the law and risking arrest/tickets/police harassment by drinking underage. So there's less to fear from driving drunk, since you were already breaking the law in the first place.

Just like smoking weed.

In Germany - a country notorious for its drinkers - you can drink at the age of 18, I believe. But if caught driving drunk, you lose your license. Forever.

Needless to say, there are very few cases of drunk driving in Germany.

Keep in mind I live in a heavily-drinking college town full of underage drinkers and drunk drivers (both underage and 21+), so I have a great deal of real-life experience with this...

[Name removed]

55. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[T Town Jake]

81. Well said, and exactly right.

:thumbsup:

[Stardust]

120. If it were as simple as they choose to drink, choose to break the law by

driving while drinking, they die: fine. But innocent babies, children, moms, dads, people just minding their own business on the road are often involved in those accidents through absolutely no fault of their own.

Sure, those that service in the military should be permitted to drink, that's a no-brainer, But the statistics have clearly shown that lives are saved if drinking is postponed. The longer a person postpones drinking, the risk of alcohol related problems diminishes, It's not being cruel, it's a well-meaning law designed to curb potential immediate problems and potential long-range problems.

But is that really government's duty, to protect us from ourselves? or others?

From a parents perspective, we can hope our kids will not go overboard, not drive while drinking or ride with those that are, avoid the party animals, ignore the powerful beer ads that portray drinking situations as impossibly fun and maybe, just maybe, outgrow the phase,

Bottom line, no one should drink and drive but most will. Teenagers will get involved in accidents more often because they love to go out and be with their buds (and they ainta gonna walk!)

We have a conundrum.

:dilemma: :shrug:

[Lindacooks]

136. Yes, government's duty is for 'the greater good'.

And 'the greater good' is fewer deaths due to underage drinking.

And I haven't even mentioned all the stats that show the younger you start drinking, the more likely you are to become an alcoholic. And that alcohol interferes with brain development. And that the younger the drinking age, the younger kids start to drink.

[Stardust]

144. That's what I was alluding to but it was very late ...

[Alexander]

151. If you had debated like this, I wouldn't have called you out.

This is a good example of a well-reasoned, well-thought out discussion, and you are citing statistics which are very real.

I wish you had stayed on this path instead of resorting to your tactics you displayed above. It would've provided for a more meaningful discussion.

My question is, isn't it about personal choice already? I'm in college here, and it was perfectly easy for me to get alcohol at 18, 19 or 20. Same for everybody else.

That being said, although I did plenty of underage drinking, I knew driving drunk was a terrible, dangerous idea, and not only did I never do it, I was DD many times so other people wouldn't do it, and I have yelled at and berated friends of mine for doing it on numerous occasions.

It all boils down to personal responsibility, and I feel that way about drug use as well. People do drugs, you can't stop it. Just like people drink at 18-20, and you can't stop that either.

The question is, what do they do once they drink/use drugs? If they rob a store, I say punish them. If they get in a car wreck, I say punish them.

But if all they do is sit around at home chatting with friends, my view seems to be, leave them alone.

I am curious, where do you stand on the use of marijuana and other drugs? Should they be banned?

[GirlinContempt]

152. Funny that statistics show

less than half of kids who start drinking at a young age engage in binge drinking. But then, that's in a country where your parents can let you drink. And funny that 'alcoholic' is so loosely defined in studies as to be nearly meaningless. And how concern over life seems to be a one or two issue concern only.

[mondo joe]

167. How many deaths could government prevent by eliminating all freedoms?

If that's your measure of greater good, liberty is just too risky.

[NashVegas]

74. If Alcohol is a Factor In All of Those Teen Deaths, It's Not a Good Law

A law needs to be effective. This one's not.

[GirlinContempt]

87. If we're talking about 18+ deaths.

Enlisting in the military is far more hazardous to their health than drinking is. So the argument of personal safety kinda goes out the window I think.

[Lindacooks]

89. The two aren't tied together.

And hasn't anybody read those statistics? Raising the drinking age to 21 has saved more than 23,000 lives in the past 30 years.

That doesn't mean anything?

[GirlinContempt]

90. Well, to me

those mean about as much as the statistics that claim pot is addictive and requires rehab in 9/10 cases. Interesting, but I live in a country with an 18 drinking age, and I disagree with that article from personal experience.

And, as long as we're refering to the safety of people, they are tied together.

[Lindacooks]

102. So you don't think MADD is credible, huh?

We aren't referring to the 'safety of people'. The drinking age and military service are two totally separate issues.

And if we were referring to 'the safety of people', then you should be for a higher drinking age, because it saves lives. You know, PEOPLE'S lives.

[T Town Jake]

105. No, "MADD" does not have a shred credibility, period....

...this has been proved time and time and time and time again, ad naseum. They have morphed from an organization lobbying for tough penalties for drunk drivers, to a scummy Carry Nation neo-prohibitionist freeper-type group that disgraces its supposed "cause" more and more with every passing year.

I'm frankly surprised that any decent person still has the gumption to defend them publicly in any way, shape, or form, to be honest.

[GirlinContempt]

127. No, actually.

MADD is a good organization, but their statistics? I'm skeptical.

The drinking age and military service ARE separate issues, until we start touting one as a lifesaving measure. Once we start using one to protect lives, the other equally if not more dangerous situation then becomes comparable. Because the same premise applies, the protection of life from harm until a certain age.

It's your statistics that promote a raised drinking age as saving peoples lives, which is why I brought it up. I've not found that a lowered drinking age causes more death where I live, but I do find a lack of education and inferior programs to promote safe healthy drinking cause problems.

[StraightDope]

128. Indeed...

This isn't specifically addressed to you, Girlincontempt, but I just had to put in my $.02 about MADD, the NHTSA, lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Let's look at what the NHTSA's/MADD's definition of "alcohol-related" is...

If a drunk pedestrian gets hit by a sober driver, it's an "alcohol related accident".

If ANYBODY involved with an accident has ANY measurable BAC, regardless of the level, regardless of whether the person was a passenger or not, it's an "alcohol related accident".

If I just got back from the liquor store with a bottle, am dead sober, and the bottle hasn't even been opened yet, it's an "alcohol related accident".

But you don't have to take MY word for it...

1. "Alcohol-related" means that at least one of the participants in a traffic accident had consumed a "measurable amount" of alcohol, however small.

2. No fault is assigned in such accidents; in most cases the nondrinker was at fault or road conditions were the cause. But just as accidents dubbed "weather-related" blame the weather, "alcohol-related" automatically, but erroneously, blames alcohol.

3. Of all traffic accidents nationwide, fatal and nonfatal, roughly 7% are "alcohol-related.” (6.8%) This is a government figure, consequently it’s bloated. (You'll see why in moment.)

4. Two-thirds of the alcohol-related deaths are the drinkers themselves, but that's rarely mentioned.

5. Over half of all fatal accidents occur in rural areas where road conditions are a major but unconsidered factor, however, 80 percent of the population is urban.

6. The "alcohol-related" figures are taken out of context: In all the cities and towns in the entire United States, about 250 innocent people die per year from alcohol-caused accidents. That's out of more than 6.6 million reported accidents involving 11,782,000 drivers in 1995. That's 250 out of more than 123 million estimated incidents of "drunken driving" per year, according to the federal Center for Disease Control.

7. Close to 42 percent of fatal accidents in 1992 were single-vehicle, involving only the driver and willing passengers - no innocent people. 40% were multi-vehicle; 18% were nonmotorist (pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.) and NHTSA shows the vast majority are the nonmotorist's fault

8. Follow this tricky but MAJOR way we're deceived (actual 1995 percentages): NHTSA states that 41 percent of fatal accidents are alcohol-related. That's 41 drinking drivers out of every 100 of the accidents. But that 41% is a phony figure derived from phony math: That's 41 drinking DRIVERS divided by 100 ACCIDENTS. Note it's "drivers" divided by "accidents" which is a convenient way to completely ignore the involvement of many sober participants. We're not talking about "antics with semantics" or saying the same thing two different ways, or making statistics say what you want them to say. Statistics are mathematics, and NHTSA's "math" is obviously fallacious:
Of 100 accidents, NHTSA states 57 are single-vehicle (SV) and 43 are multi-vehicle (MV), so there are 143 given drivers (57 SV plus 86 MV drivers) of which 41 were allegedly drinking. So it's "29 percent of the drivers were drinking" (41 of 143) which you never hear, or the fraudulent phrase NHTSA publicizes: "41 percent of fatal accidents are alcohol-related.” Since some MV accidents involve more than 2 drivers, more than 43 drivers are ignored, so not only is NHTSA's "41 percent" completely corrupt, the percentage of drinking drivers is actually lower than 29. By ignoring 43 nondrinking drivers with its phony math, NHTSA fraudulently boosts the percentage and perception of alcohol's role.

9. That 29 percent is artificially amplified another way: It's composed of 20% SV drivers and 9% MV drivers, but NHTSA now (in 1995 figures) includes nonmotorists in the single-vehicle category. Many of the "20% SV drivers" are actually drinking pedestrians that stepped into traffic. In fact, after deducting drinking pedestrians, the "29%" is less than 25 percent: And we're not done yet (See the endnote for specific numbers.)

Returning to the 41%- That phony figure is responsible for much of the public thinking "drunk drivers" cause half of all accidents. NHTSA claims: "41% of fatal crashes are alcohol-related.” What happens is the 41% gets changed to "nearly half; "fatal" is dropped; and "alcohol-related" becomes "drunk drivers.” After lazy reporters, headline writers and 6 o'clock TV news writers are done, the erroneous perception is: "Half of all crashes are caused by drunk drivers.”

For example, here's a quote from a Detroit News article (10-26-97): "Forty to 50 percent of all crashes in America involve drinking." Incidentally, the acting director of the Office of Public and Consumer Affairs of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Bill Combs, wrote a letter to the Detroit News heaping praise on that article titled “Dying to Drive.” He did not correct any misinformation - instead he added his own.

10. The deception goes much deeper: NHTSA's "alcohol-related" figures (such as the phony "41%) include "drug-related" accidents, with no indication of that fact. "Drug-related" means all drugs, from heroin to valium to aspirin. Consequently, all "alcohol figures" must be reduced. (Reduced by at least 35 percent, as you'll see in the expanded version of this section.)

11. Here's more bloating: NHTSA compiles its numbers from collected state reports then puffs them up further. For example, NHTSA added 9.3 percent to Michigan's reported alcohol-related fatalities for the year 1995.

So it boils down to this: In concocting their drunken driver stew, government statisticians start with defective definitions, deceitfully discard nondrinking drivers to create false high percentages, add drinking pedestrians to the mix calling them drivers, then for extra spice they add drugged drivers to their cauldron of fraudulent figures, then the grossly inflated subtotal is garnished by adding about 9 percent The final mess is taken out of context then spoon-fed to the MADD mothers and the 6 o'clock news ghouls as if it were the Word of God when it's actually a drastically deformed, bloated bunch of garbage wrapped in layers of propaganda being stuffed down our throats along with precedent-establishing severe laws that defy logic and the Bill of Rights.


8. PHONY MATH: THIS ASPECT MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL

You've seen that NHTSA ignores the involvement of many "sober" drivers. It's inconceivable that educated mathematicians would inadvertently commit that error year after year. It's unquestionably intentional deception committed by NHTSA.

NHTSA determines that of every 100 fatal accidents, 41 of them involved a "drinking driver," then states, "41 percent of fatal accidents are alcohol-related.” On the surface that may look logical, but dig a little deeper:
To find a percentage, one divides the smaller number by the larger, then multiplies by 100. So "mathematically,” NHTSA is dividing 41 drinking drivers by 100 accidents. But accidents don't cause accidents, drivers do. An accident can't be "alcohol-related" because accidents can't drink: But NHTSA says 41 percent of them were.
NHTSA, with its phony math, weirdly transforms the 41 drinkers into "alcohol-consuming accidents,” then divides 41 by the 100 accidents to arrive at the "41 percent,” thereby completely ignoring 43 nondrinkers of the 143 given drivers. 41 out of 143 drivers were drinking, which is 29 percent.
The 43 ignored nondrinkers are 30% of the 143 given drivers, but many MV’s have more than 2 drivers, thus more than 30% are ignored. (It’s nondrinkers ignored because all drinkers are counted in the 41).
With the phony math, NHTSA, in essence, added a whopping 41.4 percent to the mathematically correct, "29 percent of drivers were drinking.” (29 plus 41.4% equals 41). But that's just the beginning of the bloating: You'll soon see the "29%" is actually 15 percent.

At the risk of insulting your intelligence, let's look at the fraud from one more angle because it's very important: The missing drivers are MV drivers, so consider this scenario with fictional numbers:
There are 100 multi-vehicle accidents, of which 10 involved drinking drivers; so NHTSA would say 10% of the accidents are alcohol-related. But there are 10 drinking drivers out of 200 drivers involved, which is 5 percent. So: it's 5 percent of the drivers were drinking; or 10 percent of the accidents were drinking. Not only does NHTSA claim accidents can drink, 100 nondrinking drivers are ignored which doubles the percentage and public perception of the problem.

The above 29 percent is mathematically correct but it's still inflated because it includes drinking nonmotorists (NM). In 1995 NHTSA lumped the nonmotorist accidents in with the single-vehicle stats, supposedly because there's only one vehicle involved. Again, that might make sense on the surface, but the boys at NHTSA are crafty; they're engaging in more phony math:
Single-vehicle accidents have only one participant - the driver. However, like MV’s, nonmotorist accidents have two participants - a driver and the pedestrian. When NHTSA lumps the NM's in with the SV's the nonmotorist participants magically disappear. NHTSA states that in 1995, 57 percent of fatal accidents were SV and 43 percent were MV for a total of 100 accidents. Again, let's dissect 100 accidents:

As seen, when the 100 accidents are split into SV and MV, there are 41 drinkers out of 143 participants; that's 29 percent. But, when you add the missing nonmotorist participants, it's 41 out of 161 participants, which is 25.4 percent:

In 1995, there were 37,221 fatal accidents, split 21,245 SV and 15,976 MV (43%). Of the SV’s, 6,524 were NM's - 2 participants each. Subtracting 6,524 from the 21,245 SV’s comes to 14,721 single participant accidents (SV’s). Then adding the “missing” NM's to the MV's comes to 22,500 accidents with at least 2 participants. (22,500 + 14,721 = 37,221 fatal accidents.)

Here’s the above paragraph distilled to numbers:

39.5% (39) SV = 39 drivers (14,721 of 37,221)
17.5% (18) NM = 36 participants
43.0% (43) MV = 86 drivers
100 = 161 participants
accidents

So, now with NHTSA's phony math, 61 nondrinking participants out of the 161 total participants are ignored (38%). But we're still talking about participants, not drinking drivers, so drinking nonmotorists must be deducted to arrive at drinking drivers (because the brutal laws affect drivers, not walkers. It’s not Mothers Against Drunk Pedestrians).

Of the above 17.5% nonmotorists, 46 percent were drinking, meaning 8 percent (46% of 17.5%)
of the drinking "drivers" were really nonmotorists. So . . . 8 percent off the 25.4 percent takes us to 23.3 percent of participants involved in fatal accidents were "drinking drivers.” But we're not done yet. In the next section, you'll see that 35 percent of those drinkers weren't drinking!! - When one deducts nondrinking drug-users from the just-arrived-at-subtotal of 23.3%, we finally come to a real statistic:

"15 percent of the 161 participants involved in fatal accidents were drinking drivers."

15 percent is a long way from NHTSA's phony 41 percent - A long way: It's a perception deception bloat factor of 174 percent! (15 + 174% = 41).

THAT’S BLATANT DECEIT FROM NHTSA.

Because the NHTSA lies have been going on for well over two decades, we're also talking about conspiracy. The fraudulent "math" is not a one-time mistake made by a single government employee: It's calculated deception passed on from Secretary of Transportation to Secretary of Transportation over the past twenty years. Of course, the question is - Who's the head puppet-master behind the fraud and what are the ultimate objectives? There should be a full-blown Congressional investigation.


10. - DRUGS DISTORT DRINKING & DRIVING DATA

NHTSA semi-secretly considers drug-related accidents to be alcohol-related. Here's what's behind that lunacy: Michigan traffic statistics, for example, are compiled by the Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP), operated by the state police but funded by NHTSA. OHSP figures become part of NHTSA nationwide numbers. After an accident, Michigan law requires police to use a standard fill-in-the-blanks form answered by simply marking either "yes or no" if alcohol and/or drugs are believed to have been present. If the "yes" box is checked, that accident is called a HBD for "Had Been Drinking (or Using Drugs).”
And "drugs" are not limited to illegal and prescription substances: "If someone swallowed a bottle of Tylenol, I'm sure the officer would mark the box," said Judy Snow, an analyst at OHSP. "They're trained to do that."
OHSP considers "HBD" synonymous with “alcohol-related” and uses the terms interchangeably, but rarely are drugs mentioned. (How often have you heard HBD as opposed to alcohol-related?) Michigan statistics are sent to Washington where the HBD's become NHTSA's "alcohol-related" - a term then frequently transformed in media outlets to "drunk drivers" thus fueling the common misconception that drinking drivers cause most accidents. Nowhere in the NHTSA publications is the drug factor indicated.
"I don't know if all states use the HBD system, but certainly the majority do," said Snow.
However, report forms vary from state to state, and some states offer the options of "drugs only; alcohol only; or a combination.” But regardless of the option entered, it's still a HBD - which is viewed as an alcohol-related accident.
An indication of how many accidents are actually drug-related can be seen in the numbers from Wayne County, Michigan: In March 1997, the federal government designated Wayne County a "high intensity drug trafficking area.” There were 266 traffic deaths in Wayne county in 1995. Detroit alone, the largest of 46 cities in Wayne County, accounted for 173 of those deaths out of a population of slightly under one million. All of Oakland County, which borders Wayne County, reported 114 total deaths out of a population of over 1.15 million. No concrete conclusions can be immediately drawn by that 173 to114 difference, but it's safe to say that drugs played a significant role.
Oakland County's 114 was an unusually high tally due largely to an increase in pedestrian fatalities that year. It's usually around 90 per year, so Detroit, with its smaller population, has close to twice the fatalities. (Oakland's total dropped back to 88 the following year.)
There are nine cities in the U.S. with larger populations than Detroit. Consider all the illegal drugs in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami and every other city in the country, and add to that all the prescription drugs such as tranquilizers when thinking about "alcohol-related" accidents. Even with statistics high on heroin, pot and valium, of all reported traffic accidents, fatal and nonfatal, only 7 percent are alcohol-related, according to NHTSA. The number of alcohol-related accidents that are actually drug-related cannot be known from NHTSA reports because NHTSA doesn't note the distinction. But this much is clear: The public is intentionally deceived about alcohol's role in driving.

UPDATE: The Detroit News (11-28-97) carried an AP story headlined, "BOOZE PLAYS BIG ROLE IN CAR CRASHES. U-M findings dispute other reports that illicit drugs are major factor." Whoever wrote that headline didn't read the article very well:
Researchers at the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute studied more than 700 drivers treated for automobile crash injuries at hospital emergency rooms in Michigan. According to the newspaper article, "more than 15 percent of those motorists had been drinking, less than 8 percent tested positive for drugs, and 6 percent had been both drinking and using drugs."
"These findings are not consistent with studies reporting that illicit drugs are a major factor in motor vehicle crashes, " said Patricia Waller, the institute director. The article gave no details on the "other studies" but looking at the U of M study:
29 percent (15+8+6) of people treated for injuries were "HBD's." And 46% of the HBD’s had been using drugs. (I presume the "29 percent" sounds familiar to the reader; it became the final 15 percent figure above). Strange isn't it, that the "other studies" reporting that drugs are a "major factor" in accidents have received little, if any media attention? (I've never seen any such reports in newspapers or on TV.)
Furthermore, I find it curious that U-M's institute director doesn't believe drugs are a major factor when 46 percent of "alcohol-related accidents" involve "illicit drugs.” Since the U-M study shows close to half, and that's NOT a major factor, then how can the other half be major?
And, if U-M thinks 46 percent is not a major factor, then the other studies must show that drug use is a factor in perhaps 60 or 70 percent of "alcohol-related" accidents. So, we have a number of studies versus U-M's single study: U-M showed that of the 29 HBD's, 8 used drugs but no alcohol. The other studies showed drug use to be higher; so presuming 10, rather than 8, were "nondrinking druggies" that means about 35 percent of what are called "drunk drivers" weren't drinking! (10 “nondrinking druggies is 35% of the 29 HBD’s.)


Oh, and Candy Lightner, the founder of MADD, is on record as saying of the organization that she founded, "It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned,"

Oh, and Lindacooks? I CAN BACK UP ALL OF THESE FACTS AND FIGURES. So, if you feel like debating, then by all means, have at it. I'm sure as hell game!

StraightDope

[GirlinContempt]

129. Thanks for that

Lots of good info.
My favorite silly statistic was an article on CNN a while back that said marijuana was addictive, because something like 9/10 teens enter rehab for it when caught. They failed to mention that most of those teens are offered a choice of rehab or juvy/jail, and that in other countries without this option, the number of people entering rehab for pot is barely measurable.

[StraightDope]

131. Oh, don't get me started.

In the eyes of the mental "health" world, any drug use other than alcohol is considered "abuse". And any alcohol or drug use that causes problems is taken as "proof" of addiction. If you try to rationally debate this with the vast majority of "professionals" from the field, you'll eventually receive an ultra-smug reply along the lines of, "Well, drugs MUST have caused you a lot of trouble, after all, they got you here, didn't they?" :eyes:

Fucking psychologists and psychiatrists and addiction counselor-types... Tom Cruise might be a crazy asshole, but he wasn't THAT far off base with respect to the "treatment" industry.

[GirlinContempt]

133. Well, hell

offer me a choice between getting locked up in bloody jail or go pretend to be an addict, I'll pretend to be an addict.

[mondo joe]

104. There are many ways you could save lives. The question is are we willing to

trade off liberty and personal autonomy for them.

[Greyhound]

125. A little more than 25,000,000 people die in this country every year.

So the total number of lives saved over 30+ years adds up to 1/1000th of 1% of one years mortality. So we should restrict the behavior of the entire under 21 population in order to "save" .0031644% (a bit over 3/10,000th of 1%)?

Yeah that's a great reason for denying individual liberty to millions of citizens, meanwhile how do you feel about 100,000 extra people dying every year due to medical malpractice?

Let's keep our priorities straight and think about the price and consequences for foolishly legislating personal behavior.

ETA: Statistics from CDC report: http://209.217.72.34/HDAA/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=129

[Coexist]

182. Question: if alcohol is involved in all those teen deaths,

then the 21 age limit is obviously not keeping it out of their hands.

[shadowknows69]

132. Even if you lower it for only soldiers

Easy for me to say I guess because I'm old enough, but these young soldiers do it anyway and end up getting themselves in trouble and kicked out or demoted.

[BlooInBloo]

148. ... then they're old enough to die while driving?

Don't get me wrong - I *want* to agree with you. But I don't think it's intellectually honest to ignore the fact that American 18 year olds are by-and-large irresponsible jackasses with driver's licenses. It would seem foolhardy to not at least THINK about the foreseeable consequences of adding alcohol to irresponsible jackasses with driver's licenses.

[GirlinContempt]

154. So, take away their drivers licenses.

You think they're too irresponsible to make decisions about drinking and operating a car, but not too irresponsible to make decisions about using deadly weapons?
What I think is foolhardy is to ignore the consequences of waiving personal responsibility. 18 year olds can take personal responsibility for most things in their lives, how is alcohol any worse? If alcohol is such a big scare, especially when mixed with vehicles, why is alcohol even legal? How can it ever be decided who is old enough to take personal responsibility for their choices?

I understand it's an arbitrary decision, but I wish people would just own up to it being arbitrary instead of trying to give it some profound deep scientific reasoning.

[BlooInBloo]

155. I *would* be fine with that, but then you'll get people like the OP saying...

... "If they're old enough to die for this country, they're old enough to drive a motor vehicle"

Which means that nothing will have been solved in all of this hassle - we've just moved the bump in the rug.

[GirlinContempt]

157. That was sarcasm.

[BlooInBloo]

158. I knew that.

No, no I really didn't.

:rofl:

[tritsofme]

159. I think its naive to think that the same 18 year old doesn't already

have easy access to alcohol.

Its not as though lowering the drinking age would suddenly open up the floodgates to a generation of teetotallers.

[BlooInBloo]

160. Really? It's just as easy as if they were 21? Really? Really?

EDIT: Also, the argument "they're already breaking the law, so we should change the law so that it becomes legal" is one of the more asinine things I've heard lately. You can't take credit for originating it, of course. If nothing else, it was recently and famously used by Bush/Specter to revise the FISA law. You application of an asinine argument IS creative though.

[tritsofme]

162. I see it as little more than recognizing reality.

When a policy fails, you change it.

18-21 year olds are going to drink alcohol.

There is a reason they repealed Prohibition, it didn't work.

[BlooInBloo]

163. It must be nice to be so thoroughly insensitive to the constraints of logic.

I'm jealous.

[Alexander]

176. Ever been to college? 18-20 year olds EASILY drink alcohol.

I've managed to buy alcohol without getting carded at many places, before I was 21. In fact, my dad would often let me have sips (sips, let me stress) of his beer, well before I was of age. Now I'm 23, and drinking has really lost its shine - apart from the occasional beer or glass of wine, I don't really drink.

It's legal at 19 in Canada, and at 18 throughout most of Europe. And yet....they don't seem to have the same problems with alcoholism, binge drinking, and drunk driving as we do.

Now, why do you think that is?

[FormerDittoHead]

2. I'd prefer decriminalization of marijuana. n/t

[WindRavenX]

71. Word

:smoke:

[Swamp Rat]

3. Yes

[arcos]

4. It's 18 in most countries... nt

[Xipe Totec]

5. Oh wow, deja vu...

old enough to die in war, but not old enough to drink.

That was the rationale for lowering the drinking age during the Vietnam war.

:scared:

[phylny]

46. I thought it was the rationale for lowering the VOTING age, not the drinking age n/t

[Greyhound]

126. That's what I remember. n/t

[Neoma]

6. It would make more sense..

To have people that already drive, to drink with the driving.

[porphyrian]

7. "Drinking age" is a misnomer.

What it really means is that you can't BUY alcohol legally. I'm sure the number of people who drink alcohol before they can legally buy it is over half the population.

[loyalsister]

121. Good point

Despite the fact that there have been some resources and always will be out there somewhere.
I object to setting up our high schools with alcohol providers on campus.

[cool user name]

9. Old enough to die, old enough to be faschnikered legally.

[upi402]

11. no, but legalize pot

[Buzz Clik]

22. ...with a legal age of 21?

[upi402]

26. I'd say pot 18, ethyl alcohol 21

[KalicoKitty]

12. Might as well.....

Kids are already drinking at age 14.

[Ignacio Upton]

13. The French and the Italians get along fine without prohibitionist-style tactics

Why not us? I mean, their kids drink wine at an early point in their lives...then again that probably makes them more socially responsible.

[WindRavenX]

77. American culture is tyrannically puritan

Simple as that. We treat alcohol and sex as evil, vile things to be avoided-- of course people in our culture are going to abuse substances when there is very little positive introduction to it.

[Selatius]

116. You're right. The French accept it. We try to hide it and ban it.

The result is stupid kids who think it's cool to drink. In Europe, just because you drink does not make you "cool."

[Gregorian]

14. It's about MATURITY, not age.

And again, it comes back to education. See France, as an example.

[savemefromdumbya]

15. It's 18 in the UK

although many are drinking earlier than that

[T Town Jake]

16. Yes, period. For those voting "NO," I suppose you'll be consistent now...

...and support raising the driving age, the age at which one can join the military, the age at which one can legally consent to sex and/or get married, and the voting age (it'll take a constitutional repealer on that one, so good luck) all to 21, right? Right?....

"but, but, but...T Town you old meanie *sputter* gasp *sputter* some more...that's a strawman...not same thing...*sputter* gasp I'm putting you on ignore, *sputter* gasp, blah, blah, blah!!!!

...that's what I thought.

[Lindacooks]

18. Those ARE strawman arguments.

I don't know what's with you people who argue like this. Throwing in totally unrelated issues is logically unsound.

And yes, actually, I DO favor raising the driving age to 18. Too many kids die because they're not mature enough to understand that handling a car can be a life-and-death situation. AND they kill other people in the process.

There are different ages at which we determine people are capable of handling different issues. And if you think that's 'sputter, gasp, blah, blah', you're not interested in reasonable logical debate.

[T Town Jake]

23. And right on cue, just as I said....quick! Now tell me I'm on your ignore list...

...you'll make my day!

...*snicker*.....

[Lindacooks]

28. No, I'll just tell you that

you proved my point. Thank you.

[depakid]

29. Hardly

They're EXACTLY on point and speak to the larger issue of responsibility and consent.

Methinks that you might want to abstract and do some logic on a higher level.

[Breeze54]

19. My first vote

was to vote against Nixon and to change the drinking age to 18.

If they are old enough to do this?



http://ideabeats.org/

Then they're old enough to drink a beer BEFORE THEY DIE!!! :grr:







While this fucker is a closet drinker and killing them all!!!! :grr:





:grr:

[depakid]

21. Seems to work well enough overseas

Of course, those who haven't travelled anywhere wouldn't recognize that....

[Mojorabbit]

24. My mother was portuguese

I grew up with sunday brunch with a glass of red wine watered down with sevenup a a child. Did not hurt me a bit. Is this whole thing shades of puritanism from America's history I wonder? None of we children overindulged as adolescents or adults as it was never a forbidden thing growing up.
A bit of everything in moderation is good by me. I am rambling.

[Jed Dilligan]

27. I say make it 16

It's when most people start drinking. If they were in cafes and bars they would probably be less likely to binge themselves to death before learning to handle it.

[NashVegas]

75. I'd Agree With That

One of the worst aspects of raising the age to 21 was that 18 year olds lost the opportunity to drink socially with older friends who weren't likely to be impressed by how much a kid could chug.

[stepnw1f]

32. Drinking Age in Germany is 16

I agree... 18 is cool with me.

[stonecoldsober]

34. Lower the drinking age to 18 and raise the driving age to 21.

:spank:

[struggle4progress]

101. Drinking age 16, no DL until 21, and add good public transit.

[gollygee]

36. I can see arguments for both

best argument for is that once your a legal adult, the government shouldn't get to decide what legally available items you can buy and/or use.

best argument against is that 18-year-olds are still at an age where their brain chemistry makes it easier for them to become addicted. Or so I've read, but I'm no expert on these kinds of things.

So I voted yes.

[Neshanic]

38. We already did this. I think we should do it again.

Old enough to fight, old enough to drink.

[William Bloode]

43. I'll go with 19.

That keeps seniors in high school from buying beer and bringing it to school. I would make an exemption for 18 yr olds serving in the military though.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. They get it anyway, fake IDs, parents even buy it sometimes

See my post below. If they want to keep high schoolers and younger college kids from driving drunk, there's a much easier solution than busting up parties and denying them access to alcohol.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. If cops were really interested in catching drunk drivers, here's what they would do

What happens now is that cops get a noise complaint from the neighbors and they come and bust up a party because they see underage kids and alcohol.

Here's what they should do. Instead of busting up the party, they should go to the scene and camp out at all of the exits to the street and set up field sobriety checkpoints. I guarantee you after word gets around school that 30 people got DWIs, nobody will be driving home drunk from parties anymore.

But cops aren't interested in doing this. They're interested in taking out their frustration on a bunch of kids and so they bust up their parties and sometimes take them downtown for possession of alcohol. That's why I hate the drinking law being at 21, it gives the police and other people in society the ability to marginalize those of us who are not 21.

That being said, it's also our fault as well. The drinking age would be 18 if 18-25 year olds would fucking vote.

[mongo]

60. In our town of 30,000

There are generally 5 - 7 crusiers and a total of 7-10 officers working on any given night.

They can't get tied up staking out some party.

I'ts not about taking out frustrations, it's about doing their job.

[bling bling]

112. Oh. So it's the cops fault that teenagers drive drunk.

Stupid selfish slacking cops just want to take the easy way out and bust the kids for the FIRST law they break instead of waiting around for them to break a SECOND law before they arrest them.

If only they cared enough to ignore the noise complaints and let the party go on and the teens drink even more, and then let them just get behind the wheel so that they could catch them in the act of driving drunk because this would deter all the other kids at school when they heard about it through the grapevine.

I thought I'd heard every criticism of the cops that there is. Guess not.

[bigwillq]

51. Yes

They can get married, serve this country, buy porn, buy smokes, etc...but can't drink?


Come on
Who are they fooling?

:shrug:

[Feron]

62. Exactly

You can't protect people from themselves. If some dummy is going to drink himself to death then there is no law that will stop him. And if you want 18 year-olds to act like adults, then treat them like adults because they are adults whether you like it or not.

I have an alcoholic family member who is middle-aged and a constant drunk driver. Frankly I would much rather do things to keep people like him off the road for good rather than scapegoat a segment of the adult population. All scapegoating accomplishes is to encourage binge drinking due to the lure of the forbidden.

Louisiana had a drinking age of 18 until the federal goverment tied a 21 drinking age to highway funds. Obviously the state didn't go to hell in a handbasket when the 18-20 year-old crowd was drinking. I guess I'm just tired of the people who act like life as we know it will end because an 18 year-old is drinking a beer legally. It's ridiculous.

[demokatgurrl]

53. Why not ELIMINATE a minimum drinking age?

It's silly, really. Other countries don't have it. They do manage to live past their teens. If drinking ain't such a big deal... well then, it won't be such a big deal.

[Odin2005]

54. Yes. The current drinking age is hypocritical.

If you are 18 or over YOU ARE AN ADULT, PERIOD, no other arugment matters as far as I'm concerned. I don't want paranoid parents treating my age group like a bunch of 2nd class citizens.

The Nanny Statists can all GO TO HELL.

[Withywindle]

56. Yeah, I think it's idiotic too.

Is drinking REALLY a bigger responsibility than voting, joining the military, getting married, signing contracts, etc., etc., all of which 18-year-olds can do?

No, I think not. I'm not a fan of this trend of prolonging adolescence further and further.

I CAN see a case for raising the driving age to 18 (as it is in much of Europe, where many countries have a drinking age that's actually lower than that), but in our car-dependent culture, it imposes a lot of hardships.

Better public transportation would do more to reduce drunk driving deaths than anything else, IMO.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

58. Drunk driving laws and punishments are usually stricter in most countries.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/pub/DWIothercountries/dwiothercountries.html#_Toc449518795

[demgurl]

66. I think the legal age should be 18.

I grew up in Canada and the legal drinking age was 18. This is what I grew up with and it was normal. There were not a lot of drunk driver accidents because we were taught to be responsible. My friends and I NEVER drove downtown. We always got dropped off by a parent and we all shared cab fair back. Some people lived near enough to the bars that you could walk home. This type of responsibility was expected of us and we did it willingly. I believe most people rise to the expectations of those around them.

I grew up in a city that had more drinking places per square kilometer than any other city in North America and yet, for the most part, everyone was responsible. I believe it could be that way in this country as well.

[laundry_queen]

93. This mirrors my experience as well.

Our drinking age where I grew up was also 18. We were well aware of the dangers of drinking and driving, and we ALWAYS either had a designated driver, or enough money to get a cab home. If we were stuck, usually someone's parents came to get us. It was never an option to get behind the wheel after drinking. And by the time we all turned 21 we were sick of the bar scene anyway and rarely went out to bars. I agree with a poster above - prolonging the adolescent phase serves no one, it merely postpones learning responsibility.

[WindRavenX]

73. Whenever you are considered an adult, you make your own choices

Period.

The day you are legally an adult, and are allowed to vote, you should be allowed to be in 100% control of what you choose to engage in, be it cigarettes, drinking, or smoking pot.

Having the drinking age be 21 encourages binge drinking and other foolish behavior and is a completely arbitrary number. If we are SO concerned about alcohol and cigarettes getting into the high schools, make the age of being an adult either 19 or 20, as they do in Japan.

[daleo]

85. Alternatively, the age for joining the miliary should be 21

The idea that you can go kill people for the government, but can't have a drink is absurd.

[jgraz]

95. Now you're talking!

:toast:

[Hawkowl]

91. Sure

But holding a drivers license should be mutually exclusive until they turn 21. In other words you get a choice: drinking license or drivers license.

[RB TexLa]

92. What's a legal drinking age?

Sorry I grew up in Louisiana

[jgraz]

94. Sorry, I vote NO

I grew up in Madison, WI, which was the frozen puke capital of the world before the drinking age went to 21. Nobody thinks that 18-yr-olds won't drink, but at least a higher drinking age forces them to learn how to hold their liquor in their parents' basements before inflicting their lightweight asses on the rest of the public.

[Odin2005]

173. 18-YAER OLDS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED LIKE 2ND CLASS CITIZENS!!!

[mondo joe]

96. I think the age should be 16 with parental supervision, and 18 without.

[bling bling]

97. No way.

If it ain't broke.....

But kids in and right out of high school need more things to do. In a lot of cities they are BORED out of their minds. Have to be 21 to go dancing at the clubs so they make their own parties at each others houses and drink and do drugs. Nothing else to do.

[struggle4progress]

99. How 'bout: legal to drink at 15 or 16 but no drivers license until 21?

<oops: didna see stonecoldsober's post supra>

[w4rma]

123. Need driver's license for jobs. That won't fly. (nt)

[HardRocker05]

106. absolutely, and i'm 41 and don't drink. nt

[meldroc]

108. Rather than banning teenagers from drinking, teach them how to drink responsibly.

As others have mentioned, other countries, especially countries in Europe, have lower drinking ages, don't spend a lot of time hassling kids just because they're having some beers, and have cultures where parents teach their kids how to drink responsibly.

That would be a far better solution than playing the prohibition game. When teenagers are prohibited from drinking, they'll drink anyways, but when they drink, it's a forbidden fruit thing for them. They don't have adult supervision when they drink, since they're doing it surreptitiously, and they don't have access to alcohol except on a few occasions, so they end up binge drinking and otherwise doing things that are incredibly stupid. What's worse is that if something does happen, be it an alcohol poisoning, or someone trying to drive after having too many, or some other altercation, they won't call 911 because if they do, the cops will then bring the hammer down on them for underage drinking, punishing them harshly for trying to get some help for their friends.

What would be better is, as mentioned earlier, allow kids to drink with adult supervision at age 16, maybe even earlier, say 14, then let them drink on their own at 18. Encourage parents to teach their kids how to drink responsibly - to avoid binge drinking, to set their limits, pace themselves so they can enjoy the alcohol without drinking themselves too stupid, to arrange for a safe ride home, and so on. This way, teenagers can drink with their families, or in public places such as bars and restaurants, where parents, bartenders & such can take action like refusing to serve too much alcohol, or calling a cab. That is far better than covert binge-drinking parties that lead to DUI-caused accidents and alcohol poisonings. While we're at it, increase funding and support for rehab facilities & such so people who get addicted (they'll get addicted no matter what the laws are) can more easily get help.

I know, that's a hard sell in this obnoxiously Puritanical society.

[LTR]

113. Yes, and here's why

1. If an 18-20 year old is old enough to die for his or her country, I see no problem with being allowed to legally drink a beer in a bar beforehand.

2. The 21 drinking age is a fuckin' Reagan law!

3. Seems to me that there's more drunken driving deaths nowadays than there were with an 18 drinking age.

4. I don't believe in the 'nanny state'. As a social libertarian, I believe in free will.

5. The 21 drinking age only adds a greater stigma. Younger people are more attracted to things they're not allowed to do.

6. Why is it that countries with a younger drinking age seem to have fewer problems than the U.S.?

7. An 18 drinking age better allows parents to control their kids' drinking. After that, they're often away from home and learning their drinking habits from their peers. Parents need to take responsibility here, not the government.

8. The government trying to protect us from everything has led to more problems.

9. Education and tougher drunk driving laws are a better solution.

10. 18 year olds are drinking anyway. The law doesn't work.

[Skittles]

114. yes

I was an airman in the Air Force at age 18 and was surely responsible enough to f***ing drink

[Selatius]

115. Americans are idiotic compared to Europeans when it comes to living with alcohol.

Maybe if we drank wine like the French at diner time or the Germans with their beer from an early age, maybe we wouldn't have so many people saying, "Look at me! I'm awesome because I'm a teenager drinking! I'm cool! You're not!"

In Europe, alcohol has lost that "forbidden fruit" luster, so fewer young people act so fucking stupid around alcohol as a result because it's weaved into daily life. It is not considered a mark of "coolness" or exclusivity; it is considered just another aspect of daily life.

[Vidar]

117. My feelings exactly.

[Pierzin]

142. Yep!!

[w4rma]

122. Yes. I and the majority of my high school were drinking well before we were 18.

Let 18 year olds drink so that they will learn to drink responsibly instead of doing it the irresponsible way that they do now.

[B Calm]

124. I drive a truck for a living, Thank you, but I see enough drunk drivers!

[Renew Deal]

130. No

Because then you will have bars filled with 15 year olds.

[Alexander]

174. I said 18, not 15. But thanks for getting off-topic.

[Renew Deal]

177. You're missing the point.

The point is that 18 year olds are getting fake ID to get into bars. If you lower the age, the age of young drinkers would move down as well. But you already knew that.

[Geek_Girl]

134. I think the Age of joining the military should be raised to 21

[Pierzin]

141. Amen! If they can die for their country, they should be able to drink!

This country is so f***ing backward! In Europe, it's no big deal who drinks.
I was 15 when I went there and I had a drink at nearly every meal!
that was great!

[dysfunctional press]

145. i'd agree with lowering the drinking age to 18 under one condition-

that the age for getting a driver's license is raised to 18.

[Beelzebud]

146. Old enough for military and voting, should be old enough to drink.

[bamacrat]

153. Yeah, let younger people drink themselves to death yet weed is illegal and doesnt kill.

[Retrograde]

164. it was legal when I was 18

yeah, there was beer at college parties, and a local bar used to attract students with its $0.15 hot dogs (much more important on a student budget)and cheap beer. But alcohol looses some of its allure when it's legal and readily available. Rather than big binge parties like I read about these days, it was more like a beer or two on the weekend (and mulled wine in winter to fortify oneself for the long walk home - students with cars were not common back then).

[Blu Dahlia]

166. 20 years ago this would make sense. Now 18=14 and 21=16

I do not think under-aged drinking should be a crime. I think it's just a suggestion that should be followed.

[Nye Bevan]

170. But... but... think of the 20 year old "children" who don't know any better!

Surely we need to protect them from themselves?

[williesgirl]

171. 18 is adult age - why the hell not? It'll take some of the mystique and thrill out of drinking.

[OhioChick]

172. Yes

As many here have already said, if you're old enough to die for your country.....then you should be old enough to have a beer.

[Johnny Appleseed]

175. I think it's fine at 21 (nt)

[ThomWV]

178. They Should Raise It To 50 and Then Only Allow Drinking By License

So you'd have to pass a fucking test before you could get a license to drink.

That shit is evil, make no mistake about it.

Signed: Sober for 10+ years now.

[noonwitch]

180. They had their chance and blew it

In principle, they should be able to drink at 18. The problem is that when given the chance, drunk driving accidents rates increased greatly. That's why the age was raised back up again.

The age being 21 does not keep 18-20 year olds from drinking, but it does keep them from being stupid about it as frequently, like walking around with open beverages and driving while drunk. Keeping the age 21 does make it more difficult for 16 and 17 year olds to get their hands on alcohol-they can't get their 18 year old buddies to buy for them, and most 16 year olds are not hanging around with 21+ year olds.

[Xenotime]

181. It works in every other country.

[FlaGranny]

183. Really hard to say -

sometimes I think it should be raised to 50!