Is it time to lower America's drinking age?
economist.com
economist.com
I feel that if you are old enough to go to war and risk your life, you are old enough to have a few beers. Now what that arbitrary age is, who knows. But you shouldn't be able to join the military before you can drink in my opinion.
Now from experience, with the drinking age between 18-19, there is little difference at parties compared to the US despite the difference in drinking age. At 16-17 a lot of kids start drinking and are quite irresponsible with it. At 18-20 people begin to mature and handle drinking a bit better, with a few going to the extreme and drinking excessively regularly. At 21+ people tend to lose interest in drinking and gain interest in socializing at parties.
(Anecdotal evidence obviously)
which is exactly why public outcry during the Vietnam war lowered the age to 18 at that time. After the war, statistics strongly suggested raising the age back to 21 to dramatically reduce highway deaths. States had to comply or forfeit federal highway funding (a sure way to get voted out of office).
Perhaps the best thing to do is to lower the age to 18 (where it belongs) and make a concerted effort, once and for all, to get all the drunks off the roads, regardless of age.
There may be a correlation between the two, maybe even some causation, but drinking can and should be solved in different ways, mainly with education.
Who cares about war? At 18 you are entitled to be an adult. I feel that if drinking alcohol in moderation doesn't have a detrimental effect on your health to the point that drinking should be illegal, it should be legal. I know other countries let people drink at 16, and they do fine. So I think we should get over our authoritarian complex and just lower the drinking age to 16. People drink anyway, why bother with all this crazy "show your papers" crap? Laws that people ignore should go away.
I certainly don't want to call my fellow Americans particularly mature, but it's pretty rare for people to wait until 21 to drink here, so I think the effect is dispersed.
More recently, they've started to crack down on underage drinking, and now the police blotter fills a column in the campus newspaper with a series of "Driver arrested on suspicion of DWI." Hopefully this is a result of them cracking down on drinking and driving too, but I fear that to some extent it's because they are forcing the parties off campus.
Keeping the drinking age at 21 doesn't deter minors from drinking, but keeps the legal ramifications severe, especially for minors who drink and drive. Besides, 18 year-olds typically have just 2 years or less of legal driving experience. May be a good reason the driving and drinking ages are separated so far.
The article does make me wonder . . which special-interest group might really behind this movement? Society as a whole doesn't stand to benefit a whole lot by lowering the drinking age. However, I can't help but think of a certain Republican presidential candidate's Anheuser-Busch distributor owning wife and cronies who would benefit quite a bit from the increase in potential drinking population.
Just an observation.
But as the article says, if you want to drink under 21 you can easily do it so like most things, it's up the parents to raise the child well and stop blaming society.
Also, I don't see how most other countries fixing it at a certain age is a strong argument for us to do so.
Well... sort of. The federal government stopped giving highway money to states that didn't follow its demands to raise the drinking age. I guess they didn't do anything illegal, but bribery seems unethical to me. If we are really concerned about democracy, we shouldn't tolerate the trampling of states' rights like this.
Actually, I think all this happened before I was born. I can still be mad though :)
"MADD is heading the opposition, .. arguing that the 21 law has saved more than 20,000 lives. Choose Responsibility disputes that figure. Other factors, it says, have also contributed to the decline in deaths, and fatalities among under-age drunk drivers have fallen by only 13%."
And those factors are? I'm not saying the 21 law is responsible but what is the debate here?
I don't think this is a relevant statistic. We could save more lives by completely banning alcohol. We could save even more by not allowing people to leave their house.
We could do these things, but we can't solve all our problems by making living life illegal. People die.
MADD's argument is fallacious, but it's the same line of reasoning that those advocating banning of firearms take. Somehow making guns illegal will cut down on gun-related-deaths. Nevermind that the people that tend to shoot other people don't really care if they have to get a gun illegally, just like kids that drink underage don't really care that they are getting alcohol illegally. In a perfect world, you could just remove all guns at once and perfectly enforce the alcohol age limit every time (and there would be no black market), but that isn't reality.
If MADD was really interested in cutting down on drunk driving, they'd campaign for stiffer penalties and education. And, like someone else here pointed out, they'd campaign for public transportation. When the car is the only option to get home, your choices are either "don't drink" or "drive drunk."
Madd was started for a good cause, but right now it is just a right wing, prohibistic organization, hell bent on stoping drinking whatsover, and of course it's memembers have self interest to keep their campains (and their salaries) going on. Even their first founder doesn't want to do anything with them anymore.