Hacker News Reader

Comment by grenoire | Hacker News Reader

Having seen students in Europe and from the US, agreed. It definitely helps to be lower.

I did an exchange program (from the US) to Germany, and I did notice parents having a moderating effect on drinking, but then there was an overnight party at the end of the schoolyear, which meant kids weren't going home to their parents.

Drinking wise, it was basically identical to most parties I saw in college in the US, except the kids were 16-17 instead of 18-19.

Pair that with increasing the driving age to 18 or 21 and you'd have a massive reduction in college drinking deaths and teen driving deaths.

I'm not sure that would ever work in America. We are sufficiently spread out that public transportation would be difficult (if possible) to implement. And I'm not talking about NYC or SF; remember, not every one lives there. Much of the rest of the nation is very spread out, which is not an immediately solvable problem.

Regardless, I needed a car as a teen; my parents were both busy and my brother and I needed to do things (including work). 16 is just about the age that people start doing stuff, so that's when they start driving. It's also when people can first get jobs, so important there too.

Maybe there would be a reduction, but you would hurt a lot of innocent people in other ways. It is not for us to suffer to curb the excesses of others.

Statistically, teen driving has already decreased, in part due to the abundance of technology allowing conversations and hangouts without physically being in the same location.

> It's also when people can first get jobs, so important there too.

This too is statistically reducing.

The statistical reductions are down slightly from extremely high numbers. And for what it's worth, people shouldn't have to have a reason to do something, the government should have a reason to restrict it. Namely, the person being restricted must be harming some one else. Many teens are perfectly good drivers; I was never in an accident/received a ticket and have not ever.

Neither of the things I mentioned are because of government, strictly. They are results of social changes from technology and job market changes from technology - sprinkle in some helicopter parenting and too academic focused 16 year olds.

In my opinion, there is one really good reason for US drinking age to be higher: it is much more common for American teenagers to drive personal vehicles, so if you lower the drinking age, you would (at least, I believe) cause a drastic increase in DUIs and related accidents and deaths.

You might reduce the stigma if you lowered the age. People continue to perceive drinking as an act of "rebellion" even after 21, mostly because it was for so long. Besides, it doesn't work. I am literally the only person I have ever known who did not drink in HS.

It makes drinking exponentially cooler. Putting something out of reach elevates it in young people's minds. Crack was cool back when only the rich could afford it, now that it's been democratized through a genius chemistry rework it's affordable enough for homeless people and has a terrible image. Drinking needs to undergo a similar process here in the States.

> Crack was cool back when only the rich could afford it

Cocaine (specifically, powder), sure; crack was always low status. In fact, that was the whole source of the political brouhaha over crack vs. powder sentencing disparity.

This was also the primary reason the drinking age was (re-)raised to 21: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com