current drinking age laws don't make sense

Parent Cafe
1

<p>With driving, you don’t suddenly give learner drivers full freedom – they must be “broken in” with hours of supervised driving. With alcohol, when you’re 20 years and 364 days old, you are forbidden from touching a drip of beer – legally, an adult can’t even give you a sip (though it might not be actively enforced), but a day later, woohoo! Total freedom!</p>

<p>I mean, if an individual never gets a period to “break in,” then the point of a drinking age seems almost pointless, because all you’ve done is shift the problem to a later age with no wisdom concerning drinking.</p>

<p>Now, I haven’t drunk myself, and to me this post is more of a thought that followed from reflections about differentiability and continuity in calculus, then say, “OMG THIS IS OPPRESSION.” But drinking age laws have always struck me as having a sort of flawed logic: because really, if you have kids who are going to attend Ivy League schools at age 18 and studying multivariable calculus, existential literature and algebraic rings, what makes them any less capable of “learning to drink” then say starting at age 21? Doesn’t it make sense to “break in” alcohol?</p>

<p>The fact that I can visit facebook college groups about roomates and see that about 85% of those underage (my effective peers) tolerate themselves or their similarly-aged roommates drinking, or going to parties. Underage drinking isn’t a problem – underage binging is. Naturally, higher age correlates with higher maturity and a lower risk of abuse, but after the age of 16 or 18 it seems the chances of abuse drop far lower in correlation compared with say, whether the kid was raised in a pre-existing culture of moderation, previous experiences or “maturity” with drinking and so forth. You could have drinking tests. Or alcohol ration cards for a certain age below the “full freedom” age (one unit of alcohol per week, based on molar mass? As an added side effect, teenagers who know AP Chemistry and stoichiometry will now be in demand.)</p>

<p>I’m not in a real hurry to drink any soon. But gee, now I can buy cigarettes (and other risque things) whenever I want – but I don’t, and I doubt that would have changed had I been granted the right at 17. It’s a very funny feeling. The thing stopping me is that I know there is no such thing as smoking in moderation and that the effects are well irreversible. But I doubt I will gain any more self-control in regard to alcohol consumption at age 18 than I will at age 21. If I were granted the right right now, I would probably go out and buy one can, to see how the bloody thing tastes, as a novelty, and yes, I admit as a “yarrr, now I am a semi-adult…” flex-my-muscles sort of thing. I would do the same thing at age 21 – only three years later, where I must too begin the same “cautious new thing” approach. All those three years, I have lost the opportunity to learn, experience and gain insight. </p>

<p>And I imagine for some kids, a legal mandate that only allowed one ration per week (of varying volumes, based again on the total molar mass of the ethanol being purchased) would allow for experimentation, but nothing more. Gradually increase the ration to a safe amount perhaps, until the that “free purchase” landmark at 21 (or it could be raised higher at this point, if they wanted to) becomes no big deal.</p>

<p>A culture and law that outlaws the slightest of moderation IMO only encourages a black market for excess and binging. Do you think teens would throw a party with lots of alcohol in it (given the proper time for the law to take full effect upon the culture) if the law allowed a limited amount of alcohol? Why would a host take all the trouble to buy an insane amount of smuggled booze when a rationed amount could be purchased legally?</p>

<p>Anyway I’m sure a lot of parents must have had reflections about drinking ages at one point, so it was just a concept (that probably isn’t entirely novel) that I wanted to present. And probably a good heck of my peers browsing this forum are laughing right now because for them it’s already no big deal and I’m making such a big fuss out of it. Imagine someone more easily coerceable then, who hasn’t tried it, has just turned 21, where his friends want to fill him up for his birthday …</p>

2

<p>The point of a 21 drinking age is to keep alcohol away from younger teens. When the drinking age was younger, legal teens bought alcohol for their friends still in hs. </p>

<p>When I was in high school, the drinking age was 18. It began rising just as I turned 18. Once in English class we had to do a debate, and we were assigned a topic and a “side” to argue. I was assigned to argue for a higher drinking age, and my friend was to argue keeping it at 18. We both quickly realized it would be no contest - all the statistics were on my side. Much as we both wanted the drinking age to stay at 18, every study on alcoholism and traffic safety we could find overwhelmingly reported that a higher drinking age reduced a host of societal problems. Sure enough, my side won easily - and my friend was a great debater.</p>

3

<p>Galoisien, you’re right as far as fairness and consistency are concerned. But it’s also a fact that the rate of teens killing themselves and other people by being drunk and stupid has gone down a lot since the law was changed.</p>

<p>That doesn’t necessarily make it right, of course. This is something law students struggle with all the time – do you prioritize passing laws that create positive change in the society, or do you prioritize passing laws that reflect some underlying principle or truth?</p>

<p>Sounds like you’re in the second camp. But because this law was passed under the first line of reasoning, to some extent you’re talking right past the law when you talk about fairness and consistency.</p>

4

<p>

Yes .</p>

5

<p>I think the most interesting point that galosien brings up is that some people put that they do drink on facebook when looking for roommates. If the police went looking, they could probably arrest three-fourths of my senior class. How would you like it if you were about to go to college but then were charged with possession and intention to drink while underage and had to explain to your arrest to your college? (the police could easily follow you as you go to your next party. And then if you make an idiot decision to drive home, then you may be pulled over for DUI.) The whole thing would be a big mess. People, to this day, don’t understand that when you post something on the internet, it’s in a public forum, whether it’s CC or facebook. Really guys, just think before you post. If you wouldn’t admit that you drink to your mom, why would you admit it to the rest of the world?</p>

6

<p>I have a great deal of trouble with the fairness side of this. I especially don’t like the idea that an 18-year-old is supposedly mature enough to decide to enlist in the military without parental permission, but isn’t mature enough to decide whether to drink a beer.
All the arguments about improved highway safety and the like are persuasive, but what do they really prove? Isn’t it that drinking for everyone should be much more strictly regulated, if we want to improve safety?</p>

7

<p>I think that the current drinking age of 21 is absurd in light of the other rights and responsibilities that are bestowed upon 18 year olds. If you are legally able at age 18 to get married, vote, enlist in the military, enter into and be bound by contracts, choose a dangerous occupation, smoke, and be tried as an adult if you commit a crime, then there is no logical reason why you shouldn’t be able to have a beer or a glass of wine. All of the above enumerated items require just as much judgment and maturity, if not more, than the decision to drink.</p>

<p>I am well aware of the statistics regarding drinking and driving and teens. However, one could just as easily make the argument that it is the driving age that needs to be raised. Obviously, a lot fewer 16 and 17 year olds would be killed in car accidents if the driving age were raised to 18. However, we, as a society, have decided that the benefits of allowing 16 and 17 year olds to drive outweigh the risks. The point is that there are trade offs that are made all the time when laws are enacted and we know that there are going to be some negative consequences no matter where the line is drawn. Part of allowing a free society is the recognition that some people are going to make bad choices no matter what the laws are.</p>

8

<p>I like the English system, which permits certain lower alchol content beverages at a certain age (16, which I’m not sure I like), and then higher alchol content later. </p>

<p>Easing into it, as it were.</p>

<p>When I was 18, the permitted age was 18, which coincided nicely with going to college. </p>

<p>It does seem bizarre that at 18 you are legally an adult, can joined the armed forces, sign a contract, vote, buy a gun, marry, etc., etc., etc., but can’t drink.</p>

<p>xposted with ShallWeGo</p>

9

<p>If I had it my way it’d be legal to drink with your family any time, legal to buy beer at either 19 or the graduation of high school, whichever comes first (I suppose you’d have to get some sort of special permit if you went the grad route), and liquor at 20.</p>

10

<p>Back in the day, we were legal at 19-18 if you went over into Wisconsin. I agree that if you’re looking at safety, 21 is best. But it is really hard for me to accept when the absolute Wrath of God comes down on some poor high school senior who drinks. </p>

<p>A couple of years ago we had a limo of full of kids who had champagne on the way to prom…the seniors couldn’t cross the stage at graduation and the juniors started the next school year at the alternative school…jeez-it’s not like they did something immoral…in another era or another country it would have been legal.</p>

11

<p>I remember yrs ago in Ohio, 18 could by 3.2 beer. For those that don’t know, that meant a maximum alcohol % of 3.2 compared to “regular beer” at 6% maximum. those 21 could buy the higher % beer, wine and spirits. The law changed for a while that eliminated 3.2 beer for 18 yr olds, but permitted those 19 to buy all varieties of alcohol. The law also “grandfathered” those at 18 who had been buying 3.2% beer legally to continue buying beer. Then, at 19 they could buy it all. That law was shortlived, mostly due to the pressure of highway funds from fed gov’t. It changed to 21 for all alcohol, but did not “grandfather” this time. That meant someone 20 yrs and 11 months who had been buying any kind of booze legally for almost 2 yrs could no longer buy any until 21. Presently in Ohio a parent can give their minor child alcohol in the home or in a bar.
I don’t like the mixed message(imo) of whats permitted at 18 compared to 21 cited in previous posts. Nevertheless, I don’t think past, more lenient Ohio drinking laws were best for society’s safety. I think the idea of teaching moderation and responsible drinking as some call “breaking in” is the job of the parent, not of the state. While some are mature enough at 18, some 20, some 21, and some not even at 25, one has 2 choices: to either set no minimum age, or set one somewhere. Since stats apparently show a profound difference- substantial fewer accidents at minimum of 21 then I go along with 21.
By the way, the “kids will do it anyway” or “kids can police themselves” are not very convincing arguments to adults that have heard it all before, and probably tried that reasoning themselves when they were kids. I did!
Note too that in many states the phrase “drunk driving” is no longer used, but have substituted driving under the influence. The point is to make clearer the distinction that a person can be impaired without being drunk. Also, the alcohol level permitted is getting lower and lower. This indicates adults are having difficulty policing themselves. Should I think teens are even better? no.</p>

12

<p>If we’re making aws based on safety, (hah! like we ever were…), then we should ban all people above and below a certain height (can’t be too above or below the road), smokers (smoking is a distraction), Asians (don’t want to stereotype but I’m willing to bet a study will find they are worse drivers than average people), and anybody who does poorly on a ruler reflex test.</p>

13

<p>Why does it make sense for it to be legal for kids to be able to drink under their parents supervision? Can we assume that all parents will offer their kids just some wine at dinner? What about the parent that invites their kid to share a case of beer while they watch a game and then lets the kid drive away? Or how about the parents that want them to master beer pong before they go off to college? There are all kinds of parents out there and the assumption that all of them are responsible is absurd. </p>

<p>I agree with Lafalum who said the point of the raising the drinking age to 21 was because the 18 year olds were much more likely to drink with their younger friends and provide them with alcohol. A 21 year old is (usually) not going to be hanging out with kids in HS.</p>

14

<p>Here’s the bottom line: whether or not raising the drinking age is a good public health move (and I am inclined to say that it probably is, on the whole), there is no justification for withholding legal adults from consuming a substance like alcohol (and yes, in case you bring it up, this applies to drugs as well, in my opinion). If you want to raise the age of legal adulthood to 21, fine, but until then I see the higher drinking age as absolutely unjustifiable.</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>Parents who would exhibit that type of behavior are unlikely to be deterred by the current laws anyway.</p>

16

<p>Same with our gun laws - the criminals will be the ones that don’t obey them. So maybe we shouldn’t have gun laws. We all break the speeding laws, maybe we shouldn’t have them either. :)</p>

17

<p>kathiep: That is one of the more compelling arguments against gun control, yes.</p>

<p>Speeding laws are different, because while everybody breaks them they generally break them only incrementally - so you set them somewhere because you know that while people break them it won’t be by that much. Personally, I’d rather instead of speed limits have “speed ranges” - for which you can be ticketed both above and below - because slow drivers on a fast road are just as dangerous as fast ones.</p>

18

<p>Codified law should reflect the common law contained in the social contract; a law imposed against the will of the population it is imposed on might as well not be a law at all.</p>

19

<p>There is no moral justification for forbidding 18 year olds to drink while encouraging them to serve in the military. </p>

<p>But Hanna makes a good point:</p>

<p>This is something law students struggle with all the time – do you prioritize passing laws that create positive change in the society, or do you prioritize passing laws that reflect some underlying principle or truth?</p>

20

<p>I agree that a more “European” approach to alcohol with lower legal ages and the social idea of introducing moderate alcohol consumption as an acceptable part of a healthy lifestyle (vs the forbidden fruit that it is in this country) makes much more sense… however, from a practical standpoint I really don’t see how we can transition from our current system to that system and thus I don’t see the laws changing anytime soon.</p>