Drinking Age. Should it be lowered?

[cF=)]

The severe physiological effects of alcohol should not be ignored. Alcohol kills brain cells, and believe what you want, but it also breeds a lack of responsibility(unless that's what cause the drinking). In the years when teens brains are developing and they are college bound it is simply unbelievable that some people decide to kill off their brain cells.

-- http://www.wonderquest.com/BrainCells.htm

You'll find info on why it is commonly believed that alcohol kills brain cells. But like any cells, they regenerate, and you'll also read the word 'abuse' which should give you a hint on how much you need to consume alcohol in order to permanently damage your brain. Still thinking afterward that drinking a beer or two at the age of 18 is extremely damageble would be ridiculous.

I'm still waiting for cement arguments on why 21 years old is the magic number.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

Italy and America are two different cultures. You have to realize that. As many others have stated, it's been taught how to drink alcohol responsibly. While here, it's accepted to go out and party, and get drunk. We have grown men having problems partying it up, and getting drunk, what makes you think we can have 18 year olds drink responsively. There are alot of 18+ who don't drink because it's illegal, mainly because they don't want to get caught. If you make it legal, there is nothing barring them from partying it up, and this will add way more DUI's and uncontrolled drinking bouts.



Actually it would increase drinking and driving. Bars would now become legal places for teenagers to drink, and where drinking is encouraged. That means an increase in driving.




I just gave you two.

If it can be taught in Italy and many many other countries, of course it can be taught here. That is the main point, I think that it should be lowered because there really isn't a good reason for an adult to not be allowed to drink.

Lonjedi-both of the reasons you gave me were increase in drunk driving, aka dui. You didn't give me two, you actually gave me one, which I really don't agree with. I really didn't think to much about the bar scene, I forgot about that, but I think that problem exists with everyone that drinks. How are you supposed to drive to a bar, drink and then get home without driving. Everyone who goes to a bar to drink should either take a taxi, or have a DD. If they don't have either, they should have to walk.

There is nothing about a 21 one year old that makes him/her magically more intelligent/responsible than an 18 year old. If you are stupid enough to drink and drive, the law will not stop you. Lowering the drinking age will not cause some mass killings from drunk teens driving, it will give young adults the rights that they deserve. It is not up to the government to say, hey your and adult, but you can't do everything you want. You will be punished like one, drafted like one, and treated like one in every way except I think that you aren't mature enough to drink because I make the rules. That is a load of BS.

 

[Falco&Victory]

@Sargent Peach: LoneJedi summed it up just about as good as it gets. Mexico and America are countries based strongly on the belief of Liberty, where as Italy has more roots and culture. Lowering the drinking age would have no positive affects on society, only negative ones.

@cF=): Did you read the part where it says some functions will not repair, and the rest won't either unless you stop drinking? How about where it states some cells do die? Brain cells may repair, but that is different from regenerating. All the cells you have right now you had at birth. Major damage is done to the connections between the cells, the connection that are formed to store memories or improve basic skills. Despite how you interpret it you cannot deny that alcohol has a lasting negative affect on your brain. As for helping your heart, that's what alcohol-free red wine is for(or just exercise, if you're not lazy).

 

[lonejedi]

If it can be taught in Italy and many many other countries, of course it can be taught here. That is the main point, I think that it should be lowered because there really isn't a good reason for an adult to not be allowed to drink.

Hey since democracy can be taught in America, of course it can be taught in China.... eh not a good one me thinks. Of course China might some day become a democracy, as other communisty countries have become, I don't believe it could get as good as it is here, a great example of this are other countries with democracies, not as strong as the U.S.

The same goes for drinking. Our Population is over 300 million, Italy has 59,131,287. That is approximately 1/5 of the U.S. Population. Italy also doesn't have the culture we have. And you can't say it's not culture, but education, that's a load of BS.

No matter what you teach kids in school, for the U.S., it won't have much affect on drinking on teenagers. The Reason? What kids look up to now and days. I don't know about you, but the majority of kids at my school listen to rap. (Even though rap sucks). They see how cool it is to get drunk from movies, and they see hollywood actors who are under age getting drunk all the time. It's the social aspect that is making kids drink under-age.

No matter what you teach them, it doesn't matter. As someone said in the obesity thread, we teach people how to eat right, not to smoke, and such, but it tastes good. To drinking, it tastes good to people, and it won't matter what you teach them, if it tastes good, they will try to get as much of that taste as possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy#Population

 

[cF=)]

@cF=): Did you read the part where it says some functions will not repair, and the rest won't either unless you stop drinking? How about where it states some cells do die?

I clearly putted emphasis around these 2 sentences:

For 16 years, Roberta J. Pentney, professor of anatomy and cell biology at the University at Buffalo, has studied chronic alcohol abuse and brain function.

A drink doesn't kill brain cells. It damages the way brain cells communicate and the damage is largely reversible.

Let me explain to you why brain cells do malfunction when you drink too much alcohol. First, alcohol will mix up with your blood at a certain level. Then, this same blood will be pumped up to your brain, and because brain cells need blood to work, they will at the same time be flooded with alcohol. This is why you get 'dizzy' or less timid, just because your cells lack some blood to work with.

Holding your breath underwater produces the same effect, and it's even more damagable on the long run because your brain lacks almost complete oxygen to work with. Do we ban kids from doing so ? Nah, it's just for fun... you see where I'm going with this...

Brain cells may repair, but that is different from regenerating. All the cells you have right now you had at birth.

Dude, are you serious ? You do think EVERY single cells, being in your brain or your body, will last from the first day of your life to your last ? I think you got fooled between cells and neurons, the latter which can't be repair and will cause everlasting problems if damaged.

Your cells are indeed younger than you are. For exemple, your liver's cells have a life time of about 300 to 500 days. This is important because nobody so far has pointed out the damage alcohol can do to the liver, but here's the proof it can be repaired and have normal functionning again. Same goes for any cells of your body, making your argument completely flawed.

Here's the source, if you can read french.

Major damage is done to the connections between the cells, the connection that are formed to store memories or improve basic skills. Despite how you interpret it you cannot deny that alcohol has a lasting negative affect on your brain. As for helping your heart, that's what alcohol-free red wine is for(or just exercise, if you're not lazy).

Again, the text was solely surrounding alcohol abuse, and I showed you how you were the one misinterpreting this whole research. Lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 will not cause irreversible damage, it will just give the opportunity to adults and maybe some teenagers to enjoy the goods of drinking (if done correctly).

 

[blazedaces]

To cF=): although you are correct that article claims "connections" are "repaired" it never says brain cells regenerate, and for good reason. The brain cells you are born with last you throughout your life (or don't last you). It's just like female eggs, they don't make new ones. Your brain cells can only die, they can not regenerate.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I'm just correcting a misconception.

-blazed

 

[AltF4]

These are all good arguments for or against whether lowering the drinking age would be beneficial to society or not. But I don't see them as a relevant answer to the question of "should the drinking age be lowered?" This is a matter of law, and the role of the government.

It is not the role of the government to protect me from myself. In America we emphasize freedom, even if it means to our own detriment. There are a great multitude of things that are legal that are much worse than alcohol in terms of personal damage or social disruption. Even if society were better off without alcohol or other drugs of any kind (which may or may not be true) it would be wrong for the government to mandate such a fascist law.

 

[Falco&Victory]

@cF=): Despite the minor amount of damage, there will be damage. When most people get used to alcohol in their body, and they want to get buzzed anyway they have to drink more and more beer. Someone could go from drinking 1 beer in a day to drinking 3 or 4. Eventually damage would start to be done.

We live in America, most 18 year olds who decided to drink would certainly abuse alcohol. They couldn't get in trouble, and they want to get buzzed, what do they do to celebrate graduation? They get their blood alcohol level way above the legal driving limit, go driving home, dozens of people get pulled over, then suddenly everybody wakes up with a huge hangover.

Also, if the government suddenly lowered the drinking limit people would start pushing as hard as they could to legalize marijuana and opium. There would be protests, riots, and mobs weekly. Seems like a lot of trouble when 18 year olds can just drink in private.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

Lonjedi- agreed that it is culture and education, and it would be hard to achieve the alcoholic nature that Italy has. But as AltF4Warrior has kindly said, we are getting off track. It is not up to the government to tell adults they can't drink because they are not old enough, they are ADULTS.

AltF4Warrior:
It is not the role of the government to protect me from myself. In America we emphasize freedom, even if it means to our own detriment. There are a great multitude of things that are legal that are much worse than alcohol in terms of personal damage or social disruption. Even if society were better off without alcohol or other drugs of any kind (which may or may not be true) it would be wrong for the government to mandate such a fascist law.

I couldn't agree with him more. You change laws that are wrong, just because they would cause problems to change, doesn't mean you shouldn't change them. Like in the "under God" thread, it would cause lots of controversy and debate, and maybe even fights, but that doesnt mean it still shouldn't be changed. If it is wrong, then it is a mistake that needs fixing, even if it would take a while for the effects of the law to quite down.

Lonjedi: no matter what you teach kids in school, for the U.S., it won't have much affect on drinking on teenagers. The Reason? What kids look up to now and days. I don't know about you, but the majority of kids at my school listen to rap. (Even though rap sucks). They see how cool it is to get drunk from movies, and they see hollywood actors who are under age getting drunk all the time. It's the social aspect that is making kids drink under-age.

No matter what you teach them, it doesn't matter. As someone said in the obesity thread, we teach people how to eat right, not to smoke, and such, but it tastes good. To drinking, it tastes good to people, and it won't matter what you teach them, if it tastes good, they will try to get as much of that taste as possible.

Really, Rap causes all the kids to get drunk and drink and drive. Give me a break, that has nothing to do with this argument and your opinion of music it not relevant either.

I don't think the younger consumers of alcohol drink it for its "AMAZING" taste. They drink it because it gets them drunk. The majority of teenagers that drink, that I know at least are not drinking cause it taste so **** good. They just want the effects. They are not just going to try and get as much of the taste as possible, but the effect. I think you are missing a point about drinking, it may be part social, but it is mainly physical, it feels good to go out with your friends and drink together, even if you don't get smashed, it still feels good. That is why so many people do it.

Falco&Victory: We live in America, most 18 year olds who decided to drink would certainly abuse alcohol. They couldn't get in trouble, and they want to get buzzed, what do they do to celebrate graduation? They get their blood alcohol level way above the legal driving limit, go driving home, dozens of people get pulled over, then suddenly everybody wakes up with a huge hangover.

Also, if the government suddenly lowered the drinking limit people would start pushing as hard as they could to legalize marijuana and opium. There would be protests, riots, and mobs weekly. Seems like a lot of trouble when 18 year olds can just drink in private.

Falco&Victory- That ^^ is all speculation on which you have no proof whatsoever.

 

[Falco&Victory]

@Sargent Peach: I enjoy my history, and know what happened in America throughout the 13 year prohibition era(large history book about the early 1900's). A large black market flourished, distributing alcohol to the states. The populace pushed for the prohibition to be lifted, and when it did, know what happened? Suddenly, breweries opened everywhere and suddenly people were getting drunk all over, creating a rise in crime and a need for law enforcement. Afterwards people pushed for the legalization of opium. In today's America the population has doubled, and consumption of alcohol has become more of a problem. If alcohol were suddenly handed out to 18 year olds there would undoubtedly be more problems. Giving more people the right to drink in public could have no positive results.

I have seen many arguments saying that the drinking age shouldn't be lowered, but I've seen no solid arguments on why lowering the drinking age would be a good thing. Yes, in public it will be easier to supervise drinkers, but it also puts bystanders at risk.

The government is going to suddenly lower the drinking age because some people think there would be little negative outcome. The drinking age has remained the same for longer than anyone has been alive. Face it, almost all of us know a teenager that would abuse alcohol in public if it was legalized. I know at least 5 who would, and I expect they would get into fights at least once a week while drunk.

 

[cF=)]

To cF=): although you are correct that article claims "connections" are "repaired" it never says brain cells regenerate, and for good reason. The brain cells you are born with last you throughout your life (or don't last you). It's just like female eggs, they don't make new ones. Your brain cells can only die, they can not regenerate.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I'm just correcting a misconception.

-blazed

Misconception eh ?

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/926345803.html

That's what I based my assumption on. If you want to disagree with me, you'll need to show me proofs that this study was biased and/or wrongly conducted. I'm pretty sure I don't pull arguments from nowhere.

The government is going to suddenly lower the drinking age because some people think there would be little negative outcome. The drinking age has remained the same for longer than anyone has been alive. Face it, almost all of us know a teenager that would abuse alcohol in public if it was legalized. I know at least 5 who would, and I expect they would get into fights at least once a week while drunk.

Looking at how old it's been in place is not an argument because you don't provide additional reasons as why the original state is good. Alcohol is currently legalized and this is the major difference between today and at the time of the prohibition. Bars popped everywhere on the map because the demand was huge after such a period where NOBODY could drink. The young adult market is indeed big, but nothing compared to what you had post-prehibition.

Giving more people the right to drink in public could have no positive results.

An enlarged market for beer compagnies, pubs, and pretty much everything related to alcoholic beverage. The argument about how higher the number of drunk drivers will be is also ludicrous because given alcohol to the same person at 21, they would probably have the same mentality of driving even if they drank a few beers. Lowering the drinking age doesn't suddenly make people irresponsible, especially not at the respectable age of 18 years old.

 

[cF=)]

double post, my bad

 

[Falco&Victory]

That's what I based my assumption on. If you want to disagree with me, you'll need to show me proofs that this study was biased and/or wrongly conducted. I'm pretty sure I don't pull arguments from nowhere.

http://www.newstrend.com/2006/08/brain_cells_dont_regenerate.html
http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Jun2002/WhyNeuronsDontGrowBack.html
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/anatomy/brain/Neuron.shtml

Yes, it has been found that new cells can be regrown in humans, but that they hold none of the date or capacity that the old ones lost. Moreover, they will only grow when the brain feels there is a major shortage, such as in people with a mental disability.

An enlarged market for beer compagnies, pubs, and pretty much everything related to alcoholic beverage. The argument about how higher the number of drunk drivers will be is also ludicrous because given alcohol to the same person at 21, they would probably have the same mentality of driving even if they drank a few beers. Lowering the drinking age doesn't suddenly make people irresponsible, especially not at the respectable age of 18 years old.

Raise their profits?
Lowering it 3 years allows those not already drinking to buy beer. This would increase profits, what, 5 or 6%, tops? You also seem to be confused, 18 year olds are not as responsible as you think they are. They're high school seniors, a lot of them are as stupid as it gets.

Also, yes, lowering the drinking age would have negative results, it is impossible for a logical person to deny that. Drunk driving would increase without a doubt and how safe could it be with teens at the peak of their hormonally active stage drinking in public? At 21, less hormones, and people have gotten use to the fact that they can go to jail and be fined.

 

[cF=)]

http://www.newstrend.com/2006/08/brain_cells_dont_regenerate.html
http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Jun2002/WhyNeuronsDontGrowBack.html
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/anatomy/brain/Neuron.shtml

I won't really debate anymore brain cells thingy because I found 2 other sources saying the complete opposite of what you just posted. As long as I won't have a biology teacher showing me concrete studies on the matter, I think it's irrelevant to continue arguing on this.

You also seem to be confused, 18 year olds are not as responsible as you think they are. They're high school seniors, a lot of them are as stupid as it gets.

Your profile states you are 15 years old, and I guess your judgement towards 18 years old is as biased as it could get. Get your fact straights, here's a few things you can do when you reach this age:

- You can vote
- You can get drafted for war
- You can serve as a jury
- You can file a lawsuit
- You can buy and make good use of a firearm.

Hormonal activity was considered for all these previous activities ? Are you telling me this ?! Please reconsider that argument, because I'm sure you haven't considered how important the shift between 17 and 18 was when you thought about hormones. If adults were as stupid as you're telling me, I wouldn't let them hold a weapon nor drive a car, drunk or not.

EDIT: Man, this debate is getting so fun. I love Crimson King's idea of making more people enter the debate hall.

 

[Falco&Victory]

The constitution gives legal adults those rights. I am not towards 18 year olds, many are really mature, but a good portion of them would get so drunk they would have a hang over the size of my ego...
Also, I don't want people who just got guns to be allowed to drink, lol.

About those sources, the brain produces more brain cells, but only when the brain feels a large need(say, if somebody has a concussion and they lose a portion of brain functionality). Earlier tests saying that they can't regenerate were done on people with only a few hundred dead cells, and therefore the brain saw no need to replace them. It's only a few hours of memory or some motor functionality, so the brain procrastinates until it cant any more.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

Falco&Victory: what are you talking about. Teenagers would not be drinking in public. It is illegal for anyone to be drunk in public. Did you know that?

Giving more people the right to drink in public could have no positive results.

almost all of us know a teenager that would abuse alcohol in public if it was legalized.

You have mentioned this many times, but I don't know if you understand. Lowering the drinking age would make it possible for alcohol to be bought and consumed. But it would not allow them to walk around drinking in public as it is against the law for anyone, no matter how old they are.

I happen to be a history major, and I don't need a lecture about prohibition. Prohibition caused a lot of problems because gangsters such as Al Capone and Bugs Moran made millions of dollars illegally selling alcohol. It was better for the country when they realized that they made a big mistake with prohibition, especially since it was obviously unconstitutional. You seem to talk about prohibition as if it were a good thing. It was not.

Being 15, and obviously never really experienced the effects of alcohol, I don't think you understand it. You really have to try and drink a lot, pretty much chug it to really lose control of yourself. If you drink it, like you would say coke or pepsi, you will not suddenly loose all control. Even after a few drinks, maybe your reflexes are impaired enough to the point that you shouldn't drive, but you can still make rational decisions. I know I can, and so can my friends. The initial effects of alcohol are feelings of relaxation and cheerfulness. That is why people drink it. It is only after this point, if you continue to drink that blurred vision and loss of coordination occur. You should really, of course not now, but when you get a little older, maybe around 18, experiment with alcohol. You will not loose control if you drink in moderation. It is actually a good thing. You won't have a hangover, you will feel good, and actually it is quite healthy for you.

On the subject of the legality of lowering the age, it is not a question of what good it will do, it is a question of whether the U.S. government has the right to stop adults from doing something that is legal just a couple years later. Alcohol is different than opium, because alcohol is legal, you just have to be a certain age, opium on the other hand is completely illegal, not matter how old you are.

The government is going to suddenly lower the drinking age because some people think there would be little negative outcome.

No, the government should lower the drinking age because they don't have the right to tell ADULTS that they are not mature enough, yet, do drink. Whether their would be negative effects or not, it is not their right.

Think about it, are you saying that people that are mature enough to handle guns, decide if a peer of theirs is guilty of a crime and punish them, serve their country in times of need, and vote for a leader of the free world, that they are not mature enough to consume alcohol. If you think that, then their is no point in arguing with you.

 

[cF=)]

About those sources, the brain produces more brain cells, but only when the brain feels a large need(say, if somebody has a concussion and they lose a portion of brain functionality). Earlier tests saying that they can't regenerate were done on people with only a few hundred dead cells, and therefore the brain saw no need to replace them. It's only a few hours of memory or some motor functionality, so the brain procrastinates until it cant any more.

Since you are just making a resume of what you read on an internet website, I can't really believe anything of this as I already said. Biology is still a science field where discoveries are common, so your sources from 1999 have no real impact on the matter (nor do mine).

You should also understand why people are hangover'd on alcohol. It's usually just a matter of dehydration because you spended too much time without drinking a sip of water. Bringing a 2L bottle of water during a party would pretty much counter any after-effects of alcohol, except the sleep you lack.

For everything else, there is Sargent_Peach.

 

[Falco&Victory]

Yeah, despite what you've said(and bashing me for being 15, even though I have the IQ of an educated 18 year old, like you'll believe me though), I still have yet to hear 1 solid reason why it should be lowered other than 18 year olds are adults and there would be a minute raise in the profits of breweries. Yes, you couldn't drink in public, but people would sure as **** go out in public drunk. I've seen relatives get drunk after only 2 or 3 beers. I really don't trust 18 year olds with beer while they're driving to campus, or to the store, or wherever. By 21 most of them will be out of college, will have a better place to live, and won't be so stupid as to drink and drive.

 

[cF=)]

Yeah, despite what you've said(and bashing me for being 15, even though I have the IQ of an educated 18 year old, like you'll believe me though), I still have yet to hear 1 solid reason why it should be lowered other than 18 year olds are adults and there would be a minute raise in the profits of breweries. Yes, you couldn't drink in public, but people would sure as **** go out in public drunk. I've seen relatives get drunk after only 2 or 3 beers. I really don't trust 18 year olds with beer while they're driving to campus, or to the store, or wherever. By 21 most of them will be out of college, will have a better place to live, and won't be so stupid as to drink and drive.

More assumptions than this would make the universe collapse into a tiny marble ball being driven throught mexican hot cheese home made by Matt..................................................................................................................................................................................................

i'm high so therefoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooore, your logic doesn't hold. Enjoy your aids.

 

[lonejedi]

It is not the role of the government to protect me from myself. In America we emphasize freedom, even if it means to our own detriment. There are a great multitude of things that are legal that are much worse than alcohol in terms of personal damage or social disruption. Even if society were better off without alcohol or other drugs of any kind (which may or may not be true) it would be wrong for the government to mandate such a fascist law.

Yes, but it IS the role of the government, to protect others. If we do lower the drinking age, this will increase drunk driving, no matter what way you look at it, and when we do that, we increase the chance of someone sober, getting into an accident, because of a drunk driver.

Really, Rap causes all the kids to get drunk and drink and drive. Give me a break, that has nothing to do with this argument and your opinion of music it not relevant either.

Actually studies have shown, that those who watch rap music videos, are 1.5 times likelier to drink alcohol.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2891

don't think the younger consumers of alcohol drink it for its "AMAZING" taste. They drink it because it gets them drunk. The majority of teenagers that drink, that I know at least are not drinking cause it taste so **** good. They just want the effects. They are not just going to try and get as much of the taste as possible, but the effect. I think you are missing a point about drinking, it may be part social, but it is mainly physical, it feels good to go out with your friends and drink together, even if you don't get smashed, it still feels good. That is why so many people do it.

You don't understand what I mean by taste. I mean, it's something they desire, I honestly don't think cigerettes are tasty, but people smoke them all the time. Why do you think it's so hard for people to quit smoking/quit drinking, because it's an addiction, it appeals to them, they enjoy the effects of it.

-

You can vote
- You can get drafted for war
- You can serve as a jury
- You can file a lawsuit
- You can buy and make good use of a firearm.

Well hey, since you know 16 year olds have responsibilites, maybe we should lower that age too. Let's see... 16 year olds can....

-Drive a Car, by themselves
-Work a job
-Go to School
-Can be convicted of Murder, and placed in a federal prison
-Get married in some states

Well hey now, get married? Hey if they are married, they should be able to drink....

Obviously some of the above items I mentioned are rediculous. But if we are simply going to base the legalization of alcohol on " well these people can do that, so therefore they should be able to drink"

Maturity is the big reason why 18 year olds shouldn't have alcohol. Maybe it's different at where you go to school, but there were alot of immature 18 years at my school, that got drunk at parties all the time, had sex with their girlfriends all the time, and sadly had the maturity level of a 13 year old girl, going through puberty.

More assumptions than this would make the universe collapse into a tiny marble ball being driven throught mexican hot cheese home made by Matt.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................................................

i'm high so therefoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooore, your logic doesn't hold. Enjoy your aids.

Idk if you're sarcastic or serious, but if you are serious, you just proved my point, idk if I would feel safe, driving the street, if you're driving while you are high......

 

[cF=)]

Idk if you're sarcastic or serious, but if you are serious, you just proved my point, idk if I would feel safe, driving the street, if you're driving while you are high......

What's proving I was driving since I wasn't ?

 

[Falco&Victory]

More assumptions than this would make the universe collapse into a tiny marble ball being driven throught mexican hot cheese home made by Matt..................................................................................................................................................................................................

i'm high so therefoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooore, your logic doesn't hold. Enjoy your aids.

I don't see how assumptions = watching step-dad and cousins get drunk and throw up after 3 beers each(4 in the case of my dad). I also guess seeing people on my sister's college campus go out drunk on their 21st birthday drunk becuase they can drink now is just an assumption.

LoneJedi, I agree with all your points, and rationally thinking I can't see anything wrong with your logic.

 

[cF=)]

Yes, but it IS the role of the government, to protect others. If we do lower the drinking age, this will increase drunk driving, no matter what way you look at it, and when we do that, we increase the chance of someone sober, getting into an accident, because of a drunk driver.

I love how this theory has been pulled out through all the debate, and everytime we might want to compare your assumptions with other country's drunk driving statistics, you say it's impossible to predict since America is wider than every other population bla bla. Please, I already explained it won't necessarily increase because lowering the minimum drinking age cannot change how someone think or act. If you were mature enough to not drink and drive at 21, you surely knew it was bad at 18. And people who would drive drunk at 18, surely were dumb enough to do the same at 21. Like you said, you can drive alone at 16, and it's always teached that driving should not be mixed with drugs nor alcohol (which I wholeheartedly respect).

You don't understand what I mean by taste. I mean, it's something they desire, I honestly don't think cigerettes are tasty, but people smoke them all the time. Why do you think it's so hard for people to quit smoking/quit drinking, because it's an addiction, it appeals to them, they enjoy the effects of it.

Only 10% of the population is likely to develop an addiction over alcohol, the rest might just want to repeat the experience for fun but are not dependant on it. Although I see what you wanted to say, the comparison with tobacco doesn't really work, since we know it's highly bodily addictive.

Obviously some of the above items I mentioned are rediculous. But if we are simply going to base the legalization of alcohol on " well these people can do that, so therefore they should be able to drink"

Well then, I'm given to ask you how you can let your country, weapon use and the law in the hand of immature teenagers ? How can the government randomly decides whether you're mature enough or not for X activity ? Looking at what you can or cannot do at 18 years old is what drives this discussion, so yes, the comparison stands.

F&V, I don't even think you read what Sargent_Peach said since you don't seem to rebute anything he pulled out so far. I'm also really skeptical on your example because you took the smallest population to base yourself on: your family. Even if I have a mentally ******** cousin in mine, I'm not pulling out facts out of it saying "every family in North America must have a trisomic because mine do". Same goes for alcohol.

 

[lonejedi]

I love how this theory has been pulled out through all the debate, and everytime we might want to compare your assumptions with other country's drunk driving statistics, you say it's impossible to predict since America is wider than every other population bla bla. Please, I already explained it won't necessarily increase because lowering the minimum drinking age cannot change how someone think or act. If you were mature enough to not drink and drive at 21, you surely knew it was bad at 18. And people who would drive drunk at 18, surely were dumb enough to do the same at 21. Like you said, you can drive alone at 16, and it's always teached that driving should not be mixed with drugs nor alcohol (which I wholeheartedly respect).

But let me ask you, how many people, think ahead and get a DD, when they go out to the bar/parties/family gathering? Not Many. Now out of those who did not bring a DD, how many do you think are going to remember, that driving is not safe while drunk. Do you really think, that someone who just guzzled down a six pack, is going to have intelligence to find a DD? People do it all the time at later ages than 21. In Wisconsin, we have had state officials, get pulled over for DUI. People who are "mature" enough to drink and not drive, and are much older than 21. Your thinking is rendered almost useless, when you are drunk, or high.

Only 10% of the population is likely to develop an addiction over alcohol, the rest might just want to repeat the experience for fun but are not dependant on it. Although I see what you wanted to say, the comparison with tobacco doesn't really work, since we know it's highly bodily addictive.

Link? And how are they likely to do this, what makes those 10% more likely than others?

Well then, I'm given to ask you how you can let your country, weapon use and the law in the hand of immature teenagers ? How can the government randomly decides whether you're mature enough or not for X activity ? Looking at what you can or cannot do at 18 years old is what drives this discussion, so yes, the comparison stands.

Hey, you know what, since you are an adult, why not eliminate every restriction that comes with age. Heck, why not have 18 year olds run to be senators, representatives, or heck even the president. I mean if they can serve and die for our country, they should be able to run this country.

Your idea of a 18 year old serving in our army is flawed. Let me tell you, do you think they just let stupid people out into the war? No, they train those 18 year olds, in boot camp, in training camp, and then in close to-real life situations. Once that training is done, these soldiers, aren't the smart mouth kids that they were before they entered the war, they have respect, they are usually mature, and they can take the responsibilities that are given to them. Not so much 18 year olds that just starting out in college, and are already probabally drinking illegally.

 

[cF=)]

But let me ask you, how many people, think ahead and get a DD, when they go out to the bar/parties/family gathering? Not Many. Now out of those who did not bring a DD, how many do you think are going to remember, that driving is not safe while drunk. Do you really think, that someone who just guzzled down a six pack, is going to have intelligence to find a DD? People do it all the time at later ages than 21. In Wisconsin, we have had state officials, get pulled over for DUI. People who are "mature" enough to drink and not drive, and are much older than 21. Your thinking is rendered almost useless, when you are drunk, or high.

First of all, in Québec, people who have their permit for over 2 years can drive with about 4 beers in their body. So having family members going back home after their shared a bottle of wine is perfectly legal.

When you say bars and parties, I can assure you I always were/had a DD. Recently, I celebrated my girl friend's 18th birthday (she's not my girlfriend, but my girl friend), and we went to a well known pub in Montréal. Turned out I was indeed the DD, and I fulfilled my task perfectly. Parties are a different things though. My friends and I usually put our car keys together in a bowl, the latter which is locked somewhere in the house. We end up sleeping over since we can't access these keys until the next morning, which assure no one will ever drive drunk.

So am I right to think teenagers can be responsible ? Yes, but that's how I was educated.

Link? And how are they likely to do this, what makes those 10% more likely than others?

http://www.baptistonline.org/health/library/drug4431.asp

If I sum up the important part, it says it has something to do with genes. Having parents, grand-parents or a related family member who was alcoholic would make you more likely to become one.

I can also do quick math with this website's source:
% = Number of alcoholic / Total US pop. x 100%
% = 17,600,000 / 302,056,000 (from wikipedia)
% = ~17 %

Hey, you know what, since you are an adult, why not eliminate every restriction that comes with age. Heck, why not have 18 year olds run to be senators, representatives, or heck even the president. I mean if they can serve and die for our country, they should be able to run this country.

Completing political, economical, or whatever studies in university is impossible at 18 years old. That's pretty much why you wouldn't see anybody trying to run for president even if it was legal. I don't know about senators though, because we don't have those here in Canada. I usually refrain from debating political issues exactly because our systems doesn't really work the same way.

 

[Falco&Victory]

cF=), our discussion is not focusing around responsible teens like yourself, but all the stupid druggies, jocks and just plain stupid people who can't think for themselves. I know a good share of people who would go out on a rampage if they got drunk, but they wouldn't care because they can't go to jail. At 18 they wouldn't fully comprehend the fact that they're responsible for themselves. In my opinion giving them 3 years to get that fact pounded into them is the perfect thing to do. Also, do you realize how many people 17% is?

 

[Sargent_Peach]

It shouldn't be focused stupid druggies. It is about the law and the government, and what their rights are. Of course the effects on the teens are important, but it is not the focus.

This thread has gone down hill. When "dumb jocks" are brought up, you know it's a lost cause.

I'm done with this thread... for now at least.

 

[Rici]

@F&V
Why shouldn't it be focused on the responsible teenagers? Who are you to take away their right to drink? There are A LOT more responsible teenagers than there are stupid ones, and even they are looked after by the responsible ones. I can know, I go out enough to see a lot of people get drunk/tipsy, and everyone gets home safely. Some take the cab, others are cycling(still prohibited but a lot safer than driving a car), or they have someone to drive them.

Heck, if you really wanted that only responsible people are allowed to drink then you should either get everybody to do a responsibility test or raise the minimum age to 30 because there will be always stupid people.

Like AltF4Warrior said, it's not the role of the government to protect me from myself. @LoneJedi, the government is already protecting the others by controlling the roads on people who are DUI. Over here it's heavily punished if you get caught, meaning getting a fine of over 400 euros and possibility of losing your driver license. People would think twice about drinking too much.

 

[cF=)]

I know a good share of people who would go out on a rampage if they got drunk, but they wouldn't care because they can't go to jail.

This... is getting ridiculous.

At 18 they wouldn't fully comprehend the fact that they're responsible for themselves. In my opinion giving them 3 years to get that fact pounded into them is the perfect thing to do. Also, do you realize how many people 17% is?

I'm kinda bored of discussing mentalities since your judgement is completely biased and the fact you don't understand the rights you are given at that age. At 18 years old, you are facing criminal charges as an adult and will go to jail/pay a fine if you don't respect the law.

About the 17%, let me explain it to you, black on white. I first said 10% of americans are more likely to develop craving over alcoholic beverage, and to try and prove this number, I researched how many alcoholics the United States holds right now. So given the number of alcoholic divided by the total population, I got 17%.

Now, how to interpret this number. 17% doesn't mean much in this current debate because I don't know how many 18 to 25 years old are struck by alcoholism in America. I just wanted to prove that not everybody will develop a dependance over alcohol, like lonejedi tried to make you guys believe by comparing drinking with tobacco smoking.

Unfortunetaly, this debate went from "who has the right to drink" to "teenagers are irresponsibles", so I rest my case too because even if I could rebute everything you said F&V (which is what I did from the top), you still wouldn't believe a word I say nor acknowledge is it ludicrous to not having the right to drink at 18 years old, the ONLY shift between your teenage life and the adult world.

- “Always remember that I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me.” Winston Churchill

 

[Falco&Victory]

I understand and agree with many of your points, but I don't see how teen responsibility isn't an issue. Yes, a lot of teens are responsible, and at 18 you have rights and responsibility. It may not be the governments responsibility to protect you from yourself, but it is their responsibility to protect citizens from other people.

At 18 teens are starting the first major step towards their career, and alcohol really isn't really the best thing for many of them. I for one hate alcohol. It's disgusting, and getting loopy off any drug is never a great experience(unless it's morphine, because it's either morphine or pain) for me.

I believe at 18 you should get some sort of license to drink, and after you get caught driving drunk or committing a crime that license should be revoked. It would let responsible teenagers drink, and those that aren't will have to drink in private where less people are at risk.

 

[blazedaces]

I understand and agree with many of your points, but I don't see how teen responsibility isn't an issue. Yes, a lot of teens are responsible, and at 18 you have rights and responsibility. It may not be the governments responsibility to protect you from yourself, but it is their responsibility to protect citizens from other people.

At 18 teens are starting the first major step towards their career, and alcohol really isn't really the best thing for many of them. I for one hate alcohol. It's disgusting, and getting loopy off any drug is never a great experience(unless it's morphine, because it's either morphine or pain) for me.

I believe at 18 you should get some sort of license to drink, and after you get caught driving drunk or committing a crime that license should be revoked. It would let responsible teenagers drink, and those that aren't will have to drink in private where less people are at risk.

Don't we already get a license to do something ... like driving a car? Don't we already have to take a written exam, granted it's a fairly easy one, that involves questions on DUI? You're being ridiculous dude. Look, at 21 lots of people still aren't responsible enough to drink... so why not just make the age 40 just to be safe?

Why are you all ignoring the fact that so many other countries have the drinking age much lower yet have no problems? If you claim that they are smaller then the united states then I would claim that Europe as a whole is bigger. So what?! You're completely throwing out probably close to 50 countries that all have drinking ages of 18 (not just europe) and have much fewer drinking problems then we do! That's so many different cultures and samples. How can you possibly ignore so much evidence?!

You can claim all the hypothetical nonsense about what would happen if we lowered the drinking age, but we don't know unless someone has tried it... oh wait! Someone has... the other hundreds of countries that all have lower drinking ages. If we look at them we see that these hypothetical made-up scenarios just NEVER happen. Stop claiming illogical scenarios when we know they don't exist or are too negligible to consider!

This thread has become a "let's all think of every possible bad thing that can come of alcohol"-fest... Why not ban alcohol again? Let's try it, I mean, according to all your **** speculation it would make everyone safer... but we tried that already? Oh wait, I know, back then, the population of the united states was smaller... and the culture was different (wtf is this?! The culture is always different! This sounds like the same excuses people gave to being racist...) I mean, the people alive back then might not even be alive today...

-blazed

 

[Falco&Victory]

I hate flame fests, they go nowhere. Good points just get shot down and flamed.

Ok, starting with 'other countries are off just fine with a drinking age of 18". Other countries have horrible problems with it. Europe is also a completely different culture. My friend use to live in Europe and he said all the kids there are much more respectful. You called some scenarious are hypothetical, and say your's aren't because you have evidence, but when I have evidence you shoot it down by flaming.

Yes, Mexico is a different culture and loweing the drinking age might have a good impact on America! It could, but for the most part with our laws not being nearly as strict as other countries and our teens being much more irresponsible(I'm compraing our kids to kids in England, I've never been to say, Norway or Germany) I'm willing to conclude that the outcome would have more of a negative outcome than a positive one. I don't see how loweing the drinking age could possibly lower drinking problem, seeing as the people who cause the problems are still drinking along with another few million teenagers.

I think getting to many DUIs should get your alcohol priveledges revoked.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

We are not trying to lower the drinking age to lower drinking problems. That has nothing to do with it. Don't you get it? ****

 

[Falco&Victory]

Well that seems to be the main point of many people's arguments. I've seen no solid arguments as to why the drinking age should be lowered other than 18 year olds are adults. You can't gamble until you're 21 either, but that shouldn't change. You suddenly get responsibilities thrown on you, and the government sees that it's not a good time to let you drink or gamble. My sister is 20 and she says she agrees with the drinking age, and so do most of her friends,

 

[Sargent_Peach]

See, this is my point, your sister's opinion and that of her friends are irrelevant to this discussion. Why can't you understand that your opinions don't matter when it comes to debating laws?

 

[Falco&Victory]

Yes, opinions matter. There's 2 groups here, people of the opinion that the law should be changed and those of the opposite opinion. Protesters can change laws with enough work because they have differing opinions. Your argument makes no sense.

My sister and her friends are all between 20 and 21 and they're don't think 18 year-olds should drink, and they have more experience than most people here. They go to a college that's well acknowledged as a party-all-night college(Washington State University). You can't get more experience than that unlesss you're actually going out and drinking with people under the drinking age.
My parents agree with it to, and so do a lot of people I know. When you get the right to bear arms and vote alcohol can't be a good influence on you. When you get buzzed it becomes harder to think, so you drink more and many people become drunk even if they weren't planning to(my parents have friends over a lot, I've seen this a few times, and they're all successful and responsible people).

 

[Blackadder]

If anything, I think the legal drinking age should be HIGHER.
It’s scary the amount of friends I have that I have asked
"Hey, have you ever gotten drunk?"
"Yep!"
It scares me, frankly. Today’s youth (me included I guess) are far to stupid and naive to drink sensibly, after getting completely whammed, often tend to think "Hmmm, I think I'll drive around now!".
Or maybe "I think I'll have even MORE". Its things like these that make me scared, as many people kill themselves and others when they do such silly things.
But...I may just be pessimistic of this since I lost someone to a drunk driver.
Though I say that not for sympathy, but to help prove a point.
The age should be higher, I think.

 

[Falco&Victory]

Woot, back after a week-long break.

See, Blackadder agrees with me, and he also in an America.
Have any of you been high? I have(morphine), and do you know what happened? I watched Oprah. Now, if I watched Oprah, I was not in the slightest master of my own judgment.

We're real American teens who really believe that most of us and our friends should not be trusted with alcohol. We don't pretend to be mature to try to get drunk. I think everyone hear who boasts they're maturity are just arguing blindly for a cause. I've seen the real world, I've seen how things work in the real world. Theories mean nothing when you see these arguments in action. Drunk teens often results in drive by shooting(with air-soft and paintball guns), minor offenses, and a lot of fights. I've spent time at college before, it is not pretty when people consume alcohol underage. I don't drink alcohol because I know that I will lose my better judgment, and if you don't believe that is true then I don't know what to tell you.

This is more related to Marijuana. but go on Newgrounds.com, watch the foamy's rants, and watch the one about drugs.

 

[Rici]

Dude, what the **** are you talking about? The real world? I just got back from Salou where I partied 2 weeks long and I have yet to see someone getting a DUI over there. Why? Because it's strictly checked upon and punished heavily when it does happen. There were plenty of cabs and buses and they were used by all people, even drunken ones.

Please, getting drunk at a party isn't necessarily a bad thing.

If you want to get rid of the DUI's, I say lower the age limit of beverages with low alcohol percentage to 16 years(those with high alcohol percentages to 18) and HIGHER the minimum driving age to 18. Because between those 2 ages, teens can get familiar with alcohol, getting to know their limits. Be a little stricter to those who just got there license at the age of 18(IE: heavier punishment for DUI, like taking away your license).

Do you want proof that this'll work? I say, look at Europe.

 

[Falco&Victory]

Ok, same debate again. Again, Europe and America are two different cultures. Also, law enforcement is not as strict everywhere as it is in Salou. Again, I know many 18, 19, and 20 year-old friends of my sister who say that in college they should not be trusted with alcohol, because they've often failed assignments due to hangovers, or just deciding to not do them while drunk.

Raising the driving age would be horrible, because how would teens get to work? I think the drinking age is fine where it is. People drink underage in private, and learn their limit far away from most of the populace. If they learn they went over the limit, only drunk people will probably get hurt.