The Drinking Age. 18 or 21? A new proposal for 19?

[ArcPoint]

3 out of every 4 years that statement will mean that you are already 18 years of age. A year has 365 days unless it is Leap Year. 75% of the time someone of 17 years, 365 days, and 23 hours will be considered "responsible enough" to your standards.

Too good, you got a point. However the intent was to mean: You're not legally an adult 1 second before you're 18. In the case of a leap year, you are STILL legally not an adult at 17 years, 364 days and 23 hours.

 

[Narukari]

3 out of every 4 years that statement will mean that you are already 18 years of age. A year has 365 days unless it is Leap Year. 75% of the time someone of 17 years, 365 days, and 23 hours will be considered "responsible enough" to your standards.

The same case applies whether you have the age at 18 or 21. The argument isn't that the number is arbitrary, it is arbitrary. The argument is why is it 21? Everything else in law points towards 18 being the age where you stop being a child and become an adult.

How about this for a pro towards it being 18:

I believe that having the drinking age at 18 would help lower the alcohol poisoning deaths, because most people would still live with their parents when they are allowed to start drinking. Their parents could help ease them into it.

This seems much better than hitting your 21st birthday without any sort of guidance, and having a bunch of friends pressuring you into drinking your brains out the first night your allowed to drink.

 

[RazeveX]

....because it was a slippery slope....

Yeah, that's my whole point.

Have you forgotten how this started?

We're forgetting something here. 18 is still an arbitrary age. I don't know when they considered 18 to be the age of majority. But when they made tha decision, you can be **** sure it was an arbitrary one. Also you could be 17.99 years old and feel the exact same on your 18th birthday. It's stupid.

Unless you just said that for no reason, I was refuting one of your points.

My point was that, although it could be called arbitrary, your "why not 17.99" logic does not work. Which we both agree on.

So what, exactly, is stupid (in your quote above)? Can you think of a better way to generate a legal drinking age, if the current or suggested one is "arbitrary"? Could you make it UNarbitrary (new word right there)?

If not, I don't see your point in that paragraph (if any).

 

[Narukari]

Sorry I didn't get to this earlier.

To me, setting a safe, considered drinking age doesn't seem like "doing whatever they want to". It is for the benefit of the country. Also, you're forgetting that there are links between alcohol and road accidents. So not only are they a danger to the ones who consume it, it is a danger to others as well. It's completely in the governments power to decide who is old enough to drink.

Your right, it isn't. I am just trying to use it to show the flaw in the thought process that things that are against the law are bad by default.

In my post after yours I talked about the ability for parents to slowly bring their 18 year old sons/daughters into responsible drinking, instead of giving the right to people who don't have any sort of guidance.

Also, a lot of people drink irresponsibly. If they drive while drunk there are severe consequences. I don't see any reason that someone that is 18-21 should be banned from drinking that isn't also a reason for someone 21+ should be banned from drinking.

To me, that is running the country. All we do is live here, and contribute small bits. Sure, the government doesn't do everything, but with smaller sub systems, but without them we could not "run", so to speak.

I don't know, but you make it sound like the government owns the place, and it's only by it's permission that we are allowed to live here.

It makes perfect sense to me; i'll try to explain our misunderstanding, whether I'm right or wrong.

When I said customer happiness, I meant that as a variable used to set prices that are not too outrageous that no one would buy their product. Sure, SOME shop owners may not care particularly much about their customers, but it's probably an insult to say that all shop owners do not care about their customers. Anyway, I digress.

Governments set their laws in the same way; balancing the happiness of their citizens (i feel wierd using that word, but whatever) with their safety. One could also argue that the government doesn't really care about the safety of it's citizens at all; it simply wants to do other things such as increase tourism, world standing, etc.

It's very similar, very comparable as I see it.

I can see where your trying to go with this analogy, but the problem is that the government is not supposed to compromise law because of happiness. They don't go by a chart comparing what people want to what is right. The government is supposed to make law to keep things in order. You can't kill, steal, destroy, etc. Lawmakers should not be try to make a compromise age for drinking. If the ages 18-21 causes a person to have some sort of immunity from the adverse affects of alcohol, then the age should be 21.

However, no one will remember my initial point; refuting that the number is arbitrary, therefore worthless. No one will acknowledge my rebuttal of one of Delorted's points (why not 17.99?). (not saying I need acknowledgement, try to see where I'm going with this)

I have said many times that the number is arbitrary. I would also disagree with making the legal drinking age 16, for the same reason I disagree with having the legal drinking age 21. We have so many laws surrounding becoming 18, that it makes no sense that the age 18-21 should have these extra laws that don't pertain to people that are 21+.

In short, I disagree with having the age 17.99 or below, or 18.01 or above, unless they change the age of responsibility with it.

You're telling me. One of the main arguments on the other side (pro-young-drinking?) is that "18 is when you become an adult, and you should get the rights of one, such as drinking".

Yes, if you drink alcohol when you are 18 or younger, it is your parents fault for not keeping alcohol from their children. When you are 21+ it is considered legal for you to drink. For some reason 18-21 is the only 3 years in which you can be criminally charged for drinking alcohol.

 

[ArcPoint]

I have said many times that the number is arbitrary. I would also disagree with making the legal drinking age 16, for the same reason I disagree with having the legal drinking age 21. We have so many laws surrounding becoming 18, that it makes no sense that the age 18-21 should have these extra laws that don't pertain to people that are 21+.

In short, I disagree with having the age 17.99 or below, or 18.01 or above, unless they change the age of responsibility with it.

This. The age of responsibility as of now in the United States (and other countries) is 18. At 18 years of age, you are an adult. Not a second/minute/hour/day/week/month/year/decade earlier. Should the age of becoming an adult suddenly become 21. Then the legal drinking age at 21 is absolutely fine, because it's when you are deemed legally an adult.

 

[RazeveX]

Also, a lot of people drink irresponsibly. If they drive while drunk there are severe consequences. I don't see any reason that someone that is 18-21 should be banned from drinking that isn't also a reason for someone 21+ should be banned from drinking.

I don't know about where you live, but where I live there is a much much larger correlation between road deaths and alcohol at around 18-23 (i think it was 23, something in the low 20s). So drunk driving amongst young drivers is easily classified as more of a hazard, regardless of any particular young driver who may be an exception.

Although this (source) article seems quite bad, it does have statistics stating:

"Young drivers have twice the death rate compared to people of all ages"

I don't know, but you make it sound like the government owns the place, and it's only by it's permission that we are allowed to live here.

You must be mistaken then, as I never said or attempted to imply that.

I can see where your trying to go with this analogy, but the problem is that the government is not supposed to compromise law because of happiness. They don't go by a chart comparing what people want to what is right. The government is supposed to make law to keep things in order. You can't kill, steal, destroy, etc. Lawmakers should not be try to make a compromise age for drinking. If the ages 18-21 causes a person to have some sort of immunity from the adverse affects of alcohol, then the age should be 21.

To an extent, they really do (compromise laws because of "happiness"). If they didn't care about what people did (maybe happiness isn't the right word, but I'll continue), then why not ban alcohol? Cigarettes? Chocolate? These things serve no purpose in our society, do they?

If they weren't compromising for a drinking age, then I guess the safest age is 200.

I have said many times that the number is arbitrary. I would also disagree with making the legal drinking age 16, for the same reason I disagree with having the legal drinking age 21. We have so many laws surrounding becoming 18, that it makes no sense that the age 18-21 should have these extra laws that don't pertain to people that are 21+.

In short, I disagree with having the age 17.99 or below, or 18.01 or above, unless they change the age of responsibility with it.

Yes, if you drink alcohol when you are 18 or younger, it is your parents fault for not keeping alcohol from their children. When you are 21+ it is considered legal for you to drink. For some reason 18-21 is the only 3 years in which you can be criminally charged for drinking alcohol.

This. The age of responsibility as of now in the United States (and other countries) is 18. At 18 years of age, you are an adult. Not a second/minute/hour/day/week/month/year/decade earlier. Should the age of becoming an adult suddenly become 21. Then the legal drinking age at 21 is absolutely fine, because it's when you are deemed legally an adult.

I have already covered the "18 is when you become an adult, so that is when you should be given the right to drink" argument in previous posts with Vorguen. However, if I've missed something, feel free to bring it up again.

 

[ArcPoint]

To an extent, they really do (compromise laws because of "happiness"). If they didn't care about what people did (maybe happiness isn't the right word, but I'll continue), then why not ban alcohol? Cigarettes? Chocolate? These things serve no purpose in our society, do they?

If they weren't compromising for a drinking age, then I guess the safest age is 200.

I can't really think of a good use for cigarettes... but chocolate have legitimate uses. For example, a glass of wine a day is actually beneficial for your health. And chocolate... how else would we sooth women during their PMS?

 

[Narukari]

I don't know about where you live, but where I live there is a much much larger correlation between road deaths and alcohol at around 18-23 (i think it was 23, something in the low 20s). So drunk driving amongst young drivers is easily classified as more of a hazard, regardless of any particular young driver who may be an exception.

Drunk driving is illegal no matter what age you are. If someone is going to drink and drive at 21, why wouldn't they drink and drive at 18. Because it's illegal?

The government should prosecute the people who drink and drive (and they do), not the people who drink.

To an extent, they really do (compromise laws because of "happiness"). If they didn't care about what people did (maybe happiness isn't the right word, but I'll continue), then why not ban alcohol? Cigarettes? Chocolate? These things serve no purpose in our society, do they?

Just because something doesn't serve a purpose isn't enough of a reason to make it illegal. Even if it has adverse affects isn't enough to make it illegal. It isn't the job of the government to make sure we live perfect sinless lives. People can enjoy a cigarette, can of beer, or a Hershey's bar if they want to. But if you go trash your neighbors car because of the sugar rush from the chocolate you will be prosecuted for that.

If they weren't compromising for a drinking age, then I guess the safest age is 200.

They did, and the American people rebelled against it, showing that if the government oversteps their bounds the American people won't accept it.

I have already covered the "18 is when you become an adult, so that is when you should be given the right to drink" argument in previous posts with Vorguen. However, if I've missed something, feel free to bring it up again.

The problem is that you only stated that it isn't legal to do that, so it shouldn't be legal. Which is just circular logic that could be used to justify any law that is currently in existence. That isn't an argument for why it should be 21 instead of 18.

You also kept bringing up the slippery slope concept, which also doesn't work in this situation.

The age wouldn't be 17.99 because you become legally responsible for yourself at 18. Now if bills started going through congress to change the age of adulthood to 16, then we could start talking about lowering the alcohol age limit below 18.

 

[RazeveX]

Drunk driving is illegal no matter what age you are. If someone is going to drink and drive at 21, why wouldn't they drink and drive at 18. Because it's illegal?

The government should prosecute the people who drink and drive (and they do), not the people who drink.

That doesn't relate to what I said at all.
I said that there is a much higher correlation between young adults breaking drink driving laws (resulting in more accidents), which statistics will prove.
Therefore, although it is a safety hazard amongst all ages (no one denied that), it is actually more of a hazard for young adults.

Just because something doesn't serve a purpose isn't enough of a reason to make it illegal. Even if it has adverse affects isn't enough to make it illegal. It isn't the job of the government to make sure we live perfect sinless lives. People can enjoy a cigarette, can of beer, or a Hershey's bar if they want to. But if you go trash your neighbors car because of the sugar rush from the chocolate you will be prosecuted for that.

This is what I said:

To an extent, they really do (compromise laws because of "happiness"). If they didn't care about what people did (maybe happiness isn't the right word, but I'll continue), then why not ban alcohol? Cigarettes? Chocolate? These things serve no purpose in our society, do they?

What you said does not explain what is wrong with the above point. The government does factor in the "happiness" of citizens; that was my point. Your quote right under this agrees with my point. I should note, though, that this point is quite trivial. However, you refuted it, so...

They did, and the American people rebelled against it, showing that if the government oversteps their bounds the American people won't accept it.

Yes, hence why they must factor in the "happiness" of their citizens when deciding on an age for legal drinking. My first point. The questions where rhetorical. The reasons in which you disagreed with them accepts the points I was making.

The problem is that you only stated that it isn't legal to do that, so it shouldn't be legal. Which is just circular logic that could be used to justify any law that is currently in existence. That isn't an argument for why it should be 21 instead of 18.

You also kept bringing up the slippery slope concept, which also doesn't work in this situation.

The age wouldn't be 17.99 because you become legally responsible for yourself at 18. Now if bills started going through congress to change the age of adulthood to 16, then we could start talking about lowering the alcohol age limit below 18.

You did not read far back enough.

I didn't just state that it wasn't legal.
Oh, and people have to get straight that the slippery slope thing was refuting delorted's point. If your point is to do with adulthood and responsibility at 18, then the slippery slope obviously doesn't apply.

Hang on, I'll find something I wrote...


Some of it is not related to your point, but I'm sure you get the gist of it.

Ok, so now your argument is completely based on the fact that the government has chosen an age where you become an adult legally. But in reality, all that means is that you should be responsible enough not to commit serious crimes. Legally, adulthood isn't a privilege, it's a responsibility.

The government never promised you that at 18, you would have all of the same rights as an "adult". Should you be allowed into a seniors centre at 18 as well? Why not? Ok, now how does that apply to your original argument?

As far as the government is concerned, 18 is simply an age of responsibility.

Yes, but you said that 18 is the age where you become an adult. What happened to that? I thought your whole argument was that 18 is the age we become adults, and should be given the rights of one.

I understand your point. However, loopholes in rules such as legal adulthood should not be held as a strong opposition to health and safety concerns. Don't take this as a claim that 19 year olds drinking is unsafe, as I didn't necessarily claim that. I'm just saying that 21 is a safer age than 19. 19 year olds are not uncommon in high schools; 21 year olds are a different story. Things such as this can be said with fairly widespread acceptance. So the only issue is, why not? What's wrong with 21?

I couldn't really see why 19 year olds need alcohol. The answer I got was something along the lines of "it's not that they need it; it's a violation of their rights".

Yet, I talked about that age signifying responsibility, not rights, even though some may come with it. See below for slightly more detail.

They would be treated like adults; 18 year old adults. How about seniors cards? Should all adults be able to get them? Adult is just a term; one with importance that is chiefly legal and social.

EDIT: Oh, and:

I can't really think of a good use for cigarettes... but chocolate have legitimate uses. For example, a glass of wine a day is actually beneficial for your health. And chocolate... how else would we sooth women during their PMS?

Lol, chocolate, PMS.
too true; too true.

 

[comboking]

It depends on maturity. I think 19 is the perfect age its not too high and not to low

 

[KrazyGlue]

It depends on maturity. I think 19 is the perfect age its not too high and not to low

Why do you think this? Is there any particular reason?
___________________

Anyway, this whole age 19 idea has one flaw: there's not real point. If you're going to lower it, why 19? I know people have said that it would prevent alcohol from getting into high schools, but it's illegal to possess alcohol on high school grounds no matter what age you are, so it really doesn't make a difference.

I'm in favor of lowering the drinking age (to 18 or 19); at age 18 we (as a nation) already allow people to vote and at age 16 we already allow people to risk their lives every day by driving their car. I see why some interpret it as a violation of rights. While I don't see any potential benefit for society, it is only fair to adjust the age.

 

[comboking]

Why not have a test like we do for driving or for college acceptance? The problem is what kind of questions would they have?
I just think 19 is a good age plus not everyone drinks just to get drunk.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

No but those in the age range of 19 (like 17-21) all mostly drink to get drunk and to be stupid since we're told (in America) that college is the time to do that sort of thing.

 

[:mad:]

Why not have a test like we do for driving or for college acceptance? The problem is what kind of questions would they have?
I just think 19 is a good age plus not everyone drinks just to get drunk.

A test wouldn't work, people don't always follow through with what they say. How often have you seen your parents go over the speed limit, make an illegal u-turn, or put you in any danger?

I can see many underaged teenagers taking this test just so they can get drunk. I mean, all the cool kids do it, why not them? Why do you think 19 is a good age?

That last statement wasn't a very good argument, of course, not everyone drinks to get drunk.

 

[DtJ Jungle]

I know this has been said before, but the age is arbitrary, the point is just to lower the drinking age, since a good amount of people under the age of 21 drink (to be honest I started drinking at 16, and alot of people in my school started before I did), the argument should the age just be lower, and it should. Making such a thing taboo only tempts teenagers (like myself) to drink, and the same goes for weed and other drugs.Other countries have shown people of this age can handle it, why not the US?

 

[:mad:]

I'm all for lowering the age, but think of it this way. It could potentially cause more problems than it will solve. The way I see it, teens being able to purchase alcohol will cause more drunk-driving related accidents. I'd like to see them ;ower the age for one year as a test, and then record the statistics. If the teens can prove they can handle it, then why not?

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'm all for lowering the age, but think of it this way. It could potentially cause more problems than it will solve. The way I see it, teens being able to purchase alcohol will cause more drunk-driving related accidents. I'd like to see them ;ower the age for one year as a test, and then record the statistics. If the teens can prove they can handle it, then why not?

^This is a good idea. Test it out.

Also, I agree that it could cause more problems than it solves, but like I said, I kind of feel it's a violation of rights to not lower it. But I like your idea of testing it out for a year.

 

[Narukari]

Another point to bring to the table:

After taking a further look into how the drinking law is actually worded, there is actually no federal law stating what the legal drinking age is, but they took control of that choice anyways.

The way they took this decision away from the states was to make this a funding matter instead of a legal one.

They did this by passing the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. This act makes it so that any state that doesn't have a legal drinking age of 21 or over would have some of their funding taken away by the federal government.

I think this makes the situation even worse than it already was. This decision was supposed to be up to the individual states, but the government used the states reliance on the funding of the federal government to write their own laws that aren't technically laws. Since the government isn't actually passing a law, they found a way to maneuver around the 10th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment is that any power not given to the federal government or prohibited to the states is reserved for the states, but now the government can have any power they want by wording the law as a conditional funding bill instead of an actual law.

 

[Palpi]

I'm all for lowering the age, but think of it this way. It could potentially cause more problems than it will solve. The way I see it, teens being able to purchase alcohol will cause more drunk-driving related accidents. I'd like to see them ;ower the age for one year as a test, and then record the statistics. If the teens can prove they can handle it, then why not?

/agree

Making the drinking 19 would definitely help the problem with college students and alcohol poisoning, but drivers 16-21 are still the most dangerous drivers on the road and that doesn't include DUI. I think there would be a lot more drunk drivers on the road with the legal drinking age lowered to 19. I am still a loss at a position I stand on this. Both / All arguments propose valid points.

 

[Sukai]

I say make it the same as the smoking age, 18--in America.
Drinking is healthier for you than smoking is in any case, and the responsibility of drinking doesn't really refine with age.
Unless you learn the hard way, your ignorance/caution about drinking and driving isn't going to change with a few years.
Just make it 18, reasons behind these decisions vary to points where you just say, "what's the point now?'
There isn't a solid reason as these things are decided by voting. But in my opinion, just make it 18. I wouldn't mind buying a few Apple Smirnoffs myself.