The Drinking Age Is Past Its Prime

[martybegan]

OK, here's my last idea...


Leave it just the way it is. Yeah, I get all the academic arguments, but of all the true evils that necessarily accompany the corruption of power, is this really the hill you want to die on? So what if stupid ass teenagers have to wait 3 more years before they can legally get shitfaced? Like Rabbi said, it does have the added benefit of saving lives. You have to draw the line somewhere, right? Seems to me on this one, 21 doesn't miss the mark by much, if at all.

The problem is they are not waiting the 3 extra years to get shitfaced. I didn't, my friends didn't. Either you enforce the law with draconian methods or you get rid of it, because all you are doing is fostering disrespect for the law in general.

By my account, draconian methods foster the spirit of rebellion and contempt for the law far more than spotty enforcement ever could.

I disagee. Making laws you don't enforce leads people to believe other laws can follow the same logic. The point is if you have to be draconian to enforce a law that a large portion of the population does not agree with, and said population regularly flaunts it, maybe the law isn't such a good idea in the first place. You don't see 18-21 year olds going around murdering people thinking its OK because "its just a bullshit law." Everyone sees the need for laws against murder. its when you make laws for the sake of social engineering or just to make yourself feel like you are "doing something" that trouble results.

 

[manifold]

The problem is they are not waiting the 3 extra years to get shitfaced. I didn't, my friends didn't. Either you enforce the law with draconian methods or you get rid of it, because all you are doing is fostering disrespect for the law in general.

By my account, draconian methods foster the spirit of rebellion and contempt for the law far more than spotty enforcement ever could.

I disagee. Making laws you don't enforce leads people to believe other laws can follow the same logic. The point is if you have to be draconian to enforce a law that a large portion of the population does not agree with, and said population regularly flaunts it, maybe the law isn't such a good idea in the first place. You don't see 18-21 year olds going around murdering people thinking its OK because "its just a bullshit law." Everyone sees the need for laws against murder. its when you make laws for the sake of social engineering or just to make yourself feel like you are "doing something" that trouble results.

Refresh my memory, are you in favor of...

1) abolishing the drinking age entirely
2) lowering it to 18
3) allowing the states to decide, without penalty of highway funds if they lower it


If it's 1, agree to disagree
If it's 2, you haven't made your case
If it's 3, agree to agree

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I'd rather have the age at 21 for drinking and enlisting.

But your parents should be able to sell you to the military at 13. ; )

That just rolls into other issues though. The military is a job training program and a way for many to get college money. So what do those people do for the three years between high school and being able to persue a career?

I agree with selling them though.

Junior college ? I think the free public education should extend through the junior college/associate's degree level anyway.

I agree that the military can be a very good starting point for a lot of young people - but I'm afraid that at 18, a lot of youngsters join up without fully considering all the possible pitfalls.

Maybe but life is full of pitfalls. Sex with the wrong person has pitfalls that are life altering. This whole idea of pushing responsibilty off longer and longer just isn't working. There's a learning curve that needs to happen. Whether that is at 18 or 26 it's still going to be the same curve.

 

[martybegan]

By my account, draconian methods foster the spirit of rebellion and contempt for the law far more than spotty enforcement ever could.

I disagee. Making laws you don't enforce leads people to believe other laws can follow the same logic. The point is if you have to be draconian to enforce a law that a large portion of the population does not agree with, and said population regularly flaunts it, maybe the law isn't such a good idea in the first place. You don't see 18-21 year olds going around murdering people thinking its OK because "its just a bullshit law." Everyone sees the need for laws against murder. its when you make laws for the sake of social engineering or just to make yourself feel like you are "doing something" that trouble results.

Refresh my memory, are you in favor of...

1) abolishing the drinking age entirely
2) lowering it to 18
3) allowing the states to decide, without penalty of highway funds if they lower it


If it's 1, agree to disagree
If it's 2, you haven't made your case
If it's 3, agree to agree

Allow the states to decide. its the only constitutional thing to do. A state can declare itself dry for all I care.

My opinion on the wisdom of the 21 year old drinking age is separate from my issue with the use of the highway fund cookie jar to force the states to comply.

 

[nodoginnafight]

That just rolls into other issues though. The military is a job training program and a way for many to get college money. So what do those people do for the three years between high school and being able to persue a career?

I agree with selling them though.

Junior college ? I think the free public education should extend through the junior college/associate's degree level anyway.

I agree that the military can be a very good starting point for a lot of young people - but I'm afraid that at 18, a lot of youngsters join up without fully considering all the possible pitfalls.

Maybe but life is full of pitfalls. Sex with the wrong person has pitfalls that are life altering. This whole idea of pushing responsibilty off longer and longer just isn't working. There's a learning curve that needs to happen. Whether that is at 18 or 26 it's still going to be the same curve.

Which brings up a completely different hodgepodge which is the legal age to marry.
But that's another thread.

Maybe we should delay responsibility long enough for young people to sort out that surge of hormones that makes for so many mistakes?

I don't have the answers - obviously. But I just don't see anything in the legal drinking age issue that is so horribly broken. Maybe there is a fix that needs to happen, but I think there are more pressing needs right now.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow!

The fucking stupid shit you say sometimes is amazing.

Go look up gun deaths by country and then tell me again how stricter gun control doesn't translate into fewer gun deaths, just like fewer people drinking translates into fewer drunk driving deaths. The point is that that alone isn't a good enough reason to make either sound policy.

For example:

Gun related deaths per 100,000 people in the United Kingdom: 0.25
Gun related deaths per 100,000 people in the United States: 10.3

Do you know which of those two has the stricter gun control?

Ah geez not this shit again.
Look up deaths in Mexico and Switzerland and tell me which one has stricter gun laws.

That's why it's not sound policy. Glad to see your data point cherry picking skills match that of my own. Touché.

Still doesn't change the unassailable fact that fewer guns = fewer deaths from guns. If that's not what you're challenging then perhaps I misunderstood you. My bad.

That is incorrect. More guns=fewer deaths from guns.
This point has been hashed over so many times there is no debating it. There is simply no, zero, evidence that gun control works to reduce violent deaths . It is one of those things that sounds reasonable in theory but in the real world is simply does not pan out.
And I am not cherry picking. There is no correlation between gun laws and firearms deaths. None. It is entirely cultural.

 

[The Rabbi]

I disagee. Making laws you don't enforce leads people to believe other laws can follow the same logic. The point is if you have to be draconian to enforce a law that a large portion of the population does not agree with, and said population regularly flaunts it, maybe the law isn't such a good idea in the first place. You don't see 18-21 year olds going around murdering people thinking its OK because "its just a bullshit law." Everyone sees the need for laws against murder. its when you make laws for the sake of social engineering or just to make yourself feel like you are "doing something" that trouble results.

Refresh my memory, are you in favor of...

1) abolishing the drinking age entirely
2) lowering it to 18
3) allowing the states to decide, without penalty of highway funds if they lower it


If it's 1, agree to disagree
If it's 2, you haven't made your case
If it's 3, agree to agree

Allow the states to decide. its the only constitutional thing to do. A state can declare itself dry for all I care.

My opinion on the wisdom of the 21 year old drinking age is separate from my issue with the use of the highway fund cookie jar to force the states to comply.

I agree. Every state is in a different situation. Let them determine their own laws. That's how the US is supposed to function.

 

[HenryBHough]

That anyone under age 26 is allowed even to drink water or use a toilet without express parental permission flies in the face of Obamacare's definition of "child".

 

[Flopper]

If one is old enough to vote and serve in this country's military, I see no reason why they couldn't have the same treatment as any other adult over 21.

In 19 states the legal age for a regular driver's license is 18. The average age in the nation is 17 years 4 mos. Having more drunk teenage drivers with little to no driving experience is pretty scary.

When you make a change that will almost surely increase the number of deaths on the highway, you have to ask what good will come of it.