Lower the drinking age?

Most people know college students are going to drink. Should we lower the drinking age?

Personally, I think we should lower the drinking age to 18. If you can fight for your country, I feel you should be able to drink.

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

Most people know college students are going to drink. Should we lower the drinking age?

Personally, I think we should lower the drinking age to 18. If you can fight for your country, I feel you should be able to drink.

Sure, Rev. Let's lower the drinking age and watch more teenagers get killed due to drinking and driving. What kind of ignorant thinking is that? Too many DUI's out there right now, and too many kids have access to alcohol. 18 years of age is still teenage years. Wait until they get out of their teens before exposing them to drinking.

[Curt]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

Most people know college students are going to drink. Should we lower the drinking age?

Personally, I think we should lower the drinking age to 18. If you can fight for your country, I feel you should be able to drink.

Then if you can fight for your country you should be able to have an abortion and hire a prostitute. The thing is at 18 when your drinking you likely are not going to act responsibly, but when your 18 and in the military your going to act responsibly or be punished for it.

Wha? And we trust an 18 year old defending our country? In charge of weaponry and artillery? Dude, it doesn't make any sense that you can be mature enough to die for this country, yet you can't drink. Absolutely ridiculous.

Lower the Drinking Age

In our October 28th issue, we warned against the temptation to "use death to advance... political agendas." Not surprisingly, the Ann Arbor Police Department has not heeded our concern. Following the tragic death of Courtney Cantor, overzealous policeman orchestrated a liquor crackdown, trying to end the alleged scourge of underage drinking happening on campus. Of course, these raids will have no permanent effect. College students intoxicated themselves back in the Middle Ages, and will continue to do so long after all of us are nothing more then ash and bone. However, although the raids won't curb underage drinking, they do pose serious civil liberty questions. In light of the answers the Review reached in response to those questions, we would like to postulate another: why should the drinking age be 21? Sadly, this unwarranted regulation stems from a paternalistic government trying to be everybody's parent, not sound science.

Of course, we acknowledge that excessive alcohol consumption generates a plethora of serious short and long-term problems. Yet these risks are no more significant for a twenty-one-year old then an eighteen-year old. Nor do three years make people substantially more mature - many celebrate their 21st birthday with 21 shots, a potentially lethal amount. If anything, responsible drinking derives from a function of alcohol experience, rather than age. Thus, rates of alcoholism and other assorted liquor problems are lowest in those cultures where moderate drinking is accepted, if not encouraged during childhood.

Of course, we cannot expect the United States to suddenly adopt European or Rabbinical opinions about drinking. Quite likely, Americans will continue to view supplying a child with alcohol as grossly inappropriate, if not dangerous. Therefore, some sort of legal drinking age makes sense. This leads to a second enigma: when does society consider a person responsible for their actions? Although this answer varies from issue to issue, and from state to state, the most accepted legal definition is 18. At that age, individuals are no longer charged through the juvenile court system, and of course have the universal right to vote and serve in the armed forces.

As eighteen-year-olds have legal responsibility for their actions, and are at no greater emotional or physical risk from alcohol, it seems illogical to deny them the same privileges as other adults. Of course, this statement is predicated upon a belief in the free society - namely, that individuals possess the freedom to make bad choices, provided they accept full responsibility for them. Anything else amounts to governmental paternalism. Although some people might justify that argument on the basis of protecting citizens, such a policy amounts to a negation of freedom in general. After all, we must remember that we make thousands of choices each day. Each choice results in both positive and negative consequences. For example, when we decide to postpone our term paper an extra hour by watching television, we effectively make a trade-off. In the short term, our choice leads to happiness, contentment, and relief from irritating work. However, when the hour ends, a "hangover" sets in. We now have one less hour to finish the work, resulting in poorer quality writing, a lower grade, a falling G.P.A, a worse job, etc. Philosophically, the choice of alcohol abuse rests on the same principle: the sacrifice of long-term prosperity for short-term pleasure. It makes zero sense to control one and not the other.

Of course, many might argue that there exists a crucial difference: alcohol has a serious potential to harm others (drunk driving etc.). Yet, such an argument fails to differentiate from actions that harm only the self (alcohol consumption), and actions that injure others (drunk driving). Simply because we legalize one does not require that we endorse the other. In fact, we feel the drop in the legal drinking age should be accompanied by a substantial increase in penalties for alcohol-related crimes. This would continue to serve as an impediment to harming others, while giving individuals maximum control over their own choices and bodies. Because of this legal dimension, we argue that the drinking age should be lowered to 18, the age of legal culpability.

As our nation learned in the 1920s, the solution to alcohol-related tragedies does not lie in prohibition. If anything, a higher drinking age might encourage irresponsible alcohol consumption, by equating alcohol with freedom, rebellion, and maturity. Rather, we should remove the mystique of alcohol by decriminalizing its use among 18-20 year olds. This would shift the focus from consumption to action - after all, while students might think it is "cool" to sneak a drink behind mom and Uncle Sam's backs, very few consider it enjoyable to drive drunk into an old lady. It would also promote the principles of the free society by supporting the rights of autonomous individuals to do as they please, without the meddlesome influence of an authoritarian government. Furthermore, a lower age would redirect the attention of the Ann Arbor P.D. from harmless frat parties to legitimately serious offenses. MR

Lower drinking age to 18
The Lantern (Ohio State U.) ^ | 11/27/02 | Joe Pirone


Posted on 11/29/2002 10:07:06 AM PST by NorCoGOP


COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The recent riots near the Ohio State University campus were, as all similar riots have been, an inexcusable abomination. Students arrested for their involvement should be expelled. Students and non-students who were involved should spend time in jail.

City officials in the future would be justified in instituting a curfew to keep people off the streets after football games to prevent similar occurrences. University officials should seriously consider suspending the Buckeyes' participation in postseason play as a result of fans' actions.

That being said, President Holbrook has asked what can be done about the nationwide problem of college student riots. One answer, paradoxically, is to lower the drinking age to 18.

The current law that sets the drinking age at 21 does not prevent a single college student from getting alcohol if one wants it. What the law does do is label something "illegal" that virtually every college student between the ages of 18 and 20 does at least occasionally. When this unreasonable law turns students into lawbreakers when they drink, it causes respect for the law to decline. (For another, well-known example of this phenomenon, recall the Prohibition Era in the 1920s United States.)

When one is already engaging in "illegal behavior" simply by drinking, a relevant line has already been crossed, and it becomes easier to engage in other forms of illegal behavior, particularly when one's judgment is impaired by alcohol. Obviously it doesn't work this way for everyone, but the student riots that our president has described as "national and ongoing" seem to provide ample evidence that it works this way for a significant number of people.

Lowering the drinking age to 18 would allow larger numbers of college students to drink socially in more supervised settings such as bars, and even on campus. Not as many would turn to illicit off-campus parties where sexual assaults, exploitation and other forms of injury are all too common. I'm sure that Columbus law enforcement would agree riots would be much easier to control and prevent if the masses of students who currently fuel them were not present on the streets.

Lowering the drinking age to 18 would also allow our university residence life and student affairs professionals to treat drinking realistically and constructively as an issue of student health and welfare, rather than as a discipline issue. For students with serious, life-impairing drinking problems, this would be a life-saving shift.

Lowering the drinking age to 18 would allow younger students to socialize more with older students, allowing older students to model responsible, more mature social drinking behavior. Over time, this would help to change the culture surrounding drinking among our young people.

Many argue that lowering the drinking age would cause the number of drinking-and-driving-related injuries and deaths to skyrocket. However, if this is the problem about which we are concerned, then this is the issue our law should address. We should not discriminate against an entire age cohort of citizens because of the harmful actions of a minority, particularly when there are serious negative consequences to doing so. If we are serious about preventing drinking-and-driving, then we need to do the following things:

A first offense must be a felony, regardless of whether any injury or property damage resulted, and must result in both jail time and a multi-year drivers license suspension. A second offense must result in permanent license revocation, and a long jail term.

We must make a national effort to make driving after drinking absolutely unacceptable and to make alternative forms of transportation and accommodation readily available.

When 18-year-olds can vote, can marry, defend our country in the military, and are considered adults in our society in every other way, not allowing them to drink is an absurd legal and social incongruity. As the riots and the other negative consequences discussed above demonstrate, the effects of this law are not trivial.

While the law has reduced the numbers of young people who kill and are killed in drinking related car accidents, it has spawned and exacerbated a host of other social ills. There are other ways to keep people from drinking and driving if we are serious about it.

Young people should organize and demand the law be changed. Older people should support them, and our leaders should hear them and act in our collective best interest by reducing the drinking age to 18.

[Curt]

Originally Posted by Uptowner

Wha? And we trust an 18 year old defending our country? In charge of weaponry and artillery? Dude, it doesn't make any sense that you can be mature enough to die for this country, yet you can't drink. Absolutely ridiculous.

DUDE..yah I do trust an 18 year old to defend our country because they are trained to do so, there is no drinking training that I know of.

[mranderson]

I think a person should pass a maturity test and be licensed to drink alcholic beverages before being allowed to do so. You can be 18 and have the mental outlook of a 40 year old, but also be 40 and have the mental outlook of an 18 year old. More often than not, the 18 year old is not mature enough, however.

Originally Posted by mranderson

I think a person should pass a maturity test and be licensed to drink alcholic beverages before being allowed to do so. You can be 18 and have the mental outlook of a 40 year old, but also be 40 and have the mental outlook of an 18 year old. More often than not, the 18 year old is not mature enough, however.

Okay. Here's the maturity test I propose.

#1: Are you shacked up with a member of the opposite sex?

If you answer yes, you flunk.

If you answer no, you pass.

-------------
Dude, your idea is crazy.

I would like to see an "age of maturity" developed. I would place the age at 19, 18 year old kids in high school are very different even from college freshmen. It's a big leap that one year.

I would also like to see the voting age raised to 19, that as well as the age at which you can sign a contract or join the military. And make that the age for commiting a crime to tried as an adult or go to adult prision.

I started college at 17...but then again, I had access to Alcohol at the age of 14. My parents sure didn't know, but the kids in town know which convenience stores will sell to them, and some childrens parents will even buy it for them.

If you lower the age, sure some kids will do it that didn't previously do it, but it wouldn't be such a rush anymore. It's not as fun doing something when you know your able to do it.

[upisgr8]

I agree, they are going to drink why criminalize it. Make it legal for Beer at 18 and hard liquor 21 as a compromise. It's pretty bad when we have soldiers fighting for us in Iraq and you can't legally buy them a Beer when they come home.

[PUGalicious]

My feelings on this issue echo some of the comments previously made. Whether it's 18, 19, 21 or some other arbitrary age, there should be a set "age of maturity" (as swake called it) in which you get all the privileges of adulthood as well as the responsibilities. If you are old enough to vote, old enough to die for your country in military service and old enough to be held accountable as an adult legally and criminally, you should be allowed the "benefits" of access to "adult" beverages.

It's true that some 18-year-olds aren't mature enough to drink responsibly and make wise decisions when it comes to alcohol. But the same can be said for some 25-year-olds, some 35-year-olds and some much older than that. If 18 is too young, the move the age up, but then move the accountability age (for military service, voting and legal matters) up accordingly.

[gnomeok]

Actually...most soldiers are allowed to drink while serving the country. Also, it is generally acceptable for a parent to furnish a minor with alcohol as long as it is in their home. But...then again...this involves supervision, and that would make drinking just "totally not cool" and suggest some sort of responsibility.

Drinking Age in the U.S. Military

Seven of every eight (88%) of the 1,323 respondents to a nonscientific nation-wide poll said that active military personnel should be allowed to consume alcohol on base regardless of their age.

Traditionally active duty U.S. military personnel could consume alcoholic beverages, while on any federal military installation, regardless of the drinking laws of the state in which their base was located.

However, in the 1980s, anti-alcohol groups such as such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunken Drivers) lobbied Congress to prevent this. “Federal law (United States Code) requires military installation commanders to adopt the same drinking age as the state in which the military base is located. The only exception to this rule is if the base is located within 50 miles of Canada or Mexico, or a state with a lower drinking age, the installation commander may adopt the lower drinking age for military personnel on base.”

The Department of Defense (DoD) codification of this legislation specifies that on bases within 50 miles of

“Mexico or Canada, the minimum drinking age on that DoD installation shall be the lowest applicable age of the State in which the DoD installation is located or the State or jurisdiction of Mexico or Canada that is within 50 miles of such DoD installation.

The minimum drinking age on a DoD installation located outside the United States shall be 18 years of age. Higher minimum drinking age will be based on international treaties and agreements and on the local situation as determined by the local installation commander.”

[Midtowner]

Here are some interesting quetsions re: this discussion:

1) Does the lowered drinking age actually do anything to prevent the mischief that it sought to prevent?

2) Has any increase in the penalty/consequence for violating the rules of the drinking age ever seen a corresponding dip in the number of violations?

3) Could a case be made that the lowered drinking age has been ineffective at best, and at worse harmful to business?

I'll be back later to make a case for #3.

While we're on this topic:



Underage drinking hot topic for 2006by Janice Francis-Smith
The Journal Record
12/16/2005 OKLAHOMA CITY - Lawmakers will likely try again in 2006 to stiffen penalties for selling beer to minors. But targeting the owners of convenience stores and restaurants will only solve part of the problem, members of a legislative task force were told Thursday.

"What we've discovered is that beer, 3.2 beer, is the drink of choice for binge drinking for underage drinking," said Anne Roberts, executive director of the Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy. Roberts cited a recent study on youth risk behaviors that found that 50,000 underage Oklahomans are drinking, 33,000 of whom engage in binge drinking.

Sean Byrne with the Oklahoma Prevention Policy Alliance said his group conducted a sting operation to survey how easy it is for those under age 21 to purchase beer in Oklahoma. The survey found that of 28 Bricktown establishments surveyed, 10 businesses failed the test - a failure rate of 36 percent. Of the six facilities surveyed in Noble, five of them sold to underage customers, for a failure rate of 83 percent.

The Oklahoma Restaurant Association has a program to train restaurant workers regarding the law and how to recognize a fake ID, said Benny Vanatta, a lobbyist representing the Oklahoma Restaurant Association. Over the last decade, about 10,000 employees have taken the training, he said. Jim Hopper, president and CEO of the Oklahoma Restaurant Association, suggested lawmakers stiffen the punishment for presenting false identification to anyone - now it's only a felony when presented to a law enforcement officer.

Some businesses have invested in a card scanner, designed to quickly verify the authenticity of identification cards issued in all 50 states. However, the machines are only reliable 50 percent of the time, according to most estimates. Even a valid ID will not scan properly if it's a few years old and has seen some wear and tear.

Jim Brown, president of 7-Eleven convenience stores in Oklahoma, said four of the first eight hours a new employee spends on the job is in training, but mistakes are still made.

"We do a good job, albeit not perfect," said Brown. "The bar is set at perfect."

In 2005, the company conducted 1,250 compliance checks of its own stores, he said. Employees are terminated if they fail two internal compliance checks, or one check conducted by law enforcement officers. Recently, a manager on the job for 25 years was dismissed due to the company's policy, he said.

Lt. J.D. Younger of the Norman Police Department said a $67,000 federal grant administered by the Oklahoma Highway Safety Office provided the resources for the department to increase the number of compliance checks they perform. However, the department also alerted businesses that they would increase their compliance checks, and, as a result, the compliance rate has consistently been high.

"You kind of pick up those shoes when you know somebody's coming over that maybe you wouldn't have otherwise," said Younger.

The department also uses teens age 19 or younger when conducting the checks, just to make sure that they target businesses that willingly sell to minors, not clerks that make genuine mistakes.

Some beer companies like Coors, Anheuser Busch and Miller have launched extensive campaigns to discourage sales to minors and educate the public - including retailers, parents and young people - about the dangers of underage drinking.

Lawmakers discussed including penalties for business owners, not just clerks and wait staff, as a means of raising awareness of the issues and placing more responsibility on young people themselves.

"Hit them where it hurts - take their driver's license," said Byrne.

But recent studies have found that a surprising number of young people are getting alcohol from their parents. A study by the American Medical Association found that 27 percent of teens polled had been to at least one party where kids drank in front of their parents.

"A lot of people don't take beer seriously," said Byrne. "What we need to understand is that's where the kids are starting, that's what they're using, and that's what they're dying from." Underage drinking contributes to traffic accidents and often leads to substance abuse when the minors reach adulthood, posing a real cost to the state, said Terri White of the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse. Janice Francis-Smith reports on governmental and other regulatory issues. You may reach her by phone at (405) 524-7777 or by e-mail, janice.francis-smith@journalrecord.com.

Originally Posted by Midtowner

Here are some interesting quetsions re: this discussion:

1) Does the lowered drinking age actually do anything to prevent the mischief that it sought to prevent?

In some circumstances, if underage drinkers are caught. But, for the most part, underage drinking occurs every day on college campuses across the US.

Originally Posted by Midtowner

2) Has any increase in the penalty/consequence for violating the rules of the drinking age ever seen a corresponding dip in the number of violations?

Probably not.

Originally Posted by Midtowner

3) Could a case be made that the lowered drinking age has been ineffective at best, and at worse harmful to business?

I'll be back later to make a case for #3.

Seems like the lowered drinknig age would help business, right?

[Midtowner]

As to #1 Patrick, if an underage drinker is "caught", and let's say their BAC is between .001 and .0079.... Let's say that the underage drinker is between 18 and 20. In what way have they endangered themselves or others? Do the very stiff and expensive penalties of DUI, Minor in Possession, etc. do anything but punish the kid for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Just a quick and very unscientific survey: I'd like to hear from all of you who never had a drop of alcohol until it was legal?

As to #2, we've learned this lesson over and over and over again -- where we make laws concerning liquor and drugs, people will circumvent them. The creation of a black market not only uses law enforcement resources, it will cost the lives of offenders and officers enforcing the law, money and jail space will also be required. Alternatively, it could be legal, it could generate taxes, people would still be responsible for the abuse of the products and our police could focus on crimes where there was actually some sort of threat posed to victims instead of pursuing people for victimless crimes.

As to #3, certainly! It would greatly benefit areas like Bricktown, the districts surrounding college campuses, and restaurants in general.

Has anybody thought of this aspect?



Changing the age to 18 means high school kids would have easier access to liquor. Most Oklahoma high schools are now grades 9-12. Some metro districts are considering switching to that format because of over crowding. Anyone from age 13 and up would have the possibility of having access to someone who would provide alcohol to him or her.



I am all for the military guys drinking at 18. Just because of all the sacrifices, military people have to make.



On an unrelated note:



Welcome back Midtowner it is nice to see you back with us.

[Midtowner]

Oklacity -- do you know any HS kids that ever had a problem getting liquor? You hang around outside a liquor store and pay someone $10 to go buy what you want -- worst case. Usually, you know someone that'll get you what you want.

Originally Posted by Midtowner

Oklacity -- do you know any HS kids that ever had a problem getting liquor? You hang around outside a liquor store and pay someone $10 to go buy what you want -- worst case. Usually, you know someone that'll get you what you want.

Same thing with cigarettes. Minors get them anyways. Why don't we just eliminate the age restrictions on alcohol and tobacco products? Let's let our 13 year olds drink and smoke if they want. After all, it's a free country.

Originally Posted by Midtowner

As to #1 Patrick, if an underage drinker is "caught", and let's say their BAC is between .001 and .0079.... Let's say that the underage drinker is between 18 and 20. In what way have they endangered themselves or others? Do the very stiff and expensive penalties of DUI, Minor in Possession, etc. do anything but punish the kid for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Just a quick and very unscientific survey: I'd like to hear from all of you who never had a drop of alcohol until it was legal?

As to #2, we've learned this lesson over and over and over again -- where we make laws concerning liquor and drugs, people will circumvent them. The creation of a black market not only uses law enforcement resources, it will cost the lives of offenders and officers enforcing the law, money and jail space will also be required. Alternatively, it could be legal, it could generate taxes, people would still be responsible for the abuse of the products and our police could focus on crimes where there was actually some sort of threat posed to victims instead of pursuing people for victimless crimes.

As to #3, certainly! It would greatly benefit areas like Bricktown, the districts surrounding college campuses, and restaurants in general.

Ahhh, people circumvent all laws. Let's simply have no laws. Why bother with speeding tickets? Why bother with DUI's? Why bother with the death penalty? Let's just open up the prisons and forget about it.

[Midtowner]

Well Jack, I actually wouldn't mind getting rid of the age restrictions on tobacco. They're pointless anyway. A few hapless store clerks might get fined, but really, what effect does this law have besides creating a potential black market? The harm from smoking and drinking absent other criteria is solely to oneself if any harm occurs at all.

Contrast that with DUI and speeding where you have the opportunity to hurt or kill another. There are stark differences in those offenses. Look at it this way -- above, I made a case (which has yet to be refuted) that the removal of these restrictions would have benefits to society (see above). You proceed by offering up two reductio ad absurdum slippery slope arguments. You'll have to do better than that.

What are the dangers of second-hand smoke?



Second-hand smoke happens when non-smokers inhale other people's tobacco smoke. It includes:

• Sidestream smoke - smoke that comes directly from a burning cigarette, pipe, or cigar.
• Mainstream smoke - smoke that is exhaled by the smoker.

When a cigarette is smoked, about half of the smoke is sidestream smoke. Sidestream smoke contains most of the same chemicals found in the mainstream smoke inhaled by the smoker.

People who don't smoke, but are exposed to second-hand smoke, absorb nicotine and other chemicals just as someone who smokes does. Studies have shown that second-hand smoke can cause lung cancer in healthy adults who do not smoke. Children of parents who smoke are more likely to suffer from pneumonia, bronchitis, ear infections, asthma, and SIDS (the sudden death of a baby under age one which cannot be explained). Mothers who smoke and breastfeed may pass harmful chemicals from nicotine to their baby through breast milk.