News-Record.com

There's no reason that an 18 year old shouldn't be able to legally consume a beer. None.

Statistics will tell you otherwise, Rahrah.

But there is one reason I cant get past.... military service. Oh yeah, another... my daughter is 15 but that one doesnt count.

Actually, there are reasons, rahrah. Reasons that you do not agree with, perhaps, but there are still reasons. Your not finding another's point compelling does not necessarily negate it.

Apt timing. We let them vote, which is arguably much more dangerous.

I think whoever wrote the title for this letter had a drink or two.

What are the reasons?

Well, the easiest and most obvious reason is the "just one kid" reason. The same argument that was used to justify DARE's existance for many a year after it was proven that it wasn't effective.

The "just one kid" argument is that if this policy saves "just one kid" then no cost is too great. Lowering the drinking age to 18 will make alcohol more easily accessible to high school students, as the cool senior can now buy the booze, rather than the cool dude that graduated a few years ago but now keeps hanging around. There are more cool seniors than cool creepy dudes that graduated a few years ago but still hang around trying to pick up the high school girls.

Anyway, making alcohol more easily accessible to high schoolers mean that consumption of alcohol by high schoolers will increase. An increase in consumption will result in an increase in stupid behavior and result in an increase in alcohol related injuries and troubles.

Ergo, making it more difficult for Junior to get booze will mean Junior drinks less and is less likely to suffer harm as a result of his stupid behavior. If we can make it harder for Junior, we just might save his life.

Why won't anyone think of the children!!!!11!!!one!!! What about the children?!?!?!?!

Anyway, there is your one reason. Feel free to disagree as you will, but your disagreement does not mean that it isn't a reason.

Maybe I should have said there is 'no good reason.' If 'just saving one child' is enough, take it to it's logical extension and outlaw alcohol for everybody. Don't even put it in Nyquil.

I don't know what to call it, but there's something surrounding alcohol that makes it 'cool' for someone to drink a lot of it when they're underage. Make it more accessible, it's less 'cool.' The kind of kids that are going to drink and drive or drink a dangerous amount are going to do it whether drinking is legal for them or not and I'd bet that they're more likely to do it if they have to drink all the beer before mom gets home. And don't kid yourself, if a high school freshman wants some beer and he's got some cash, he'll most likely get it. If an 18 year-old senior wants a beer, he'll definitely get it. Chances are that his Dad will buy it for him. Responsible people are responsible people. I've long thought the drinking age should be 18. When did I have my first drink? On my 18th birthday. 4 years later, I still think the same thing. Even the kids who drank a lot in high school and continued through college calmed down very soon after their big 21st B-Day bash. I'm just saying, the type of people who screw up screw up no matter how old they are. I'm the victim of a drunk driving accident. The drunk driver was in his 40's.

If you give young people more responsibility and treat them like equals, you might be surprised at how they act.

The drunk driver that hit my dad and killed him was in his 20's. The drunk driver that hit me head-on, very nearly killing me, was in his early thirties. Both were habitual drunks with many prior DWI's. Drinking and driving do not mix well at any age. However, I think there are two good reasons not to lower the legal drinking age to eighteen.

Kids that young, especially boys, have a tendency to think they are invincible. I have three sons and five grandsons. All who are old enough to drive over estimate (or did at 18) their ability to handle a car and/or alcohol.

They think other kids die because they are not "smart" or "didn't know how to drive". They do not stop to think, no matter how mature they are at 18, that they have not lived long enough to have a lot of experience driving. They think just because they are a "man", that makes them better at being able to handle a 2500 pound machine.

It is a known fact boys are more apt to drive faster and more reckless. Add alcohol to the mix and it become more dangerous.

While waiting three more years may not guarantee a more mature person, it certainly can't hurt.

"Kids that young, especially boys, have a tendency to think they are invincible. I have three sons and five grandsons. All who are old enough to drive over estimate (or did at 18) their ability to handle a car and/or alcohol."

Get a DD. Most everyone does.

"...take it to it's logical extension and outlaw alcohol for everybody."

That was already tried and didn't work too well.

"They think just because they are a "man", that makes them better at being able to handle a 2500 pound machine."

Gotta go with Yvonne on that one. I thought the same way at 18 until I totaled a car and walked away from an accident that could have been lethal. This accident was due to speeding, not alcohol, but the invincibility factor rings true at that age. Lesson learned the hard way.

"Both were habitual drunks with many prior DWI's."

It amazes me that people with many prior DWIs are not in jail. What happened to the drivers that hit your dad and yourself Yvonne? Please tell me they are in jail.

If a freshman has money and wants a beer, he most likely will get it. That doesn't mean we should just give it away to them, though.

If I want to break into your house and trash the place, I could do it. It certainly doesn't mean that since you can't prevent me from doing so, that you should facilitate my doing so.

Perhaps 19-20 year olds would surprise us with how responsible they act with the right to purchase alcohol. You might be right. But then again, you might not.

Is the risk of increased alcohol related injuries due to a larger segment of the population (a segment that is still maturing) worth lowering the drinking age?

You seem to think so. Others think not. To you this isn't a good reason, but to most people, as evidenced by the state of the law, it is.

What percent of 18 year olds do you think would behave responsibly if allowed access to alcohol? What percentage of 21 year olds do you think behave responsibly with access to alcohol? If there is a discrepancy between these two figures, a reason has been made to keep the age at 21.

"If I want to break into your house and trash the place, I could do it. It certainly doesn't mean that since you can't prevent me from doing so, that you should facilitate my doing so."

Despite the fact that lowering the drinking age to 18 would still keep alcohol illegal for a freshman in college, the breaking and entering analogy isn't worth anything. There's nothing morally wrong with drinking. There is with destruction of property.

"What percent of 18 year olds do you think would behave responsibly if allowed access to alcohol?"

The same percentage that do already, if not more.

Morality has nothing to do with anything.

The behavior is restricted because of safety concerns. If 18-20 year olds were to sit in a room and drink responsibly, then no argument would exist. However, the concern is for 18-20 who drink and engage in reckless behavior and cause injury to themselves and others.

Like it or lump it, 18-20 year olds, by and large, engage in more risky behavior than do people who are, say 36-38. I understand that this isn't universal. There are some 10 year olds that are more mature and make better choices than some 40 year olds. But experience has taught us that most people mature and make better choices with age. Just like your friends whose drinking tapered off a few years after they turned 21. They matured and their priorities changed.

Just because some 18-20 years old already have easy access to alchohol is not necessarily a reason to make that access even easier. For every time in high school that I tried to score some booze, there was at least two occasions where I couldn't. Thus, my booze induced activities were curtailed, rather than expanded.

And you only answered half of my question, and a half that has no relevance in the context of the point that you know I was trying to make.

The easier and the earlier access kids have to booze, the more likely they are to engage in risky activity with it and the more likely they are to hurt themselves or others. If you disagree with this statement, then fine. But this is a reason that the drinking age is set where it is. And, since it is still a law, obviously many more people agree with it than disagree with it. If you can mount or join a campaign and get this repealed, by all means do what your heart tells you to.

But don't ignore rational reasons and act like they are nonexistant just because you personally may not find them compelling enough to justify the curtailment of rights that 18-20 year olds suffer.

"Morality has nothing to do with anything.

The behavior is restricted because of safety concerns. "

Sure, but your analogy still isn't any good, unless I'm not allowed to break into someone's house because I might bloody my hand when I break the window.

"But don't ignore rational reasons and act like they are nonexistant just because you personally may not find them compelling enough to justify the curtailment of rights that 18-20 year olds suffer"

I don't ignore them, well, maybe at 4 AM in the morning....

"The easier and the earlier access kids have to booze, the more likely they are to engage in risky activity with it and the more likely they are to hurt themselves or others."

I do disagree. We can look at other countries with lower drinking ages and see that the effect isn't that great.

"Just like your friends whose drinking tapered off a few years after they turned 21. They matured and their priorities changed."

But my assertion is that most will 'mature' earlier with respect to alcohol because it will be available. It's like, when I first got my driver's license, I wanted to drive everywhere all the time even if I didn't have anything to do. A few months later, I was tired of it and always asking friends to drive me. When things are widely accessible, they usually become boring soon thereafter.

"But this is a reason that the drinking age is set where it is."

Is it? What makes it 21 instead of 20 or 22 or 25? It just seems arbitrary.

"To you this isn't a good reason, but to most people, as evidenced by the state of the law, it is."

To my knowledge, the law is a result of an intensive lobbying effort in Washington, which passed a bill that would withhold highway funds from states if they didn't change their minimum age to 18. It's Washington usurping the rights of the state. But, my knowledge might be wrong. It's been years since I've read that and I don't know where I read it.

"If you can mount or join a campaign and get this repealed, by all means do what your heart tells you to."

http://media.www.technicianonline.com/media/storage/paper848/news/2008/08/22/News/Unc-System.Waiting.To.Decide.On.Amethyst.Initiative-3401457.shtml

It's happening. But, like the end of the article, stiffer penalties and more enforcement of current penalties for Drunk Driving would need to accompany any decrease in age, and probably should happen anyway.

Breaking into houses is a safety concern, rahrah. I am confidant that you understand that.

Looking at what other countries do isn't perfect. Because they are not us. What works in China may or may not work for us. Some countries require mandatory military service for thei male population. It works well for them. Does that mean it would work well for us? Would the laws and customs of, say, Saudi Arabia be a good fit for us if the vast majority of Saudis found the laws and customs a good fit?

Also, what do you consider "not that great"? What increase in traffic related fatalities is acceptable and not that great? 8%? 5%? 1.1113? .00000001%?

Lowering the drinking age may remove the mystique of alchol among 18-20 years old, but that mystique would just be supplanted to 15-17 year olds. Unless the drinking age is completely abolished this problem will still exist.

21 seems arbitrary? Then why would 18 be any less arbitrary? Because 18 is considered the legal age of majority? Well, what makes that not arbitrary? You have to be 18 to vote, 18 to smoke, 21 to drink, 16 to drive in NC, 16 to be able to consent to sex, and 65.5 (if I'm not mistake) to be able to pull money out of a Roth IRA without penalty. What about .08? Isn't that arbitrary? Isn't it possible that someone could blow an .08 and not be impared? Why .08 and not .09 or .05?

The law is rife with possible arbitrary numbers rahrah, but numbers are still required, and they must be universal. We can't adopt a universal maturity tests for all of these things, so we must make the law as fair and balanced as we can.

An 18 drinking age would be awesome for 18-20 year olds. But what about 17 year olds? It would be mighty arbitrary for them. What is the real difference between 17 and 18 anyway?

You are correct in how the Feds forced the 21 drinking age on the states, though. The Feds decided that raising the drinking age would make it more difficult for the most reckless age segment of the population to get alcohol, so they set about making in country wide. Many states balked. The Feds then wrapped their national highway funds (which amounts to somewhere between a shit-load and an ass-load of money) around this provision whereas the states had to raise the age to 21 to keep getting the gubmint check. They all raised the age. Louisiana was the last I think. they fought the good fight and decided that millions of dollars was worth more that letting 18-20 year olds drink. Go figure.

The Feds National Highway Traffic Safety Administration decided that at 21 the risks decrease. They also decided that at a BAC of .08 the risk of accident increases. That is where these numbers came from. They weren't just made up to provide a buzz kill to 18-20 year olds. Additionally, there really wasn't much of a backlash against this example of the Feds strong-arming the states. I think the lack of a backlash is because most people who are 21+ think that this isn't a bad idea and see it as rationally related to improving highway safety.

Google drunk driving fatality statistics pre-21 drinking age compared to post 21 drinking age. The results I have found show a decrease in fatalities from between a third to almost a half after the age increase. Some of these numbers come from sites such as MADD, so I am not confidant enough in their veracity to link to them, but look yourself.

I see no sufficient reason to lower the drinking age.

I appreciate the dialog. If my banter has come across as unduly argumentative or base, it wasn't intended and I apologize.

Why do we make drinking so glamorous for girls and macho for guys? Why does it have to be a part of being an adult? I almost died when I was eighteen because I had drunk so much between the ages of fifteen and eighteen that my pancreas could not handle it. At that time the legal age was eighteen. What is so grown up about drinking to the point that you wake up throwing up blood because your body has already at a young age reached the point that it has been damaged?
What is so grown up about getting behind the wheel of a car when you can’t walk much less drive? Thankfully I never was in an accident when I was drinking but every time I hear the story of a drunk driver killing an innocent person I am reminded that I could have been that driver. By the grace of God after drinking on and off for fifteen years I quit fifteen years ago and have never felt more like an adult than when I walked away from the alcohol.

"Breaking into houses is a safety concern,"

Sure it is...but it's wrong to break into someone's house and trash it even if no one is put danger. It's much more a moral issue than a safety issue in my opinion.

"Looking at what other countries do isn't perfect...."

No, but it's what we have for evidence and guidance. Extending it out directly to Saudi Arabia is a little far. Countries more similar to ours are better...Canada, England,....

"Google drunk driving fatality statistics pre-21 drinking age compared to post 21 drinking age."

I don't need to. I know they're lower. But more than just the drinking age has changed since then...enforcement of drunk driving laws has increased. They aren't where they need to be yet, but they're tougher than they used to be.

18 is arbitrary, you're right. It just seems odd to me to grant all legal privileges and consequences of adulthood except for the freedom to purchase alcohol. 18 is also the age most people are when they graduate from high school, at which point they're SUPPOSED to be ready and able to be fully contributing members of society. You might be able to drive at 16, but your license says provisional until you're 18.

As for the .08 limit, it's fine, even if it might be arbitrary. I'm all for tough enforcement. I'd even support lowering it to .05. I spent 11 months in a hospital because of a drunk driver. You can believe me when I say I have no sympathy for them.

_______________________

CA,

"What is so grown up about drinking to the point that you wake up throwing up blood because your body has already at a young age reached the point that it has been damaged?"

Nothing, irresponsible drinking is....irresponsible and immature.