Drinking age

#1
MyBloodRunnethOrange

MyBloodRunnethOrange

Jesus is Lord
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
116,843
Likes
24,383
#1
Since it has been brought up in the discussion over the player suspensions I thought I'd start a topic about it here. Why is it that a man or woman is mature enough at 18 to get his head blown off in Iraq, but not to drink a Budweiser? Any logical reason why the legal drinking age shouldn't be 18?
 
#2
#2
If you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to drink.
 
#4
#4
Take it up with your local MADD Representative...
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) began with the admirable goal of reducing drunk-driving traffic fatalities by educating the nation about the devastation caused by drunk drivers. For the first 15 years, this strategy paid off: MADD’s public relations campaigns played a key role in changing the nation’s attitude about drunk driving, resulting in a huge drop-off in drunk driving deaths. MADD was so successful that it reached its goal for 2000 (to reduce alcohol-related deaths by 20%) in 1997.

The unintended consequence, of course, is that MADD began to outgrow its mission. MADD’s success changed it into a huge, $46 million organization, but after a certain point its public relations and education campaigns had changed society’s view of drunk driving, reducing the problem to what then-MADD president Katherine Prescott called “a hard core of alcoholics who do not respond to public appeal.” In MADD’s own opinion, these are people who are not swayed by red ribbon campaigns and slogans.


At this point, MADD’s management shifted goals. It decided against a change in tactics to go after this remaining “hard core of alcoholics”; instead it changed the definition of the problem so that it once again included the reasonable adults who respond to MADD’s PR campaigns. MADD did so by shifting its rhetoric from “Don’t Drive Drunk” to “Don’t Drink and Drive” and inventing the concept of the “habitual drinking driver problem,” (people who often have drinks with dinner but are not drunk).


Unfortunately, this new “mission” has nothing to do with drunk driving; it is a manifestation of MADD’s deep-seated belief that any and all drinking before driving should be prohibited -- regardless of whether it’s done responsibly and legally. Instead of focusing on repeat offenders and those who are too drunk to drive, the twenty-first-century MADD endorses higher beverage taxes, needlessly low drunk driving arrest thresholds, and roadblocks designed to frighten people out of social drinking. These tactics have failed to reduce drunk driving deaths, since they target social drinkers, not product abusers.


In March 2004, MADD expanded its attack on responsible adults by calling for a “mandatory provision in every separation agreement and divorce decree that prohibits either parent from drinking and driving … with minor children in the vehicle.” Violating this provision, it argues, should result in penalties such as license suspension, jail, or even the “termination of parental rights.”


Once again, MADD is not talking about drunk driving, but drinking and driving -- meaning that if a divorced mother safely drives her children home after having a glass of wine with dinner at a restaurant, MADD supports sanctions that include losing custody of her children.


MADD founder Candy Lightner has broken ties with the group. In 2002, she told the Washington Times, “[MADD] has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned … I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.”
Click to expand...
 
#5
#5
OWB said:
If you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to drink.
Click to expand...

I hear this alot, but I see some problems with this argument. It's kind of a non sequitur; I don't see how the two can really be compared.

For one thing, it's stated as if both involve some type of demand or restriction on a young person. The law that states someone under 21 cannot buy alcohol or consume it, is a restriction, but someone under 21 joining the military and possibly dying in war, is a choice. Ours is a still a voluntary fighting force; no one makes a young person join the military and risk dying in war; in fact, I'd say most young people who join the military consider it a priviledge.

For another, the responsibilites of a soldier are considered proud and noble. Drinking by young people, as statistics bear out, leads to a host of problems. They are not as likely as older people to be responsible about drinking, and they are much more likely to drive while intoxicated, putting the lives of others at great risk for no respectable reason.

Also, the duties of a soldier are (usually) carried out in a sober state of mind, and an 18 year old, for example, is far more able to learn those duties, learn to navigate a weapon, learn his responsibilities on the field of battle, etc. - than he is to drink responsibly.

On the surface, it seems to be a sensible argument, but again, I just don't think the two can really be compared.
 
#6
#6
All Vol! said:
I hear this alot, but I see some problems with this argument. It's kind of a non sequitur; I don't see how the two can really be compared.

For one thing, it's stated as if both involve some type of demand or restriction on a young person. The law that states someone under 21 cannot buy alcohol or consume it, is a restriction, but someone under 21 joining the military and possibly dying in war, is a choice. Ours is a still a voluntary fighting force; no one makes a young person join the military and risk dying in war; in fact, I'd say most young people who join the military consider it a priviledge.

For another, the responsibilites of a soldier are considered proud and noble. Drinking by young people, as statistics bear out, leads to a host of problems. They are not as likely as older people to be responsible about drinking, and they are much more likely to drive while intoxicated, putting the lives of others at great risk for no respectable reason.

Also, the duties of a soldier are (usually) carried out in a sober state of mind, and an 18 year old, for example, is far more able to learn those duties, learn to navigate a weapon, learn his responsibilities on the field of battle, etc. - than he is to drink responsibly.

On the surface, it seems to be a sensible argument, but again, I just don't think the two can really be compared.
Click to expand...
Great argument. I enjoy how you absolutely neglect the whole Selective Service thing...

Upon reaching the age of 18, men in America are subject to conscription into the military.
 
#7
#7
therealUT said:
Great argument. I enjoy how you absolutely neglect the whole Selective Service thing...

Upon reaching the age of 18, men in America are subject to conscription into the military.
Click to expand...

the Selective Service System is nothing more than a precursor to a draft, in the event one is deemed needed. No draft is currently in place in this country, as you well know, and as long as that is the case, no person enlists in the military unless they choose to, Selective Service or no Selective Service.

c'mon, real...now I'm convinced you're just looking for ways to disagree with me.
 
#8
#8
All Vol! said:
the Selective Service System is nothing more than a precursor to a draft, in the event one is deemed needed. No draft is currently in place in this country, as you well know, and as long as that is the case, no person enlists in the military unless they choose to, Selective Service or no Selective Service.

c'mon, real...now I'm convinced you're just looking for ways to disagree with me.
Click to expand...
So, in the event that there is a draft, do you honestly believe all the states will drop their drinking age to 18?
 
#9
#9
therealUT said:
So, in the event that there is a draft, do you honestly believe all the states will drop their drinking age to 18?
Click to expand...

maybe it's my fault; maybe I didn't make my point clear, but you've really missed the boat on this one. That is SOOO far from the point I was making.
 
#11
#11
In a very Puritanical section of the GOP, you will never see this change. Actually even if you saw a majority secularist group take over, still no one will touch this. Those who are adamantly against this turn out in droves over this single issue. People who never vote will come out of the woodwork to fight anything that loosens restrictions on alcohol. No left to moderate politician will touch this issue for fear of being run out of town or tarred and feathered.

Diageo and other ventnors and distillery groups will not push it because they still get the sales from these groups regardless.

So when all is said and done, status quo prevails.
 
#12
#12
Here is the key... no one cares. Unless you folks die they turn 21. Then they could care less about the drinking age. Hard to get a movement started when ever year millions of your supporters quit being supportive.

And honestly I don't see where the GOP figures in this.
 
#13
#13
All Vol! said:
I hear this alot, but I see some problems with this argument. It's kind of a non sequitur; I don't see how the two can really be compared.
Click to expand...
It's a matter of maturity. A person is considered an adult in all aspects of life at 18, except that they can't buy or consume adult beverages. You're old enough to vote, to enlist in the military, and to transact you're own business.

All Vol! said:
Drinking by young people, as statistics bear out, leads to a host of problems. They are not as likely as older people to be responsible about drinking, and they are much more likely to drive while intoxicated, putting the lives of others at great risk for no respectable reason.
Click to expand...
Can you cite any statistics to support that? I just can't see that an 18 year old would be any more prone to drink irresponsibly, or drive drunk than a 21 year old. Why not make the drinking age 25 or 30?
 
#14
#14
I just don't like the fact the government is making me pay older people or drive to Canada to drink. Kind of a hassle.
 
#15
#15
USMCvol said:
Here is the key... no one cares. Unless you folks die they turn 21. Then they could care less about the drinking age. Hard to get a movement started when ever year millions of your supporters quit being supportive.

And honestly I don't see where the GOP figures in this.
Click to expand...
It's been plenty of years since I was 21 and I support a change in the drinking age.
 
#16
#16
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
It's a matter of maturity. A person is considered an adult in all aspects of life at 18, except that they can't buy or consume adult beverages. You're old enough to vote, to enlist in the military, and to transact you're own business.


Can you cite any statistics to support that? I just can't see that an 18 year old would be any more prone to drink irresponsibly, or drive drunk than a 21 year old. Why not make the drinking age 25 or 30?
Click to expand...
I agree.

Statistics might actually somehow prove that people are more prone to drink irresponsibly at 18. However, the experiment will always be faulty while it is considered illegal at 18, because many drink purely as a rebellion against authority. Other reasons for these stats are lack of experience and learning to drink responsibly. As long as drinking is considered taboo in greater society, then the learning curve of drinking responsibly will be much longer and arduous than need be.
 
#17
#17
USMCvol said:
And honestly I don't see where the GOP figures in this.
Click to expand...

If you would reread my post you would note a reference to the Puritanical wing of the GOP. You missed the point. The ones who push for these laws and restrictions sure don't vote Democratic. And because this is an election issue, you'd only see it pushed by someone from the GOP. No Dem would ever touch this issue because it would bring out those who are much less likely to vote for them.
 
#18
#18
Well those 'immature' 18 year olds are voting, smoking, and fighting for their country. I guess we weigh certain items for this maturity level?
 
#19
#19
Back in the day it was no big deal when you caught a kid drinking. Call th mom and dad to come pick em up, end of story! No way this day and age, do that and possibly lose your job! You get into that selective prosecution crap! "why was my child cited, when you let so and so go a few weeks ago".

I believe in giving breaks and probably have given more than I should have. Those guys at KPD are in a tough spot because of the atheletes high profile.

Back on topic, I don't think it matters what age you set, there will still be problems. There are 18 year old drinkers who are more responsible than 40 year old drinkers!
 
#23
#23
SURFSIDEBEACHVOL said:
The drinking age should be changed back to 18, along with making DUI a felony with mandatory jail time.
Click to expand...
I think my head just exploded.

If anything, they need to get rid of DUI and revert back to DWI. At .08, there are few drivers who are not still in control of their actions. At .12, there is a significant amount of drivers who should not be on the road.

However, I believe they should get rid of DUI and DWI laws, and make the punishment for vehicular homicide and vehicular manslaughter much more severe.
 
#24
#24
Mandatory jail time would clog up the jails even worse than they are now. However, it might work if they stop arresting everyone for having a little weed..
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top