Never trust a man in a bowtie

neither does this guy: http://www.turnto10.com/northeast/jar/news.apx.-content-articles-JAR-2008-08-07-0005.html.

 

Substitute "blackmailed" for "bribed" and you've nailed it. That's why I was shocked to see HH's take, because this is Exhibit A for Washington running over the principles of federalism.

The original momentum for creating a uniform age came because different states had different ages. Teenagers from, say, Texas, would cross in to Louisiana to drink legally, get shitfaced, then crash on the way home. But that was also an age when the BAC limit for drunk driving was .10 and fines resembled something you'd get for running a red light.

 

Grew up in an 18 state, went to college in a state where you could drink beer at 18 but couldn't buy hard liquor until 21. It didn't seem unreasonable at the time.

One of the biggest problems was when some states had 18 or 19 drinking age and the neighboring state was 21, like between Moscow, Idaho and Pullman, Washington or between Minnesota (18 for beer) and the Dakotas.

Yes, DUI crashes have gone down with the 21 year-old drinking age. They'd go down even further with a 24-year old drinking age, or a 28-year-old drinking age. But mostly I think they've decreased because there has been far more emphasis on the stupidity of driving drunk and because of peer/parental pressure for designated drivers, etc., and for harsher penalties for DUII.

 

If we are determined to set the drinking age at 21, why not move the age of majority to 21 as well? A college freshman may be more dangerous holding a credit card application than a beer.

Or, we could decide not to postpone growing up and get on with the business of teaching responsiblity.

 

My twins sons (20) and their older brother (22) went downtown pub crawling one night. Hit the Madison Avenue Pub which is the unofficial bar of the University of Toronto.

Twins couldn't get in. Bar had raised their admission age to 21.

Not that I think the drinking age here (19) should be raised but still.....

 

Once again, I don't give a damn if the kid goes broke.
His problem.
I give a damn if he crashes his car into mine because he's drunk out of his mind.

 

What's difference between an 18-year-old drunk crashing into your car and a 21-year-old drunk crashing into your car?

 

None.
But here's the thing. If the legal limit is 21, that cuts the number of people that can freely buy enough alcohol to make themselves drunk enough to crash into my car. And it dramatically cuts the number of people who are so immature they don't understand the risks they're undertaking by drinking alcohol and getting behind the wheel.
Even if it's only the first distinction, statisically cutting down the number of people who can walk into a bar or restaurant or liquor store and purchase the alcohol that will make them drunk and lead them to crash into my car, that alone is reason enough to keep the limit where it is.
And what's the argument against it?
Why should an 18-year-old need to alter his or her consciousness?

 

There's no evidence that lowering the drinking age to 18 will increase the number of drunk driving incidents.

The logical extension of your argument is simple: just ban alcohol entirely.

 

I wouldn't call that the logical extension of that argument. Extreme extension would be more accurate.

And I'm not quite sure I buy the 'there's no evidence lowering the drinking age would increase drunk driving incidents.' In fact, I'm sure I don't.

There's very clear evidence that younger drivers (16 - 24, especially males) have more auto accidents than other drivers. That's borne out in auto insurance rates based on eons of statistical data.

There's also a correlation, if not a true statistical relation, where the probablity of auto accidents rise with the intake of alcohol. That's one of the reasons why drunk driving is a criminal offense, right?

Add those together, and I can see where twoback's car stands a higher percentage chance of getting hit than if the drinking age were to remain the same.

 

No. It's the logical extension.

In order to prevent all drunk driving accidents, you make alcohol illegal.

Drinking & driving related deaths are down substantially in Ontario since 1998 and our drinking age is 19.

A combination of peer pressure (it is definitely NOT cool to drink and drive in many circles), the efforts of MADD, government sponsored education programmes, and much stiffer sentences have been the reason.

 

And is there any evidence that a 21 year old drinking age prevents teens and college kids from getting drunk out their minds? None that I've seen.

In some ways, I think it even promotes it because it encourages kids to binge drink whenever they get ahold of it--they treat it like a prize that they have to make the most of.

How many times did you see your peers under 21 drink just one or two casual drinks and then stop? Almost never. The people I knew didn't start doing that until after they were legal and drinking wasn't a big deal anymore. The drinking age indirectly discourages kids from drinking responsibly--the fact that it's tougher for them to get makes em feel like they have to take advantage by drinking as much as possible whenever they get their hands on it.