Never trust a man in a bowtie

Why should anyone need to "alter their consciousness?" Who are you to decide what age someone can participate in an activity like that? And who says everyone who has a drink is doing so to "alter their consciousness." Most of the time when I drink, it's because I enjoy the taste of whatever it is I'm drinking.

But how about this, since you're caught up on the drinking-and-driving thing? As it stands right now, someone under 21 can be charged with DUI if they have a BAC of .02 (as far as I know, that's the case in any state). Why not lower the drinking age to 18, but say that until you're 21, the minimum BAC to be charged with DUI remains .02? There's plenty of conditions like that in a number of states that give stricter sanctions for traffic offenses by young drivers.

 

maybe the drinking-at-16, driving-at-21 deal isn't so bad. fewer cars on the road (no, jane doesn't need to go to the mall every four hours), gives people time to learn their limits, especially in college.

 

Yes, because binge drinking on college campuses ceases for all residents who reach age 21.
Santy Claus says hello.

My point about the 18-year-old and his or her altered consciousness is why it's so desperately need for that person that we must suddenly change a law that, according to several sources, has proven to be reasonably beneficial in terms of cutting down on the number of alcohol-related accidents. I didn't decide that age. It was decided by lawmakers what, 20 years ago? Honestly, they didn't consult me, although I do approve.
So now is there such a desperate need that a teenager absolutely has to have a beer (or 10)? The law says right now that teenager is entitled to drink iced tea. And the argument against that is ... what? Anybody?

 

There's no desperate need for anyone, any age, to have a beer (or 10). If the logic underlying the decision is that there's no need for someone to do something, then let's just go back to Prohibition. Inasmuch as we're not going to do that, there's no reason to arbitrarily set the drinking age above the age of legal majority just because it makes people feel better.

Again, perhaps if we didn't have such a puritanical attitude about drinking, and didn't feel the need to prove why we need to have a drink, we could actually teach teenagers how to be responsible and mature about their decision-making.

You also can't prove that a drinking age of 21 has led to fewer alcohol-related accidents. There are countless other factors in play there, from MADD campaigns to kids actually understanding the consequences of such decisions. Correlation does not prove causation.

I'm just as worried about an 18-year-old texting while driving or putting on eyeliner while driving as I am about drinking and then driving. Maybe if we required more from our kids before putting them behind the wheel, we could minimize all sorts of these problems. But then, Jane couldn't get to the mall when she wanted.

 

Um, overgeneralize much? Dude, binge occurs at EVERY age. However, the problem is most prevalent amongst students in the years just under 21, and gradually dissipates in the years after that age. That suggests to me that the 21 year age limit sure ain't helping and may even be making the problem worse. And no doubt that's what Gee and the other 99 college presidents also noticed that has them wondering if our drinking age laws might just be backfiring on us.

Drinking age laws don't prevent kids from getting alcohol, any kid determined to get it will. But by treating it like some forbidden prize, we change the way the kids see it. When underage kids get hold of a case of beer or bottle of whisky, they get drunk--nearly every time. The goal is to drink until you're smashed, if not puking. The underaged don't stop after just 1 or 2 drinks, because it was hard enough getting the stuff and you don't know when you'll get it again. After 21, the thrill of getting it is gone, as is the sense that you need to drink as much as possible when you've got it. Of course, a lot over 21 continue binge drinking for a few years because it was the way they first learned to drink and it became habit and lifestyle.

And I think it's telling that many countries with less restrictive alcohol policies have far fewer problems with kids' binge drinking. Their kids learn to drink responsibly when they're younger and just view it differently than ours.

 

Hmmm.
I haven't seen the stats that say freshmen binge more than juniors. You let me know when you find them.
Binge drinkers aren't doing it because alcohol is so precious to find. They're doing it because they think it's cool, or they think someone else thinks it's cool. Making it legal is not going to change that.

 

http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govpubs/rpo995/

According to a study by the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse: "Binge drinking, often beginning around age 13, tends to increase during adolescence, peak in young adulthood (ages 18 to 22), then gradually decrease" And the peak rate for American binge drinking before it begins to dissipate occurs at the age of 21(http://ncadistore.samhsa.gov/catalog/facts.aspx?topic=159) which, interestingly enough, also happens to be the same age when it finally becomes legal for our kids to drink.

Now to what extent that's caused by disincentives to drink in moderation caused by our alcohol laws or just the drunken american college culture is debatable, but one thing is for certain: our drinking age laws ain't doing squat to prevent kids from getting smashed. Kids just under 21 who supposedly can't legally drink are getting wasted at a higher rate than our legal aged population, and they gradually start to slow down in the years right after they become legal.

 

Yes, indeed.

 

I wouldn't object to lowering the drinking age to 18, but it's not like 18-year-olds are going to sow all their wild oats in six months or so once they turn 18 and become bored with college's drinking culture midway through their freshman year. If you really want to cut down on college drinking, make it so you can't get into college until you're 21. At that point, the people who truly want to go to college will have seen enough of the world to know that if they want a good education, they can't drink whatever and whenever they feel like it.

 

The one thing I find interesting about all of this is...the CEO of MADD is a man.

 

Well, you and I are interpreting these numbers a little differently. The peak age: 21. Legal. Peak, as I understand it, means "that's when it happens most." So no, they don't do it more at 18 or 19, when it's illegal. They do it more at 21, when they're allowed.
Thanks for boosting my argument.

 

Twoback,

The US is pretty much the only country in North, South, Central America, Asia, Europe and Oceania where the drinking age is 21.

In most countries the legal age is 18 or 19 and there are some where there is no restruction.

Are you saying that the rest of the world has things all screwed up and the US is right?

As others have pointed out, it's not the drinking age that's the problem: it's the fact that Americans aren't taught to drink responsibly at an early age. Making drinking some sort of adult right of passage doesn't exactly encourage that.