|
Arri posted:I think it should remain twenty one because your brain isn't done developing until around that age. Alcohol has a terrible effect on the developing brain. I support the same age restriction for marijuana but not as much as for alcohol. Studies show that your brain doesn't stop developing and you are technically still an adolescent until your mid-20s. As to the terrible effect, I wonder what Europeans who typically start their kids on wine before age 6 think of that.
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Killing, loving, executing, voting yes; but drinking apparently no??? Murica - God only knows where else you could put the Muricans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Hypation posted:Killing, loving, executing, voting yes; but drinking apparently no??? You can drink in most of the country at 18. Also you can gently caress at 16 or earlier in most of the country, you just can't be in porn til 18.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:I was under the impression that the real reason for having it at 21 is that you're always going to have some level of illicit drinking, and it's a little less worrisome when it's at college, than when you've got high school freshmen drinking because the seniors have easy access to alcohol. I think that it would be nice to have a healthier culture about it as a whole, but that's not something you can easily change. Going off my own personal experience, even living in a dry county where it was a 20 minute drive to go buy booze, teenagers in high school still managed to get kegs of beer. (Yeah, I know, anecdotes aren't the plural of statistics.) The upperclassmen often had older siblings who bought kegs, but aside from the occasional drunken fights and drunken hookups, there usually wasn't a big problem. And most of the fights usually amounted to basic drunk fighting/poo poo talking, with no real harm done. I've never heard of high school freshman drinking themselves to death, but it is almost expected every year that some freshman pledging a frat drinks himself to death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 10:28
|
|
|
thrakkorzog posted:I've never heard of high school freshman drinking themselves to death, but it is almost expected every year that some freshman pledging a frat drinks himself to death. I think that the fundamental problem with American drinking culture is that instead of drinking education being conducted by parents and older siblings in a safe and normalized environment, it's done completely under the table by drunken 17-20 year olds. The average age a 12-20 year-old begins drinking is 16, which means it's five years before you can go out to a bar with your family or even have a monitored house party. There's no real opportunity for parents to instill good habits, which means that kids have to look to their peers (probably only older by a year or two) for that education. We throw our kids to the wolves for the sake of appearances, and it should be unsurprising that our teens and freshmen routinely crash and burn. They're the exact same issues that we have with abstinence sex-education - they are social policy failures that leave teens grasping for direction and deeply vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The average age a 12-20 year-old begins drinking is 16, which means it's five years before you can go out to a bar with your family or even have a monitored house party. Aside from the fact that in 29 states it's explicitly legal for kids of just about any age to consume alcohol at home with parental approval, and in 10 states parents may take under 21s to bars and have them served alcohol, sure. Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming. That's where your parents can allow you to drink at home/private premises legally. Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming. That's where your parents can straight up take you to a bar and have you drink up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Aside from the fact that in 29 states it's explicitly legal for kids of just about any age to consume alcohol at home with parental approval, and in 10 states parents may take under 21s to bars and have them served alcohol, sure. Wow, good thing all 18-20-year-olds live with their parents, and for those that don't, it is entirely sensible to demand that they go to their parents` house to get any drinking going. It's not like people that age would like to start living their own lives or live far away from their parents in college or anything. "Hey, Mom, it's the weekend again. You have to drive up here so I can drink in the bar with my friends. Yeah, all their parents are coming, too, it's chill."
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Wow, good thing all 18-20-year-olds live with their parents, He specifically said 16 year olds, please learn to read before posting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Aside from the fact that in 29 states it's explicitly legal for kids of just about any age to consume alcohol at home with parental approval, and in 10 states parents may take under 21s to bars and have them served alcohol, sure. Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming. That's where your parents can allow you to drink at home/private premises legally. Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming. That's where your parents can straight up take you to a bar and have you drink up. That's painting with a pretty broad brush there. Where a minor is allowed to drink, they have to have the alcohol handed to them by their parents, and often it has to have a low alcohol content. So for example you might be able to drink a beer in your uncle's backyard in Kansas, but he can't give it to you and it can't be above 3.2%. Unsurprisingly, these kinds of unrealistic restrictions don't really do much to encourage responsible drinking habits. Nintendo Kid posted:He specifically said 16 year olds, please learn to read before posting. Learn to read yourself, I was pretty clearly talking about the entire five year stretch between when people start drinking (16) and when they are legally allowed to (21). I'm already regretting responding to your terrible posts. Kaal fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That's painting with a pretty broad brush there. Where a minor is allowed to drink, they have to have the alcohol handed to them by their parents, and often it has to have a low alcohol content. So for example you might be able to drink a beer in your uncle's backyard in Kansas, but he can't give it to you and it can't be above 3.2%. Unsurprisingly, these kinds of unrealistic restrictions don't really do much to encourage responsible drinking habits. So basically you're just complaining your dad didn't let you drink as a teen and blaming it for your problems as an adult. Ok. Fact is, in the majority of the country it's completely open for parents to choose to teach their kids proper drinking habits well before they turn 21, and parents simply don't do it. This demolishes your original theory that if only it was legal to do such a thing, bad drinking habits wouldn't be developed. Kaal posted:I'm already regretting responding to your terrible posts. The only terrible poster here is you, the man who was proved wrong and cried about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Aside from the fact that in 29 states it's explicitly legal for kids of just about any age to consume alcohol at home with parental approval, and in 10 states parents may take under 21s to bars and have them served alcohol, sure. I looked up the Texas law and not only is it specifically permissible for a child to drink in the visible presence of a parent or guardian, it also says they can drink "if the minor is under the immediate supervision of a commissioned peace officer engaged in enforcing the provisions of this code." Does this mean the police could operate bars for children legally?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
ClearAirTurbulence posted:I looked up the Texas law and not only is it specifically permissible for a child to drink in the visible presence of a parent or guardian, it also says they can drink "if the minor is under the immediate supervision of a commissioned peace officer engaged in enforcing the provisions of this code." Does this mean the police could operate bars for children legally? I would expect it means that a cop could sit in any bar and monitor underage drinkers, thereby enforcing the provision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
ClearAirTurbulence posted:I looked up the Texas law and not only is it specifically permissible for a child to drink in the visible presence of a parent or guardian, it also says they can drink "if the minor is under the immediate supervision of a commissioned peace officer engaged in enforcing the provisions of this code." Does this mean the police could operate bars for children legally? From memory, ethanol can ameliorate poisoning from methanol and antifreeze. I don't know that you'd normally tell a kid to take shots, but if you lack medical training and facilities, there could be a valid reason. Just googling "Texas peace officer" showed this guide, I'll probably read through it for kicks when bored sometime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
ClearAirTurbulence posted:I looked up the Texas law and not only is it specifically permissible for a child to drink in the visible presence of a parent or guardian, it also says they can drink "if the minor is under the immediate supervision of a commissioned peace officer engaged in enforcing the provisions of this code." Does this mean the police could operate bars for children legally? I'm guessing that the purpose of that law is so cops can't get in trouble if they send underage teens undercover to see if people sell alcohol to teenagers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
It's 18 in alot of other countries and even lower in some, and they are doing ok (well, just about as ok as you can be in today's world). If you are considered a legal adult, can vote, and drive I don't see why you shouldn't be able to drink alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
So Nintendo Kid, is your argument that since just over 50% of the country allows for 18-20 year olds to drink under special circumstances that don't apply to all 18-20 year olds, we're close enough and should drop the topic? What are your actual thoughs on what it should be set at? As it stands if I want to take advantage of the special circumstances you keep posting I'd have to pack up and move to another state. Can't we continue to discuss change where those laws don't apply? Can we agree that for some of us those laws are not good enough and we'd prefer to present some more arguments about the topic? Don't get me wrong. You are posting good information relevant to the topic but it's not really an answer to the question in the op, and I think that by repeating it in response to people's arguments you are stifling the discussion, since not everyone lives in those states, and they aren't really applicable to all adults in that age range. Edit: To add to the discussion, I think that the reason you don't see parents taking advantage of those laws is possibly that they don't know, or that social factors are discouraging them from doing it. Who wants to be labled as the parent who lets their kid drink? Ideally my kid doesn't drink at all. But if he tries to experiment, it's likely to be in college with the potential risk of getting kicked out with an under age or worse. I don't like that our society is basically setting them up to go wild in college and then roll the dice on the consequences. itskage fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It means age of majority, the age of being a full legal adult, is not the same as the age to vote or whatever. They definitely are, legally at least, under the Age of Legal Capacity act which sets the age of majority at 16. In fact, for us it's effectively the opposite of what you describe (which still makes your overall point correct, though), aside from the upcoming referendum Adults in Scotland under the age of 18 do not have the right to vote. That still makes your overall point that age of majority and age of being a legal adult are not the same thing correct.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
itskage posted:So Nintendo Kid, is your argument that since just over 50% of the country allows for 18-20 year olds to drink under special circumstances that don't apply to all 18-20 year olds, we're close enough and should drop the topic? Yes. At most the other 21 states need to get in line with explicit legal protection for parents/guardians allowing underage people to drink (many don't explicitly have law saying it's legal or illegal, so it's nice to have it explicitly legal). I don't give a gently caress that someone doesn't want to have their dad/their friend's dad give the ok for them to drink. Hell, even extend the "you can drink at a bar with an adult responsible" provision 10 states have if you really want. itskage posted:
Don't blame society for you not bothering to teach your kids to drink, since you're apparently worried about that in the first place. You're more likely than not to be in a state where either the law explicitly allows you to give your own kids alcohol, or does not say anything about the legality of this act (and who's going to try to report on you in the latter case, your kid?).
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
No, in fact everything should be raised up higher, to 25. Cigarettes, driver's license, firearms, voting. I don't trust 18 year olds to do anything. I don't trust 25 year olds either, but at least they are slightly less retarded at life. If you can show that you are moved out of your parent's house and living on your own, you can have privileges again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:
This sounds an awful lot like: "the rich: they deserve more rights because they are better!" if you bother to consider the implications.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Slipknot Hoagie posted:No, in fact everything should be raised up higher, to 25. Cigarettes, driver's license, firearms, voting. I don't trust 18 year olds to do anything. I don't trust 25 year olds either, but at least they are slightly less retarded at life. If you can show that you are moved out of your parent's house and living on your own, you can have privileges again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
I didn't start drinking until I was 25, not because of any zealotry or fear, but because it just wasn't on my radar at all. When I started though, I approached it like I did food: something that was tasty and interesting in its variety. Point being is that I think I skipped that whole forbidden fruit thing that could be eliminated by lowering the drinking age.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So basically you're just complaining your dad didn't let you drink as a teen and blaming it for your problems as an adult. Ok. The law can say what it wants, how it is enforced and transmitted in culture creates the idea kids shouldn't drink before 21. Just ask older people how enforcement of the law has changed over the past couple decades. It was commonplace to drink in a bar even at 16 in most places just 30-50 years ago because no one gave a poo poo. Surprise, there were a lot less problems. Today, we have absolutely cracked down and this strict enforcement colors how parents view the laws. Even if most parents know the law (probably most even don't know they an serve their kids alcohol legally) they are terrified of being a "bad parent" for giving their child the evil poison of alcohol. They are terrified of getting their asses sued or thrown in jail because they gave a kid a beer and something happened after they left. Plus the laws can be confusing and most people will just side towards caution rather than risk getting thrown in jail because they gave the wrong person a beer. Again, how strictly alcohol laws are enforced are much more important than 'is it legal?' when it comes to removing the forbidden status alcohol has among young people. Basically you're being very autistic in just looking at the lawbooks without considering how common enforcement of the law changes perception. You haven't "demolished" any theory at all- the claim was centered around how people view the law, teach the law, and what happens in reality, not that the law specifically outlawed it. Or rather that is what people are talking about, regardless of your semantical quibbling. Slipknot Hoagie posted:No, in fact everything should be raised up higher, to 25. Cigarettes, driver's license, firearms, voting. I don't trust 18 year olds to do anything. I don't trust 25 year olds either, but at least they are slightly less retarded at life. If you can show that you are moved out of your parent's house and living on your own, you can have privileges again. Hmmm, on the other hand I don't think we should institute utterly awful public policy simply to assuage your ill founded and ignorant fears.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
If parents refuse to be good parents over alcohol, setting the drinking age to 18 isn't going to magically beam "how to drink properly" into people's heads, bro.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:If parents refuse to be good parents over alcohol, setting the drinking age to 18 isn't going to magically beam "how to drink properly" into people's heads, bro. No, but it will resolve the other issues that are caused by forbidding adults from legally drinking on their own. The example I brought up ages ago was frat houses and gown v. town relations, but I'd expand that to include removing a barrier on people in house parties from calling an ambulance if someone is taking to alcohol poorly, or on somebody who is using alcohol as a means for sexual assault. Usually in a liberal society you ask why one should impose a limitation rather than why it should be removed. Other than denying that there is any problem with things as they are, I have not seen a good argument from you about this, especially considering, again, that a diverse set of other countries do not bar adults from drinking alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:No, but it will resolve the other issues that are caused by forbidding adults from legally drinking on their own. The example I brought up ages ago was frat houses and gown v. town relations, but I'd expand that to include removing a barrier on people in house parties from calling an ambulance if someone is taking to alcohol poorly, or on somebody who is using alcohol as a means for sexual assault. Those issues are vastly overblown. Also many states explicitly make it so anyone reporting alcohol overdoses is exempt from being charged for underage drinking. We lowered drinking ages down to 18 in most states in the 60s and 70s before raising them back up to 21 by the end of the 80s. Colleges were full of binge drinking and the like in the lower time period.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Only real argument I've seen for keeping it where it is is the apparent reduction in alcohol-related driving deaths when the law was changed back in the 70's or whenever. If those numbers can be trusted I guess that would be one reason. Have a feeling it's one of those things that just isn't going to change for a while because I cannot fathom anyone advocating for lowering the drinking age and not subsequently getting crucified in a public forum in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Those issues are vastly overblown. Also many states explicitly make it so anyone reporting alcohol overdoses is exempt from being charged for underage drinking. quote:We lowered drinking ages down to 18 in most states in the 60s and 70s before raising them back up to 21 by the end of the 80s. Colleges were full of binge drinking and the like in the lower time period.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:What is it that isn't overblown, then? What is it that raising the drinking age itself actually accomplished? What is the impetus for limiting the freedom of adults 18-20 in this instance? I don't give a poo poo that you don't want to have someone else around to supervise your drinking for 2 years. People can deal with it. At most, laws about allowing underage drinking with actual adult supervision should be expanded to all 50 states, and that would create exactly the kind of opportunity for people to learn to drink safely that so many people claim to want. I grew up in a state where parents were allowed to give their kids alcohol under supervision, it worked out pretty great. We could even have alcohol as long as there was just someone over 21 around supervising and actually buying the alcohol so we had parties with alcoholic punch in high school (not at the high school itself, but we were in high school). It was just fine and I doubt any of us would have learned to drink better if we couldn't do anything til 18 and then suddenly could go buy all we wanted. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Monkey Fracas posted:Only real argument I've seen for keeping it where it is is the apparent reduction in alcohol-related driving deaths when the law was changed back in the 70's or whenever. If those numbers can be trusted I guess that would be one reason. I've heard rumours that part of that was due to people crossing state lines to get drunk when they're underage in their own state, and then driving home. I know that certainly goes on near the borders in Alberta and Quebec. Then, it's the harmonization of the age laws that make the difference, not the specific age used.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I don't give a poo poo that you don't want to have someone else around to supervise your drinking for 2 years. People can deal with it. quote:At most, laws about allowing underage drinking with actual adult supervision should be expanded to all 50 states, and that would create exactly the kind of opportunity for people to learn to drink safely that so many people claim to want. quote:I grew up in a state where parents were allowed to give their kids alcohol under supervision, it worked out pretty great. We could even have alcohol as long as there was just someone over 21 around supervising and actually buying the alcohol so we had parties with alcoholic punch in high school (not at the high school itself, but we were in high school). It was just fine and I doubt any of us would have learned to drink better if we couldn't do anything til 18 and then suddenly could go buy all we wanted. Is there anyone in this thread who has a problem with kids 16-17 being able to drink (only) when supervised by adults? You seem to be arguing with a very peculiar strawman here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I was fortunate enough to grow up in a country (Israel) in which the drinking age was 18, just like the voting and military service age. This doesn't apply to me, or to most of my friends, as I have already started my third decade. I'm glad you know people can deal with it, though. That's nice. Because there's no reason they shouldn't have to be supervised for a dangerous luxury (and it's a good thing the age to buy cigarettes is starting to be raised finally by the way). No, supervision til 21. Alcohol isn't a right, and we already know people can be stupid with it. If someone can't find a place that will supervise them drinking than too bad for them. I see no particular advantage to be gained for full privilege to drink whenver and wherever they want when the act of drinking itself on private or supervised premises is legal (Which is again already the case in many states and should be in all of them).
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I see no particular advantage to be gained for full privilege to drink whenver and wherever they want when the act of drinking itself on private or supervised premises is legal (Which is again already the case in many states and should be in all of them). This being a question of public policy, I am going to ask you again what benefits come about from keeping the drinking age above the age of majority, or what harms are actually mitigated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You do not limit the freedom of adults unless there is a good reason, which you again have not provided at all. If people are acting irresponsibly you can arrest them for the irresponsible behavior (or treat them, if it's gotten to the level of an addiction or whatnot), you can tell them not to do this in certain areas for good reasons (smoking in enclosed spaces poses health risks to unwilling bystanders, for example), but I think the absence of prior restraint is an important fundamental value in a free society. You seem to think differently, which you're allowed to, but you're going to have to do better than "just 'cause" this. 18 year olds aren't real adults yet in the first place. I don't care how much it upsets you to have to get an actual adult to watch over people but it seems like it'd be the most straightforward possible solution to allow people to drink while preventing them from getting into binge behavior. There is no harm caused by not being able to drink unencumbered at 18, why should we go back to it again? What benefit does it bring that the ability to drink as long as someone's watching doesn't? We're not talking about something that's safe like weed here, after all. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:18 year olds aren't real adults yet in the first place. quote:I don't care how much it upsets you to have to get an actual adult to watch over people but it seems like it'd be the most straightforward possible solution to allow people to drink while preventing them from getting into binge behavior. quote:There is no harm caused by not being able to drink unencumbered at 18, why should we go back to it again? quote:What benefit does it bring that the ability to drink as long as someone's watching doesn't? I'm going to ask again: what are the benefits of keeping the drinking age three years higher than the age of majority, when a diversity of other countries have them the same without apparent problems. What actual problem is solved by curtailing the freedoms of adults in this manner? Not hypothetically, not anecdotes from your own childhood, not dismissal of anybody who hasn't had your stable family life and helpful community, but actual quantifiable advantages that can be used to argue for the limitation of the rights of adults who can vote and fight and gently caress, but can't legally drink without their parents around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:
Actually most countries have drinking problems with young people. Anyway, what I'm suggesting is specifically different in that it's full scale supervised drinking between 18 and 21. And again, alcohol is definitely not a right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Actually most countries have drinking problems with young people. quote:Anyway, what I'm suggesting is specifically different in that it's full scale supervised drinking between 18 and 21. quote:And again, alcohol is definitely not a right. 9th Amendment posted:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Advantages of curtailing the rights of 18-20-year-olds by requiring them to find a supervisor for their drinking that are commensurate with the loss of autonomy and burden it puts on them, please.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:How many problems? How much problems in the 18-20 range? Why have they not lowered their drinking ages? Problems exist, period, so why should they lower their drinking ages? And what makes 18 specifically so special to you? That's nice for you to suggest supervised loving. Drinking isn't a right, once again. You do not lose autonomy by not being able to buy your own alcohol. The 9th amendment has absolutely nothing to do with that else it would surely have come up sometime in the past hundred years by the way. 
Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Jun 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Problems exist, period, so why should they lower their drinking ages?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:And I am suggesting supervised loving between 18 and 21. Sounds like a great way to reduce unwanted pregnancy and maybe even teach some goddamn technique.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2014 22:37
|
|
