Reducing Drinking Age to 18???

[glking]

Many states do allow for consumption. See below:

[madurolover]

If that map is for legal consumption at 18 it is wrong.

[Commander Quan]

I think before we lower the age limit we need to rethink our practices on consuming alcohol. In most countries alcohol is thought of as a food substance, and as part of a meal. In the US this is not so much the case, and there is a general lack of respect for alcoholic beverages. They are part of a party atmosphere and a way to have a good time. Grape malt beverages and Michelob Ultra are not food those are purely vehicles to get alcohol into the bloodstream.

[NHsmoker]

Originally Posted by 4thtry

I would disagree with the change in age. I do realize the "if you can fight for the country than you should be allowed to drink'' mentality but the problem is, not all that are of age are mature enough to handle situations involving alcohol.

I wont even lie, when i was 18 years old, I had plenty of friends that were not of the maturity level of what we would consider to be "adult." yes legally you are an adult but let's be honest here, plenty of 18 year olds act quite differently.

If you want to use fighting for the country as a grounds for allowing 18 year olds to drink than i think it should be an incentive for those who are fighting for our country. I do agree with you on that point, If you fight you should be allowed to have a cold one at the end of the day (or whenever). But to change it across the board would be a HUGE mistake i belive.

While I do agree 18 year olds can be immature I also believe they should be able to make their own choices.
If an 18 year old is immature and breaks some windows he is punished as an adult, My point being it should be a two way street they should either be treated as adults and allowed to make their decisions as such or be deemed immature and not face punishments and responsibilities of adults.
I also think on the premise of drunk driving I see as many or more 25 and older people getting dwi's.

[The Professor]

Originally Posted by MikeyC

From what I've read in the past, the U.S. has not only the highest drinking age but also some of the highest rates of drunk driving, alcoholism, and alcohol abuse.

Personally, I would attribute this to the "soft" parenting prevalent in the U.S. which was already mentioned in this thread (discussing this is a whole other thread in itself) and also the high drinking age. Think about it. Because the drinking age is 21 kids must drink in secret when younger under age. Then when they're finally of age most kids live away from their parents. So, they've never been parented on how to drink responsibly.

I suppose "soft parenting" is one way to put it; but I'd attribute it more to a need to cultivate responisbility. Part of that, imho, means *talking about* drinking with young people in ways that don't just say "don't do it" or reinforce mere taboo, but inculcate a certain ethic about drinking.

I grew up in a household that I'd probably describe as libertarian in parenting style. I lived with my brother and single mom from the 4th grade into high school (some of the more formative years). She was hardly a disciplinarian; but then again, she didn't really need to be. Rather, I was taught to think for myself and critically examine situations in a manner conducive to making decisions that minimized negative consequences. I was also taught about consequences of things like drugs and alcohol on the body -- not the scare tactics propagated by government, schools, churches, etc., but what I believe to be the honest to goodness truth about what foreign substances do to your body. Alcohol wasn't prohibited; but it was certainly discouraged and thought about its consequences was encouraged.

When I got my driver's license, my mom sat me down and had a little talk with me about drinking and driving. Her rule (one of the few) was simple: if I ever drank anything, don't drive. Seek alternative ways home or call her and she'll pick me up. When I was 18 and graduated from the local community college, I had a couple of drinks at one of my peer's houses. I got a ride home and had my mom take me back the next day. To this day (and ask my friends, many of whom mock me about this), I don't drive if I've had a drink within an over an hour of needing to drive. If I've had two drinks, you can pretty much forget the idea of me getting behind the wheel of a car.

I tell yawl all of this to illustrate a couple of points. First, I'm not so sure that "soft parenting" so much as a lack of consequential parenting is at fault. Second, any age limit seems arbitrary insofar as there will be people at any age (18, 21, 35, etc.) who lack the responsibility to consume alcohol in reasonable ways.

[Cheeto]

A culture change would have to take place first. America views alcohol with a very bad eye, the whole lets get wasted mentality reign supreme for the most part here. That would have to change in order for the drinking age to be lowered.

[Jbailey]

Originally Posted by AAlmeter

Unfortunately, you cant. How many stories do you read about where you just shake your head and think "If only someone had been a little more responsible?"

-Gun accidents
-Drunk drivers
-construction accidents
-fires from cigars/cigarettes

Its not the cigar, its not the gun, its not the booze, its not the car, its not the age....its the person. Can't legislate that away, can only hope to educate it away.

Very true indeed.
I've seen some very responsible people young and old. I've also seen very irresponsible people young and old.

[mikeyj23]

Originally Posted by madurolover

If that map is for legal consumption at 18 it is wrong.

Actually it's right - I haven't checked EVERY state, but I checked Texas - all the codes are here, and according to Sec106.04(b), Sec106.05(b), and Sec106.06(b), minors can drink with parents present, and minors can have their parents buy alcohol for them (providing they drink it with parents present). I believe that's what the chart means by "with exceptions," and I can only assume that the "Consumption Not Prohibited" states have even looser codes, if any.

[madurolover]

Originally Posted by mikeyj23

Actually it's right - I haven't checked EVERY state, but I checked Texas - all the codes are here, and according to Sec106.04(b), Sec106.05(b), and Sec106.06(b), minors can drink with parents present, and minors can have their parents buy alcohol for them (providing they drink it with parents present). I believe that's what the chart means by "with exceptions," and I can only assume that the "Consumption Not Prohibited" states have even looser codes, if any.

Mikey I can assure you that the legal drinking age here in SC is 21. If your parents are caught giving you alcohol at 20 they can be charged with Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor. Now how strivtly that is enforced I do not know but i have seen parents on the news taken to court for letting their children under 21 drink so I would think they do enforce it to some degree.

[mikeyj23]

Originally Posted by madurolover

Mikey I can assure you that the legal drinking age here in SC is 21. If your parents are caught giving you alcohol at 20 they can be charged with Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor. Now how strivtly that is enforced I do not know but i have seen parents on the news taken to court for letting their children under 21 drink so I would think they do enforce it to some degree.

I hate to get on you again, but straight from the S.C. Code of Laws Title 61, section 61-6-4070:

(A) It is unlawful for a person to transfer or give to a person under the age of twenty-one years for the purpose of consumption of alcoholic liquors in the State unless the person under the age of twenty-one is recruited and authorized by a law enforcement agency to test a person's compliance with laws relating to the unlawful transfer or sale of alcoholic liquors to a minor. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction:
(1) for a first offense, must be fined not less than two hundred dollars nor more than three hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both; and
(2) for a second or subsequent offense, must be fined not less than four hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.
(B) A person found guilty of a violation of Section 61-4-90 and this section may not be sentenced under both sections for the same offense.
(C) The provisions of this section do not apply to a:
(1) spouse over the age of twenty-one giving alcoholic liquors to his spouse under the age of twenty-one in their home;
(2) parent or guardian over the age of twenty-one giving alcoholic liquors to his children or wards under the age of twenty-one in their home; or
(3) person giving alcoholic liquors to another person under the age of twenty-one in conjunction with a religious ceremony or purpose if the alcoholic liquors were lawfully purchased

[madurolover]

Originally Posted by mikeyj23

I hate to get on you again, but straight from the S.C. Code of Laws Title 61, section 61-6-4070:

That actually makes sense. It may be that the parents being brought to court are because they were also letting other peoples children drink at their homes so therefore it was not there decision to make.


ps That is why my CUT says Still Learnin'

[mikeyj23]

Originally Posted by madurolover

That actually makes sense. It may be that the parents being brought to court are because they were also letting other peoples children drink at their homes so therefore it was not there decision to make.

That makes sense - it seems like every state has started cracking down on parents letting their HS/college underagers throw parties at the house. Perhaps the news just put it in the light of the parent letting their child drink, but I would guess it's due to the other kids drinking.

[madurolover]

i think we are onto something here.

[mikeyj23]

Originally Posted by madurolover

i think we are onto something here.

So looking at the chart again and assuming "with exceptions"="with parents", there are only 8 states where minors can't drink with their parents (including my home state-Kansas). Interestingly enough, the exceptions reference spouses under 21 as well - nice for going out to a nice dinner and getting a bottle of wine, I suppose.

[weetone]

When it comes to lowering the drinking age, it's beyond naive to assume that people aren't going to drink until they're 21 anyhow. By making it illegal for people aged 18-20 to not drink, they are exposed to the adult world, with the exception of alcohol. Instantly, that makes it a forbidden and exciting thing to consume...hence the problems.

Admittedly, the problem isn't much less in Canada, drinking age is 18 (or 19 in some places) but most people have easy access to alcohol by 16. One key difference arises - a much smaller proportion of 16 year olds drive. 16 year olds can't get into bars, no bar fights or crimes associated with bars. Yes, there are occasional incidences of violence and drinking and driving among younger populations. But, in my experience (being of legal age) there is significantly larger neglect for laws once one is legally allowed to drink.

That's a reason why some parents host parties - to ensure that nothing nefarious is going on.

To bring that all to a point, why not lower the drinking age? Being 18 or 21, either way, you'll have had access to booze since you were 16, you've probably already indulged. It's just one more way for the nanny state to encroach personal freedoms.

But luckily, living here, I don't need to deal with that. But as a conclusion, I don't think it truly matters where the drinking age is at.