Lower the US drinking age.

[Riconoen {UGC}]

It's been 20 years that America has had a minimum federal drinking age. The policy began to gain momentum in the early 1980s, when the increasingly influential Mothers Against Drunk Driving added the federal minimum drinking age to its legislative agenda. By 1984, it had won over a majority of the Congress.

President Reagan initially opposed the law on federalism grounds but eventually was persuaded by his transportation secretary at the time, now-Sen. Elizabeth Dole.

Over the next three years every state had to choose between adopting the standard or forgoing federal highway funding; most complied. A few held out until the deadline, including Vermont, which fought the law all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court (and lost).

Twenty years later, the drawbacks of the legislation are the same as they were when it was passed.

The first is that the age set by the legislation is basically arbitrary. The U.S. has the highest drinking age in the world (a title it shares with Indonesia, Mongolia, Palau). The vast majority of the rest of the world sets the minimum age at 17 or 16 or has no minimum age at all.

Supporters of the federal minimum argue that the human brain continues developing until at least the age of 21.

Alcohol expert Dr. David Hanson of the State University of New York at Potsdam argues such
assertions reek of junk science. They're extrapolated from a study on lab mice, he explains, as well as from a small sample of actual humans already dependent on alcohol or drugs. Neither is enough to make broad proclamations about the entire population.

If the research on brain development is true, the U.S. seems to be the only country to have caught on to it.

Oddly enough, high school students in much of the rest of the developed world — where lower drinking ages and laxer enforcement reign — do considerably better than U.S. students on standardized tests.

The second drawback of the federal drinking age is that it set the stage for tying federal mandates to highway funds, enabling Congress to meddle in all sorts of state and local affairs it has no business attempting to regulate — so long as it can make a tortured argument about highway safety.

Efforts to set national speed limits, seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws and set a national blood-alcohol standard for DWI cases have rested on the premise that the federal government can blackmail the states with threats to cut off funding.

The final drawback is pretty straightforward: It makes little sense that America considers an 18-year-old mature enough to marry, to sign a contract, to vote and to fight and die for his country, but not mature enough to decide whether or not to have a beer.

So for all of those drawbacks, has the law worked? Supporters seem to think so. Their primary argument is the dramatic drop in the number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities since the minimum age first passed Congress in 1984. They also cite relative drops in the percentage of underage drinkers before and after the law went into effect.

But a new chorus is emerging to challenge the conventional wisdom. The most vocal of these critics is John McCardell Jr., the former president of Middlebury College in Vermont. McCardell's experience in higher education revealed to him that the federal age simply wasn't working.

It may have negligibly reduced total underage consumption, but those who did consume were much more likely to do so behind closed doors and to drink to excess in the short time they had access to alcohol. McCardell recently started the organization Choose Responsibility, which advocates moving the drinking age back to 18.

McCardell explains that the drop in highway fatalities often cited by supporters of the 21 minimum age actually began in the late 1970s, well before the federal drinking age set in.

What's more, McCardell recently explained in an online chat for the "Chronicle of Higher Education," the drop is better explained by safer and better built cars, increased seat belt use and increasing awareness of the dangers of drunken driving than in a federal standard.

The age at highest risk for an alcohol-related auto fatality is 21, followed by 22 and 23, an indication that delaying first exposure to alcohol until young adults are away from home may not be the best way to introduce them to drink.

McCardell isn't alone. Kenyon College President S. Georgia Nugent has expressed frustration with the law, particularly in 2005 after the alcohol-related death of a Kenyon student. And former Time magazine editor and higher ed reporter Barrett Seaman echoed McCardell's concerns in 2005.

The period since the 21 minimum drinking age took effect has been "marked by a shift from beer to hard liquor," Seaman wrote in Time, "consumed not in large social settings, since that was now illegal, but furtively and dangerously in students' residences. In my reporting at colleges around the country, I did not meet any presidents or deans who felt the 21-year age minimum helps their efforts to curb the abuse of alcohol on their campuses."

The federal drinking age has become somewhat sacrosanct among public health activists, who've consistently relied on the accident data to quell debate over the law's merits.

They've moved on to other battles, such as scolding parents for giving their own kids a taste of alcohol before the age of 21 or attacking the alcohol industry for advertising during sporting events or in magazines aimed at adults that are sometimes read by people under the age of 21.

But after 20 years, perhaps it's time to take a second look—a sound, sober (pardon the pun), science-based look—at the law's costs and benefits, as well as the sound philosophical objections to it.

McCardell provides a welcome voice in a debate too often dominated by hysterics. But beyond McCardell, Congress should really consider abandoning the federal minimum altogether, or at least the federal funding blackmail that gives it teeth.

State and local governments are far better at passing laws that reflect the values, morals and habits of their communities.

(Source reason.com)

[Sitbcknchill]

"Oddly enough, high school students in much of the rest of the developed world — where lower drinking ages and laxer enforcement reign — do considerably better than U.S. students on standardized tests."


HAHAHA, hmmm I believe I would like to see those studies or the way they came to that conclusion because honestly that is a very weak argument that I call bullshit. Not the fact that they did better than U.S. students but the mere fact that the basis was because of the drinking age.

All in all I think the article is just weak. Not a very good argument to lower the drinking age.

[IkBenDeMan]

Originally Posted by Sitbcknchill

"Oddly enough, high school students in much of the rest of the developed world — where lower drinking ages and laxer enforcement reign — do considerably better than U.S. students on standardized tests."


HAHAHA, hmmm I believe I would like to see those studies or the way they came to that conclusion because honestly that is a very weak argument that I call bullshit. Not the fact that they did better than U.S. students but the mere fact that the basis was because of the drinking age.

All in all I think the article is just weak. Not a very good argument to lower the drinking age.

There are plenty of studies that prove this. I don't think it has too much of a correlation to drinking but I think the point is that drinking alone won't make students fail.

[Sitbcknchill]

Originally Posted by IkBenDeMan

There are plenty of studies that prove this. I don't think it has too much of a correlation to drinking but I think the point is that drinking alone won't make students fail.

If there are plenty of studies to prove this can you provide links? Seems to me they are trying to make the point that drinking makes you do better in school.

[darawk]

Originally Posted by Sitbcknchill

"Oddly enough, high school students in much of the rest of the developed world — where lower drinking ages and laxer enforcement reign — do considerably better than U.S. students on standardized tests."


HAHAHA, hmmm I believe I would like to see those studies or the way they came to that conclusion because honestly that is a very weak argument that I call bullshit. Not the fact that they did better than U.S. students but the mere fact that the basis was because of the drinking age.

All in all I think the article is just weak. Not a very good argument to lower the drinking age.

It's not good evidence to assert that being able to drink has improved their scores, but it is a decent argument against the idea that allowing U.S. students to drink at a lower age isn't going to make them retarded.

[mbu37]

First, I've only scanned this thread but, the law (in the US) was lowered to 18 when I was a kid and a big issue was the fact that someone could be drafted and die for their country but weren't allowed to buy a drink.
I'm sure there were many other issues but that's the one that sticks out in my mind.

Pretty tough for make someone fear drinking when they were facing the draft and the war.

Then again, I could be wrong - I don't really have to worry unless they raise the age to 50.

I wonder if it's legal to brew your own beer at 18. I know u can't distill spirits.

mbu37

[Raw edge]

There is some talk of increasing the drinking age in the UK to 21.

[Beeker]

I wasn't a raging alcoholic until I hit 21 ... Wait ... what's my point?

Oh! I didn't become a raging alcoholic until I was cut off from Cannabis.

[hoodabudda]

"It makes little sense that America considers an 18-year-old mature enough to marry, to sign a contract, to vote and to fight and die for his country, but not mature enough to decide whether or not to have a beer." thats a good point.also 18yr olds can buy shotguns have custody of children and purchase tolune/fromaldehyde/cancer sticks...swim dosent really care though, alchohol isnt really anything that special n e way...he would choose a gram of bud over a bottle of jd any day..

[Nagognog2]

Ah! But here in America - a 6 year old child can be diagnosed by a first-year school teacher as having a brain disorder and get methylphenidate and amphetamines! How cool is that!?

<koff! koff!>

[Alicia]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

Ah! But here in America - a 6 year old child can be diagnosed by a first-year school teacher as having a brain disorder and get methylphenidate and amphetamines! How cool is that!?

<koff! koff!>

Off topic, but seriously nag? seems kinda silly how a teacher can have the qualifications to diagnose ADD or ADHD or i guess narcolepsy.

"You sleeping my in class child?!"
"No miss please i have heart condition."

Well kids can learn with a real push now.

[Riconoen {UGC}]

I think the high drinking age is a remnant of the prohibition era. Alcohol is still viewed by some as a demon substance, and a high drinking age is the first step towards getting it outlawed again. MADD supports raising it even higher to 25.

[01485202]

Originally Posted by Riconoen {UGC}

Alcohol is still viewed by some as a demon substance

alcohol is a demon substance imo, worse than most drugs healthwise and in terms of social disorder.

Thats not the point, by 18 youre old enough to make your own choices.

i drink plenty by the way

[Nagognog2]

With the retarded movers & shakers of the Bush Regime hard at work, if you tried to lower the drinking age while citing the voting age amd age of military service - they would likely respond by raising the voting age to 65 and lowering the age for military service to 12.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Well done. Voting at 65 and Shooting Rag-Heads at 12. What a wonderful world. This Bud's for you.

[D.U.M.B]

If you can die for your country at 18 you should be allowed drink in your country at 18

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good comment!

[DrMuffy]

Originally Posted by D.U.M.B

If you can die for your country at 18 you should be allowed drink in your country at 18

Exactly, this country has f*cked up laws and such, if someone average were to be in office and not care about the next election, it might, just might be better country with less harsh laws..

[The Doors]

Boycott alcohol! As funny as it may sound, if no one buys booze they would lose money eventually and lose political power but that wont happen.

[motorhead]

I wonder why a guy in his 30's would want to lower the drinking age? Maybe so he can pick up younger girls at his favorite watering hole?

Or maybe he's crusading for all the unfortunate sibling-less teenagers who don't have friends with older brothers!

Seriously though, does the drinking age really bother anyone or stop anybody from drinking? Not really I think. It makes a big difference where you go on the weekend though. Yes I agree 21 is to high, but i cant see it going lower anytime soon.

As for raising it to 21 in the UK or 25(lol) in the states, I think they should just leave it alone. I feel for orginizations like MADD-drunk driving has cost many innocent lives-but they should concentrate their efforts in other directions, more education for example. The drinking age has very little influence on someone so wasted who thinks they can drive to where-ever they have to go at 2 in the morning and didnt have a friend there to tell them otherwise.

[Riconoen {UGC}]

Wow what a hypocrite you are, I think most of us support legalizing drugs, but onbe of the big arguments against drug legalization is: "oh, if you don't use drugs why would you give a rats ass is they're illegal" The reason you should is becuase maybe you should think about things that don't just apply to you and see that in the supposed land of the free we have the most draconian drug laws in the world and also the most draconian alcohol laws in the world, if you want to see a truly free country one of the first steps is to loosen government regulations on substances that already are legal. Parents in the US that give thier under 21 children alcohol are demonized and even arrested here while in europe and pretty much everywhere outside the middle east it's a custom to gradually introduce alcohol to children to teach them how to drink responsibly. A beer with dinner isn't going to give a teenager brain damage.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Well put.
	I believe this is a bit of a flame. State your disagreement of opinion in a friendly fashion than saying things like &qu...

[motorhead]

I agree the drinking laws are bad, that 21 is to high, and hopefully someday the age will be reduced to 18 or 19. I just don't see it happening soon. Why? Well you said it-the US has the most draconian drug laws in the world. Because MADD and similar minded people are lobbying for an increase in the age and 'demonizing' others along the way. Because the war on drugs/booze has gone on so long that bickering over age limits doesnt really interest enough people to get involved. Because most people who are pissed that they can't legally drink at 20 will probably forget about the drinking age the day after they turn 21 while looking for something to cure their hangover.

Changing any law is difficult. Getting enough people and support together to exert the political pressure needed is difficult. And its not that people don't care or are lazy, it's just that most of them(me included) are pretty busy with life, their jobs/careers and/or families, and spending their free time doing alot more interesting things than lobbying politicians. I'm speaking in generalities here, and I do hope to get more involved in drug law reform myself, at some point in time, beyond posting on an internet forum; But I'm not a hypocrite. Bad sense of humor maybe, but not a hypocrite.

[Riconoen {UGC}]

I have to agree with sit, it's a bad correlation and reason usually gets it right.

[IkBenDeMan]

I'll bite my words. All the sources I found showed bais. However, I believe it is probably true, I mean, my friends in Germany knew more about most things, whether natural sciences, social sciences, languages, et cetera, while they where in the Gymnasium (roughly, high school), than did a lot of my friends at the Uni. It may be that it's not so convincing to you, but I'm just going to re-state, that I believe the point of the author stating that was just the illustrate that it didn't matter, not that it made them smarter. Perhaps the syntax was ambiguous, which was a flaw, but thats just how I see it.

[DrMuffy]

Well SWIdr drank when he was young (since 13 years of age) and he scored a 271 on his NM high school standardized test, and 250+ were considered geniuses . So i guess SWIdr could ne an example, haha!

[WrtngCocaineTutorial]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age

USA is kind of alone to have such a high legal drinking age

[stoneinfocus]

I aggree with this opinion, it´s not that you may be allowed to drink, whilst having all the legal responsibilities for the whole rest of your life, that´s just one factum, but not an anology in the true sense.

A law should make sense in regard to the situation of the people and learning to drink responisbly is better to be introduced earlier, like her in germany it´s at the age of 12-14years, whch is ok, although those retards are therefor condemning all other drugs as a menace from hell, but nonetheless, I was not drinking at all anymore, when I hit 18-19 years of age but could have been easily "diagnosed" as an alcoholic with the age of 14.

Something more to consider about the law, is the reality: if it´s just a law that´s residing in air-bubble, just some witch hunts are what its enfrocing effects are, but it has to be alterd to the scientific and true evidence and adjusted pragmatically to the situation like it is in the real world.

Normally, there should be no law regulating the use of substances but common sense and knowlege.