Legal Age

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan82

I don't know what it is about the conversation forum, things always get heavy and someone inevitably demands imperical, scientific data. Why?

---

Because without them the 'discussion' is nothing more than a kindergarten argument of the type 'my dad is better than your dad, because he is'.
Just look at the so called 'arguments' on either side 'why not make everything the same' vs. 'why not have them different'. Or 'the law gets broken, so off with it'. Those are irrational opinions, not logically constructed arguments. Of course, there is nothing wrong with such banter, if that's the level of 'discussion' you want to have.

Personally I'd like to know more, and understand an issue, and definitely prefer policies that are made because they have a desirable effect, rather than because they are politically convenient.

It's just a matter of what kind of thread you want to have, just don't present it as something that it is not.

Honestly, I think the whole problem could be fixed by swapping the "drinking age" with the "driving age". People shouldn't be allowed to get a drivers license untill the age of 19, 20, or 21 (or maybe never) based on how much trouble they got in from drinking when they were 14, which should be the legal drinking age for wine and beer, and 17, which should be the age for hard liquor. It's easier to keep a teen out of a car than it is to keep beer out of a teen.

Ok, the rate of teen pregnancy might skyrocket, but I think you get my point.

Let me say this another way, people should be familiar with the effects of alcohol before they get a drivers license. People's right to get a drivers license should be determined by how much responsibility they have shown with their drinking at a younger age.

Going to war and voting should still be at 18.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

So here are the questions that have to be answered are: If there is a different or no age limit to drinking, what would be the rate of people drinking? How much higher/lower and how much more/less costly that would be to the society? What about drugs, tobacco?

---

I have no scientific data to base my opinions on this but i think that if there were no laws about legal drinking age then things wouldn't change much. Maybe first, but soon everything went down to situation we have right now.
I base my opinions for what i've experienced in few other countries i regularly visit where drinking culture is somewhat the same as here but availability is much easier and cheaper. People do not drink much more or less.
As i wrote before i think that most of our yongsters have already learned how to deal with alcohol civilized when they turn 18. Making availability easier it would be not a problem for teens so much but adults who already have problems with alcohol.
Making new harder laws would turn 99,5 - 100% of our teens into criminals. I can't see who would be winner then.

I cannot say if our laws are good or bad. In everyday life police pics up only those teens and adults who are dangerous either for themselves or other people. Being drunk even for underaged is no illegal. Only buying and having alcohol.

Legal drinking age here is 16 in public.
I don't know if there is a limit in private, but it is not uncommon for 14 year old kids to drink their first glass of wine or beer with dinner or things like that.

I won't say that there is no problematic drinking behavior anywhere, but there are no big alcohol problems. Because it is allowed to drink from young ages, there is nothing 'forbidden' about it, and thus it is not especially 'cool' to drink or to get drunk.

I started drinking hard liquor at 14 under my parents supervision. I had a shot glass the size of the last part of my little finger, and I could have 1 such glass ever friday OR saturday. With 15 I got a slightly bigger glass, same for 16. My mother paid for the liquor because she made a deal with me: I could drink at home but not anywhere else, and when I started driving a moped, I promised not to drink and drive.

All in all our system seemed to have worked fairly well. College kids usually drink more, but the ones for whom drinking becomes a problem are really the exception. Imo it is better to allow kids to learn to drink under their parents supervision during their formative years, rather than keeping them teetotal until 21 and then saying that 'anything goes'. And indeed, if you are responsible enough to be trusted with a car or a gun, then imo it is ridiculous to punish people for drinking a beer at <21

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sailor

I base my opinions for what i've experienced in few other countries i regularly visit where drinking culture is somewhat the same as here but availability is much easier and cheaper. People do not drink much more or less.

---

Living in a country where underage drinking is legal and generally not frowned upon as long as the kids aren't drunk... I can tell you that we don't seem to have more problems than other countries. One thing that is different is that kids here know their limits by the time they hit college, which is not a bad thing.

And yes, it happens that 16 year olds drink too much and get very drunk. Generally it happens only once because the experience of their first hangover cures them of the desire to repeat that mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

Living in a country where underage drinking is legal and generally not frowned upon as long as the kids aren't drunk... I can tell you that we don't seem to have more problems than other countries. One thing that is different is that kids here know their limits by the time they hit college, which is not a bad thing.

And yes, it happens that 16 year olds drink too much and get very drunk. Generally it happens only once because the experience of their first hangover cures them of the desire to repeat that mistake.

---

That is how it goes here too. Education has taught us within 20 years or so, and nowadays drinking is much more civilized than when i was young. We still have problems but they aren't related to age. I recently saw some studies saying that teenage drinking is not so common than it used to be some years ago.

I just spent 3 months in the US at 20. Drinking underage was a VERY big deal for the organisation I worked for, if you drank underage and got caught, you were out. You were also not allowed to drink, or keep alcohol, on their premisis even if you were 21

Now, in the UK, you can drink at 18 and I've been drinking (not the odd glass of wine) since I was 15 and 16 in pubs. Not very often, but drinking far more than I should have done. I learnt my limits and more or less stick to them like glue these days.

For me, I think drinking in the US has an entirely different feel to here. Here, I quite happily go out to the pub on my own and prop up the bar talking to people I know by sight, name, or have never met before in my life. People in the US seem go out when the happy hours are on, with a group of mates. Much more of a clubby feel to the bars, I felt.

There is also this whole 'hard liquor' thing, like beer is some how not as dangerous a drink as scotch. I don't understand that, if I'm honest. I didn't drink scotch at all in the states because I didn't fancy my chances getting served it.

Do I think it's fair the 21 thing? not really. Do I think the idylic french culture of introducing alcohol early and some how not bringing up people who drink too much is true either? Not a chance, france has big problems with alcohol related illness, maybe not from binge drinking but from chronic use.

I didn't have a problem buying beer, and I enjoyed it. Sat with friends in the yard, soaking up the atmosphere and to hell with the rules - we were just about all European and it's just in the blood, it's part of growing up and becoming an adult. After 8 days without a shower, a cold beer goes down very well indeed. There is no simple answer, but IMO, people are secure enough in themselves at 18 to have a drink if they want to. A lot of my friends don't drink at all.

Enjoy your drinks, gentlemen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Because without them the 'discussion' is nothing more than a kindergarten argument of the type 'my dad is better than your dad, because he is'.
Just look at the so called 'arguments' on either side 'why not make everything the same' vs. 'why not have them different'. Or 'the law gets broken, so off with it'. Those are irrational opinions, not logically constructed arguments. Of course, there is nothing wrong with such banter, if that's the level of 'discussion' you want to have.

Personally I'd like to know more, and understand an issue, and definitely prefer policies that are made because they have a desirable effect, rather than because they are politically convenient.

It's just a matter of what kind of thread you want to have, just don't present it as something that it is not.

---

Discussions are formed around opinions, gugi, otherwise it would be a debate, wouldn't it? The only thing you have brought to the table thus far that resembles an opinion on the actual topic was this,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

In my ideal world before somebody is allowed to vote, drive, shoot, breed, and any other activity with the potential to cause big damage to others, they will have to be evaluated that they can handle that responsibility. The age doesn't matter at all, some will have to spend their lifetime without being able to do any of these things (legally that is, but in my ideal dictatorship nobody is able to break the laws either).

---

which kinda sounds like the type of "kindergarten argument" that you profess to dislike so much. You know, "If I were king I would.....". Fortunately that is not the case. The truth is we live in an imperfect world, and without some kind of dialogue (yes, based on the opinions of from imperfect human beings) no one will ever question what is. Everything is NOT black and white, and laws are not always created for the reason we are told they were intended for. That was already established.

As for my original question about why threads in the conversation forum tend to degenerate, thank you sir, I now know why....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan82

Discussions are formed around opinions, gugi, otherwise it would be a debate, wouldn't it? The only thing you have brought to the table thus far that resembles an opinion on the actual topic was this,

---

Not sure how explicitly I need to spell it out, but since you seem to be missing the point I'm having an issue with, here it is again: Without logical argumentation of the stated opinions the so called 'discussions' are in fact a shouting match between several irrational sides.
Now when one sides states 'the evidence shows that the drinking problem is bigger in US than in europe', and the other side states 'the research is actually the opposite and the drinking is bigger problem in europe than in US', yet neither points to the 'research' that they're supposedly quoting, that's when you either have to request the data, or end the logically argumented discussion, because it has turned into a roll call for 'unfounded beliefs', and that's not conductive to a civil debate.

Although I'm certainly glad to see that you've moved beyond the apple vs. oranges division of the fruit to acknowledge that there are many shades of gray between black and white. The point of having argument based discussions is that while the jump from black to white may be impossible, going to a lighter shade of gray is certainly doable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan82

which kinda sounds like the type of "kindergarten argument" that you profess to dislike so much. You know, "If I were king I would.....".

---

Actually this statement doesn't negate the point of that paragraph, it just states that the solution is impractical. Again it seems I have to spell it out in details: There is not a single age limit that will work for every single person. Whatever number you pick, it will be way too early for some, way too late for others, and just right for some. Of course then you could ask what is the one that is best for as many people as possible, and worse for as few as possible, and the answer depends on how exactly you convert the qualitative 'best' and 'worse' to quantitative measure. With the restriction that comes from historical and practical purposes that you are restricted to whole numbers.

And I can think of a few other factors that seem just as important, but I am not interested in a monologue.

Guys, if you want to have a discussion about having a discussion, please start a new thread.

The thing that kills me with the whole legal age argument, atleast here in the US, is the hypocracy. To exercise a freedom, the government says you need to be a certain age because you dont have the reasoning capabilities to make rational decisions until that age, but as soon as a kid makes a terribly wrong decision, with those same un-matured reasoning capabilities, they become an adult in the eyes of the law, and get tried as an adult. As I see it, if your too young to make "adult" decisions, you dont become an adult just because you have made an "adult" choice, since if we use that reasoning with everything else, a kid would become an adult because they chose to smoke, or drink. If we are going to allow actions to determine when our adulthood begins, we should allow our actions to determine when that age is, across the board.

The problem with government regulation is the one size fits all approach, there are probably as many people that are mature enough to drink at 14, as there are 50 year olds that still arent mature enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

...To exercise a freedom, the government says you need to be a certain age because you dont have the reasoning capabilities to make rational decisions until that age, but as soon as a kid makes a terribly wrong decision, with those same un-matured reasoning capabilities, they become an adult in the eyes of the law, and get tried as an adult. ...

---

There's a hot button issue.

The trouble with the judicial system is that it is supposed to be rational and reasoned in it's approach to justice, retribution, and rehabilitation, yet by the very nature of many crimes, the emotional response will almost always overwhelm the rational response. Prosecuters and defense attorneys alike will always make an emotional case in order to sway a jury.