Thread: Legal Age

Originally Posted by Philadelph

There are definitely reasons the drinking age is 21 and I fully agree with it. This should help you: WHY 21 -Get the Truth About the 21 Law

Specifically the part on the "Teen Brain".

That's an interesting read, Philadelph, thanks for finding that. The section on the "blood borders" is admittedly true, especially here in Canada where there are different LDA's across the provinces. In British Columbia, for example, the age is 19; 18 year old kids can drive across the border into Alberta and get smashed. On the flip side, Alberta kids, who have already been drinking legally, will cross into B.C. to find that they can't drink anymore.

Unfortunately, a lot of it seems to be little more than state (no pun intended) propaganda as it seems to discount the reality that teens have already been drinking long before they reach 21. As much as they try to debunk the forbidden fruit "theory" it still doesn't change the fact that this "theory" is completely true.

I fully agree that the age for all of those things should be the same. I just think that instead of thinking of dropping the drinking age, we should think about increasing the voting age and the age at which someone can enlist in the armed forces.

I wasn't responsible enough to make any of those decisions at 18. I don't know too many people who are.

Originally Posted by HNSB

I just think that instead of thinking of dropping the drinking age, we should think about increasing the voting age and the age at which someone can enlist in the armed forces.

This is where we get to the slippery slope as it were, the political realities of law, which shows that safety is not the top priority of these movements. By increasing the legal age for the activities listed the government is
a) losing the 18-20 voting demographic (yes I realize it's not very large, but there are still votes to be lost), and
b) shrinking the pool of potential soldiers that they could be sending directly to the front lines.

Yes, hypocrisy could be at work here, folks....

Originally Posted by Ryan82

This is where we get to the slippery slope as it were, the political realities of law, which shows that safety is not the top priority of these movements. By increasing the legal age for the activities listed the government is
a) losing the 18-20 voting demographic (yes I realize it's not very large, but there are still votes to be lost), and
b) shrinking the pool of potential soldiers that they could be sending directly to the front lines.

Yes, hypocracy could be at work here, folks....

BINGO... right on the head of the nail
Isn't it amazing that the politicians stand to gain from this????

Interesting points, Ryan and others. While in theory I agree that if a 17-year old is old enough to go off to war and die for his country, he should be old enough to have a drink, I also teach high school seniors, many of whom are 18, and like high-school kids everywhere, binge drink often, sometimes with tragic consequences. I'd say I've lost about a dozen students over the years to drunk driving. And then they go off to college...

I know when I was in high school in the early 80's, before MADD and SADD really became political forces to be reckoned with-and they were instrumental in the nation-wide crackdown on drunk driving-every kid knew which convenience stores/party shops would sell 'em beer, which older kid would get it for them (the legal age was 18), or where you could slip a 10 to a wino to get both of you something cheap for the evening in the local liquor store. I guess that's still the case.

Funny thing, when the Feds started coercing the states to gradually raise the age to 21 with the highway funds, I became legal (and then illegal) about 3 times before I turned 21, none of which prevented me from getting booze. No easy answers on this one. My half-German wife believes that the European model of younger exposure to alcohol in the home gives kids a healthier, less obsessive desire to binge on "forbidden fruit," and I suspect she's right.

I rarely had a problem obtaining alcohol at an early age. Most of my friends and peers and little problem getting it either. In fact one of my cousins was celebrating his last weekend home before his first year of college and got arrested last night for public intoxication (and a few other things I think vandalism and destruction of property.) So the law is clearly on the ineffectual side. I think if you're allowed to go to war, smoke a cigarette, and sign your life away in a legal contract you should have a beer to commemorate. All those things can ruin your life so whats one more. I'm not saying to lower the drinking age, just make them all the same. And for the record and possibly in the same vein one thing you're not going to do at 21 is rent a car. Most companies won't give one out until you reach 25 because of insurance, my friend got let go after 3 years from a limo company because the insurance company found out he was under 25.

There needs to be a uniform age of majority, be it 14 or 37. If one is mature enough to make life or death decisions behind the wheel one should also be mature enough to decide to drive drunk, having just returned from a tour with the Marines, and while celibrating successfully inseminating the neighbors darling daughter, and to vote for the politician who promised to introduce a bill to pay for all child care costs.

I agree with Glen, in that one can send an Enemy of the United States to Hell with his rifle, but can't buy a sixer when he rotates home.
Just my Two Cents man.

Originally Posted by ScoutHikerDad

My half-German wife believes that the European model of younger exposure to alcohol in the home gives kids a healthier, less obsessive desire to binge on "forbidden fruit," and I suspect she's right.

When I was growing up the drinking age was still at 18, I was introduced to alcohol at around 14, My mom always said, if you're going to drink, I would rather you drink at home, so it was no big thing to have a glass of wine or a beer once in a while. Having parental consent also too the "rebelliousness" out of it too as you can't really be cool sneaking around the parents back when there the ones letting you have it. It also taught responsible drinking habits. Not to say we didn't tie one on occasionally, but we got absolutely no sympathy the next day and were actually expected to do more. More of a tough love thing now that I look back at it, but I just thought they did it to torture us at the time.

I think there is a certain logic to the "same age" arguments, but they fail to take into account that beyond responsibility questions there are significant, independently verified, scientific reasons alcohol is particularly harmful to developing brains (perhaps any under 30), particularly those under the 20-23 age range.

Even if a person chooses to use alcohol responsibly at or before age 18 it is inalterably changing brian chemistry and can permanently arrest the development of major sections of the brain.