Thread: Legal Age

Originally Posted by Ryan82

Okay, but how does having a law saying "no booze for you until you are 21" change the reality that booze has been, and will be, procured and consumed by minors? At minimum, the laws should reflect this.

Don't get me wrong, I am in favour of a LDA, just one that is in balance with other activities associated with the age of majority.

Well, is what is right defined by what happens?

For instance, based on your reasoning the fact that many homicides occur each year in Miami, we should change the law to reflect that by making it a misdemeanor.

The logical solution to your complaint is not to change a good law, but rather to better enforce it.

Originally Posted by BKratchmer

Well, is what is right defined by what happens?

For instance, based on your reasoning the fact that many homicides occur each year in Miami, we should change the law to reflect that by making it a misdemeanor.

The logical solution to your complaint is not to change a good law, but rather to better enforce it.

Apples and oranges...

No one disputes that homicide is wrong, just as most would say that the ability to have a beer before 21 should not only be acceptable (due to the lower age of majority for other things) but is inevitable. I'm not sure how better enforcement will remedy the situation, other than to clog up the legal system further and to line the pockets of those who stand to profit from it. Like I said previously, education is likely the better route.

BKratchmer, when did you have your first drink? Was it on your 21st birthday (or whatever the age was when you reached it)? You obviously lived to tell the story...

Well, if you want to judge the effectiveness of a law or policy you have to present some data. Anecdotal evidence isn't really the best way to make policy.

Every single law gets broken, the only thing that can prevent somebody from doing that is the threat of the consequences of breaking it.
Now, the question is what is the cost of enforcing it and how does it stack against the cost of not enforcing it, or the situation when the law doesn't exist in the first place.

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'm sure there are people who do care about these things, but at the end of the day the reality seems to be that it boils down to money, politics, talking points, etc, i.e. this is decided in a completely irrational manner, no matter which outcome.

So, unless we start looking and discussing scientific data, this thread will be just like any other political/religious thread.

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).

Originally Posted by gugi

Well, if you want to judge the effectiveness of a law or policy you have to present some data. Anecdotal evidence isn't really the best way to make policy.

Every single law gets broken, the only thing that can prevent somebody from doing that is the threat of the consequences of breaking it.
Now, the question is what is the cost of enforcing it and how does it stack against the cost of not enforcing it, or the situation when the law doesn't exist in the first place.

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'm sure there are people who do care about these things, but at the end of the day the reality seems to be that it boils down to money, politics, talking points, etc, i.e. this is decided in a completely irrational manner, no matter which outcome.

So, unless we start looking and discussing scientific data, this thread will be just like any other political/religious thread.

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).

I don't know what it is about the conversation forum, things always get heavy and someone inevitably demands imperical, scientific data. Why? This is a discussion, not a case study or topic for a masters' thesis. No policies or laws will be changed because the gents over at SRP debated the matter. But in a perfect world...

At this point we've heard from many of us old(er) guys, as well as CarrieM, but I'd personally like to hear the perspective of some of our younger members as well, those who are in the under-21 bracket. Or would that just be too predictable....

Originally Posted by Ryan82

At this point we've heard from many of us old(er) guys, as well as CarrieM, but I'd personally like to hear the perspective of some of our younger members as well, those who are in the under-21 bracket. Or would that just be too predictable....

that would be me but I have no problem with it since I live in belgium and I can drink

Originally Posted by Ryan82

Okay, but how does having a law saying "no booze for you until you are 21" change the reality that booze has been, and will be, procured and consumed by minors? At minimum, the laws should reflect this.

It's not whether or not under age people still illegally get the alcohol (they always will)- it's that the laws are there already to discourage it and give out the consequences if you break it and are caught. It does work like that too. I'm sure murder rates would sky-rocket if made legal.

Originally Posted by Ryan82

CarrieM, that's a great common sense approach to this dilemma IMHO, and one that not only reflects the European model but sounds a bit like my upbringing too. Alcohol education goes a long ways towards responsible drinking habits as an adult, much more so than laws.

The problem with that is that the "European model" isn't at all a good one. Europe has more rampant under age drinking problems than the US does.

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 Gugi always gets involved! lol

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.

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.

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.

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.