The Drinking Age Should be Lowered to 18

[DawnCt1]

Are they?

Dawn started this thread, and I don't mean to make it personal, but I just want to know how a Republican can ever support something like this.

My experience is that it is usually the Republican who is trying to restrict my personal rights, and I (still asking) want to know why that is. When my daughter was in school, it was ALWAYS the republicans who wanted to ban books, change curriculum to suit their beliefs and make rules that affected me as a family. That village was constantly tryint to "help" me raise my child. I'm a libertarian at heart and will always vote for candidates with those values.

I would just love to know the answer to that question. How is this reconciled in Republicans' minds? I doubt if this will ever be answered, but I'll keep asking.

I would probably vote Republican if they were what they "said" they were.

Actually, in our area of the country, its the democrats. This law, and every law like it, was a bipartisan law. It isn't a Democrat Law or a Republican Law, it is a Common Sense Law. The change from 21 to 18 was a disaster, particularly for border states like Ct. and Massachusetts, when NY's drinking at was 18 and Ct. and Ma were 21. There was carnage on the highway and teens crossed state lines to buy alcohol. During those years and the years of the draft, it was decided that 18 was old enough to drink. The law was changed. If there was carnage on the highways in between NY, Ct and Ma. by changing the law, it made the carnage more wide spread. Earlier in this thread I posted the dramatic statistics of double digit decrease in deaths related to alcohol on the highways. Double digit reduction in MVA's. Dramatic decrease in criminal activity and a decrease in the rate of alcoholism. It is just common sense to recognize that by raising the drinking age to 21 was a GOOD THING! The law provides for incremental rights from the age of 14. Not everyone has to have every privilege handed to them at a particular age, particularly when it has proven to have been a disaster in the past. Ct. and Massachusetts have had a democratic legislature in the majority for years. The Democrats controlled the house and Senate nationally for the 40 years that the law went from 21 to 18 and back again. It wasn't Republicans that could take credit for the sanity of raising it to 21. It was really everyone who could read the numbers and see clearly what it implied.

 

[Andy B]

Actually, in our area of the country, its the democrats. This law, and every law like it, was a bipartisan law. It isn't a Democrat Law or a Republican Law, it is a Common Sense Law. The change from 21 to 18 was a disaster, particularly for border states like Ct. and Massachusetts, when NY's drinking at was 18 and Ct. and Ma were 21. There was carnage on the highway and teens crossed state lines to buy alcohol. During those years and the years of the draft, it was decided that 18 was old enough to drink. The law was changed. If there was carnage on the highways in between NY, Ct and Ma. by changing the law, it made the carnage more wide spread. Earlier in this thread I posted the dramatic statistics of double digit decrease in deaths related to alcohol on the highways. Double digit reduction in MVA's. Dramatic decrease in criminal activity and a decrease in the rate of alcoholism. It is just common sense to recognize that by raising the drinking age to 21 was a GOOD THING! The law provides for incremental rights from the age of 14. Not everyone has to have every privilege handed to them at a particular age, particularly when it has proven to have been a disaster in the past. Ct. and Massachusetts have had a democratic legislature in the majority for years. The Democrats controlled the house and Senate nationally for the 40 years that the law went from 21 to 18 and back again. It wasn't Republicans that could take credit for the sanity of raising it to 21. It was really everyone who could read the numbers and see clearly what it implied.

This is more a reflection of drink driving than just drinking. If all people did not drink drive then would there be less objection to the age of legal drinking being 18?

 

[salmoneous]

It wasn't Republicans that could take credit for the sanity of raising it to 21. It was really everyone who could read the numbers and see clearly what it implied.

I'll remind folks again that the limit was raised to 21 in CT because the Federal Government forced them to do so.

I'll also point out that just because one act follows another, that doesn't prove the second act was caused by the first. Highway deaths and drunken driving dropped dramatically for folks under 21 and for folks over 21 following the increase in drinking age. That doesn't mean the decrease in deaths from drivers over 21 is due to the change in drinking age, does it?

Finally, the government could pass a whole LOT of laws that would save lives. Banning drinking across the board would save a lot of lives. Should the government do that? Lowering the speed limit back to 55 would save lives. Should the government do that? Banning left turns across traffic would save lives - should the government do that?

Just because the government can do something, that doesn't mean it should. Balancing individual liberty and public safety is tough. It's very rare that the right thing to do is obvious and common sense.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Our government wasn't just formed to play nanny, but to secure the right to individual liberty. That's one thing we should never forget.

 

[Kath2003]

Again, if there were a good solid education program from a young age, the changes of drink driving would be reduced. At 18 you're responsible for your own decisions and that not only includes whether you drink and drive yourself but whether you get in a vehicle with someone who has been drinking. I can 100% guarantee that I have never been in a car with a friend who has had so much as one shot of alcohol and yet I've been drinking since I was 18 legally in bars.

It's not teenager's fault that the USA has an unusually high drink driving rate. Perhaps if there were better education and harsher penalties, people of ALL ages would stop. The USA already has a far higher drink driving rate than many other countries where alcohol is more freely available. It's a societal problem, not one caused by teenagers.

Oh and by the way I didn't fail high school, drink drive myself, get drunk to the point of throwing up, passing out or making a muppet of myself either...

 

[DawnCt1]

Again, if there were a good solid education program from a young age, the changes of drink driving would be reduced. At 18 you're responsible for your own decisions and that not only includes whether you drink and drive yourself but whether you get in a vehicle with someone who has been drinking. I can 100% guarantee that I have never been in a car with a friend who has had so much as one shot of alcohol and yet I've been drinking since I was 18 legally in bars.

It's not teenager's fault that the USA has an unusually high drink driving rate. Perhaps if there were better education and harsher penalties, people of ALL ages would stop. The USA already has a far higher drink driving rate than many other countries where alcohol is more freely available. It's a societal problem, not one caused by teenagers.

Oh and by the way I didn't fail high school, drink drive myself, get drunk to the point of throwing up, passing out or making a muppet of myself either...

The fact is, substance abuse programs start in the very early grades in the USA and they continue as a course called "life ed" through out middle and high school. They are educated and inundated with facts. And when the facts are exhausted there are videos and staged alcohol deaths, etc. I would say that they are among the best educated on substance abuse, alcohol and the affects of driving while impaired in the world. Also, most American kids take drivers ed, which further instills the point. I can also say 100% that I never got in the car with a drunk driver either. What does that prove? Teens tend to be "invincible" and "immortal" and teen males, having not grown their brains to their full extent yet, tend to be impulsive. Also, how many teen drive in the UK compared to the USA? The rate of alcoholism is higher in Europe than it is in the USA and it is higher in countries with lower drinking ages. The penalties are pretty harsh in the US, depending upon which state you live in. They certainly are in Ct. and most New England states.

 

[eclectics]

The fact is, substance abuse programs start in the very early grades in the USA and they continue as a course called "life ed" through out middle and high school. They are educated and inundated with facts. And when the facts are exhausted there are videos and staged alcohol deaths, etc. I would say that they are among the best educated on substance abuse, alcohol and the affects of driving while impaired in the world. Also, most American kids take drivers ed, which further instills the point. I can also say 100% that I never got in the car with a drunk driver either. What does that prove? Teens tend to be "invincible" and "immortal" and teen males, having not grown their brains to their full extent yet, tend to be impulsive. Also, how many teen drive in the UK compared to the USA? The rate of alcoholism is higher in Europe than it is in the USA and it is higher in countries with lower drinking ages. The penalties are pretty harsh in the US, depending upon which state you live in. They certainly are in Ct. and most New England states.

The law in Finland for a first offense, and perhaps other Scandinavian countries, where alchoholism is higher than the norm, is loss of your driver's license......for life. They take DUI very seriously.

 

[DawnCt1]

I'll remind folks again that the limit was raised to 21 in CT because the Federal Government forced them to do so.

I'll also point out that just because one act follows another, that doesn't prove the second act was caused by the first. Highway deaths and drunken driving dropped dramatically for folks under 21 and for folks over 21 following the increase in drinking age. That doesn't mean the decrease in deaths from drivers over 21 is due to the change in drinking age, does it?

Finally, the government could pass a whole LOT of laws that would save lives. Banning drinking across the board would save a lot of lives. Should the government do that? Lowering the speed limit back to 55 would save lives. Should the government do that? Banning left turns across traffic would save lives - should the government do that?

Just because the government can do something, that doesn't mean it should. Balancing individual liberty and public safety is tough. It's very rare that the right thing to do is obvious and common sense.



Our government wasn't just formed to play nanny, but to secure the right to individual liberty. That's one thing we should never forget.

And in the 40 years that the Federal Government tied high way funding to the drinking age, and the drinking age went up to 21....again, Democrats were in charge of the house and senate. Having a drinking age of 21 is not a "quality of life" issue for 18 year olds. In fact, the quality of their lives actually improve have limited access to alcohol.

 

[NYBlue1]

As always your post is well thought out and very well put.VERY good post. I agree that 18 year olds are KIDS still especially today's 18 year olds. They aren't taught to take responsibility for their actions as much or as strictly as in the past. Most think they can get away with anything because mom and dad will bail them out. But yet our government has deemed, in it's infinite wisdom, that these 18 year old Children are mature enough to handle mortal combat. If they are mature to do that they are mature enough to drink. I don't personally think they are mature enough to handle either of the 2.

Thanks you for your kind words. I honestly look at this issue as a common sence issue not a political issue.

 

[NYBlue1]

And in the 40 years that the Federal Government tied high way funding to the drinking age, and the drinking age went up to 21....again, Democrats were in charge of the house and senate. Having a drinking age of 21 is not a "quality of life" issue for 18 year olds. In fact, the quality of their lives actually improve have limited access to alcohol.

 

[Charade]

I'll remind folks again that the limit was raised to 21 in CT because the Federal Government forced them to do so.

I'll also point out that just because one act follows another, that doesn't prove the second act was caused by the first. Highway deaths and drunken driving dropped dramatically for folks under 21 and for folks over 21 following the increase in drinking age. That doesn't mean the decrease in deaths from drivers over 21 is due to the change in drinking age, does it?

Finally, the government could pass a whole LOT of laws that would save lives. Banning drinking across the board would save a lot of lives. Should the government do that? Lowering the speed limit back to 55 would save lives. Should the government do that? Banning left turns across traffic would save lives - should the government do that?

Just because the government can do something, that doesn't mean it should. Balancing individual liberty and public safety is tough. It's very rare that the right thing to do is obvious and common sense.



Our government wasn't just formed to play nanny, but to secure the right to individual liberty. That's one thing we should never forget.

Along with...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

 

[Froggyswife]

Thanks you for your kind words. I honestly look at this issue as a common sence issue not a political issue.

YVW. ITA it is a common sense thing not a political issue. There may be some 18 year olds mature enough to handle alcohol with reason and moderation but if there are they are very few and far between. Shoot I know middle aged people who still don't know when to call it quits and still want to drive home. But not from my house they won't I hide keys.

 

[salmoneous]

They are educated and inundated with facts.

Unfortunately, they are inundated with a very limited number of facts. Such programs are limited in most jurisdictions to moralistic preaching - little more than "just say no". Which is why we need to rely on parents, not the government.

 

[salmoneous]

And in the 40 years that the Federal Government tied high way funding to the drinking age, and the drinking age went up to 21....again, Democrats were in charge of the house and senate.

Dawn, you have interesting opinions and thoughts. But when you get to basic facts, you often get things wrong. I'm curious - do you check this sort of thing out when you post? The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 that forced CT to raise the drinking age to 21 or lose highway funding was passed in 1984 by a Democratic controlled House and Republican controlled Senate. Large majorities of each party voted for it. Ronald Reagan signed it.

 

[NYBlue1]

Dawn, you have interesting opinions and thoughts. But when you get to basic facts, you often get things wrong. I'm curious - do you check this sort of thing out when you post? The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 that forced CT to raise the drinking age to 21 or lose highway funding was passed in 1984 by a Democratic controlled House and Republican controlled Senate. Large majorities of each party voted for it. Ronald Reagan signed it.

1984 was an intresting year for me, its when I graduated from high school, everyone and I mean everyone within an hour or two from the border of ct that was 18 drove to bars in ct, every weekend, cars were crashed, kids were injured, sometime minor sometime serious, alot of times dead over it. There was a huge nightclub just over the ny ct boarder I cant remember the name of it for the life of me now but it was "the" place.

I dont care who had the idea , republican democrate, vegetable animal mineral, it was the smartest thing ever, it saves countless lives.

 

[cc1013]

Not sure if this has already been mentioned (I didn't have a chance to read every post) but my view is that if citizens have the ability to go to war and fight for their country at 18, they should be able to have a beer when they come home. Just my thoughts.............

 

[Andy B]

The fact is, substance abuse programs start in the very early grades in the USA and they continue as a course called "life ed" through out middle and high school. They are educated and inundated with facts. And when the facts are exhausted there are videos and staged alcohol deaths, etc. I would say that they are among the best educated on substance abuse, alcohol and the affects of driving while impaired in the world. Also, most American kids take drivers ed, which further instills the point. I can also say 100% that I never got in the car with a drunk driver either. What does that prove? Teens tend to be "invincible" and "immortal" and teen males, having not grown their brains to their full extent yet, tend to be impulsive. Also, how many teen drive in the UK compared to the USA? The rate of alcoholism is higher in Europe than it is in the USA and it is higher in countries with lower drinking ages. The penalties are pretty harsh in the US, depending upon which state you live in. They certainly are in Ct. and most New England states.

Where have yu got these facts from?

 

[Andy B]

1984 was an intresting year for me, its when I graduated from high school, everyone and I mean everyone within an hour or two from the border of ct that was 18 drove to bars in ct, every weekend, cars were crashed, kids were injured, sometime minor sometime serious, alot of times dead over it. There was a huge nightclub just over the ny ct boarder I cant remember the name of it for the life of me now but it was "the" place.

I dont care who had the idea , republican democrate, vegetable animal mineral, it was the smartest thing ever, it saves countless lives.

But by creating a differential drinking age for a time there was encoragement to drink and drive for those who wanted a drink.

 

[Kath2003]

The fact is, substance abuse programs start in the very early grades in the USA and they continue as a course called "life ed" through out middle and high school. They are educated and inundated with facts. And when the facts are exhausted there are videos and staged alcohol deaths, etc. I would say that they are among the best educated on substance abuse, alcohol and the affects of driving while impaired in the world. Also, most American kids take drivers ed, which further instills the point. I can also say 100% that I never got in the car with a drunk driver either. What does that prove? Teens tend to be "invincible" and "immortal" and teen males, having not grown their brains to their full extent yet, tend to be impulsive. Also, how many teen drive in the UK compared to the USA? The rate of alcoholism is higher in Europe than it is in the USA and it is higher in countries with lower drinking ages. The penalties are pretty harsh in the US, depending upon which state you live in. They certainly are in Ct. and most New England states.

Then why is the rate (not necessarily the number!) of drink driving in the USA far higher than most other western countries? Technically fewer young people have little/no access to alcohol in the USA...

Of course fewer teens drive here - you can only LEARN when you're 17 and the driving test involves far more components than the USA course.

Alcoholism rates in the US and the UK were about the same in - about 6% in the US and about 6.5% in the UK although the UK has seen recent increases. You're looking at about 2-3% in countries like Italy.

Link to a Drink Driving Ad shown on regular TV in the UK - LIKELY TO OFFEND - actually this is one of the more watchable ones...

 

[Charade]

Link to a Drink Driving Ad shown on regular TV in the UK - LIKELY TO OFFEND - actually this is one of the more watchable ones...

Why would that be offensive? It's interesting that I don't recall seeing (I wouldn't object) ads like this on our TV but I do see VW ads where a realistic crash occurs to show how crashworthy and safe their cars are. We do have programs in school that depict scenes like what the UK ad portrays. For years many high schools would have a wrecked car sitting out on the front lawn during drinking/driving awarness times.

 

[meandtheguys2]

From the AMA web-site:

Regarding Europeans and alcohol use among youth, research confirms that Europeans have rates of alcohol-related diseases (such as cirrhosis of the liver) similar to or higher than those in the U.S. population (Single, 1984). However, drinking and driving among youth may not be as great a problem in Europe as in the U.S. Compared to their American counterparts, European youth must be older to obtain their drivers' licenses, are less likely to have a car, and are more inclined to use public transportation (Wagenaar, 1993).