Lower the drinking age?

[gunsmith]

When I was a kid, you could go buy any drink you wanted at 18 years old.
I think we should return to this, the MJ thread made me remember how
angry the youth were in the 80's when the law changed.

[The Rabbi]

The was a Federal issue.  They threatened highway funds so states would enact it.  I wouldnt have a problem with it in general except that my recollection is that the program wasnt effective in curbing drunk driving by teenagers.  If it isnt effective then it ought to be dropped.

[wooderson]

If it isnt effective then it ought to be dropped.

hehe

[Sergeant Bob]

If it isnt effective then it ought to be dropped.

hehe

+1 

[The Rabbi]

If it isnt effective then it ought to be dropped.

hehe

I assume that moronic laughter is an allusion to the equally idiotic marijuana thread going nearby.
We have a long history with drinking ages below 21.
We do not have any history with legalized marijuana in the modern age.
So they arent comparable in any way.
But have it your way.

[gunsmith]

I love thinking about how much more money NV would have if they alone went
back to 18 age limit.
Spring break would rule.

[The Viking]

I love thinking about how much more money NV would have if they alone went
back to 18 age limit.
Spring break would rule.

More customers for you?

[gunsmith]

yup! its all about me!

[The Viking]

yup! its all about me!

I didn't say it was wrong .
I'm all for people eating meat. Means I've got a job .

[wooderson]

We do not have any history with legalized marijuana in the modern age.

We don't? There are no nation-states with legalized marijuana? There are no states or provinces that have essentially decriminalized it?

None at all?

So they arent comparable in any way.

Aside from being mind- and body-altering chemicals, you mean?
Weren't you comparing marijuana to 'hard drugs' and opium in the other thread? Why are those 'better' comparisons than alcohol?
Why is marijuana 'worse' than alcohol?

But you didn't base your argument on anything but effectiveness. The exact statement was that prohibition has been ineffective in curbing underage alcohol use, so it should be abolished. Do you have any data that prohibition has been ineffective in curbing marijuana use?
Do you know how marijuana use and alcohol use by under-18 and under-21 individuals compares?

Ironically, I know that when I was 15-18, it was a lot easier (and cheaper) to score a dime bag than it was to find enough cheap booze to get a group of us drunk.

[gunsmith]

very true wood,  most eleven year olds would find it easier to score
weed then beers.

By 12 years old I could buy pot...and that was a looooooonnnngg time ago.

[The Rabbi]

We do not have any history with legalized marijuana in the modern age.

We don't? There are no nation-states with legalized marijuana? There are no states or provinces that have essentially decriminalized it?[/qupte]
Decriminalize and legalize are not the same thing.  The answer to your question is no.

So they arent comparable in any way.

Aside from being mind- and body-altering chemicals, you mean?

Yes, aside from the fact that they do not work the same way, have completely different social and economic histories, and are used in different ways by different socio-economic groups.  But other than being completely unlike and unrelated they are similar.

[SteveS]

I wouldnt have a problem with it in general except that my recollection is that the program wasnt effective in curbing drunk driving by teenagers.  If it isnt effective then it ought to be dropped.

Not that I am a big supporter of this kind of federalism, but the number of under 21 people involved in fatal crashes involving drinking dropped 61% from 1982 to 1998. 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/FewerYoungDrivers/iii__what_happened.htm

[Bigjake]

Yup, back to 18.  Uncle Sam can call you up to defend your country, throw you the keys to a tank and say best of luck, but no booze for you!

Theres that whole tax issue too, why should I pay the full, 21 year old taxes without the full rights of a person 21 or over.....??

[The Viking]

Yup, back to 18.  Uncle Sam can call you up to defend your country, throw you the keys to a tank and say best of luck, but no booze for you!

Theres that whole tax issue too, why should I pay the full, 21 year old taxes without the full rights of a person 21 or over.....??

It's almost the same here. 18-year olds can be SERVED alcohol. But they can't buy it at the liquour store.
I buy beer for my brother when he asks me to. He pays taxes just like me...he should be able to have a beer or three with his buddys.

[jefnvk]

I personally wouldn't mind it going to even under 18, under parental supervision.

And want to take care of the kids drunk driving issue?  Get caught drunk driving under 21, you're license dissappears until you are 21.

[The Viking]

I personally wouldn't mind it going to even under 18, under parental supervision.

And want to take care of the kids drunk driving issue?  Get caught drunk driving under 21, you're license dissappears until you are 21.

Heck, why not. Germans got their at 16 I think. Other countries even lower. And everyone knows how effecient and productive germans are. Must be because they can sit down and have a civilized beer at an early age .

[Firethorn]

From my understanding, controlled drinking(IE not binge or nothing) is actually a negative indicator for abusive drinking later in life.

Lower it below 18 for all I care.  That way it's not a big deal and parents can get their kids help if it turns into a problem before they're technically an adult and the parents have no say.

[Warren]

I think we should RAISE the drinking age to 21.35796, this will solve all the problems in the world.

Oh, and free pot for toddlers!

[wooderson]

Decriminalize and legalize are not the same thing.  The answer to your question is no.

Decriminalization is de facto legalization - if you ain't going to jail for possession, and selling is permitted on a small-time basis, it's legal.

That aside, you're going to stick to your argument that there are no states/provinces or nation-states where marijuana is 'legal'?

Yes, aside from the fact that they do not work the same way

List the meaningful differences for us.

have completely different social and economic histories and are used in different ways by different socio-economic groups.

Circular logic -
Why is marijuana illegal and booze isn't?
Because they're used by a different groups.
Why are they used by different groups?
Because marijuana is illegal and booze isn't.

But other than being completely unlike and unrelated they are similar.

Why are they unalike?
Because marijuana is illegal and booze isn't.
Why is marijuana illegal and booze isn't?
Because they are unalike.

You really have no facts or evidence to support your position, do you?

[Tuco]

When I was a kid, we bought 5 dollar bottles of vodka for 8 bucks, 3 dollar bottles of wine for 5 bucks.
 
If we got caught and squealed (never happened), the store owner would testify we stole it.  He never gave us a bag. 

If a store owner didn't want to play ball, we walked past the counter with a 12 dollar case and $20, left the $20 and walked out without saying a word.

A high drinking age means pure profit for liquor stores.

[thebaldguy]

I wouldnt have a problem with it in general except that my recollection is that the program wasnt effective in curbing drunk driving by teenagers.  If it isnt effective then it ought to be dropped.

Not that I am a big supporter of this kind of federalism, but the number of under 21 people involved in fatal crashes involving drinking dropped 61% from 1982 to 1998. 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/FewerYoungDrivers/iii__what_happened.htm


I have heard this arguement before; if raising the drinking age to 21 was good, maybe raising the drinking age to 25 will save even more lives!

[Ryan in Maine]

Not that I am a big supporter of this kind of federalism, but the number of under 21 people involved in fatal crashes involving drinking dropped 61% from 1982 to 1998. 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/FewerYoungDrivers/iii__what_happened.htm

Could have something to do with technological advancements coming from crash testing.

[209]

I have considerable problems with the fact that you can't drink before age 21 because the gov't thinks you are not mature enough to drink responsibly.  But you can vote at age 18 because the gov't thinks you are mature enough to make a well-reasoned decision.

Does anyone see a problem with the logic used in both of those laws?  Not that I'm insinuating many of our laws are well-reasoned.  Come to think about it, maybe the laws are written for 18yos since the gov't views them as mature (well... not really) adults (well... not really).

[Strings]

Hmmm... I have an idea...

Go ahead and lower the drinking age to 18. However, change the drunk driving laws a bit...

 Get caught driving at <insert level here: BAC is another messed-up issue>, and not only do you loose your license for a few years, but the vehicle you're driving is confiscated.

 If nothing else, it'll help reduce the number of folks doing the repeat thing...