Law to lower drinking age to 18?!
Over 100 professors want the drinking age
law to be lowered to 18!. Do you think this is a
good or bad idea, and why!? Shouldn't the
health of young people be the first consideration!?Www@FoodAQ@Com
law to be lowered to 18!. Do you think this is a
good or bad idea, and why!? Shouldn't the
health of young people be the first consideration!?Www@FoodAQ@Com
Answers:
I think ita a bad idea!.!.first off, i remember how my friends and i were when we were 18, and if we could legaly buy alcohol when we were 18, i might not be alive today!.!.!.people that are 18 yrs old are by far not the most intelligent, responsible group of people y'know!? I think if they lower the drinking age to 18 there will be alot more senseless acts going on around college campuses and in the rest of the country!.!.!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Lowering the drinking age to 18 is the best consideration for their health!. If you look at the numbers, and experience, you will see that more than 60% of alcoholics were alcoholics before they were 18! The extra 3 years to wait to go into treatment (because you cant go into treatment before 21 without the possibility of legal trouble) makes it so these people do not get the help they need in the precious years that it could have been most effective!. They are young enough between 18-21 where alcoholism can be best overcome!.
Lowering that age to 18 also adds benefits to teaching responsible alcohol use!. The majority of 18 year olds are still living at home, where their parents can keep a watchful eye, and when they go to college the stigma associated with drinking is gone!. Www@FoodAQ@Com
Lowering that age to 18 also adds benefits to teaching responsible alcohol use!. The majority of 18 year olds are still living at home, where their parents can keep a watchful eye, and when they go to college the stigma associated with drinking is gone!. Www@FoodAQ@Com
I read in the chicago sun-times that one of the reasons why they want to lower the age is so underage students can get help if they have a drinking problem!. Well i feel that that is a poor excuse to lower the age! Meth and Crack users can get help for their illegal substance abuse!. So minors can also join AA if need be!. As far as being able to fight for your country and not being able to buy a drink is bull too!. MOST men and women who are in the military who are underage can buy drinks on base!. The majority of the people who are using this as an argument are not even in the military!. What you can also do is make it okay for people in the military do drink at 18!.
Www@FoodAQ@Com
Www@FoodAQ@Com
That's just it, though, it *IS* in the best interest of 18 year olds that they be legally allowed to drink!.
Couple things going on at work here:
1) The age was increased to 21 to keep alcohol out of the hands of people under 21!. This is the point of the law!. Yet, 80% of 20 year olds have drank!. How!? Clearly, the law's basis for existence is defunct, thus rendering the law essentially null and void right now!. Changing it to 18 won't substantially increase the number of drinkers in the 18-21 age group!. Furthermore, as we have 13 + 14 year olds drinking now (just read this forum any day of the week), I highly doubt that we will now have a problem with 9, 10, and 11 year old alcoholics!. They are simply not interested in drinking at that age, and their parents hover too closely at that age!. Even an 18 year old would know not to give a 9 year old a shot of vodka, they're not idiots!.
2) With the illegality of purchasing alcohol (15 states do not prohibit consumption at all, at any age; every state prohibits purchase until age 21), this drives people under 21 to drink in secrecy!. Often times while drinking they are mostly with other underage drinkers!. Since it is forbidden, legally, they will tend to want to make the most of it (the forbidden fruit theory)!. Indeed, most underage drinkers will stop at nothing short of extremely drunk!. They are essentially learning that binging is the proper way to drink!. This cannot be healthy, and indeed is quite harmful!.
3) Our culture has reached a point where parents need not parent, since the public school system covers all the dirty details!. As such, students are required to take Health Education classes (I had this in 6th, 8th, and 10th grade)!. A large focus of these classes is sexual education and to "Just say no!." Well, with only 20% of us actually saying "No" and waiting until we are 21 [my personal feeling is that most of those who do not drink by 21 will not drink in the future, see Islam], this "Just say no!." policy is not working!. We are not educating teenagers on how to stay safe while drinking, instead we bury our heads in the sand by thinking the school taught them not to drink so as parents its not necessary to educate them any further!. In effect, the classification of alcohol as a drug (albeit technically proper) mitigates the profound social acceptance it has globally (see Europe)!. In truth, alcohol has the potential to be a very addicting and harmful substance, but when taken in moderation has shown to be beneficial to our circulatory system and mental function (current research suggests it reduces the risk of Alzheimer's)!.
4) MADD quotes a figure of "saved lives" by the current age 21 law!. If you look a little deeper at where the numbers come from, however, it is quite scary!. First, a "saved life" counts no matter how seriously the person would be injured (minor, severe, fatally)!. However, colloquially we assume that a phrase like "saved life" refers to a fatality rather than a scraped elbow!. Further, in 1983, the year before the drinking age (technically a misnomer, it is a purchase, possession, and transportation age) the number of *FATALITIES* caused by drinking in that age group was *DECLINING*!. In fact, if you further consider advancements in car safety since 1983, you'll also see that MADD does not include that!. By a whole, the number of car fatalities is down considerably since 1983, whether they are from drunk drivers or not, from minors, middle aged or elderly drivers, across gender, location, and culture!. I seriously object to the number they are quoting (in fact, I have a scientific background -- Physics -- so I am aware how experiments should be done; MADD's tactics would never pass peer review)!.
So, what would changing the law to 18 do!?
1) I highly doubt it would cause 9-12 year olds to begin drinking!. I also doubt it would substantially increase the number of 18-21 year old drinkers, as stated, most by that age would have already decided to drink or not!. Those who would start drinking likely would not binge on it, as they are legally allowed to drink and can easily obtain it there is no "forbidden fruit" on which to indulge excessively!.
2) Alcoholic 18-21 year olds would have better access to rehab, and AA!. They would not be as ashamed of it!. Further, that age group as a whole would lose the temptation to binge drink!. This would affect college campuses in a profound way!. With fewer binge drinkers, we actually may have students who retain their knowledge and can help build a better society!. How many people have you met who have barely graduated and drank the whole way through!? It's pretty common!.
3) With high school seniors who turn 18 they would be legally able to drink!. Virtually all high school students live with their parents!. also, most high schools mandate a health class which currently is deceiving the parents, students, and faculty!. A fundamental shift needs to be made to accomodate for a change to a lower drinking age (again, the misnomer)!. High schools would actually have a legitimate responsibility to educate their students about alcohol -- in a truly honest manner (ie, rather than say "Don't drink at any time in your life," they would need to explain what amount of alcohol is normal to consume, what various amounts will do, and for christ sake's can we teach them how to count drinks!. also explain that hard liquor creeps up on you and you may in fact be able to handle 12 shots and walk straight, but you will end up puking and falling over very suddenly)!. also, with parents KNOWING that it is VERY LIKELY that THEIR child (parents will always refer to their kid as a child, even if they were 50 years old) is drinking, they will want to help teach them!. Hell, there might even be a few parents willing to drink with their kid to teach them moderation first hand!. Amazingly, you don't need to drink a bottle of vodka to get buzzed -- just read this forum and you'll see a lot of teens ask if a bottle of vodka will do anything to you!. They're dead serious!.
The problem I see in this country isn't the underage drinking, it's the lack of education!. Teens are experimenting on their own, in secrecy, and they are learning very bad drinking habits!. Adults on the other hand are burying their own heads in the sand and assuming that THEIR child is too GOOD to drink and KNOWS better!. Well, 80% have drank -- there's a damn good chance you're kid is one of them!. Somewhat unrelated, but nonetheless, current parents have a perception that their child is in someway special!. How often do sports teams give trophies to both the winners and losers!? How many parents say their child is a prodigy, despite overwhelming probability against such a fact (real statistic: 1 in 750,000)!? If your kid is drinking, this doesn't make you a bad parent; ignoring it does!.
With MADD's quote of "saved lives" by the current age 21 law in serious doubt, can you honestly find any reason that the law should remain 21!?
Furthermore, I have found an intolerable amount of people (on this forum, real life, and otherwise) who somehow think that alcohol being totally banned would be ideal!. First, we tried this, it was called prohibition!. It did not stop drinking, not one bit!. In fact, we can thank prohibition for spawning the modern day mafia!. That is the legacy of prohibition; imagine what a second prohibition would do!. Further, towards the end of prohibition alcohol induced deaths (literally dying from drinking) went up 1000%!. Why!? What could cause that, alcohol was banned!? Well, bootleggers, believe it or not, ran an efficient business!. They knew if they didn't toss out so much of the "heads" (the first part of distilled liquor) and used cheaper grains to make their illicit drink, that they could produce more of it and make more profit!. So, they did!. Unfortunately, this "heads" has a large methanol content!. As you may know, methanol is a deadly poison!. As you can see, bootlegging had no internal quality control!. With today's alcohol laws, we can keep a level of methanol low enough to not be a concern for drinkers!. This neo-prohibitionism is, in the best light, severely misplaced love!. It could possibly be a true honest love for fellow humans, combined with an improper perception of health consequences of drinking (something on the scale of, 1 beer = cirrhosis) and an imposition of misinterpreted religious text (again, I will remind you of my scientific background; while science is not mutually exclusive with religion, most scientists [physicists] who understand on a higher level than most people how matter and our Universe actually works will agree that is all but possible that there is a God -- thus rendering religion nothing more than a nice thought and a support group for those who have lost a loved one)!. This basic idea of banning something for the good of the people is *NOT* democratic and not ANYTHING that AMERICA should stand for!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Couple things going on at work here:
1) The age was increased to 21 to keep alcohol out of the hands of people under 21!. This is the point of the law!. Yet, 80% of 20 year olds have drank!. How!? Clearly, the law's basis for existence is defunct, thus rendering the law essentially null and void right now!. Changing it to 18 won't substantially increase the number of drinkers in the 18-21 age group!. Furthermore, as we have 13 + 14 year olds drinking now (just read this forum any day of the week), I highly doubt that we will now have a problem with 9, 10, and 11 year old alcoholics!. They are simply not interested in drinking at that age, and their parents hover too closely at that age!. Even an 18 year old would know not to give a 9 year old a shot of vodka, they're not idiots!.
2) With the illegality of purchasing alcohol (15 states do not prohibit consumption at all, at any age; every state prohibits purchase until age 21), this drives people under 21 to drink in secrecy!. Often times while drinking they are mostly with other underage drinkers!. Since it is forbidden, legally, they will tend to want to make the most of it (the forbidden fruit theory)!. Indeed, most underage drinkers will stop at nothing short of extremely drunk!. They are essentially learning that binging is the proper way to drink!. This cannot be healthy, and indeed is quite harmful!.
3) Our culture has reached a point where parents need not parent, since the public school system covers all the dirty details!. As such, students are required to take Health Education classes (I had this in 6th, 8th, and 10th grade)!. A large focus of these classes is sexual education and to "Just say no!." Well, with only 20% of us actually saying "No" and waiting until we are 21 [my personal feeling is that most of those who do not drink by 21 will not drink in the future, see Islam], this "Just say no!." policy is not working!. We are not educating teenagers on how to stay safe while drinking, instead we bury our heads in the sand by thinking the school taught them not to drink so as parents its not necessary to educate them any further!. In effect, the classification of alcohol as a drug (albeit technically proper) mitigates the profound social acceptance it has globally (see Europe)!. In truth, alcohol has the potential to be a very addicting and harmful substance, but when taken in moderation has shown to be beneficial to our circulatory system and mental function (current research suggests it reduces the risk of Alzheimer's)!.
4) MADD quotes a figure of "saved lives" by the current age 21 law!. If you look a little deeper at where the numbers come from, however, it is quite scary!. First, a "saved life" counts no matter how seriously the person would be injured (minor, severe, fatally)!. However, colloquially we assume that a phrase like "saved life" refers to a fatality rather than a scraped elbow!. Further, in 1983, the year before the drinking age (technically a misnomer, it is a purchase, possession, and transportation age) the number of *FATALITIES* caused by drinking in that age group was *DECLINING*!. In fact, if you further consider advancements in car safety since 1983, you'll also see that MADD does not include that!. By a whole, the number of car fatalities is down considerably since 1983, whether they are from drunk drivers or not, from minors, middle aged or elderly drivers, across gender, location, and culture!. I seriously object to the number they are quoting (in fact, I have a scientific background -- Physics -- so I am aware how experiments should be done; MADD's tactics would never pass peer review)!.
So, what would changing the law to 18 do!?
1) I highly doubt it would cause 9-12 year olds to begin drinking!. I also doubt it would substantially increase the number of 18-21 year old drinkers, as stated, most by that age would have already decided to drink or not!. Those who would start drinking likely would not binge on it, as they are legally allowed to drink and can easily obtain it there is no "forbidden fruit" on which to indulge excessively!.
2) Alcoholic 18-21 year olds would have better access to rehab, and AA!. They would not be as ashamed of it!. Further, that age group as a whole would lose the temptation to binge drink!. This would affect college campuses in a profound way!. With fewer binge drinkers, we actually may have students who retain their knowledge and can help build a better society!. How many people have you met who have barely graduated and drank the whole way through!? It's pretty common!.
3) With high school seniors who turn 18 they would be legally able to drink!. Virtually all high school students live with their parents!. also, most high schools mandate a health class which currently is deceiving the parents, students, and faculty!. A fundamental shift needs to be made to accomodate for a change to a lower drinking age (again, the misnomer)!. High schools would actually have a legitimate responsibility to educate their students about alcohol -- in a truly honest manner (ie, rather than say "Don't drink at any time in your life," they would need to explain what amount of alcohol is normal to consume, what various amounts will do, and for christ sake's can we teach them how to count drinks!. also explain that hard liquor creeps up on you and you may in fact be able to handle 12 shots and walk straight, but you will end up puking and falling over very suddenly)!. also, with parents KNOWING that it is VERY LIKELY that THEIR child (parents will always refer to their kid as a child, even if they were 50 years old) is drinking, they will want to help teach them!. Hell, there might even be a few parents willing to drink with their kid to teach them moderation first hand!. Amazingly, you don't need to drink a bottle of vodka to get buzzed -- just read this forum and you'll see a lot of teens ask if a bottle of vodka will do anything to you!. They're dead serious!.
The problem I see in this country isn't the underage drinking, it's the lack of education!. Teens are experimenting on their own, in secrecy, and they are learning very bad drinking habits!. Adults on the other hand are burying their own heads in the sand and assuming that THEIR child is too GOOD to drink and KNOWS better!. Well, 80% have drank -- there's a damn good chance you're kid is one of them!. Somewhat unrelated, but nonetheless, current parents have a perception that their child is in someway special!. How often do sports teams give trophies to both the winners and losers!? How many parents say their child is a prodigy, despite overwhelming probability against such a fact (real statistic: 1 in 750,000)!? If your kid is drinking, this doesn't make you a bad parent; ignoring it does!.
With MADD's quote of "saved lives" by the current age 21 law in serious doubt, can you honestly find any reason that the law should remain 21!?
Furthermore, I have found an intolerable amount of people (on this forum, real life, and otherwise) who somehow think that alcohol being totally banned would be ideal!. First, we tried this, it was called prohibition!. It did not stop drinking, not one bit!. In fact, we can thank prohibition for spawning the modern day mafia!. That is the legacy of prohibition; imagine what a second prohibition would do!. Further, towards the end of prohibition alcohol induced deaths (literally dying from drinking) went up 1000%!. Why!? What could cause that, alcohol was banned!? Well, bootleggers, believe it or not, ran an efficient business!. They knew if they didn't toss out so much of the "heads" (the first part of distilled liquor) and used cheaper grains to make their illicit drink, that they could produce more of it and make more profit!. So, they did!. Unfortunately, this "heads" has a large methanol content!. As you may know, methanol is a deadly poison!. As you can see, bootlegging had no internal quality control!. With today's alcohol laws, we can keep a level of methanol low enough to not be a concern for drinkers!. This neo-prohibitionism is, in the best light, severely misplaced love!. It could possibly be a true honest love for fellow humans, combined with an improper perception of health consequences of drinking (something on the scale of, 1 beer = cirrhosis) and an imposition of misinterpreted religious text (again, I will remind you of my scientific background; while science is not mutually exclusive with religion, most scientists [physicists] who understand on a higher level than most people how matter and our Universe actually works will agree that is all but possible that there is a God -- thus rendering religion nothing more than a nice thought and a support group for those who have lost a loved one)!. This basic idea of banning something for the good of the people is *NOT* democratic and not ANYTHING that AMERICA should stand for!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
I think it should be lowered to eighteen!. The military service will enlist anyone at this age and get their a$$ shot off but they aren't allowed to vote or drink!. This is a grossly unfair law!. I don't approve of drinking but on the other hand I don't 'pound the pulpit' about it either!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
I personally believe that it is at a proper age!. Think about it, if 21 is the legal age and 13 & 14 year olds are "into it" then if it's lowered to 18 that age would drop too!. I personally think it is approprately legislated!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Bad idea!. Many 18 yr olds are still in high school!.
I really doubt it will ever happen--the federal government forced the states to adopt the 21 law by threatening to with-hold highway funding!. I'm pretty sure no state will fly in the face of THAT!Www@FoodAQ@Com
I really doubt it will ever happen--the federal government forced the states to adopt the 21 law by threatening to with-hold highway funding!. I'm pretty sure no state will fly in the face of THAT!Www@FoodAQ@Com
I believe the legal drinking age should be returned to 18!. Forbidden fruit is always sweet!.!.Accidents and alcohol related deaths have not gone down since raising the age to 21!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
I don't think it will ever happen unless the stuff about states needing more money and so they want to bust more people is true!. "Adults" can't drink responsibly, how can a teenager!?Www@FoodAQ@Com
It's a good idea!. It will let 18 yr olds go out to a bar or restaurant and enjoy in the OPEN what they're gonna sneek anyway!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
it should deff be lowerd
i mean i think its ironic that were able to send 18 yr olds out to war were they probly do much much more damage to thems selfs then a couple beersWww@FoodAQ@Com
i mean i think its ironic that were able to send 18 yr olds out to war were they probly do much much more damage to thems selfs then a couple beersWww@FoodAQ@Com
yeah it should be 18!.they will find a way to drink anyways also if you can die at war for your country at 18 i think you should be able to drink at 18 as wellWww@FoodAQ@Com
Bad idea!. Alcohol abuse is very costly to society!.
I think prohibition should be brought back!.
You know those "must be born by this date in 1987 to purchase tobacco or alcohol products" signs in stores!? They should stop changing them! Grandfather the current generation of addicts, but don't allow any new ones!.
Www@FoodAQ@Com
I think prohibition should be brought back!.
You know those "must be born by this date in 1987 to purchase tobacco or alcohol products" signs in stores!? They should stop changing them! Grandfather the current generation of addicts, but don't allow any new ones!.
Www@FoodAQ@Com
