My reasoning is that if I'm old enough to give myself cancer with cigarettes, old enough to be tried fully for my actions and old enough to die for my country, I think I'm entitled to a little booze. 
So 3 choices:
(A) The drinking age should be lowered to 18. Why?
(B) It should stay at 21. Why?
(C) I'm indifferent on the matter OR I don't drink so I don't care.
I mean, we can drive before drinking is legal; wtf? A driver has more potential to kill others, while the drinker generally only has the potential to kill himself by overdosing. (Of course, there are other factors which may alter this.)
Yes, cigarettes are bad for you, but smoking a pack in a week is no where near as destructive as going on a one week bender. No, most people don't go on drinking sprees, but fewer people abuse cigarettes to the same extent. Doctors determined that the average person, smoking the average amount of tobacco cigarettes has a body capable of handling the stresses earlier than the same situation with alcohol.
No, Really. Bite me.
You become an adult at 18, you're responsible for your actions, but you can't buy yourself a beer? Makes no sense. [ 04-07-2003: Message edited by: Maradon XP ]
I can see why 18 is the age for smoking; it's the age of majority. At 18 you are legally an adult. I don't think everyone should get a pack of cigarettes when they're 18, but hey whatever floats your boat. And you smoking before going to class your senior year won't leave you wasted and useless all day. Drinking would.
On the other hand, how many kids do you know with access to elicit alcohol chug the stuff before class anyway? And even if they did, suspend them. Problem solved. Miss too many days from suspension because you're a lush? Sorry. Repeat the grade or don't get your diploma.
The reason I think the legal drinking age SHOULD stay at 21 is simple. When you get your license at 16, your rates don't usually drop til you're 21. If the legal drinking age were to go down, I guarantee the cost of licensing your young drivers would skyrocket (insurance rates are already becoming a serious problem in the country; due in large part to ridiculous rewards in settlements, but the insurance companies also like to gouge prices up) and that would cause all sorts of problems with people just plain not maintaining insurance on young drivers (already something of a problem with that down here in NC, which is part of the reason why I support the idea of a graduated license to ensure people keep insured).
On the OTHER hand, I don't see why, if you handle the insurance situation, regulate maximum settlements, and otherwise set some standards to regulate everything else down the line, that you couldn't lower the drinking age a little, raise the smoking age a little, and have one "free to poison yourself" age. Keep in mind, if you're 18, you can and should vote...so if it's that big a deal, push for things to change.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
Lowering the drinking age to 19 cuts down the waiting time, BUT, still keeps the legal age at an age where all who legally buy alcoholic beverages will be mature and responsible enough (I hope) to exercise responsible drinking.
That said, I don't mind the drinking age at 21. The reasoning behind this? You can drive at 16, and have a couple of years to perfect your driving to the point where (Hopefully) you can be half asleep and still get home safely (If you've been taught properly, anyway). Throwing in drinking (And what teenager doesn't go out to a party then come back in their own car?) futzes up the whole mix.
Meh.
I ramble too much.
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about Duck Tales:
The reason I think the legal drinking age SHOULD stay at 21 is simple. When you get your license at 16, your rates don't usually drop til you're 21. If the legal drinking age were to go down, I guarantee the cost of licensing your young drivers would skyrocket (insurance rates are already becoming a serious problem in the country; due in large part to ridiculous rewards in settlements, but the insurance companies also like to gouge prices up) and that would cause all sorts of problems with people just plain not maintaining insurance on young drivers (already something of a problem with that down here in NC, which is part of the reason why I support the idea of a graduated license to ensure people keep insured).On the OTHER hand, I don't see why, if you handle the insurance situation, regulate maximum settlements, and otherwise set some standards to regulate everything else down the line, that you couldn't lower the drinking age a little, raise the smoking age a little, and have one "free to poison yourself" age. Keep in mind, if you're 18, you can and should vote...so if it's that big a deal, push for things to change.
The same thing is happening in PA, 'Deth, but only to doctors and malpractice insurance.
Why? A lot of lawyers move cases from out of state to Philadelphia in order to secure HUGE settlements that just shouldn't be awarded. Okay, get the doctor's bills back, but don't go for a million bucks in "emotional trauma". It'd be nice to cap non-fund loss losses to 100k, and leave it at that. As it is, a LOT of the family practice doctors are up and leaving PA, leaving the ones that are staying understaffed and overworked. Which sucks, since it takes a good four weeks to get an appointment at my doctor, now. 
quote:
Delphi Aegis had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Throwing in drinking (And what teenager doesn't go out to a party then come back in their own car?) futzes up the whole mix.
me
No, Really. Bite me.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Delphi Aegis was naked while typing this:
The same thing is happening in PA, 'Deth, but only to doctors and malpractice insurance.Why? A lot of lawyers move cases from out of state to Philadelphia in order to secure HUGE settlements that just shouldn't be awarded. Okay, get the doctor's bills back, but don't go for a million bucks in "emotional trauma". It'd be nice to cap non-fund loss losses to 100k, and leave it at that. As it is, a LOT of the family practice doctors are up and leaving PA, leaving the ones that are staying understaffed and overworked. Which sucks, since it takes a good four weeks to get an appointment at my doctor, now.
It's a nationwide problem, it just has a few locations where it's critical. There was talk on the news at one point that doctors are flooding out of New Hampshire because the reward rates there are insane. Doctors going back to school to switch specialties to get jobs elsewhere. OB/GYN's doing prenatal care but refusing to have anything to do with actually delivering babies for fear of the unthinkable happening and getting sued for some insane amount and having their insurance rates jump so high they can't practice.
There needs to be a cap on how much "Pain and suffering" and "emotional stress" rewards can be awarded. And insurance companies in general need better regulation.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about John Romero:
The legal drinking age being 21 has never, ever, EVER stopped anyone underage from drinking, anywhere, EVER.
Not usually. Unless it's 12 at night and you can't convince Hobo Joe to buy you some beer.
Then again, I believe all controlled substances should be made fully legal, as I believe what you do to your own body is your own damn concern.
So I'm a bit weird on the matter.
quote:
Iron Parcelan had this to say about (_|_):
Not usually. Unless it's 12 at night and you can't convince Hobo Joe to buy you some beer.
Buy it yourself. Not like anyone ever asks for ID.
However, here's an interesting idea I just had. Leave the basic drinking age at 21. Then, set it up so that anyone over the age of 18 that goes out and votes can get an altered DL, showing that they're OKed to drink. Civic responsibility has its rewards, why not add one more to the list?
Okay, so when the youngster turns 18, he or she may select one of the two following "life plans," each with its own rewards and risks:
Plan the First
Under this plan, a person aged 18-21 may not smoke, drink, eat fatty foods, or participate in fundamentalist religion* under pain of a hefty fine and jail time. As a reward, you recieve cut rates on car insurance, money for college (Cultural Studies, Dendrology and other non-threatening majors only please) and the smug self-assurance that you are growing up fit as a fiddle thanks to the State. As a side note, you must recite the phrase "I am my government's bitch" before recieving monetary awards.
Plan the Second
The second option offers little in the way of reward but the youngster may destroy himself in any manner he sees fit. All penalties for crimes against another person, however, are quadruple those of the "first plan pansies."
/Your neighborhood closet libertarian out.
*What do you mean I can't make a law respecting an establishment of religion? Those things are unhealthy!
quote:
Maradon XP Model 2000 was programmed to say:
A, because a drinking age of 21 is absurdly anachronistic.
Actually, the age was 18 long before it was 21. So silly or not, it's not anachronistic.
Thinking about your posts
(and billing you for it) since 2001
quote:
Tier had this to say about pies:
Buy it yourself. Not like anyone ever asks for ID.
Cards Tier
Sir?
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Iron Parcelan had this to say about Tron:
Not usually. Unless it's 12 at night and you can't convince Hobo Joe to buy you some beer.
Our local homeless man has the title "Ninja Bum" because he carries a sword around with him wherever he goes. Also, several kids have asked him if he has a job and his reply was "No man, I'm just a ninja roaming the streets."
He'll buy you beer pretty much anytime he's awake and at 7-11.
I am 24, almost 25 years old, and I almost never drink. When I do it is not enough to even get me buzzed, much less drunk.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Tier said:
Buy it yourself. Not like anyone ever asks for ID.
That's changing. Recently, at my job at a grocery store, EVERYONE has to be carded when they buy cigarettes, even if they clearly look like they're in their 60's. Not sure on how alcohol would be handled since the store doesn't have a liquor licience and therefore doesn't sell it.
And that doesn't stop anyone.
Currently if you have about .5 beers and weigh 175 lbs, you are outside the legal BAC levels for driving if you're under 21.
Just leave it like that, but make it legal for them to drink. Highways still safe, kids stop binge drinking, problem solved.
Look at the binge drinking statistics from european countries that permit alcohol to be consumed at any age. You won't find them: because it's not a problem over there.
If you hold something above a persons head, it is simply human nature to revere that thing and try to get it. Take the magic out of beer, and beer won't be as big of a problem as it is for teenagers. [ 04-08-2003: Message edited by: Sergeant Blindy ]
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Sabratiz said:
I pick D. Age should be lowered to 14 that way your alchohol tolerance can be pretty good before you hit 16 and start driving. But that is just me I have another 7 years before i can drink and drive legally(Not at the same time). But the age never stopped me from getting beer or captain morgan's spiced rum.
Quiet, you've never drank more than a tiny sip for a taste
However, I think America's youth is getting more and more irresponsible. Take a course at 18 and pass a test for a permit... then you can drink.. that's the way to go! Prove responsibility and drunk driving.
quote:
Liam's account was hax0red to write:
19 here.And that doesn't stop anyone.
Agreed.
I know about 20 teens 17-18 who were drinking on New Years Eve....and all they needed was a cop to stop by to bust the guy who bought them the booze.
Lowering the legal age to 18 just gives them another excuse to go get drunk, and cause an accident. [ 04-08-2003: Message edited by: Redmage Darkrayver ]
quote:
Addy wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
A.I mean, we can drive before drinking is legal; wtf? A driver has more potential to kill others, while the drinker generally only has the potential to kill himself by overdosing. (Of course, there are other factors which may alter this.)
Soo what about a drunk driver?...seeing as if you lower the drinking age your going to end up with a hell of alot more of them. And the thing that I always hate about drunk drivers, in most accidents, the fucking irresponible drunk will usally live and the poor innocent buys it.
And for all those posting from Outside of the USA, I would like to see some of the road stats your countries . I would also like to know how your traffic and insurance laws are handled. Not to mention Enforcement...Or at least before you make comment on how it works there take the time to realize it doesn't work well here.
That means that the other 80% are caused by sober drivers.
People should really drink more!
quote:
Tarquinn had this to say about (_|_):
About 20% of all car accidents are caused by drunk drivers.That means that the other 80% are caused by sober drivers.
People should really drink more!
40% of all traffic fatalities in the state of New Jersey are Alcohol Related,, Only 1% lowere than the The National average/ --this information is provided by the NCSA and the NHTSA http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
[ 04-09-2003: Message edited by: Peter ]
BTW In you statistic, Were is the distintion between Fatal Car accidents, and Minor Traffic and fender bender accident.
[ 04-09-2003: Message edited by: Lawst Informat ]
