• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should the drinking age be?

At what age should people be legally allowed to buy alcohol?


  • Total voters
    78
I think it should be Forty-two.

(that is, after all, the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question.)


So long, and thanks for all the fish. :2wave:

:mrgreen: love it ...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojydNb3Lrrs"]YouTube - So Long and Thanks for all the Fish[/ame]
 
Last edited:
Can we please get a link to those statistics?

Sure, I originally saw that information on a poster in the subway... so I didn't have any source for that untill now. :p

- Mothers Against Drunk Driving - Parents
"between 1982 and 1998, there were 61 percent fewer drinking drivers involved in fatal crashes under age 21"


However... that is just one side of the story, and does not take into consideration other factors.

This info from the same site has more important information though

"In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control looked at 49 high-quality peer-reviewed studies of the effects of changing the minimum drinking age law. Almost every study found that increasing the minimum drinking age to 21 saved lives (an average decrease of 16 percent) and that lowering the minimum drinking age to 18 or 19 caused an average increase in crashes of eight to 10 percent."


Finally, there was a graph about how while alcohol related deaths from the 80's were higher then they are today, other fatalities are actually higher today. So that means that the reductions in drunk driving deaths can't be the cause of less teen drunk driving accidents.

http://www.madd.org/getfile/e9682dbd-23eb-49d3-8819-357e34705037/NIAAAFatalities082208.aspx
 
Last edited:
Even if true and disregarding Obvious Child's statements about Western Europe, the same argument that I use against the Drug War remains. They're adults, their choice. As long as they don't get behind the wheel or do somethings else illegal, it's not the government's problem.

Thats one view that people can have. But trying to maxamize the welfare of the society is another goal.

I agree that there isn't a problem with teenagers drinking, but the problem is that since they are more likely to drive drunk when drinking is legal, that harms society.

Anyway, the argument for at least the legalization of marijuanna, center on welfare for the society issues instead of freedome ones. More drugs should be legalized because it will help the economy and reduce crime, more freedome is another lesser factor in that issue, for me anyway.

-----------------

I do just have to say that I support a 21 age drinking age less now because there is only around a 16% reduction in drunk driving because of the drinking age. So I am not sure if that is worth the loss of freedome in not being able to drink legally. Its a ballance.
 
Last edited:
So it's OK to you if drunk driving accidents increase dramatically just so that everything can line up neatly with the an arbitrary age? I'm not sure I understand your argument.

My argument is that people who are legally adults should be treated as such. If an 18 year old gets drunk but doesn't hassle anyone or drive, why is it any of the government's business? Our legal system isn't based on the possiblity of someone commiting a crime in the future.
 
If you're old enough to join the military. You're old enough to buy a beer.
 
Teen drunk drivers also contribute to harm other individuals who aren't drunk on the road. (my source has information about that claim as well) So by keeping the drinking age at 18, we would be depriving some of those people their lives even though they did not consume alcohol themselves.
 
Whatever the age limit is to buy/own/carry a pistol, that's what the drinking age should be.
 
Ideally a parent should introduce a child to alcohol at a young age to teach them responsibility. You know the whole French attitude of having wine diluted with water at meal time. Removes the 'cool' factor

But i would say 16, if you can join the army. You can handle alcohol.
 
Ideally a parent should introduce a child to alcohol at a young age to teach them responsibility. You know the whole French attitude of having wine diluted with water at meal time. Removes the 'cool' factor

But i would say 16, if you can join the army. You can handle alcohol.

Here in SD your child can drink whatever they want in your own home at any age.

The drinking age only applies when they want to go to the bar and be a part of the adult scene.

SD FTW!!!
 
Thats one view that people can have. But trying to maxamize the welfare of the society is another goal.

I can agree on right infringement reduction.

I agree that there isn't a problem with teenagers drinking, but the problem is that since they are more likely to drive drunk when drinking is legal, that harms society.

First and foremost, drinking is not legal for teenagers, therefore it is impossible to make such a long leap. Of course we can use statistics from previous era's, yet that is not an equal relationship so a rather large amount of controls would have to be made to control for the differences.

I do just have to say that I support a 21 age drinking age less now because there is only around a 16% reduction in drunk driving because of the drinking age. So I am not sure if that is worth the loss of freedom in not being able to drink legally. Its a balance.

IMHO, MADD's various studies are flawed. Reason be, they seem to be supportive of studies that heavily weight the age variable, when a natural reduction of drunk driving might have more to do with increased enforcement, education, and plain common sense. Since i have no link to the actual studies cited, i am only speculating.
 
I can agree on right infringement reduction.



First and foremost, drinking is not legal for teenagers, therefore it is impossible to make such a long leap. Of course we can use statistics from previous era's, yet that is not an equal relationship so a rather large amount of controls would have to be made to control for the differences.

The statistics specifically get rid of other factors when they admit that even though teen drunk driving has decreased by 60% from the increased drinking age, only around 16% of it is due to the change in policy.

IMHO, MADD's various studies are flawed. Reason be, they seem to be supportive of studies that heavily weight the age variable, when a natural reduction of drunk driving might have more to do with increased enforcement, education, and plain common sense. Since i have no link to the actual studies cited, i am only speculating.

I sourced the link where the information from the study is, if that is what you mean.

The study did conclude that 44% of the reductions were from those other factors.

I have never heard that when sourcing a study, the information on how the study was carried out also needs to be shown :p

You can still disagree on the grounds of freedome to drink, but the statisitcs are at least solid for this discussion.
 
Teen drunk drivers also contribute to harm other individuals who aren't drunk on the road. (my source has information about that claim as well) So by keeping the drinking age at 18, we would be depriving some of those people their lives even though they did not consume alcohol themselves.

I never called for allowing teens to drink in public. Only legal adults and kids at home with parental consent. Madd stats are very flawed. Finnally our legal system is based on punishing crimes that already have been commited or are imminent. Are we to punish people who show signs that they may become violent in future years.
 
Wine and beer at 16, hard liquor at 18 or whenever the legal majority age happens to be.

We grew up with parents and grand parents spiking our lemonade with a splash of red wine at meal times. There's not a single heavy drinker among us to this day.
 
Wine and beer at 16, hard liquor at 18 or whenever the legal majority age happens to be.

We grew up with parents and grand parents spiking our lemonade with a splash of red wine at meal times. There's not a single heavy drinker among us to this day.

Not a bad idea. Parents allowing moderate drinking at a younger ages will really attack the issue of drinking to excess. Arbitrary laws will not
 
What do you think? What should the drinking age be? You can answer the poll from the perspective of a nationwide law or a state law, whichever you prefer.

I think it should be 18. IF you are old enough to die for you your country and old enough to vote then you should be old enough to drink.
 
I think it should be 18. IF you are old enough to die for you your country and old enough to vote then you should be old enough to drink.

What about for those who choose not to risk themselves in service to country?
 
What about for those who choose not to risk themselves in service to country?

At 18 you register for the draft, which means you can be drafted against your will. So theoretically every 18 year old (or every 18 year old male, since females don't register for the draft) could be asked to die for their country. If we're prepared to ask that of an 18 year old, then they are old enough to drink.

I also agree with other posters here, that if we culturally made alcohol less of a big deal and not such a forbiden fruit to teens, we'd have a lot less problems with teenage drinking.
 
My argument is that people who are legally adults should be treated as such. If an 18 year old gets drunk but doesn't hassle anyone or drive, why is it any of the government's business? Our legal system isn't based on the possiblity of someone commiting a crime in the future.

Let's assume that adding 3 years to the drinking age really did prevent many drunk driving accidents.

We're talking about a policy which saved lives then. You'd need a very good reason to say that we should change something like that. Your reason is that everything should fall in line with a legal age of adulthood, which is an arbitrary line to draw anyways. I do not think we should let more people die just to preserve an arbitrary line.
 
Let's assume that adding 3 years to the drinking age really did prevent many drunk driving accidents.

We're talking about a policy which saved lives then. You'd need a very good reason to say that we should change something like that. Your reason is that everything should fall in line with a legal age of adulthood, which is an arbitrary line to draw anyways. I do not think we should let more people die just to preserve an arbitrary line.

No, let's not assume. Let's provide credible evidence to support our views instead...:2razz:
 
What about for those who choose not to risk themselves in service to country?

Then **** those ******s who refuse to serve the military....Just kidding. I believe the drinking age should be lowered to 18 for everyone.

Although a good compromise would be 18 year olds in the military, let them show a military ID to prove they are in the military, military ID's these days have actual chips and a barcode in them, so its not like some dumbass with a laminating machine can make a military ID.
 
The legal drinking age never stopped me from getting my alcohol.

Last year I walked into a gas station, got a 6 pack of Corona Extra, slammed $20 on the counter and said "Keep the change."

I stood there for a few seconds to give the cashier a chance to pull out her shot gun from behind the counter and unload on me before I walked out the door, but she was a kind lady.

The look on her face was like "hmm ok... I never seen that happen before." :2razz:
 
The statistics specifically get rid of other factors when they admit that even though teen drunk driving has decreased by 60% from the increased drinking age, only around 16% of it is due to the change in policy.

I sourced the link where the information from the study is, if that is what you mean.

The study did conclude that 44% of the reductions were from those other factors.

I have never heard that when sourcing a study, the information on how the study was carried out also needs to be shown :p

You can still disagree on the grounds of freedome to drink, but the statisitcs are at least solid for this discussion.

In many cases such as these, where the organization has a conflict in interest to provide statistical analysis that goes against their belief system, i am ever curious as to the methodology used. More specifically, the weights used as both determinants and the specific quantitative measures.

Strictly speaking, it is not at all unreasonable to believe that they would be more willing to show links to studies that confirm their ideology.

Not that i am saying they are wrong by any stretch, but are more or less geared to put the blame on alcohol, when of course the blame has to be shared with the person(s) consuming it. Remember, the alcohol did not make the teenager drink it, therefore natural questions on the rationality, education, police enforcement, etc... are going to surface. And since the studies are not entirely disclosed, i will have doubts.
 
I definitely think the age should be lowered to 18. There should not be a two different ages on adulthood. A person should come into adulthood with the full privileges and responsibilities that bestowing adulthood entails.

From my own personal observations, I believe that most of the people who would wait til they're 21 to drink are the ones who wouldn't be drinking and driving anyway.

The ability to drink alcohol in many states is still available to the person before 21 in the form of exceptions to the law for religious and/or family-allowed purposes on private property. Only about 16 states and DC don't have any exceptions.

Also, I know the Navy's policy is overall whatever the country's laws are that you are in. A CO is allowed to restrict consumption to 21 for his command though. And I think the Marines recently went to 21 no matter where you are, but it might have just been something they were considering. At least on my ship, everyone on board was allowed to participate in beer days when we got them no matter what age we were since we were in international waters. Personally, I would think that it would suck to be told that you couldn't have alcohol during a designated beer day just because you're not of age, especially considering there are no minimum age restrictions on the jobs that we perform once you are in the military.
 
Absolutely. I agree. However, there is always going to be an "arbitrary" age. If you are considered for all intents and purposes of being an adult at 18, then there is really no reason to say "yeah..but...you are not adult enough to gamble or consume alcohol".

18 is when, in general, the brain is "developed" and rational, logical thinking begins... psychological speaking. It is the last of the cognitive developmental stages that ends in adulthood.
 
Back
Top Bottom