It seems pretty clear to me that the drinking age is unconstitutional and immoral. If you can vote and get shanghaied to foreign wars, you are old enough to have a beer.
It also seems pretty clear to me that the drinking age will not be changed, because the main constituency against it is the small segment of the population currently between the ages of 18 and 21. And most of them are too busy building beer funnels to get a really solid political movement going. Also, it's tough to get momentum when your leadership abruptly stops caring every three years.
However, every so often I catch sight of something that brings home how silly the whole thing is. Such as this, from Radley Balko:
Research published in the Journal of Adolescent Health in 2004 found that adolescents whose parents permitted them to attend unchaperoned parties where drinking occurred had twice the average binge-drinking rate. But the study also had another, more arresting conclusion: Children whose parents introduced drinking to the children at home were one-third as likely to binge.And you could make a pretty good argument that drinking in the woods and getting bombed at unattended parties are the product of the minimum drinking age.Of course, when the anti-alcohol activists cite the "earlier the age one starts drinking, the greater the chance of addiction" figure, they lump it all in together, which paints an incomplete picture, and makes for bad policy.
It's even worse than that; those figures usually leave in members of strict religious groups, a large segment of whom will never take more than a few drinks, if that. Obviously, it's hard to develop a drinking problem if you never taste the stuff, so those people drag down the averages. But they don't tell you anything about how the age at which one starts drinking affects your later alchohol consumption, except for the trivial observation that if you join a religious group that forbids drinking, you will probably not develop a drinking problem.
I'm a genetic determinist on these things; early drinking outside the home is most likely a sign that you're the kind of kid who has little parental supervision and a penchant for getting into trouble. Parents who don't supervise their children have probably bequeathed a substantial genetic legacy of irresponsible behavior to their children. And troubled, irresponsible people are more likely to develop drinking problems.
I'd like to see a study that compared upper-middle class kids from the suburbs to those in New York City, where, anecdotally, drinking seems to start earlier because the kids don't need to be driven everywhere. Are kids from New York City's private schools more likely to be alcoholics later in life than, say, kids from Englewood? I can't say I noticed any statistically significant differences in college.
That is one of the weirdest "genetic determinist" arguments I've ever seen.
I'm a genetic determinist on these things; early drinking outside the home is most likely a sign that you're the kind of kid who has little parental supervision and a penchant for getting into trouble. Parents who don't supervise their children have probably bequeathed a substantial genetic legacy of irresponsible behavior to their children.
Drinking outside the home is a sign that you have little parental supervision...which proves your PARENTS were genetically unfit...which implies that YOU are genetically unfit... Wha???
How about Occam's razor in either direction: early drinking outside the home implies you have little parental supervision, which implies you are growing up irresponsible and will continue to be so, since responsibility is something one teaches.
Or: early drinking outside the home implies you are genetically unfit.
Either you're making a genetic argument or you're making a conditioning argument. "Genes" belongs in the first. "Parental supervision" belongs in the second. This mix is just a weird soup of vaguely conservative but incompatible arguments.
Uh, Megan, it is the vehicle-related injuries and fatalities that are the primary impetus behind drinking age restrictions in the US. Binge drinking kills very few teenagers directly compared to alcohol-related auto accidents. The drinking age was lowered because parents responded to the disutility of seeing their childen maimed and killed in alcohol-related car wrecks.
Please explain how protecting teenagers, and others, from alcohol-related traffic accidents is "immoral."
Whether nurture or nature, lowering the drinking age will result in more deaths on the highway,absent positive breath control of car ignitions. And, lest you think that this is just an American issue, I call to your attention recent reports on the issue of drinking in Italy that the New York Times has brought us.
I agree with brooksfoe. You seem to have twisted the meaning of genetic to solve the nature vs. nurture by equating them.
Kudos -- you could have won a buck from both Mortimer and Randolph.
I think I did. If they can't be trusted with a beer, they can't be trusted with the vote; if their parents can endure the disutility of having them drafted, they can endure the possibility of car crashes.
Moreover, it's not clear to me how much the rate of drinking and driving would rise now if we lowered the drinking age. Attitudes towards drunk driving have changed considerably since those laws were enacted. More to the point, I haven't noticed that teenagers of driving age have much difficulty getting their hands on alcohol.
In the nature vs nurture debate - nature rarely accounts for more than 1/3? We have very plastic brains. But there is no point in denying that genetic predisposition plays a role.
It is often the case that early encounters produce hard-core consumers. But there is also a strong trend that late encounters with drugs and alcohol produce strong long-term dependence (that are even more difficult to quit)?
A lot also depends on the sexual liberation of a culture... In case you start consuming drugs late and also have your first sexual encounter at a late stage - chances are that those two will be conditioned together? (when was the last time that any of you got intimate with a new lover without the aid of... something?)
One thing that is also interesting to note is that Alcohol consumption has increased drastically over the world over the last few decades (if I recall the FAO stats correctly - it tripled this century per head?)
The UK economy experienced a boom after lifting the 11 o'clock last-call "thing".
HH: Um, Germany: 16 yo drinking age 18 yo to drive. Problem solved.
Also, Canada has an 18yo drinking age and I don't recall them being plauged with higher traffic fatlity statistics.
J
Genetic determinist? Let's not ignorantly say it's all one or the other. We are all disposed to poor behavior, but poor parenting is not necessarily due to worse genes, nor is it necessarily poor nurture, but a combination thereof.
Judging from my own experiences and those of friends and acquaintances the urban middle class youth(at least in NYC) drink a bit less than their suburban counterparts. While it is probably safer to get drunk in the city as there is far less drunk driving there also just seem to be more things to do while sober.
When entertainment options are limited to the mall and the movies a drunken house party seems like a great deal of fun and also seems to be important as part of the high school social scene. In the city there are just other things to do with your time than drink Natty light in someone's Mom's basement...
>>
if their parents can endure the disutility of having them drafted, they can endure the possibility of car crashes.
The chronic severely inebriated driver poses a far greater risk to the public than the person who registers a .08 after a few drinks on the way home from work, yet far more resources per capita are devoted to policing the latter driver than the former. In my state, roadblocks are set up, stopping every motorist, while people who have blown in excess of .15 on multiple occasions are allowed their freedom, and no, ignition interlocks don't pose too high a hurdle for them.
MADD's political efforts have been misplaced, and have resulted in far less than optimal results in terms of public safety. The 21 year old drinking age probably has had the perverse effect of encouraging more binge drinking, with perverse results.
While it is probably safer to get drunk in the city as there is far less drunk driving there also just seem to be more things to do while sober.
Also, driving home drunk, while really, really dangerous and not to be recommended, is a lot more fun than waiting for the subway drunk.
("Take a cab!" they said. "Rich assholes!" I replied.)
Canada provides an interesting example for this debate, since it has a mix of drinking laws and driving laws. In some provinces you have to be 18, some 19, to drink, some where there is a government monopoly on sales, some you can go to the corner store, and there is a variety of controls on youth driving. Good datasets for the enterprising researcher.
From my experience (home province had 19 and a graduated licensing system where you couldn't drive by yourself until 8 months to a year of driving with an adult, while we were 10 minutes from a province with 18 and beer sales at every corner store) there is a difference in death rates between urban/suburban and rural teens. We were really, really good about not drinking and driving in highschool (always go out in large groups, so its easy to fill cabs and find designated drivers) but everyone was drinking fairly regularly from freshman year on. Being able to walk to house parties helped, but there was little correlation between drinking outside of the hosue and parenting abilities (parental sanction usually arrived substantially after drinking at parties for protestants, while jews and catholics had been drinking religiously from around 12 but even that was mostly limited to passover or communion).
Friends from college who lived in the country had many times more friends die because they were driving long distances to get to parties and had much less ability to get affordable cabs. So there were deaths from drinking and driving as well as tired and inexperienced drivers late at night (and frequently lots of fog in lowlands... great recipe!)
In experiences in the US, there is more drug use thanks to alcohol being very illegal for the underage. Any reduction (small to be sure) in highschool alcohol consumption was more than swamped by increased use of drugs and the greater popularity of hard drugs.
While most people I know likely qualify as problem drinkers according to researchers (5 drinks at a sitting = a problem, or, in the real world, Saturday night) actual alcoholism in UMC demographic tends to be middle age onset as ones job becomes ever more focused on socialising with clients. 16 hour days make alcoholism in your 20s and 30s essentially impossible, while 5 or more social engagements for business or charity in your late 30s and 40s create an exceptionally large chance of alcoholism.
The silver lining for a libertarian in the current drinking age is that it encourages widespread law-breaking and distrust of the government as a arbiter of behavior. Plenty of college students who would never break another law safely break this silly one and so learn that the government doesn't always know best.
HH, if the goal of a high drinking age is to prevent drunk driving among teens, why not raise the driving age instead? My understanding is that teen drivers, even sober ones, are much more unsafe than other people on the road.
I agree with you that Megan's line about the draft is a little weird, but I think there's an even stronger argument when you talk about our volunteer army. teen drinking is illegal because we think teens will exercise bad judgment (about when to get behind the wheel, or whether they've reached their limit). So how come we think they have the judgment to volunteer to potentially die for their country? If we're worried they don't understand the risks of having too many beers, why do we think they understand the risks of enlisting and being shipped off to war?
Here is some data on drinking ages and highway accidents:
>>
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation
1995 University Avenue, Suite 450
Berkeley, CA 94704
www.pire.org
Injuries, deaths on the rise after New Zealand law change
Washington - Lowering the drinking age causes a dramatic increase in alcohol-related car crashes among young people, according to a new study based on data from New Zealand, where the government dropped the drinking age to 18 six years ago.
This evidence is significant for the United States, because drinking and driving patterns among young people are similar. There's continuing pressure in the United States, particularly from alcohol industry interests, to reduce the minimum legal drinking age. Currently, five states have pending legislation to lower their drinking age.
"There is no traffic safety policy with more evidence for its effectiveness than minimum legal drinking age laws," said Robert B. Voas, Ph.D., an author of the study. "Traffic crashes by young drivers were declining in New Zealand when that country decided to lower its drinking age. Thereafter, the overall road toll for those drivers rose dramatically. People in the United States who argue for lowering the drinking age should pay attention."
Voas, a senior research scientist at PIRE Public Services Research Institute, has studied alcohol-related traffic issues for more than three decades.
The study, published in the January edition of the Journal of American Public Health Association, found that the rate of alcohol-related traffic crashes with injuries among males increased 12 percent for 18- to 19-year-olds and 14 percent among 15- to 17-year-olds in the four years before and after the law changed. For females, the rate increased 51 percent for 18- to 19-year-olds and 24 percent for 15- to 17-year-olds.
The authors estimated that 400 serious injuries and 12 deaths a year among 15-19 year olds could be avoided in New Zealand by raising the drinking age.
"Most remarkable was the trickle-down effect that was seen in the 15- to 17-year-olds," Voas said. "Clearly, they're getting alcohol from older friends."
In New Zealand, road traffic crashes account for more than half of all fatalities and are second only to pregnancy as a cause of hospitalization for 15- to 19-year-olds, a pattern similar to that in the United States. Alcohol impairment is the largest contributing cause of serious traffic crashes in this age group, according to the study. It's also a major cause in the United States.
Several studies in the United States have shown significant reductions in alcohol-related traffic crashes since the Uniform Drinking Age Act in 1984, which mandates that states enact a minimum legal drinking age of 21 or risk losing federal highway construction money. A review of 17 studies from states which raised drinking ages found a 16 percent reduction in crashes involving underage youth.
The outcomes found in the New Zealand study are similar to those from the United States after drinking ages were lowered in many states the early 1970s. A number of studies on the effects of those drinking age changes showed a substantial increase in traffic crashes involving young people. Today, all 50 states have a minimum 21 drinking age.
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/pressreleases/2005/study-lowering-the-drinking.html
The below study is about ten years old, but it shows that regional trends in youth drinking and binge drinking are pretty much the same. FWIW, the NE has the highest percentage, but not by much.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/FewerYoungDrivers/iii__c.htm
I'm very, very tired of the clearly very privileged people who grew up in Manhattan looking down on kids who grew up in the suburbs. Matt Y., with his "Taco Bell parking lots" comments and the like -- it gets old. No, we weren't able to spend every Sunday morning eating mushroom omelettes before going to MoMA. But we're not all drunken louts who fire up our SUVs and go careening into the night.
Let's face it, city and country, young and old, black, white, brown, everybody loves to get hammered.
If we're worried they don't understand the risks of having too many beers, why do we think they understand the risks of enlisting and being shipped off to war?
Anybody have any data on drunk enlisting? Anecdotally, it seems pretty common.
"There is no military draft in the United States."
There isn't one, at the moment, but all eighteen year olds are required to register with selective services so that, in the event of a draft, they can be called up with minimal fuss.
Right now, military orthodoxy favors the view that a professional army is preferable to a conscripted army but there's no legal barrier to a new draft being instituted at any time. Given that, I think that Megan's point is valid.
My own feeling is that legal adulthood should be just that and that prohibiting some segment of adults from participating in activities that are legal to other adults solely on the basis of age is a form of discrimination. If we really want to set the minimum legal age for drinking to 21 then we should also make 21 the age of legal adulthood. Conversely, if we require someone to assume the legal responsibilities of adulthood at 18 then so should they be allowed to drink at 18.
The current standard strikes me as deeply inconsistent and illogical.
The drinking age restriction is a tradeoff that American society has made based on accident data analysis. Less personal freedom in exchange for fewer dead teenagers. McArdle asserts that this decision is "immoral." She has yet to explain why.
I don’t think you have much of a case for claiming that a drinking age of 21 is “unconstitutional” and I’m not really persuaded by your analogy to the draft namely because we don’t have a draft and abolished it over a decade before the drinking age was raised to 21.
That being said, I’d be open to making the drinking age the same as the age of majority although I’m not sure which would be better – lowering the drinking age to 18 or raising the age of majority to 21. Considering though that voluntary military service usually begins around the age of 18, we could amend the Constitution to make the age of majority 21 for civilians but 18 for those have enlisted.
HH wrote: The drinking age restriction is a tradeoff that American society has made based on accident data analysis. Less personal freedom in exchange for fewer dead teenagers.
The only problem being, there's no clear limit to how far that logic can be carried, so it's evidently not very useful in analyzing the present circumstances. Additional talking points are needed.
As best as I recall it, my small-town high school suffered four auto fatalities and four serious injuries while I was in attendance. (a) Two of the injuries and two of the fatalities occurred in a single-vehicle embankment wreck, and were consequent of drinking and no seatbelts. (b) One fatality occurred in a car/train accident due to driver inattention. (c) One fatality occurred in a car/trailer accident due to driver inattention and sun glare. (d) The other two injuries occurred in a single-vehicle rollover due to youthful inexperience and no seatbelts.
I also knew of numerous cases of weekend party drinking, and occassional weeknight drinking besides, so I don't think legal access to alcohol was any impediment to my peers. Nor was it an impediment to drinking and driving; most of them were simply fortunate enough to never to have a severe accident while under the influence.
HH wrote: McArdle asserts that this decision is "immoral." She has yet to explain why.
But she did explain it. We confer most legal rights and responsibilities of adulthood at 18(including, I might add, the right to be held fully accountable in court for one's actions), but not the drinking age, which is inconsistent.
Taking away the right solely on the basis that it will lessen accident deaths is no more useful than arguing, say, that old people should automatically forfeit their drivers' licenses at 72 for the same reason. In either case, a right of the majority is being denied to a poorly- and arbitrarily-defined subset without a logically coherent cause.
Personally, I would prefer the case where the drinking age is lowered BELOW the age of majority (to 15 or 16), but unconditional drivers' licensing is set at 18 with mandatory driver's education and graduated licensing beginning not earlier than 16 years and nine months. Let the kids who are planning to access alcohol one way or the other do so and get the impulse out of their system a long time BEFORE they can independently access three tons of high-velocity rolling death, as well as pushing drivers' licensing out of the increasingly volatile and immature high school years. Then see what that does for the overall accident rates -- not just drunk driving.
The federal 21 drinking age can be read as unconstitutional inasmuch as the power to regulate alcohol consumption is not delegated to Congress and the anti-prohibition amendment explicitly delegates regulation of alcohol distribution to the states.
The current law is rationalized by "power of the purse" argument. Congress allots highway funds and ergo may determine eligibility for said funds. I'm ordinarily a believer in necessary-and-proper and interstate commerce arguments, but this strikes even me as a total overreach. This is so broad as to justify *any* extra-constitutional shenanigans. (eg: States must ban abortions or lose Medicare funding.)
The drunk-driving argument is weak, at best. First kids 18-21 are typically at college, where cars are often rare and unnecessary. Second, if DWI is a problem, that's because laws prohibiting it are poorly enforced, which is not the fault of underagers. Third, this has all the hallmarks of a cheap scapegoating tactic allowing older people to relieve themselves of the blame of drunk drivers by pinning it to a politically weak demographic.
I would love to hear how the drinking age is unconstitutional.
Not a bad bit of writing. Anecdotally, it's been my experience that, England, for one, does fairly well with a lower drinking age and relaxed attitude towards alcohol in general. So says my wife the Lincolnshire lass, anyway.
One minor quibble-
Englewood is NOT a suburb, any more than Newark is. Or Jersey City. Or Bayonne. Or even Hackensack. Wayne is a burb. So is Boonton. And Ramsey. And even Glen Ridge. But not Englewood.
Sasha: The problem there is, do we know how much of the dangerousness of teenage drivers is that they're teenagers vs how much of it is that they're new drivers?
If the driving age was raised to 21 (which would simply be disastrous, by the way, outside of large cities with good public transit), I suspect we'd find that the driving ability of the 21-24 cohort dropped significantly as soon as those who would have started at 16 or 17 got old enough to start at 21.
(Also, I think the point of current drunk driving laws and the minimum drinking age is not just to prevent teens from making bad choices - but to prevent them making bad choices that seriously endanger others.
Signing up for the Army might cause them significant harm, in theory - though I don't know how often regretful idiots make it into the Combat Arms rather than support branches, and there's a lot of tail behind the sharp point, even in our modern Army... but such a "bad choice" won't seriously harm others, since the Armed Forces will ultimately just discharge or transfer somewhere harmless anyone who shows an inability to do their job properly.)
I actually agree with the main point, Megan, but "shanghaied" is out of line. Nobody is getting hit on the head and tossed in a sack to enlist.
The plural of anecdotes is not data. In the New Zealand study I quoted above, the evidence strongly suggests that if you lower the drinking age in the US, you will witness a significant increase in teenage auto fatalities.
Note that a dead teenager is 100% dead, and that explaining to his or her parents that Megan McArdle vigorously defended their child's right to get drunk at an early age will not restore that person's life.
There is nothing "immoral" about legally restricting access to dangerous substances. We do so with prescription drugs, tobacco, and firearms. Alcohol in the hands of young drivers is demonstrably dangerous, and society can easily justify legal resrictions on its consumption.
Ms. McArdle should use her vast powers of empathy to consider what it feels like for a parent to pick up the telephone in the early morning and hear the words, "There has been an accident."
HH wrote: The plural of anecdotes is not data. In the New Zealand study I quoted above, the evidence strongly suggests that if you lower the drinking age in the US, you will witness a significant increase in teenage auto fatalities.
If the plural of anecdotes is not data, then New Zealand is a pretty bad place to be drawing data when examining the United States.
HH wrote: Note that a dead teenager is 100% dead, and that explaining to his or her parents that Megan McArdle vigorously defended their child's right to get drunk at an early age will not restore that person's life.
Classic appeal to emotion, capped with a hint of false ascription and ad hominem bordering on tu quoque. Negative ten points for useless flame-baiting.
HH wrote: There is nothing "immoral" about legally restricting access to dangerous substances. We do so with prescription drugs, tobacco, and firearms. Alcohol in the hands of young drivers is demonstrably dangerous, and society can easily justify legal resrictions on its consumption.
Finally, we get to something valid and useful. I respond: you may notice that the common thread on all of these is age 18, and in the case of prescription drugs and cigarettes, they can (within reason) be legally be used by anyone of any age; only the purchasing arrangements (and in the case of prescriptions, the intended recipient) are restricted by law. Now, what was your argument for making alcohol a special case? Keep in mind that alcohol is as old as mankind, while age restrictions are a recent innovation, even in the US; and in most nations, the age restrictions are set at far younger levels.
HH wrote: Ms. McArdle should use her vast powers of empathy to consider what it feels like for a parent to pick up the telephone in the early morning and hear the words, "There has been an accident."
...and now we return from a brief moment of reason to the drunken slosh of hastily constructed fallacies that have come to typify your posting style. However, if you want to put down that bottle and address that previous paragraph, I'm still curious what the logical justification is, if one you have.
"Ms. McArdle should use her vast powers of empathy to consider what it feels like for a parent to pick up the telephone in the early morning and hear the words, 'There has been an accident.'"
This argument can pretty easily be used to justify outlawing alcohol entirely. That would really lower the alcohol-related fatality rate, wouldn't it?
I have no strong opinions on this subject either way, but given HH's admiration for the welfare states of Europe, it's worth noting that they all have 18-year-old drinking ages.
The drinking age was brought about through Congress’ spending power by tying about 5% of federal highway funding to each State based on their adoption of a drinking age of 21. As far as tying conditions to federal funding – the courts have almost always given wide deference to Congress so long as they can show that there is some relationship between the funding and the condition (which is an almost impossible standard not to meet) and it doesn’t violate another provision of the Constitution. It didn’t so the Court in a 7-2 decision upheld the condition.
anony-mouse appears to be ticked off again. There is no "logical justification" in the numerology of aligning all ages of access restriction to the same number. Society may rightly set different restrictions on voting, drinking, driving, or any activity for which a consensus on restriction applies.
The argument that "If I can do X at age 18, I should be able to do Y at 18" has no logical force whatever. Surely anony-mouse would not advocate global homogeneity of all age restrictions: what a terrifying infringement on liberty that would be!
Former Middlebury College president John McCardell is heading up a national campaign to lower the drinking age. Seven Days (the alt. weekly in Burlington, Vermont -- I'm the web editor) ran this story recently about his organization, Choose Responsibility.
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/features/2007/stirred-up.html
Of course we should drop the drinking age to 18, for the obvious reason that people from 18-20 drink anyway. The university I teach at has a policy of "looking the other way" at student drinking, as does every other college in the land. Setting the drinking age at 21 is another example of American idiocy in public policy posing as moral exceptionalism. Wouldn't it be more rational, and more moral, to deregulate the drinking age but actually take serious steps to regulate guns? Will this country ever grow up and join the ranks of civilization on questions of life and death which have obvious answers backed up by a ton of evidence?
My simple solution? Eliminate the drinking age altogether. To keep the car crash figures down, increase the penalties for drunk driving - lose your license for 5 years after the first offense, permanently after the second offense, in addition to any fines and jail time.
HH ignores the fact that traffic accidents and fatalities are MUCH higher for drivers ages 16-21 than for any other five year age block. Check the statistics. Drinking has nothing to do with it, and emotional appeals are nothing more than that. The call about the accident sucks, whether your kid wrecked while drunk or just while being an inexperienced driver. If fear of accidents and fatalities is the concern, then the solution is to raise the driving age. Kids who are legally drunk but sitting at home becuase they can't drive yet are FAR less likely to be involved in fatal collisions than sober kids out driving. . . . although I have no statistics to back that one up.
I completely agree that setting the drinking age at 21 is repugnant. If a person can be handed an assault rifle and sent to a foreign country to kill or be killed, he or she damned well should be able to drink a beer. The argument that lowering the drinking age would increase the number of accidents is pure idiocy. Raising the drinking age to 65 would probably lower the number of fatalities but nobody is going to propose that becuase it's nuts.
The answer? EDUCATION. I have kids who are 20 and 19 and they have been able to drink at home for some time. Always within reasonable limits. So, my kids actually understand what reasonable limits are. Kids that sit down in a family setting and have some wine are being shown how to drink and behave responsibly. Their friends who drink only in the company of other kids don't have anyone modeling reasonable behavior. The other thing is that you have to talk to them. A lot. I mention binge drinking often and make them read the articles.
They know that 21 for 21 is not a good idea. Somehow a lot of kids seem never to have been told this.
Dr. John McCardell, president emeritus of Middlebury College, has started the organization "Choose Responsibility" to promote drinking learner permits for adults age 18, 19 and 20. These permits would follow the very successful model we use to prepare people to become drivers.
Imagine how dangerous the highways would be if we told young people that driving requires knowledge of the rules of the road and supervised practice, but prohibited both. We would then hand them the keys to a car on their 21st birthday and tell them to drive carefully. But that's what we do in supposedly preparing young people to drink as adults.
The age 21 law was passed with the best of intentions but has had the worst of consequences. As during National Prohibition, we are forcing drinking underground and making it very dangerous.
A drinking learners permit would promote responsible drinking and discourage alcohol abuse among young adults.
Most State age limits have an exception that more or less covers the exact situation you describe so I’m not sure how it helps an argument against setting the drinking age of 21 since most 18-20 years olds (or younger) are usually able to drink at home legally if served by their parents.
"Society may rightly set different restrictions on voting, drinking, driving, or any activity for which a consensus on restriction applies. "
Right, like we did with minorities and women. I dunno what anony-mouse is up in arms about, because that seemed to work out ok, right?
And I read a study somewhere that men are more likely to cause accidents than women, so we should get them off the streets too. Less personal freedom in exchange for fewer dead men.
"MADD's political efforts have been misplaced, and have resulted in far less than optimal results in terms of public safety."
That assumes public safety and not prohibition was MADD's goal. As neo-prohibitionists they have track record of success far beyond what anyone would have predicted.
I think HH makes a fair argument (I’m not sure how many would favor lowering the drinking age to 18 but raising the minimum age for a driver’s license to 18 just to be consistent) but I think the reason why this has some people upset is that 18 is the age at which someone is legally considered an adult in every aspect of life* – owning property, entering in a contract, voting, being tried as an adult rather than a juvenile, serving in the military, owning a firearm, most professional licenses, etc. – and being held to the standards of conduct as an adult with the legal purchase and consumption of alcohol being about the only exception.
Most rational people can accept a certain amount of paternalism from the State when it’s for the protection of underage children. But I think we all chafe just a little when it’s adults – people who are generally responsible for their own decisions – who are told they can’t do what they want to do because “it’s for our own good.” IMO it’s this understandable resentment of adults being treated like children which upsets so many who are opposed to setting the drinking age of 21. It might be a different story if 18 year olds didn’t vote and serve in the military.
* I realize that there are exceptions where a minor might be able to do those things but those are exceptions treated on a case-by-case basis usually in extraordinary circumstances rather than a general rule.
Anybody have any data on drunk enlisting? Anecdotally, it seems pretty common.
Considering you have to take a breathalyzer at MEPS before swearing in, I doubt it's that common.
The juvenilization of our entire society, which began in the mid-60's and has since pervaded, is blindingly obvious in the pro-lower drinking age comments here. The solipsism in these comments ought to be appalling, but since the juvenilization of society is a fait accompli, common sense and responsibility in has become as rare as hens' teeth - even in and among adults, especially in the too many of today's parents whose juvenilization began in their beloved 1960's and has not since sobered or grown up, parents who smilingly, solipsistically condone house parties and other events at which they permit underage drinking.
Common sense is all it takes to make the simple observation that younger drinkers make worse - far worse, far more lethal - younger drivers. Common sense is all it takes to note that the enlistment age of 18 is commonsensical and constitutional, and that this enlistment age is in no way relatable to, or relevant toward, drinking age statutes. To wit: the defense of the Constitution, which embraces, or overarches, states' constitutional statutes, such as the one that sets the drinking age at 21, is a commonsensical, Enlightenment Liberal civic obligation; no less commonsensical are statutes that set the drinking age at 21 - and the common sense that underpins this drinking age is documented in and supported by every sober study of the matter: there is not one study by any body that is not supported by or connected to alcoholic beverage producers that contravenes this common sense. Moreover, the defense of the Constitution is a civic duty (which is why, though we now recruit and field all-volunteer armed forces, conscription is NOT constitutionally proscribed), while drinking booze is merely a recreational option: never the twain shall meet, except - and then only illogically - in the wanting minds of solipsists of the irresponsible, unconscionable "It's All Good!" persuasion.
Ms. McArdle: before you in any argument again invoke genetics, I recommend that you read, and soberly mull the arguments in, the late David Stove's 'Darwinian Fairytales.'
Finally, to George, who witlessly, insensibly brought the constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms into this discussion: stay away from the sauce, because your misapphrehension of our Constitution sorely needs your sobriety for you to put your misapprehension right.
Erratum and Apology: in the second sentence of my original comment, I ought to have emended "in has" to read, "have."
It should be plainly stated that most libertarians would willingly incur hundreds of additional 18-20-year-old teenage auto accident fatalities in return for the ideological buzz of promoting "individual freedom," even if it is the freedom of intoxication.
Libertarians clothe their emotional dislike of infringement of their "freedom" in all manner of rationalizations, but their ethos is not much more than personal selfishness projected on society. They believe that they can manage their own lives with competitive advantage, and those who cannot should suffer for their deficiencies.
Indeed, even the children of inferior people should suffer for the deficiencies of their parents. This is why McArdle suggests genetic theories of susceptibility to bad behavior. She has to construct a case for punishing the young for being born in inferior families.
At eighteen you are required to register for the draft. You can get married, sign contracts, join the military and you are absolutely required to have every stinking one of the legal responsibilities of adult hood.
Given that those demands are placed on eighteen year olds it is absolutely ludicrous eighteen year olds are not allowed to drink.
Lots of folks who support the 21 drinking age miss this little tidbit from Radley's articles
Before the drinking age was raised those eighteen and above could drink at home or in the dorms or at a friends house..
Raising the drinking age to 21 made all of those safe options for drinking illegal. That leads to the moving of parties from houses and homes out into the woods and other isolated areas. It also leads from drinking beer to drinking more hard liquor since hard liquor is stronger, easier to hide and easier to transport.
.
It is much easier to drink a lethal dose of hard liquor then beer. The higher drinking age makes it easier to die from drinking to much alcohol because if the people around you call an ambulance they can be exposed to substantial legal peril just from being around alcohol.
.
The iron law of unintended consequences strikes again.
.
Jordynne Olivia Lobo spends paragraphs complaining on one hand about the "juvenilization" of society. Then he argues for treating eighteen year olds like children (juvenilization) by supporting increasing the drinking age to 21.
Jordynne,
Are all of the arguments you make self refuting like the one on this thread was?
In states where the age of majority is 18, the drinking age is illegal under the Equal Protection clause. In states where the age of majority is 21, the drinking age is legal.
However, that would still require judges be able to read. Since many are lawyers, that is asking too much.
It is obvious as the day is long that the drinking age should be lowered to the age of "adult responsibility" (currently, by United States Supreme Court fiat, considered sixteen), all this chatter about "the children" and "auto accident fatalities" and the silly rest notwithstanding.
The notion that one can be held liable as an ADULT at one age, and not enjoy a common privilege of adults until one has attained another, is anti-ethical to every notion of ordered liberty that has ever existed.
Crave your "21" drinking age, you modern-day Carrie Nations? Fine: raise the age at which one can join the military or be considered criminally responsible as an adult of a felony offense to the same age.
In the meantime, until you're willing to put your stated blarney where your flapping mouths are, please do us all a favor and quit yapping misty nonsense calibrated to the lowest common denominator of "for the children" idiocy. Thanks.
The arguments about extending the legal age for alcohol consumption are really about the right to intoxication. It is obvious that many people consume alcohol so as to become intoxicated. An intoxicated person is an embarrassment in some cultures, but in America intoxication is considered funny and endearing - at least until it rips your family apart or kills someone you know.
Mixing gasoline with alcohol results in the deaths of innocents. The out-of-control car of the drunkard can kill the family of the non-alcoholic. It is entirely fitting and proper for the non-intoxicated to protect themselves from the intoxicated. Thus, drinking age limits that are supported by auto accident statistics are a legitimate act of self-defense on the part of society.
The right to be drunk must be considered far inferior to the right to vote, or marry, or serve in the military. The argument that this "right" deserves the same consideration to the others is an embarrassment to those who make it.
The true "embarrassment" is a presumed adult unable to string together even the barest string of simple logical thought processes, to wit, "who says A must say B."
Along with a lowered drinking age, this country needs a serious overhaul of its basic educational system...
"An intoxicated person is an embarrassment in some cultures, but in America intoxication is considered funny and endearing - at least until it rips your family apart or kills someone you know."
But in most of those other countries, the drinking age is eighteeen! (Or it is de facto even lower - do they really serve wine in French elementary schools, or is that an urban legend?)
I don't drink, scrupulously obeyed the drinking age law when I was under 21, have literally never been intoxicated or anywhere near it, and don't care much about this issue one way or the other, but all of HH's arguments could be used to justify complete prohibition, or at least a raising of the drinking age to something like 25 (once endorsed by Elizabeth Dole, if I recall correctly). Is this his position, and if not, why not?
Anybody have any data on drunk enlisting? Anecdotally, it seems pretty common.
Considering you have to take a breathalyzer at MEPS before swearing in, I doubt it's that common.
Posted by CatCube
Very true. When I was at the MEPS* getting my physical, they booted a guy for showing up drunk to his hotel room the night before.
It literally makes my day to read something about the military that is actually informed as opposed to random speculation or rancid stereotype. CatCube, when I'm next at the O-Club, I will have a shot in your honor.
I would also point out that in the military(at least the AF), Commanders have the option of allowing personnel under the age of 21 to drink under certain limited circumstances. They never actually do this, since if one of these underage personnel managed to hurt somebody while drunk, the commander would soon find himself out of a job.
*Military Entrance Processing Station
I will support a drinking age at 18 if you will support a driving license age at 25 and learners permit at 24.
I don't mind a little inconsistency in the event of all hell breaking loose and needing a draft. If every 18 year old were enrolled in the military you'd have a point. Then I'd trust them with some responsibilty.
But what you're saying is, since at some conceivable point, the military may be depsarate enough to call upon an army of 18 year olds, we should give them all drinking rights now. That's ridiculous.
Even if you're making a consistency argument, to "gotcha" all those nitwits that seem to think everything they do must be consistency inline with every principle and law under the sun, all you'd need to do is pass a law that says if you're in the military just show your military ID and you can now by booze.
cbub said
That gibberish is typical of the arguments supporting the 21 drinking age..
It is fundamentally unjust for society to give eighteen year olds permission to put themselves in harms way to defend the nation.
.
And then deny them the simple pleasure of having a beer after work.
.
Some people recognize the injustice some people don't.
Just remember people, when HH and his long-winded pal come to take away other "inferior rights" by not letting Native Americans drink, or Asian women Drive, or black people gamble, or white guys play basketball, just rememeber they have commonsense and statistics on their side.
What power does the libertarian fantasy of all US citizens deserving equal treatment under the law have against commonsensical statistics? Say, how many 18-21 year-olds are there in Congress to represent their interests?
Actually, since all statistics across a distribution of people will have points above and below the mean, we should just commission some commonsensical studies of various social ills, figure out which groups are above the peak, and then take away their "inferior rights" in the name of society protecting itself. Onward brothers, we have the statistics and we're voting yes!
HH:
Adults should be allowed to put themselves in dangerous, risky situations that might leave them dead, regardless of how their family members and friends would grieve. Wives have no standing to band together and legally prevent all husbands from engaging in dangerous behavior and husbands cannot do the reverse either. Once their sons and daughters reach majority age, parents must accept that an adult's decision is his decision. If a son can elist, deploy to Iraq and condemn his mother to sleepless nights dreading that phone call then why can't he drink and force his mother to fear an accident?
Generally, I find it troubling that a nineteen-year-old accused of a felony like murder will be identified as a "man" while one accused of a misdemeanor involving alcohol will be identified as a "teen".
TJIT: First, I'm not a he. But then you rushed past the crux of my argument in the same unconsidering, uncomprehending way in which you flashed past the femininity of my name.
Second, I didn't "complain about the juvenilization of society." I merely pointed out that the juvenilization of society has absented common sense from too many adults, and that it's adult juvenility that's (ir)responsible when it contributes to adult failure to use common sense in observing, and acting on, irrefutable data which show that inebriated under-21 drinkers suffer - and inflict on innocent others - by far more auto wrecks than over-21 drinkers suffer or inflict. That argument does not refute itself.
(Besides, one cannot, by fiat or by other means, juvenilize young people whose behavior and judgment are, if not juvenile, certainly far from adult, responsible. There are several studies which document dramatically that under-21's have not yet gained the capacity to contemplate the consequences of their irresponsible, self-indulgent behavioral choices [which, commonsensically, are distinct from their responsbible, civic-minded, unselfish choices, such as the decision to enlist in the armed forces], that under-21's act on the nonsensical presumption that they enjoy immunity from harm and that they therefore also do not reckon on the potential which their self-indulgent misbehaviors holds for innocent others - and that indulgent, selfish behavior and lack of mature forethought are dangerously worsened when under-21's consume alcohol.)
It's a commonsensical - a grown-up - civilized, civic act for adults to protect under-21's - and the innocent victims of inebriated under-21's car wrecks - from documented, commonsensically avoidable consequences by means of the prohibition of alcohol to under-21's. It's a juvenile, irresponsible, selfish, anti-civic act to either urge, or to establish in law, that under-21's should be permitted to drink when it is known, and irrefutably documented, that inebriated under-21's disproportionately wreck cars, maim and kill themselves in those wrecks, and maim and kill others in them as well. To know these facts and to act juveniley, irresponsibly, in ignorance of them does not promote, as our Constitution's preamble states as its purpose to promote, "domestic tranquility" - nor does it assure the "common defense."
HH, You're a broken record. And your reasoning is faulty, as was previously stated, but I'll add in a further criticism: avoid the post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Because some teens will die while driving drunk does not mean that having a driving age of 16 and a drinking age of 21 causes accidents to disappear. Outlawing guns in Britain did not cause gun crimes to disappear--in fact, the frequency has gone up. Hmm. You also never responded to the suggestions of raising the driving age (why? because your logic wouldn't hold up?). Frankly, under your reasoning, it would be logical to raise the drinking age to, say 25. We could also prove that because teens are more likely to have unprotected sex, we should raise the age of consent to 25, as well. Anything else you'd like Uncle Sam to protect us all from?
And Jordynne: You're doing better making the case to raise the driving age than you are for the drinking age. Fine, we all agree that teens are lousy drivers: but that is both drunk AND sober.
HH:
And the privilege of driving must be considered far inferior to the right to drive--because a privilege is always far inferior to a right--and yet you support an elevated drinking age rather than driving age. Is this because an elevated driving age would inconvenience parents longer, while an elevated drinking age only inconveniences those between 18 and 21?
nunciative slavishness gaminish graceful savored rhizocorm forestage manyberry
http://www.gablesinnsausalito.com >The Gables Inn
http://www.mountain-view-ranch.de/
nunciative slavishness gaminish graceful savored rhizocorm forestage manyberry
http://www.mtbw.com/ >MTBW Services, Inc.
http://reigningpages.com/cursors/
nunciative slavishness gaminish graceful savored rhizocorm forestage manyberry
http://www.angelfire.com/fjtubxqu/kyu.html >Student Led Conferences
http://www.angelfire.com/dytowafg/9sq.html
nunciative slavishness gaminish graceful savored rhizocorm forestage manyberry
http://www.angelfire.com/lruxsis/xqi.html >Bit Torrent Music
http://www.angelfire.com/zklzuhgw/1du2.html
pigmaking dysepulotic subcoastal biperforate inactively guardship quartzless pruinescence
http://cnn.com/2000/WORLD/africa/12/20/kenya.aidsvaccine.ap/index.html >Trials of African AIDS vaccine delayed
http://www.blueguardkit.com
sorry if i mistake this field
rx drugs - best drugstore choose / sorry if i mistake this field
top lamisil discount
top lexapro discount
top hoodia discount