I will make one policy proposal. Some of my fellow libertarians hope that the Obama administration will put an end to the drug war. I hope so too, but I'm not too optimistic. Instead, I propose a smaller step toward freedom -- eliminating the federally mandated drinking age of 21. This mandate was a creature of Elizabeth Dole (who is no longer in the Senate to complain at its abolition), and it has unnecessarily limited the freedom of legal adults, old enough to fight for their country, to drink adult beverages.
What's more, as the 130 college presidents of the Amethyst Initiative have noted, rather than promoting safety, it has largely created furtive and less-safe drinking on campus. As a former professor of constitutional law, President Obama knows that the Constitution gives the federal government no legitimate role in setting drinking ages. Returning this decision to the states would be a step for freedom, a step toward honoring the Constitution, and a step away from nannyism. It would also be a particularly fitting act for this administration. Barack Obama received enormous support from voters aged 18-21. Who better to treat people that age as full adults again?
A drinking age of 21 is an embarassment to a supposedly liberty-loving nation. If you are old enough to enlist, and old enough to vote, you are old enough to swill cheap beer in the company of your peers.
The problem is, the main constituency of this initiative is small. I remember sitting through the alcohol education class that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania required me to sit through in exchange for clearing my sentence. The lawyer teaching it allowed that the drinking age might well be--indeed, probably was--unconstitutional in various ways. So why did the law still stand?
"Because when people turn 21," he explained patiently, "they stop caring."
It strikes me that this might be a golden opportunity for the Republicans, though. The news post-election was filled with commentators pointing out that the first few times a person votes tend to seal their political identity. Well, a president coming out strongly against the drinking age could put the next generation in Republican pockets for decades.
Yeah and if republicans come out in favor of musical theater they'll sew up the gay vote for generations! Everyone knows that that's all the gays care about.
Heh, get them while they're young, before confirmation bias sets in.
You mean in Democratic pockets, right?
I think there is no constituency for it because the law is so widely ignored. No party I went to in college was lacking for alcohol, and I was rarely turned away from a bar before I turned 21.
Yeah, right. The party of "Family Values" will try to legalize liquor drinking for 18 year olds. Ha ha, in your wildest dreams.
You know, in Japan they don't even bother with ID's, and they have less youth drinking than we do. Culturally, there's an expectation that you don't start drinking until you are 20, but an 8-year old can go to any convenience store and legally pick up a bottle or two of hard liquor for his dad, and nobody bats an eye at it.
If such a lack of enforcement could never work here, then the question becomes, what the hell is wrong with us?
"What the hell is wrong with us?" could engender a very long list. Violence, infant mortality, health outcomes, etc. all could be subjects of that question.
My understanding is that underage folks in the military on deployment have limited (but some) access to alcohol. I'm okay with that.
...the Constitution gives the federal government no legitimate role in...
Since when is that stopping anyone??
If such a lack of enforcement could never work here, then the question becomes, what the hell is wrong with us?
Hits the nail squarely on the head, though I won't attempt to give the answer.
To explain the situation, the federal government does not set the drinking age. However, if a state wants federal funds for their roads they must set the drinking age to 21. If this wasn't the case then there probably would be states that would have a drinking age of 18.
As Don has noted, the law is ignored anyway.
And in a "liberty loving nation", changing the age back to 18 is also an embarrassment.
I would have been all for it when I was 18, but now that I'm a cranky late 20-something, I'm more than happy to avoid my younger, far more obnoxious and reckless self at the bars I frequent.
"What the hell is wrong with us?" could engender a very long list. Violence, infant mortality, health outcomes, etc. all could be subjects of that question.
No, you misunderstand. I didn't ask what the hell is wrong with underage drinking, I asked what the hell is wrong with ***us*** that we need a prohibition-for-youngsters architecture of laws and enforcement to keep our kids from drinking, when many other countries sell hard booze in every corner shop as if it was any other food product, without these kinds of problems.
I would have been all for it when I was 18, but now that I'm a cranky late 20-something, I'm more than happy to avoid my younger, far more obnoxious and reckless self at the bars I frequent.
This encapsulates rather well why libertarianism will probably always be a fringe movement.
People think freedom is well and good, up to the point that it's extended to those who offend their sensibilities.
I don't like the nanny state any more than you and I hate the "drug war" - but I think they should leave the drinking age where it is. This is one bit of busy-body conservatism that they got right.
The legal drinking age at 18 isn't about bars - its about 18 year olds buying alcohol and taking it back to the house party when mom and dad are out of town and getting 14-16 year olds drunk. At least right now, this age group needs a little initiative and/or a good connection to get their liquor. Teen pregnancy rate are high enough without pimply faced retards buying Segrams 7 legally at the counter.
As for that college board and their recommendations - you enjoy calling these people idiots on every other subject so why cite them to prop up your argument now? There's not a mite of evidence to support their ludicrous theory that if teenagers are experienced drunks in high school they'll behave themselves when they get to college.
As for Republicans nabbing first time voters - here's a news flash; 18 year old don't vote. Those that do have such strong opinions that you're not going to change their minds anyway. If Republicans want to win voters by repealing laws they should legalize pot.
Elizabeth Dole had her faults but this being her only real legacy,
its not a bad one. Besides, you're never too young to learn that life simply is not fair.
Any politician who would dare to propose a reduction in the drinking age would be vilified by MADD as an anti-family junky-enabling child killer. As a political issue, it's a non-starter for anyone who isn't intent on committing political suicide.
Republican politicians would run the additional risk of earning the wrath of the Christian-zealot wing of the party. The Democrats would rather avoid whatever stigma may come from being perceived as the party-happy hippy children of Chappaquiddick. This idea ain't going anywhere, and if anything, the controls are bound to become stricter.
I presume "Amethyst Initiative" was used because, in the old alchemical days, amethysts were thought to guard against drunkenness?
When I was a kid growing up, my parents would allow my brother or me to try the occasional sip of beer or wine. (I didn't like either, I decided). Alcohol was not this big mystical thing that was "for the grownups" and was exciting because it "allowed you to get loaded" (my parents drank alcohol but never to excess).
Neither my brother nor I ever got involved with the party scene.
I think the thing that will "fix" the drinking problem (and I'm a college professor and I would argue that it IS a problem on campus) is our changing our attitude towards alcohol...and somehow reducing the desire people have to get wasted.
I never had that desire so I'm not really sure how to reduce it, but after having had students show up drunk, hungover, or fail my 8:00 class because they party most nights and can't get out of bed the next day, I tend to feel like the desire SHOULD be reduced somehow.
I asked what the hell is wrong with ***us*** that we need a prohibition-for-youngsters architecture of laws and enforcement to keep our kids from drinking, when many other countries sell hard booze in every corner shop as if it was any other food product, without these kinds of problems
I'd hazard a guess that most of these countries have more homogeneous cultures that play a major role in the enforcement of their cultural norms such that their legal system doesn't have to.
People think freedom is well and good, up to the point that it's extended to those who offend their sensibilities.
I remember an old saying about living in Texas...something to the effect of "the best thing about Texas is you can do whatever you want. The worst thing about Texas is that your neighbor can, too."
My understanding is that the drinking age was raised to 21 again (after being lowered to 18 in most states in the early 70s) when it was found that a lower drinking age resulted in a statistically significant jump in deaths from auto accidents involving drunk driving.
See chart on p2:
http://longislandmadd.org/forms/21-Minimum-Drinking-Age-Effectiveness.pdf
Maybe, but they'd get the Episcopalians back. "Whenever two or more are gathered together, a fifth is with them."
"If you are old enough to enlist, and old enough to vote, you are old enough to swill cheap beer in the company of your peers."
Y'know, things haven't improved much since the '70s; I'd say the notion that 18 yr olds are "adult" is an unsubstantiated hypothesis. So let's solve the inconsistency by changing the voting age back to 21.
Unless you enlist. Then allow drinking for all active duty members of the armed forces. And lower the enlistment age to 16. Then anyone for whom drinking is the Most Important Thing Ever can be segregated from civil society.
And it'll all be pretty much ignored, anyway, as drinking is a cultural issue, not a legal one.
When I was i high school (I graduated in '03), it was easier to get marijuana than it was beer. I am sure the fact that a bottle of vodka is larger than a bag of weed contributes to that, but this seemed to me to demonstrate the efficacy of regulation over prohibition.
Given the harms associated with a marijuana conviction, I think Marijuana decriminalization is much more important than changing the legal drinking age.
When I was a kid growing up my parents also allowed me to drink - from the age of about 16 on, it was assumed that I would have a drink at a social occasion and it wasn't a big deal. But when I went away to school, the fact that I could sit and have a glass of wine with dinner without the need to get drunk didn't prevent me from getting really drunk at parties. Why? Because it's fun to get exceedingly drunk with your friends when you're 18.
I fully support moving the drinking age to 18 but I don't think it will change the culture around drinking. It may make it easier for colleges to intervene when drinking gets out of control without having to harshly sanction students - which is a good thing. But, the only reason to change the law is that it's a ridiculous unfair law. Don't expect miracles.
I remember being at an international gathering of university-age students held in the US, where there was a get-together with alcohol in the evening. All the Americans were getting obnoxiously drunk, playing frat-style drinking games, and otherwise making fools of themselves. All the non-Americans were sitting down, having a couple glasses, and talking with each other. I have never, before or since, seen such a clear illustration of why 21 is an asinine drinking age.
I propose a compromise: Lower the drinking age to 18, and push the voting age back up to 21. Or, even better, limit the franchise to actual adults—i.e., people who have jobs and pay taxes.
I'm personally an advocate for dropping the age of majority to 14. Modern brain chemistry research suggests that there's no physical difference between a teen's level of maturity at 18 and at 14; the determining factors are environmental, not physical.
So I think they should be able to vote. And from that, all the rest cascades; if they're qualified to elect the leaders of our country, they're qualified to drive, and to drink, and to enter legal contracts, and to be treated in every way like adults.
We already expect 14 year olds to make decisions about their high school education that will ultimately affect their ability to enter college, which in turn will ultimately affect their career options, which in turn will largely dictate the quality of their lives. What they're missing is the rights and privileges that go along with adulthood; they get all the stress, but none of the benefits. This is not fair, and it needs to be fixed.
@ elmariachi
I would be willing to bet that a big chunk of the reduction in teen drunk driving is less because the law made it harder to get booze and more because of:
-tougher drunk-driving laws that make the penalties much harsher, including laws where you lose your license if you get caught with ANY booze in your system if you are under 21
-the fact that drunk driving has become socially unacceptable. Years ago, it was looked at with a sort of wink and a boys will be boys attitude. Nowdays it's looked at as being on the same level as child molestation.
Caliban:
There's no inconsistency in believing that teenagers are, on average, mature enough to make important decisions that affect mostly their own lives but not mature enough to make important decisions whose consequences fall overwhelmingly on others. That's why they're allowed to smoke at 18 but not to drink until 21—drinking produces more negative externalities.
In the case of voting in federal elections, the externality-to-internality ratio is about 300,000,000:1, which suggests that we should raise, not lower, the bar for voting.
@Tara: ou know, in Japan they don't even bother with ID's, and they have less youth drinking than we do. Culturally, there's an expectation that you don't start drinking until you are 20, but an 8-year old can go to any convenience store and legally pick up a bottle or two of hard liquor for his dad, and nobody bats an eye at it.
Well, Tara, I hate to be the first one to tell you this, but ~95% of the population of Japan lives in a walkable city/area. If people in the US could easily hop a train that would take them close to home, there would be little reason for them to risk driving drunk. Then again, if the US had Japan's crime rates, people wouldn't *mind* the idea that any fellow citizen could get close to their home by simply hopping a well-run train.
And just a heads up: no one actually likes the tastes of alcohol anyway.
If you ask me, anyone who serves in the military at any age, or enrolls in ROTC and is in good standing, should be allowed to drink, eat or smoke anything they please, as long as it doesn't interfere with their duties or orders.
Also, I don't have much problem with making those privileges at an "earlier" age exclusive to those who serve.. It's a somewhat Heinleinian idea, and I like it.
I think, in this ridiculously puritan nation, that's as good as you're going to get in clawing back rights from the prissy and shrill dogoodniks..
And just a heads up: no one actually likes the tastes of alcohol anyway.
Heads up: That guy is wrong. I present myself as an example of somebody who LOVES the flavor of good beer and wine. I'd still drink it even if doing so made you un-drunk!
Silas:
I followed your link, and there's just one tiny problem with your argument: If it were true, there would be no market whatsoever for non-alcoholic wine or non-alcoholic beer.
When I was deployed on a Navy ship and was not allowed to drink real beer, I regularly drank the non-alcoholic variety that was available.
"What they're missing is the rights and privileges that go along with adulthood; they get all the stress, but none of the benefits. This is not fair, and it needs to be fixed."
Oh, boo-hoo-hoo, let's get real here. All the stress? Really? The stress of financially supporting a family, making a marriage work, being a good parent, looking after elderly parents?
If you aren't making this argument in jest, you must be 14 yourself.
The little brats have it made these days, I won't be shedding many tears over their "stresses".
It is Constitutional.
One of the high-drinking states (South Dakota) sued, but the Supremes said the government can tie their highway $ to the drinking age (i.e. the money can come with strings), because it was just "pressure" to comply, not a compulsion. Sadly, a 7-2 decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
McArdle sitting through mandatory alcoholism classes. That explains a lot.
Why being this up now? With Bush and Cheney gone, there's far less need to drink.
I think the drinking age should be raised to 40 for men and lowered to 18 for women.
You kidding Mike? With the self-appointed Messaiabama in charge, I'm probably gonna be getting loaded 24/7 just to deal with all the poverty stupid lefty policies create....
Of course, the people who realize how pie-in-the-sky moronic this hopey-changey business is tend to be grown-ups.
Thank goodness we don't have this law in the UK (yet). How would a Brit get laid?
Having grown up in the red Bible Belt and having subsequently spent a lot of time in the blue Northeast, I can say that as far as I can tell, the attitude towards drinking is exactly the opposite of what you might expect. In Lee's Summit, Missouri (just outside of Kansas City) you can buy hard liquor of any sort in the grocery store. Wellesley, MA (just outside of Boston) is a dry city. And Mass. just last year defeated a referendum to allow even beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores. Go figure.
These studies failed to take into account a host of factors. See this recent study by Jeffrey Miron & Elina Tetelbaum, Does the Minimum Legal Drinking Age Save Lives?:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1000359
Dole is one the most poorly reasoned opinions I've ever read. The Twenty-First Amendment clearly bars the NMDA, and the connection between being allowed to purchase alcohol and driving while intoxicated is too tangential to pass an honest analysis of the situation (some people over 21 drive drunk, most people under 21 will not drive drunk). Finally, the opinion glosses over the idea that the NMDA might be coercive without considering the reality of the system in which the statute was enacted (giving up free money is both counter to political incentives and political suicide).
While it is true that Rehnquist & co. claimed the NMDA is constitutional, I and many other believe that they were quite wrong.
For obvious reasons, I'm a huge fan of Glenn Reynolds' policy suggestion...
...because you're both pseudo-libertarians. Obviously.
"Any politician who would dare to propose a reduction in the drinking age would be vilified by MADD as an anti-family junky-enabling child killer. As a political issue, it's a non-starter for anyone who isn't intent on committing political suicide."
Bingo, and that is a shame. MADD is no longer focused on safety, it has morphed into a pure prohibitionary establishment organization.
Completely agreed. Remove the sneaking around and I think you'll prevent a lot of the most destructive college drinking.
Tara, I was agreeing with you.
As I said, "What the hell is wrong with us?" could be asked about violence (Why do we have so much more gun violence, even though our per-capita gun ownership rates aren't that high?) or health outcomes (Why do we spend so much more and get worse outcomes?), etc, etc.
Sorry, you're all missing the point. Quoth Reynolds:
Key words: federally mandated. Drinking ages are actually set by state law, and removing the federal mandate wouldn't change anything.What it would do is move the decision back to the state level where it belongs. At which point the state legislatures could act, or not, as they see fit.
See: 55 mph speed limit
Alcoholism is a huge problem in Japan. Drinking is less destructive than the USA only because so few people, especially the young ones have regular access to cars.
I continue to feel that if societal judgment is that an individual is incapable of making wise decisions regarding consumption of alcohol, I see no reason to believe that said person is capable of making a wise decision regarding their vote, or entering into a contract.
Conversely, if a person is deemed responsible enough to enter into contracts and cast votes, they should be responsible enough to drink.
How is it a person is an adult in all aspects but one?
When I was in college in the mid-70's we all went to the campus pub after the library and enjoyed drinking socially.
Now that it is illegal, kids are driven to hide in dorms throwing private blow-outs where they are much more likely to overindulge.
Ultimately the age limit caused my alma mater, Hamilton College, to disband and take over all of the campus fraternities. That was a shame since they were terrific social places. It's a great loss.
"If you are old enough to enlist, and old enough to vote, you are old enough to swill cheap beer in the company of your peers."
To be fair, that is nothing but your opinion -- the conclusion doesn't by necessity follow the premise. And evidently a lot of other equally equal citizens have different opinions. And, as they say, opinions are like buttholes, everybody's got one.
It's also a fact that 19 year-olds make good soldiers and sailors, but stupid drinkers and stupid voters. Personally I'm indifferent about the drinking (since I'm 42) but I WOULD like to eliminate their right to vote before 21.
"And just a heads up: no one actually likes the tastes of alcohol anyway."
Silas, you jerk. You just made me spray beer all over my monitor.
Wonderful, precious, delicious beer...
China also has no drinking age - or licenses to sell booze. You can buy beer - and booze - from vendors in the street.
And the silly way that the Feds shoved this law down the states' throat is an affront to anyone who cares about federalism.
Re: college kids getting drunk...
My theory is that it has nothing to do with the legal drinking age or legal accessibility to alcohol. It has everything to do with what a waste of time college is.
My alma mater has made it progressively more difficult to drink, with no apparent impact on the drinking levels of undergrads. When I was a freshman, freshman dorms provided bought alcohol for dorm parties, where everyone was underage. Everyone got wasted frequently. When I returned for graduate school, possession of alcohol was a serious offense in freshman dorms. Everyone still got wasted frequently.
But although many/most undergrads drank constantly in undergrad, few continued drinking so heavily after graduation. It wasn't because alcohol was suddenly available so the impulse was lessened. It was because we now spent our days at jobs where we needed to learn and perform, and being hung over all day was much more harmful to our futures.
Kids get drunk at college because:
1)Getting drunk is fun
2)There is very little cost to getting drunk since grade inflation makes it easy to get good enough grades and most classes teach very little that is worthwhile.
If college administrators want kids to stop drinking, they can start making education relevant to the real world. Right now, the primary benefit of college is the piece of paper at the end. No one cares about 95% of the research done at universities. And 95% of what is taught is of no interest to the corporations recruiting. Most students realize very quickly that they aren't learning skills or knowledge that are of interest to anyone besides their professor. So they put in the bare minimum, and drink.
Or, even better, limit the franchise to actual adults—i.e., people who have jobs and pay taxes.
No representation without taxation!
To anyone scoffing at my claim that no one actually likes the taste of alcohol: Ask yourselves this: if a milkshake had the same psychoactive effects as your favorite alcoholic drink, and had the same nutritional content (fats/sugars/carbs/calories), would you drink the milkshake instead?
To ask the question is to answer it. As I said in the blog post most of you didn't bother reading, I've had serious wine/beer connosieurs (sp) admit that in similar comparisons, they'd take the milkshake.
Be honest with yourselves.
--Pizza and a milkshake? No thanks.
--Cutting the lawn in July and then settling down with a refreshing milkshake? Gag.
--A nice piece of grilled meat with roasted potatoes, a hearty spinach salad, and a nice glass of...milkshake?
Seriously, dude--by all means, drink what you like. But there are about 4000 years (conservatively) of tradition behind the enjoyment of beer and wine in non-psychoactive quantities that suggest lots of people really do just like the stuff.
Frankly, a drinking age of 21 is a bit low. Studies are showing that the human brain isn't "mature" until around age 25 so drinking at less than this age interferes with brain development. It's fashionable to lower the age right now for the same reason as before: politicians want to schmooze the younger voters. But they'll discover the bitter truth a few years after they lower it: Younger people don't vote in nearly the percentages as older people.
If you really want to base drinking age on something logical, pick biology. That really defines the issue.
Here is a response from the Choose Responsibility website:
"When these groups argue that the vulnerable period of adolescence ends around the age of 20 they are not taking into account that, in the field of neurology, adolescence does not end until around the age of 25. Thus, even if the current drinking age was keeping young adults from drinking, it would still not have the protective factor that its advocates claim. Moreover, exactly how alcohol’s effects are differentially felt by the adolescent brain versus the adult brain, though increasingly scrutinized, is less clear. As a result, when drinking age 21 advocates do stress the harm associated with drinking, those claims tend to be conveniently overstated. The truth is in the only study that we’ve been able to find that compares drinkers who started drinking either after 21 or before 21, but still controls for years of drinking and quantity of consumption, researchers found the two groups to be indistinguishable in terms of long-term cognitive impairments."
Here is the study they found:
Demir, B. Ulug, B. Lay Ergun, E. & Erbas, B. (2002). Regional cerebral blood flow and neuropsychological functioning in early and late onset alcoholism. Psychiatry Research, 115(3), 115-125.
Silas, I dislike ice cream and milkshakes. I never, ever, have them. I love whisky, and drink it almost nightly, about three ounces per night, over a period of about an hour. I'm 6' 5", 225 pounds, and run about 25 miles a week, which means I eat and drink whatever pleases me, and three ounces of whisky after a substantial meal has zero, or extremely trivial, intoxicating effect on me.
People who adopt the conceit that their sensual preferences are the same as every other person's are being quite silly.
Lowering the drinking age WILL result in more drunk driving arrests. The states know this. They WANT that money(from fines, etc), and they're willing to put the public in danger to get it. I'm only for lowering the drinking age to 18 if they RAISE the driving age to 21.
@B: Pizza and a milkshake? No thanks. ...
Okay, so replace the milkshake in those examples with a less clashing, but still flavorful drink. Even so, you're implicitly agreeing with my point: that only by attaching the alcohol consumption to a very specific context, in which you have expectations, do you enjoy its "taste". But it's not the taste you're enjoying; it's that you've trained yourself -- with the help of the rest of society -- to believe you like it. It could taste like leftover grease (which is roughly what alcoholic drinks taste like to kids when they first try it) and you would *still* be crowing about how much you like it.
Seriously, dude--by all means, drink what you like.
Did you read the post? Of course I'm fine with people drinking whatever. I just prefer they'd be more honest about it -- not that I blame them, since actually admitting their motives in sufficient numbers would get the stuff banned.
But there are about 4000 years (conservatively) of tradition behind the enjoyment of beer and wine in non-psychoactive quantities that suggest lots of people really do just like the stuff.
Actually, there are 4000 years of *consumption* of alcohol. To say there is "enjoyment" (of the taste) is a judgment about the state of mind of the people drinking it, and is not evident from the usage history alone. You could just as well say that men *enjoy* only having intercourse with their wives, since hey, look how rarely married men are caught cheating. But a better inference would be that they enjoy cheating, but not as much as they fear the consequences of getting caught. For the reasons in my blog post, we should likewise infer that it is not the taste that people enjoy, but the social context, and effects on the mind.
By the way, I think you misunderstand what I mean by "psychoactive effects": I'm simply referring to any noticeable impact on one's mind. So "feeling more relaxed" would count, not just being drunk or tipsy.
@Will_Allen: People who adopt the conceit that their sensual preferences are the same as every other person's are being quite silly.
Did you read the full post? My personal preferences were *never* the sole basis for my conclusion, just the reason I investigated the topic. The evidence you should be looking at is this: Co-workers who were *themselves* unable to believe my dislike for alcohol's taste, and who claimed to genuinely enjoy all the wonderful subtleties of the taste of beer and wine, actually admitted that if it were just about taste, they'd take the milkshake. (Interestingly, some of them believed that "But you like alcohol watered down heavily with fruit juice!" suffices to imply "you really like the taste of alcohol".)
So it's not about my personal preferences at all! It's just that the evidence can't justify the claim that "people really like the taste of alcohol". We have connoisseurs paying top dollar for special alcoholic drinks ... who turn out to actually prefer the taste of a three dollar milkshake. Sorry, but the correct inference is not "Silas lacks a refined taste that everyone else has." The correct inference is "Silas has the exact same taste as everyone else, but has less to lose from speaking bluntly about it."
"Because when people turn 21," he explained patiently, "they stop caring."
Hence legal abortion too. When people pass an age, they are inclined not to care any more about an injustice to those below that age. It doesn't touch them.
And yes, a federally mandated legal drinking age of 21 is ridiculous.
I'm with Caliban Darklock on the justice of young people, 14 and up, having more rights in general.
The best reason for drinking is not for the taste, though the taste can be great, and certainly not for drunkenness; it's for ritual. It's right to have a drink because it's Christmas, because it's your birthday, because it's a friend's birthday, because a friend just broke up with his girlfriend and you should sit and drink with him, or because it's Sunday and you always have a glass or two with your friends on Sunday.
We drink, because we are human, with cultures and traditions, and days worth marking.
Making the drinking age 21 impedes all this, and leaves the skill of moderate drinking unlearned. All that's left is getting blasted when you're old enough. It's a debased way to live, like that.
True, good parents should and can see to it that their children drink when they should, and learn to take that one shot for old lang syne and stop.
But nowadays, good families are far too rare. We should be trying for all we're worth to help young people live decently whether they've got good families to help them or not.
Okay, so replace the milkshake in those examples with a less clashing, but still flavorful drink.
Then suggest one, I'd certainly rather have a beer with pizza over any soda. I actually can't think of a drink I'd rather have than wine with a nice steak dinner. With burgers, yeah I'd go for a milkshake even without the psychoactive effects if it wasn't so laden with calories. A cold beer tastes great on a hot day because it's a flavorful drink that isn't sweet.
Admit it, you're wrong, lots of people like the taste of alcoholic beverages. You don't and have friends that don't because you typically are friends with people just like you.
Did you read the full post?
I did, and it came down to "I did a super scientific experiment where I asked my friends and people at work a question" Stop me if I don't think that asking your friends and co-workers constitutes a scientific inquiry into the subject of taste.
Don't forget about porno! An eighteen-year-old girl can get paid a few hundred dollars to irrevocably alter her life by screwing on camera, but she can't legally have a drink after she's done. Hmmm...
Ask yourselves this: if a milkshake had the same psychoactive effects as your favorite alcoholic drink, and had the same nutritional content (fats/sugars/carbs/calories), would you drink the milkshake instead?
Well, they have alcoholic milkshakes, and yet people drink beer anyway.
Given the choice between a beer and, say, a Mike's Hard Lemonade, I'm picking the beer everytime.
It's just that the evidence can't justify the claim that "people really like the taste of alcohol".
I think a lot of people are confused, or maybe you are, because it's a chemical fact that ethyl alcohol has no flavor. There's neither a receptor on the tongue or in the nose for ethanol; thus, it is flavorless.
What taste, specifically, are you referring to that people don't like? People like the taste of beer and wine and bourbon, which is why they eat and drink their non-alcoholic analogues (NA beer and wine, bread, Butter Rum Lifesavers), obviously.
The correct inference is "Silas has the exact same taste as everyone else, but has less to lose from speaking bluntly about it."
What, exactly, does anyone have to lose by admitting that they don't like the taste of pure alcohol? This sounds like the weirdest conspiracy theory ever.
And yes, I've worked in mines, and lived in university colleges (Frat Houses to you Americans) and a range of other places where drinking hard was the social norm. Nobody was ever under any pressure to admit they liked the taste of alcohol. Indeed I remember people joking about how beer was inventedm, because everyone accepted that it was an aquired taste.
If Chimay made a non-alcoholic beer, you better believe I would drink it far more often than any soda (especially if it was cheaper than the alcoholic variety). High quality beer tastes damn good (as does high quality types of other booze, I'm sure, but beer is my thing). It's really that simple.
Clearly you've all been blessed with perfect genes. Not me. I know my children should avoid drinking before age 21 to fight the family tradition of alcoholism.
When medical professionals tell me that the bodies of those younger than 21 cannot process alcohol efficiently and are at far greater risk of alcohol poisoning than the bodies of those older than 21, I listen. This is real life, not a philosophical debate.
Were my genes not so affected, I'd be with the "beer & wine at 16, driving at 18 crowd." Particularly if we tack on a tougher driver training program.
I am not at all impressed with the college presidents seeking to lower the drinking age. They are simply looking for yet another way to avoid caring for the students on their campuses. My daughter's freshman year cost eighty times what mine did and these presidents want less to do? The RA at her *private* college was a stickler about noise and prohibiting Christmas/Hannukah decorations (did I mention it was a *private* college?), but drinking and co-ed showering seemed to escape her notice.
Incidentally, among today's high schoolers, it's far easier to acquire weed than alcohol. Most alcohol is obtained via parents. Parents who figure their kids should share in whichever lows mom & dad hit along the way to adulthood.
"Lowering the drinking age WILL result in more drunk driving arrests."
You've got it backwards since right now an under 21 driver with ANY alcohol in his/her system is considered to be drunk driving.
And since a lot of the drinking is done by college students, and since they can't generally drink on campus any more, guess what? Instead of being able to have a beer in their dorm, they hop in their cars and DRIVE to off campus party houses.