Will we be getting younger members soon?

[olllllo]

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

You guys are looking at this backwards.

Drop the legal drinking age to 16 and raise the legal driving age to 21. Problem solved. It's much easier to catch underage driving than underage drinking (they usually crash into stuff).

I mean really, what kind of teenagers have such IMPORTANT jobs that they need to drive around? Take a damned bus. Or ride a scooter. It'll teach you the rules of the road without giving you enough mass to go around killing others. It will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil and decrease emissions (as scooters/motorcycles start to have mandatory catalytic converters just like cars).

There have been enough scientific studies that show that the 16 year old brain just isn't completely developed, that it tends toward irrational behavior. Then these creatures go off in multi-ton vehicles piloting them between houses and sidewalks filled with pedestrians? I'd rather give them a shot gun.

 

[Dr_Deathweed]

You guys are looking at this backwards.

Drop the legal drinking age to 16 and raise the legal driving age to 21. Problem solved. It's much easier to catch underage driving than underage drinking (they usually crash into stuff).

I mean really, what kind of teenagers have such IMPORTANT jobs that they need to drive around? Take a damned bus. Or ride a scooter. It'll teach you the rules of the road without giving you enough mass to go around killing others. It will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, decrease emissions (as scooters/motorcycles start to have mandatory catalytic converters just like cars).

There has been enough scientific studies that show that the 16 year old brain just isn't completely developed, that it tends toward irrational behavior. Then these creatures go off in multi-ton vehicles piloting them between houses and sidewalks filled with pedestrians? I'd rather give them a shot gun.

Oh that would never work because that might mean that parents would have to drive their older children around and know where they are at all times, and that is just like SOOOOOOO embarassing.....

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

Oh that would never work because that might mean that parents would have to drive their older children around and know where they are at all times, and that is just like SOOOOOOO embarassing.....

So buy them a scooter.

 

[Dr_Deathweed]

yeah, but scooters and mopeds are alot like fat chicks.... fun to ride until your friends see you

 

[Buford]

There have been enough scientific studies that show that the 16 year old brain just isn't completely developed, that it tends toward irrational behavior. Then these creatures go off in multi-ton vehicles piloting them between houses and sidewalks filled with pedestrians? I'd rather give them a shot gun.

Hey, here in VA you can get a hunting license and carry a shotgun at 14 - I know, 'cause I did

 

[rdwj]

yeah, but scooters and mopeds are alot like fat chicks.... fun to ride until your friends see you

Better to be seen on a scooter than having mommy drop you off.

 

[Sir Humpsalot]

Hey, here in VA you can get a hunting license and carry a shotgun at 14 - I know, 'cause I did

I have NO problem with that.

 

[Evan!]

Aaah, but it's not just that issue in a vacuum. A free-market economy longs for a unified and stable set of laws to transact inter and intra state commerce. For every Jeffersonian there's an Adam Smith.

Thus the reasoning behind the interstate commerce clause. Luckily, the ICC wasn't meant to extend to all facets of society. Equality in commerce laws can and should be limited to laws pertaining to, um, commerce...and in order to keep the government from abusing the clause, it is self-evident that the definition of commerce-related should be narrowly defined. Unfortunately, we've seen the government abuse this clause far too many times---for example, to justify federal prohibition of medical marijuana use---so one can easily see why it's necessary to limit the scope and definition of "interstate commerce". On the other hand, it's hard to see why sales taxes vary from state to state (an obvious commercial issue), while something that has very little to do with commerce between states (like legal drinking age) are set by the feds.

Without a clear definition of what commerce is, an Adam Smith-ite could easily follow your argument to its logical conclusion: an almost robotic society, where a universal "world government" governs everything from sales tax to what color pants you can wear. Our obvious role, then, is to limit the scope of what is included under "interstate commerce". Adam Smith-ite or not, one can easily agree with that.

So, to the extent that actions governed by a central government should be commerce-related, where does that leave something such as the drinking age? IMHO, in the hands of the states. I fail to see, pragmatically, where such discrepancies would hinder the smooth workings of a free market---outside of obvious border-area issues such as 18 year olds crossing over the state line to score booze from a more lenient state. But such isolated issues won't have enough of an effect to be a concern---unless one is operating in theoretical absolutes...in which case he or she should just admit to being a keynesian and be done with it.

 

[Fingers]

I think a person should be considered an adult under law at a particular age, and I favour 18, for ALL applications. Contracts, military service, etc. To do anything less is hypocritical. Either a person is capable,... or not. That's notwithstanding all the immature 18 year old arguements or the the mature 14 year olds. We need a dividing line that is consistent and common.

 

[Beerrific]

How old do kids have to be to have a needle put in their arm for committing murder....12, 13? Can they have a drink as part of their last meal? NO!

 

[Cheesefood]

How old do kids have to be to have a needle put in their arm for committing murder....12, 13? Can they have a drink as part of their last meal? NO!

At least 18 when they commit the crime, and on average they get 10 years to appeal.

 

[Klainmeister]

OK, i have to chime in at this point. I've been drinking mildly since i was, oh 14. My family (strong german characters) have always thought that was beer was just another drink, not a tool to become a drunk. On that note, culturally i think that it needs to be an intelligent discussion. People under 21 will always get alcohol, that won't change and because of this an understanding of it's effects and responsibilities is a must.

I've been brewing since i was 16, three years ago, yes, as i admitted early on i am 19. I've seen some pretty unruly responses to underage recently on this board and wonder why i've been treated so well. I was raised to enjoy beer and drink responsibly. No accidents, never drove drunk, no MIP's, no alcohol poisoning. So what's the big catch? I know i'm not completely responsible, i still do some stupid stuff from time to time, but hell so does all the other grown men i've met. Not using that as a justification, but it seems to me the wife does more to keep us from doing stupid stuff than our all knowing wisdom of alcohol.

So what's the point of this little rant? Well, i just want people to know that if we can address drinking in an intelligent way then age, no matter 16-18-21-50 won't be a problem. I lived in Bavaria (most alcoholic place on earth!) for 6 months and everyone from 14 up consumes alcohol. Big problems there? No. It's this forbidden fruit mantra we have in this country that should be considered. "We should outlaw contraceptives because it causing promiscuity!" Yea, like that works...

 

[Charbucks]

So what's the point of this little rant? Well, i just want people to know that if we can address drinking in an intelligent way then age, no matter 16-18-21-50 won't be a problem. I lived in Bavaria (most alcoholic place on earth!) for 6 months and everyone from 14 up consumes alcohol. Big problems there? No. It's this forbidden fruit mantra we have in this country that should be considered. "We should outlaw contraceptives because it causing promiscuity!" Yea, like that works...

I agree. The major problem is not the age, but the outlook on alcohol. I have been drinking since I was 15-16, and since I live in Ontario, I've been going to bars since I was 19. My biggest evening of stupid, blind, forgetful drinking was when I was 21. That had nothing to do with how old I was, or how long I had been allowed to drink. It mostly just had to do with how little I had eaten that day, but it was a good thing to learn: even 4 drinks on an empty stomach are enough to do me in. People need to learn these things, and it's going to happen some time no matter how old you are.

I really think that kids should be allowed to start drinking when they're 18 - when they start going to university or working at a "real" job. Drinking is a very social thing, and not being able to go to lunch with coworkers or go to pub nights with classmates has an impact on your relationships with your peers. If you are expected to be part of a team at work or at school, it really helps to be able to go out to "icebreakers" and socialize outside of work.

 

[olllllo]

---outside of obvious border-area issues such as 18 year olds crossing over the state line to score booze from a more lenient state. But such isolated issues won't have enough of an effect to be a concern---

Actually that is the crux of the biscuit. ILL/WI border had a huge problem with this (perhaps the reason for CF posts). I can't imagine how bad it would be in the east where some of those states are smaller than the counties out west.

 

[olllllo]

I've been brewing since i was 16, three years ago, yes, as i admitted early on i am 19. I've seen some pretty unruly responses to underage recently on this board and wonder why i've been treated so well.

Now that you're on the radar, get ready for another "unruly" response.

 

[Evan!]

Actually that is the crux of the biscuit. ILL/WI border had a huge problem with this (perhaps the reason for CF posts). I can't imagine how bad it would be in the east where some of those states are smaller than the counties out west.

So require retailers to keep a listing of each state's legal age, so that they can check out of state licenses against it.

See, not that difficult.

 

[olllllo]

So require retailers to keep a listing of each state's legal age, so that they can check out of state licenses against it.

See, not that difficult.

Interesting.
I look forward to driving 75 on the interstate in CN and making a U-turn at a stoplight in MA as is the law here in AZ. You can see where the devil we know bureaucracy is preferable to the one you're proposing.

Perhaps I should get diplomatic plates in the interest of expiditing this.

 

[Evan!]

Interesting.
I look forward to driving 75 on the interstate in CN and making a U-turn at a stoplight in MA as is the law here in AZ. You can see where the devil we know bureaucracy is preferable to the one you're proposing.

Well, I mean, really, if you're right, then what's the point in having states at all? Why not just combine them all, abolish state governments, and have one master?

The fact is that, while a dictatorship would be a heckuvalot easier (I believe GWB said that), there are very good reasons why our country is set up like it is. Hamilton, Madison and Jay have outlined them pretty succinctly.

 

[olllllo]

I'm going to reflect on this awhile. It seems that we're going down a path and no one else is following.

 

[Bobby_M]

It's impossible to look at accident and other negative societal statistics and accurately make a correlation to the most benefitial drinking age limit.

1. It ignores the allure of underage drinking for the pure fact that it is taboo (method of rebellion).
2. It ignores the fact that when an underage drinker consumes too much, they are less likely to admit that fact to their parents. I know from experience that I was more likely to drive home drunk instead of calling and saying "I'll be home 3 hours late because I am too intoxicated to drive". Which of those options would a parent rather deal with?

I'd love to see the statistics on:
1. How many people drink alcohol responsibly before/after hitting the legal age?
2. How many people drink irresponsibly before/after the legal age?
3. How many people change their drinking behavior/consumption level suddenly when they hit the age? I think this is the big one.

I believe I was personally (as well as observing my friends) more likely to act stupid and drink more heavily before I hit 21 than after and it was directly related to the fact that I was restricted from an occassional drink and had to sneak around. The anticipation built up to a potential binge drinking situation almost every time.

 

[evanmars]

We have to have laws to protect us from ourselves.
We need them to prevent under-age drinking.
We need them to prevent drinking and driving.
Thank goodness for those laws. We now have no under-age drinking or drinking and driving.
If the age was lowered to 18, we would.

 

[JnJ]

Not reading the whole thread, so if this has been said, then I'm ditto'ing it.
If your old enough to vote, die for your country, than by god you are old enough to drink! Back when I joined the Army you could drink on post no matter your age. Now the post just follows the drinking age of the state they are in.......