Yes to lowering drinking age to 18

I'm not agin you here, but I always wonder why people who make the drinking/soldiering age comparisons don't advocate instead raising the soldiering age.

if 18 year olds are drinking 16 year olds will be drinking.

I second that.

It's like state speed limits: highway drivers go 10 to 15 miles above the posted limit, whether it's set to 55 or 65.

Yes, lower the drinking age. It is absurd to treat 18 year olds as adults for most all purposes but buying a drink. The drinking age was 18 when I turned 18, the summer after my senior year in high school (1976), and alcohol was easily available to high school kids then. But alcohol is easily available to them today as well. The high school kids I know seem to have little trouble obtaining it, a few have been cited for it. Society's tolerance for abuse does seem to have changed though since the 70s and earlier time periods. We routinely drank beer while driving then, you don't see that very much anymore. I remember drunk driver friends of mine being driven home by the police in the 70s rather than to jail. I don't believe that would happen today.

I think 19 makes more sense. That's what it was when I went to college. That way most high school seniors aren't legal to drink.

Interesting. I have a funny feeling that this is related to a topic on our local radio station about how colleges are turning into spas. The woman was complaining that all the brochures coming for her soon to be college age daughter looked more like hotel advertisements than school information. Perhaps a swinging night life is part of the school educational plan.

Or perhaps the colleges are playing a game of CYA. If the federal government lowers the drinking age the schools are no longer responsible for any damage done by a kid who got the liquor while on campus.

And, Anonymous at 8:27, as my son grows older and takes those baby-steps toward adulthood with his sister following closely on his heels, I am all for raising the soldering age. Particularly as I watch our troops being spread thinner and thinner overseas. One-hundred and three assorted countries at last count(accrding to Ron Paul),104 if you count Georgia. True, a great many are "peace-keeping missions" but still...

Here, here to the change! I was pleasantly surprised to see the pres. of Ohio State signed the petition. Tailgate parties, of which OSU is so famous, will be much easier to handle.

I will note the reason FOR the desire to change the law, deaths from binge drinking does indicate, regardless of responsibility level with a rifle, that apparently they are NOT all that trustworthy with a Pabst Blue Ribbon.

I mean, come on. We're talking about that just because a bartender isn't watching their levels, they are apparently very inclined to drink until they DIE. That doesn't inspire a lot of trust in me, for some reason.

Its rather like lowering the shooting age because lots of those under the current age are getting a lot of self-inflicted accidental shooting deaths.

Though that's just about that argument. I think our problem is probably our freakiness about alcohol. Nobody ever learns how to drink sensibly. Kids learn how to drink alcohol (and yes, there is something to learn about the process) from friends who are either just starting themselves, or older ones who think that getting the kid drunk is hilarious. They rarely see light social drinking. It is either 'just say no', or 'its the weekend, let's PARTY!'.

Which is probably who there's more of that here, in the US, and less of it in countries where wine with dinner is a regular event.

"I think our problem is probably our freakiness about alcohol. Nobody ever learns how to drink sensibly. Kids learn how to drink alcohol (and yes, there is something to learn about the process) from friends who are either just starting themselves, or older ones who think that getting the kid drunk is hilarious. They rarely see light social drinking. It is either 'just say no', or 'its the weekend, let's PARTY!'.
Which is probably who there's more of that here, in the US, and less of it in countries where wine with dinner is a regular event. "

People say this sort of thing in England as well, but it's debatable, as France has a higher alcoholism rate than England, although, admittedly, it does have less out-of-control public drinking. My take, though, is that if people want to behave horribly in public, they'll find some excuse for doing so - here it's alcohol, in Pakistan it's religion!

Americans are always astonished that children are allowed to drink from the age of five in England, although they can't drink in a restaurant until 14, or in a pub until 18. When my son turned 11, I started offering him a beer when I have one, but he hasn't accepted yet, so I don't push it. I just want him to know that it's OK.

I'm 24 so my teenagerdom is still in my recent past. Lowering that age is going to kill all the fun for these poor kids! When we were 18ish we'd smoke a lot of pot because in many cases it was actually easier to get than beer. Lower the drinking age and what would have hapenned to all our pot-acquisition adventures?? We'd have happily sat around drinking budweiser.

And what about the well-established fake-ID creation business? Or the real-ID alteration to change your birthday business? Or the spare ID hand-me-down when you're over 21 and give extra IDs to people who look similar to you for a price business?

It would be a great loss to me if I knew that these hallmarks of growing up in America were being phased out.

I totally agree with rombald and Simon. It should be pointed out that, in Texas, it is legal to serve the underaged so long as they are accompanied by their own drinking aged parents, legal guardian, or spouse. I have found only a couple of restaurants in the past couple of years that, as a matter of policy, will not serve an alcoholic beverage at my request to my now 19 year old. I don't have a problem with that decision either.

My parents taught my brothers and me "how to drink sensibly", as rombald put it. We were offered wine with our meals, in restaurants or at home, if our parents were having some. We didn't much like the taste of it, but our parents avoided instilling in us the sense of awe and wonder and coolness of alcohol that so many other kids had. In fact, we were befuddled over the excitement so many of them experienced over the prospect of a trip to the liquor store by the Sportatorium where they would pay one of a many winos loitering there for the opportunity to buy liquor for the kids for a fee. We never accompanied them, as our parents, as part of our education, instilled in us the Fear of God as relates to the consequences of getting caught or being in an alcohol related car accident. Besides, by the time we were teenagers, it was open bar time at the house; although we seldom drank. Our parents were adamant that we could not offer alcohol to our friends, and we didn't.

One anecdote here, when I was seven or eight, the family was gathered in front of the TV watching Gunsmoke. A scene played out in which some drunk grabbed a bottle of whatever from Miss Kitty and started guzzling. I said to my Dad, "Wow, can I do that?" He said, "Sure, but let me put it in a shot glass for you so you can drink it like Marshall Dillon does." He did. I did, and I spit out that nasty stuff the minute it hit my tongue. To this day, the only good uses I have found for whiskey is marinating vanilla wafers before tossing into the banana pudding and spicing up a can of Bush's Baked Beans.

Yep. Nothing sucks the mystery and coolness out of booze like drinking with your parents.

We teach them everything else. Now, if it is our belief to not do it at all, knock yourself out. Teach them that. But if you aren't against the idea of social drinking, then show them it can be done. Moderation is a LOT harder to explain without demonstrating than 'Just say No'.

"If you drop the drinking age to 18, then the flow is unrestricted, and kegs will be present at virtually all college functions again."

They are now, that's the point. And the only reason they aren't always is more about college policy than the legal drinking age. Colleges can still have policies about when and where their own students are allowed to drink, regardless of the legal age.

Incidentally, the reason why the university types are in favor of the idea of lowering the drinking age is simple enough: they don't want to be on the hook legally in case one of their students drinks too much and dies. It's all a liability issue.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

I'm sure you're right about that last point, LK, but still your idea of raising everything up to 25 hardly has a chance of gaining any traction in this democracy. You and Rod are essentially making the same point, though, and the correct one: there should be consistency in the law on this point. Whenever we decide adulthood should begin, that's when certain rights ought to be conferred.

Personally, I don't trust ANYONE with a Pabst Blue Ribbon. The lack of judgment reflected in buying and drinking that beer is just too much for me to overcome

:)

More seriously, yes, lower the drinking age.

Please, think of the children!!!!

Of course, what we're saying is that an American is really a child until they are 21. Since we live in a time of "helicopter parents", an entitlement society, and "man-boys", maybe we should raise the drinking age to 40?

Octopus, I'm 56 and the kindly folks who strive with all their might to protect me from myself, God bless 'em, consider me still a child. Actually, it appears they deem children all who disagree with them.

I'm surprised none of you have mentioned the major reason why Americans have a different attitude towards alcohol consumption than Europeans or even Americans of an earlier age: our automobile culture.

People are much more relaxed about drinking when most of the drinkers walk or take public transportation back home. You'll recall that the debate about raising the drinking age was linked to DRUNK DRIVING and the high number of fatalities caused by young people who drink and drive. The "collateral damage" was deemed unacceptable.

Sure looks like I'm a distinct minority on this thread. But I've benefitted from the thoughtful comments today,and appreciate the respectful tone of the discussion. Some observations for the good of the order:

1. I've always appreciated Rod's brand of conservatism, because it emphasizes the virtues of restraint and caution. From my perspective, lowering the drinking age to 18 runs counter to those inclinations. But perhaps I'm missing something.

2. I've also agreed with Rod that one of a parent's obligations is to protect their kids from the craziness of our secular culture. To me and my wife, that craziness has included a permissive "kids will be kids" attitude toward alcohol abuse.

3. A number of the commenters today essentially say: "kids are gonna drink, regardless of the legal drinking age. So the real issue is how we teach them to do it." To me, it sounds like the folks who say: "kids are gonna have sex, regardless of moral sanctions. So the real issue is making sure they use condoms." Are there parallels here? Or is it apples and oranges?

4. I also think there are cultural and denominational cross-currents that help determine where we stand on such issues. If this thread was running at a blog dominated by Evangelicals, my view would be in the majority. Not to cast aspersions in any direction, but in my experience most Protestants (and we Evangelicals in particular) view alcohol issues differently than our brothers and sisters in the Catholic and Orthodox communities.

5. Ethnicity and history also factor into the equation. Both my mom's and dad's families came from faith traditions that were deeply involved in the Temperance movement and the WCTU. I grew up in a household where (with one fascinating exception) alcohol was never present. The exception: when my dad's sister and her husband George came to visit. George was a Catholic, and my mom honored him by buying a single can of beer and serving it to him with his dinner. (She understood that was what Catholics did) It was the only time in her life that my mom bought alcohol, but she couldn't bring herself to keep the can in the fridge (instead, she kept it in the cellar. Its appearance was always a sign that Aunt Esther and Uncle George were coming to visit). Coming from that dry background, I married a German Lutheran from a beer-centric tradition, whose family has a horrible history of alcoholism.

So how did my wife and I work all that out for our family? We decided to err on the side of caution, and raised our kids in an alcohol-free household. Our oldest kids tasted alcohol for the first time after they were 21 (our youngest is 18, and has never had any interest). Now they enjoy a beer or a glass of wine every once in a while, but can take it or leave it. Very occasionally (maybe two or three times a year), my wife and I have a beer with dinner, especially when she cooks a German dish.

My point: even though I came from a "just say no" culture, I now have no problem at all with moderate alcohol use. But given the many societal problems associated with alcohol abuse, I still think our society needs to build caution into our laws governing alcohol use. And I think that includes a drinking age that errs on the side of caution.

Thanks, all, for providing a place to discuss these issues in a civil way.

ctb said:
It is absolutely predictable that if the drinking age is lowered the road accident death rate will go up.

This seems to be the basis for the discussion here, but my response is so what? If we use potential marginal safety improvements for all public policy debates then there's no end to the regulation that can be justified. That is the very definition of the nanny state.

How about some discussion of the sleazy way the 21 drinking age was imposed? Elizabeth Dole (acting as Sec of Transportation) worked with MADD to create a policy denying federal highway funds to states who didn't raise their drinking age to 21. It was blackmail by a government official working with a neo-prohibitionist private organization. (If you object to my characterization of MADD, then please note that Candy Lightner called it neo-prohibitionist and left the organization more than 20 years ago). Drinking ages, when imposed at all, should be a purely local function. The 21st amendment returned all authority over alcohol sales and usage to the states. The federal government couldn't impose a higher drinking age via legislation without a new amendment. They shouldn't be able to do so via the purse strings either.

Bill, your post is a thoughtful one, and I respect the difference in our backgrounds. Coming from a Catholic background where alcohol was socially acceptable for adults makes my perspective on this issue somewhat different (though may I say in passing that your mother sounds like a charming and accomplished hostess--we could all benefit in so many ways from a return to such practices of charitable accommodation of each other!).

So in considering your point #3, I would say that speaking as a Catholic the difference is that in our beliefs sex outside marriage is sinful, but drinking in moderation isn't sinful. Now, I realize that in some faith traditions any consumption of alcohol is sinful, and I respect those views though I don't share them.

But the intersection of faith and laws takes place here and on the matter of sex; the law doesn't care about the sinfulness of premarital sex, but it does set ages before which sexual activity is considered criminal, and also sets minimum ages for marriage. Similarly, the law doesn't have anything to say about the sinfulness of alcohol consumption (in these post-Prohibition years, anyway) but it does set minimum ages and conditions for drinking (no public drunkenness, no drunk driving, no purchasing of alcohol for minors and so on).

Now, just because the law may allow sixteen-year-olds to marry doesn't mean that parents have to permit that; and just because the law allows drinking at 18 or 21 doesn't mean parents have to permit that, either (though the older the young adult, the more they will make their own decisions). But what complicates matters right now is that 18-year-olds are considered adults in nearly every way by the law, except when it comes to the drinking age (well, sometimes in property inheritance, too, but I don't know very much about that subject). An 18-year-old can serve his country, vote, marry, pay taxes, isn't restricted by underage employment laws or driving curfews or other restrictions sometimes placed on minors; he will be prosecuted as an adult for any crimes he might commit. But we have a three-year "limbo" right now where, for the purpose of buying or consuming alcohol, they're not adults.

I recognize that drunk driving is the usual reason cited for not lowering the drinking age, and certainly young driving teens and drinking don't mix. But we need to encourage more maturity from our young adults, not less, and demystifying alcohol by allowing all legal adults to purchase it might be a start.

At the very least, allowing alcohol at 18 might encourage more parents to do what you did, and introduce alcohol themselves instead of finding out after the fact that their teen has been drinking at someone else's home (when the parents aren't there, usually). The way things are now, it seems like getting drunk in high school is an expected rite of passage for too many teens, who then lack all perspective when they reach college and find it even easier to get hold of the stuff.

True, octopus. Seat belts and helmets should be mandated by the free market in the form of lower insurance premiums, the same way other low-risk driving behaviors are rewarded and high-risk ones punished.

With respect to Bill's observation -- do Catholics and Orthodox believe in drinking and smoking? Well, yes, but we don't consider them necessary for salvation.

For what it's worth -- I grew up in a rather alcohol-friendly house but didn't touch a drop until I was nineteen and could do so legally a half hour away in Canada. I also found out some years after I graduated from high school that my particular high school was notorious for both pot and alcohol use, often on-campus during school hours, and not exclusively by students. I somehow was absolutely oblivious to all of this and never once saw anybody have anything stronger than a quad mocha. Four years ago I was chatting with an old high school friend about this, and mentioned that so far as I knew I didn't know anybody who was involved with those activities, and she sort of chuckled and said, "Yeah, you did."

"Who?"

"Me and virtually everybody else you knew. Like, every day." And she wasn't joking. Go figure.

Point being, alcohol never really had any particular mystique for me one way or the other. I enjoy it in moderation these days (but even moderation should not be practiced to excess) but a lower drinking age wouldn't have been likely to bring about a greater likelihood of abuse in my case -- I just didn't care. And, at least at my high school, given what was evidently already a high (ahem) saturation (or is that marination?) rate, it apparently wouldn't have made much of a difference either.

Richard

Rod, I fear you're being simplistic, and ignoring predictable if unintended consequences.

Lowering the age to 18 means that 18-year-olds will be buying for still younger people, as 21-year-olds now buy for younger acquaintances. That means, I'd wager, more intoxicated 15 year old girls getting seduced by 18 year olds. That's enough for me to overcome, at least prima facie, the old saw "old enough to fight, old enough to [fill in the blank].

Let's try to change the culture without turning our underage girls into punch cards.

Let me just second Erin's point that alcohol and sex are apples and oranges, because alcohol is a good gift from God to be used responsibly by anyone who understands what appropriate and responsible use is and is able to do so. Sex outside marriage is a moral evil. Given that difference, there is not merely a right but a moral responsibility to teach our kids how to handle it properly if they so desire, and that simply can't happen by means of, "NO! NEVER! ILLEGAL! Oh, okay, now you've had a birthday, whatever."

There's a slight parallel, though -- sex is not a moral evil, its right use can be taught, and that does not happen by pretending it does not exist, that it should be kept under wraps in every respect, and that the solution is never to engage in it. The solution is to engage in it within the bonds of marriage.

Secular: Not really the point. The point is, there is either an equitable, consistent way to define adulthood or there is not. Because in this country, as I noted earlier, Alcohol Is Different From Everything Else, it doesn't seem that there is.

Richard

Not exactly; in most states, 18 is the default age for being licensed to drive, unless one takes a driver's education course, and not everyone does.

There are going to be unintended consequences whichever way you move; make 21 the age for everything and it impacts taxes, the military, voting, etc. What I find perplexing is that many who would otherwise want to get government out of people's personal lives see a need to introduce an inconsistency here. I'm of the opinion that this falls under the bailiwick of the parents' responsibility to educate and enculturate, not the state's responsibility to forbid. But hey, given the predilections of many who settled this country, I'm frankly surprised it's legal to dance sometimes (and it isn't in one place I used to live). The cultural Puritanism keeps the instincts in place to regulate these things no matter how much we pat ourselves on the back otherwise. I presently live in a state where it's still illegal to sell alcohol on Sunday, for example, and it's home to one of the most self-congratulatory progressive college campuses in the country.

Richard

No, the minimum age is 16. Many people at my school got their licenses around 16.

In the states I've lived in, you can get your license at 16 *if* you've taken a driver's education course and fulfilled various other requirements. Otherwise, the default is 18. This site seems to suggest that's a pretty common practice, and states have tightened up the restrictions on under-18 drivers quite a bit in the last few years.

The voting age was 21 until the Nixon administration, and I didn't read about anything drastic happening in those days when he lowered it to 18.

Well, fine, but make 21 the magic "adult for everything" age and suddenly several million voters will disappear. You will also make parents legally responsible for everything their kids do until they are 21. And so on.

The blanket "people are irresponsible, especially those under 40" statement tends to encourage the nanny state as much as you seem to think it promotes the welfare state.

One way or the other, it's highly unlikely anything will change.

Richard

The subject was the general minimum age for driver's licenses. You brought up driver's education to try to bring back your argument to 18.

"General minimum" == "No other requirement". If you're eighteen and have a pulse and access to a drivable car, you can get your license -- as opposed to being younger and having to check off a long list of other boxes. That's not a "general minimum" to me.

There are studies that show that raising the age would lead to a safer society.

Which studies? By whom? What if there were studies showing that we'd have an even safer society if legal adulthood wasn't conferred until 30? Where do you draw the line? Why are 18 and 21 magic numbers, anyway?

On the whole, I submit that people need to be made to be responsible earlier, not kept as children longer.

Richard

Forgive me if I don't consider Wiki an authoritative source for the purposes of defining terms.

Where are my studies? I don't have any. I would submit that if we're discussing the possibility of curbing freedoms, the burden of proof is on the person wishing to do the curbing to establish why this is a good idea.

"Good genes"? No comment, except I think I'm done.

Richard

When my Mom (and she is 81 for perspective) was growing up in New York, the legal drinking age was 18. The marriage law (in New York) at that time was 21, as was voting (everywhere). During the Vietnam era, we lowered the voting age to 18 due to the draft of so many young soldiers. Almost all states lowered their marriage (without parental consent) laws to 18. In 1984, the minimum drinking age, heretofore varying by state, was raised on a national level to 21 by all 50 states, yet driving was still 16.
When I turned 18, (this is prior to 1984) we were living in Oregon which had a 21 yr drinking law. My Mom thought it was weird that I was officially declared an adult, could vote, be responsible for my own support, was able to marry without parental consent, but could not be trusted with a glass of champagne at my own wedding reception! It was silly on a state level, and much worse now, on a national level. Surely marriage is a much more important decision than ordering a cocktail in a nightclub, or choosing a bottle of wine to have with dinner. We've turned it into forbidden fruit. Not a good thing. Magic ages do us no good. The original rationale by our founding fathers for a 21 year old voting law had to do with maturity in making decisions. In the late 1700's, the median life expectancy was 35-40 yrs old. Y ou can't really equate that today as "middle age", as diseasees, curable today killed many otherwise healthy people. But people did get started on their lives at a younger age. How many of us have grandparents, or great grandparents who marrried in their teens, started businesses or worked their own land shortly thereafter. Yes, our society has changed since then. We don't let our kids ride bikes or scooters without practically rolling them in bubble wrap! So what is the answer? Maybe we need to take a lesson from the Europeans. Yeah, you read that right. In Great Britain, kids are through our equivilance of high school at 15-16 yrs of age. Those who are financially able & want to seek higher education, do, thise who cannot go to work. They earn their own livings, and are responsible for themselves. They don't expect anyone else to save them from their irresponsibility. They get to have a pint after a long day, and socialize with friends. Wow, what a concept.

so saying that kids are drinking underage because its the cool thing to do, this will stop if its lowed to 18? so after a few years with it being lowerd, what about underclass men looking up to the seniors that can drink and the junior high students, then it will be the cool thing to them and pretty soon the drinking age will be dropped compelty. i think its bogas if anythin it should be raised, say you move out on your 18th birthday thats three years on your own till you can leagally drink thats not enough time to learn and grow. if you start college right away which most people take a year, then drinking is in the way of education.
i say raise the drinking age.

I think it shouldbe lowerd to 18. Why not? If u can go over to war and have a weapon in you're hand, shooting and killing, risking you're life...then why not have a beer? A drink? Come on now.

i believe the drinkin age should be lowered to 18 because there are 12 year old kids training in war in iraq, n 18 you treated as a aduly an there are 40 year old drunks that act worse than a 16 year old drunk teen ager. i kinda dont matter because it is just as easy to get beer at 18, even 16 then if you are 21.

heyy andrew ur right but drinking age should be lowered to 18 i totally surpport you man but we should lower it man. if it cant happen its okay we should tell thiss advice to the president of the united states.