Should Minnesota lower the drinking age to 18?
posted at 1:00 pm on February 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The argument over the legal drinking age will once again arise in Minnesota, and along with it, issues of states’ rights, citizenship, and public safety. Four members of the state legislature will introduce a bill to lower the age to 18, the age when people have to face consequences of illegal actions in regular court and not in the juvenile system. However, the rationale applied in this case is a little odd:
State lawmakers in Minnesota are bringing forward a plan to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18, and even allowing those sixteen and seventeen to drink in bars in accompanied by their parents.
There are at least four state representatives who are backing the plan.
Tom Hackbarth, a Republican from District 48A said, “I think that bars and restaurants are having a difficult time right now with the smoking ban that went into place. I think with economic times the way they are, I’ve never opposed the drinking age being 18.”
I’ve heard a lot of arguments against the prohibition on under-21 adults, but never an economic one. Is this Minnesota’s own stimulus plan? In fact, the economics of the argument are usually considered a wash, since one of the points made against the ban is that teens buy alcohol on their own anyway.
This has always been a tough question for me. On the one hand, it’s hard to argue that someone should get tried as an adult for illegally purchasing or consuming alcohol for being a minor. If full citizenship and responsibility come at 18, then the government should not impose limitations on those between that age and 21 for behavior that would be perfectly legal for all other citizens. I’m also opposed to the federal government dictating state policy on this issue, as it has ever since Ronald Reagan rejected the states-rights argument and signed the Uniform Drinking Age Act in 1984.
The safety issues also seem compelling. Advocates for the higher age claim with some justification that the uniform imposition of the age limit reduced alcohol-related deaths. However, at the same time, state and local governments began cracking down much harder on drunk-driving offenders, giving them longer sentences and putting some teeth in deterrence. Did both have an effect, or did the latter make the former seem more effective?
When we traveled to Ireland, the Mathemagician (then 17) delighted in the freedom of the pubs, where anyone can get served as long as parents are present. He pointed out on many occasions during those two weeks the wisdom of the Irish in having a sensible policy on alcohol access, very similar to what Minnesota proposes now. The Irish are less convinced of their own wisdom these days:
Over 80% of adults believe that it is easy for people under the age of 18 to access alcohol in pubs and off-licenses, new research from the HSE indicates.
The preliminary results of the research indicate that the vast majority of adults – 91% – agree that underage drinking is a problem in Ireland today, while 50% feel there is nothing they can do to stop young people from consuming alcohol. …
The campaign hopes to increase awareness among adults about the extent of underage drinking, the ease of access which young people have to alcohol and the benefits in delaying the age at which they start drinking.
“We now have a problem which impacts negatively on so many areas of society, from increases in sexually transmitted infections, public order offences and young adult suicide”, commented Dr Joe Barry of the HSE’s population health directorate.
It’s a tough call. I’m tempted to stick with what we have rather than experiment with a rollback to 18, especially given the winter road conditions and the fact that I drive these roads at night on occasion. I’m certainly not convinced by an argument that it will stimulate the economy, which is a very strange basis for making this decision.
Update: Great debate in the comments, which mostly supports a lower drinking age. I do sympathize quite a bit with “old enough to fight for your country, old enough to drink”. A question for our military readers: can 18-year-olds legally drink on base?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
18 year olds cannot, at least when I was in, drink on base. I know my son cannot and could not. The comparison of 18 years old and you fight means you can drink is a canard from libertarians. Not even during draft times( military not beer, nimrods) was it even an argument. No drinking until your 21… period. Today’s volunteer military understands the rules… To be quite frank… driver’s licenses should be issued at 21 and no one can vote until they have proven graduation from a high school and no less than 25 years old… yeah I know…. draconian, but I can dream can’t I?
MNDavenotPC on February 21, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Anyone voting for Al Franken has been drinking, regardless.
DarkCurrent on February 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM
I am a retired 20 year veteran of the US Army. When I joined the service in 1980 I was 17. The rule then was beer and wine on post no hard liquor if the state age where you are stationed was 21. Hope this clears things up.
k2comp on February 21, 2009 at 2:32 PM
As other have mentioned, if Minn. does this, it will forsake federal highways funds. That’s the bottom line. Kinky Friedman ran (partially) on lowering the drinking age when he made his bid for governor in Texas, and I always wondered why no one called him on it.
Certainly a Federalist argument can be made, but the relationship is not that attenuated here, IMHO, at least not in comparison to some of the ridiculous stretches and contortions SCOTUS has made regarding “interstate commerce.”
exlibris on February 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM
The problem with that scenario is that was fine, they were at home and they had probably been out working the farm, sweeping the floor of their dad’s business, doing odd-jobs, etc… (Not to mention the lack of bacteria free beverages and refrigeration in those days)
Now kids are hanging around with nothing to do, parents don’t know/don’t care where they are, let’s give them booze!
Lowering the age just lowers the current situation by 3 years.
It won’t change, it will just transfer down to 15,16, 17 year olds instead of 18,19,20 year olds.
It’s too late to change it. It would mean years of new alcohol related deaths before society adapted to the change in age.
Let’s face it, today’s 18 year old is as mature and responsible as yesterday’s 12 year old (on average).
reaganaut on February 21, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Actually, big mistake in my last post, it’s not interstate commerce. I can’t remember what it is. But basically it has to do with the relationship of the state law to the federal grant money. Sorry. Too lazy to look it up.
exlibris on February 21, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Im a US citizen but was raised in New Zealand. The drinking age there was lowered from 20 to 18 about 12 years ago.
The results have been disasterous. The defacto drinking age is usually 2-3 years lower than the official age. It is much much easier for 15-16 year olds to look 18 than 21. The levels of binge drinking by youth in NZ has reached epidemic proportions with the police at times barely able to contain the numbers of out of control teenage parties that occur on Friday and Saturday nights. The most alarming trend has been the even greater rise in the amount of binge drinking by teenage girls.
Accompanying this rise in teenage binge drinking has been a commensurate rise in teenage violent crime, drink driving accidents and fatalities in this age cohort, STDs/unintended pregnancies and then abortions.
To Libertarians commenting here: your theories all sound good in theory – in the real world lowering the drinking age is a classic case of the law of unintended consequences. Look at what is going on in Australia, UK, NZ and Ireland who have all experienced similar negative outcomes after introducing an 18 year drinking age and take note!
fejj on February 21, 2009 at 2:35 PM
The other economic argument:
Big-spending legislators are fantasizing about increased sin-tax revenues.
jgapinoy on February 21, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Mark me down for 18.
As for the drinking in restaurants if accompanied by an adult, I’m kind of for it. One thing that needs to be emphasized in some way in relation to this however is parental responsibility and liability, which I’d be in favor of aside from it being on this subject. Personal/parental responsibility should not be given way to becoming society’s problem.
Dusty on February 21, 2009 at 2:37 PM
[exlibris on February 21, 2009 at 2:34 PM]
Reagan tied it to Federal funding for roads.
Dusty on February 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Make it legal at 18. If you are caught drunk driving, then take the license away. If you are 18 or 81 it is illegal to drive drunk. It was legal for me to drink at 18 in NY, then I went to college in Indiana and the age was 21. I drank the same amount, but in Indiana it was hidden and led to more binge drinking. Colleges know that they can not stop kids from drinking and they do not want to have to ‘police’ the students, they would rather focus on educating them.
freckleface on February 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM
I probably wouldn’t hesitate to buy a beer for an 18-year-old soldier who had spent all day driving a heavily armed battle tank or APC around Iraq to protect my freedom. The same for another one who spent the day crawling through mud under live fire and barbed wire so that my Saturday’s biggest worry is which leisure activity I will choose.
It’s not age. It’s maturity. How old is Dan Rather? Has he grown up yet? Hardly. Yet the average 18 year old driving a tank for our defense has seen more adulthood responsibility than Gunga Dan likely will ever see.
viking01 on February 21, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Not here in Cali Military bases, you have to be 21 to drink. Wen I was on Oki, you just had to have money to drink.
Frankly, if I had to live in Minnesota, I’d want to drink.
Mazztek on February 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Alcohol is not your friend. The lower the drinking age the less friendly it gets. It is all downside consequences not many upside consequences. Some folks keep control others don’t and it is not always a matter of age. Is the person in charge of himself or the alcohol? The issue will never go away by changing the law. The “should nots” will always get it and encourage friends and neighbors to join in. The more that join in the more the alcohol takes control of the situation.
rsl775 on February 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM
No. They used to be allowed to until the mid 80′s.
My opinion = NO drinking age period. We want to treat our “kids” like adults in every situation, but those that matter to them. We even charge 9 year olds as adults when they commit crimes. We are a nation of hypocrites raised by a nation of hypocrites, and every generation steals more freedoms from the next. We have too many laws micromanaging the freedom right out of the Land of the Free.
hamer500 on February 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM
I’d say no.
Don’t want to date anyone that young and am not real crazy about having to mix with high school seniors when I go out.
Asher on February 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM
In ‘Nam they choppered beer and coke,one of each-and no two beers, every now and then while in the bush. In Danang and the bush they didn’t ask for ID. To get more than one beer at a time or buy hard liquor you had to be an E-5 or better.
Tom
marinetbryant on February 21, 2009 at 2:51 PM
When I was in the service (91-95) the rules for drinking were based on the country of your current duty station. If you were on orders for a CONUS duty station, the drinking age was 21, but if you were on orders to an OCONUS duty station, say South Korea, that had a drinking age of 18, then any service member 18 or older could drink / buy on post.
Troy on February 21, 2009 at 2:52 PM
When I was on active duty in the 70′s and 80′s, we had soda machines in every barracks, and everyone of them had about half soda and half beer in the racks.
I look at it this way: At age 18, the government considers you an adult. Where I live, you can buy a car, buy a shotgun, get married, buy a home, get a credit card. run for elected office, vote in all elections, have an abortion, get elective surgery, negotiate a contract, join the military, start your own business. In all these things the state considers you to be of an age where you can make an informed and reasoned decision. However, you are still considered too immature to purchase a beer.
To say to someone that they are old enough to make an informed and reasoned decision regarding who to vote for, but are too immature to drink a beer? Bu!!sh!t.
The very best way to lower the drinking age is for any number of 18 year olds to band together and file a civil rights suit against the government (both state and federal) demanding equal rights under the law.
Either raise the age of majority for ALL things to 21, or lower the drinking age to 18. You cannot justify the current situation under any circumstance. It is simply indefensible.
AW1 Tim on February 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM
There may be something said for a parental supervision exception.
Granted, maybe I’m biased–my parents gave me small amounts of wine with some meals when I was a little kid. Alcohol had such little appeal for me that I didn’t drink as an adult until the age of 30, and then it was really only because I wanted to know what effect it would have on me, and maybe build some tolerance.
Count to 10 on February 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Exactly. The 21 year drinking age doesn’t even pass the simplest tests.
Dr. Manhattan on February 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Sounds like a good point.
Count to 10 on February 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Troy is right. That’s how it was when I was in. Didn’t consider stations outside the US.
hamer500 on February 21, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Just for drinking or were there other issues involved? Such as property damage, personal injury, poor service record etc?
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 3:00 PM
As far as drinking in the military goes, its 21 to drink on and off base. In fact, the rules now say that even when you are in a place where it is LEGAL to drink at 18 (Hong-Kong, Singapore, Guam, etc.) you still have to be 21 to drink.
Rightwingguy on February 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM
So going to war when you singed up to go is unfair punishment?
Why join if you’re going to push it to congressional hearings?
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM
yes indeed,
My son is stationed with the Army in Germany, and it is perfectly legal for him to drink there, though he is only 20. The Army will judge him based upon his demonstrated actions and character, not upon some potential trouble he might get into.
That is how ALL of our laws should be here. Not laws to prohibit you from doing this or owning that, but laws which reward good behaviour and punish those who are irresponsible with their actions.
The old adage “And ye harm no one, do as ye will”, is an excellent place to start building on for a system of laws.
respects,
AW1 Tim on February 21, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Minnesotans are stupid.
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 3:05 PM
That has been my experience too. Not personally, but through those who served while under age to drink.
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Answer: When I was stationed at Ft. Bliss (circa 2003) you could buy from the Class 6 on post, because of its proximity to the Mexico border, the rationale was that a soldier under 21 could get his booze on post, or that he would attempt to cross the border for his drinking.
Also, soldiers in Germany follow the German drinking laws for their booze both on the economy and on post. I don’t get carded here, and I look like I’m about 15.
Spc Steve on February 21, 2009 at 3:09 PM
I’ve lived overseas since 1999. I’ll have a hard time reacclimating to the 21-year old drinking age again when I move back home.
If they move the age to 18, I’ll have no major problem with it. It’s such an awkward issue. When I came in the Air Force at the age of 18 I couldn’t drink. I had to wait three years before I could. The typical argument of “old enough to die for freedom, you should be old enough to drink a beer.”
Black Adam on February 21, 2009 at 3:12 PM
I could also say 21 is too young. Just go into Penn station in NYC on a Fri Sat from 12.00 am to 5.00 am. People vomiting. People sleeping it off with their face pressed into the dirty tile floor. Half naked drunk girls being carried by their friends. Im not talking a few people i mean the place is packed. Plus dont forget the beer muscles. They have to have police on the trains home because of fighting. Its some show. So all these drunks get on a train home and what happens when they get to their station? They all hop into their cars and drive home. I take these trains home from work. I see it at my station all the time. I followed one once, didnt drive over 15mph in a 35mph zone and rode the double yellow the whole way. Very dangerous. They were lucky i didnt have my cellphone.
Greed on February 21, 2009 at 3:16 PM
One other thing some old-school soldiers might know about. Some units had an in-barracks bar. Turn in your car keys, and throw a few bucks toward keeping kegs full, and a soldier could drink in the barracks regardless of age. NCOs who also lived in the barracks would rotate through being bartender/referee, and offer beer and mixers to anyone. When I was at Ft. Lewis, we ran one from a spare room in the barracks. Beats a guy getting an under-age rap, or carrying a fake ID.
Spc Steve on February 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Sorry for the repost. Didnt see it, not knowing we are on 2nd pg comments. oops
Greed on February 21, 2009 at 3:19 PM
No they can’t, they have to be 21.
Brat4life on February 21, 2009 at 3:20 PM
I support Prohibition
Sackett on February 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM
18 is fine.
Just prosecute drunk driving and other crimes aggressively. Stop slapping wrists and start slamming bars.
You have to pay taxes at 18, right?
You can be drafted at 18, right (assuming a draft which will occur the next time a Dhimmicrat gets us in a war and botches it)
You are legally responsible for your actions at 18, right?
The 21 year old limit was set by busy-body federal bureaucrats. Heck, so was the 18 year limit before that.
Montana on February 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM
If we bring in the parents are responsible for their kids drinking…can we then get rid of seat belt laws and other nanny state laws?
I use to be pro-prohibition, because America now drinks more and drinking is more socially acceptable and we see more and more hard liquor advertisements ( slippery slope argument ). But you know with the Obama-Youth vote…lower that age, legalize pot and whatever, because maybe the idiots will be too stoned to vote.
Maybe the Jews had it right, the rite of passage happens around the age of 12. Course sex crimes with kids becomes more blurry.
Conservative Voice on February 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM
If Al Frankenfurter becomes new US Senator the age should be lowered to six cause anyone with half a brain will have to self medicate.
eaglewingz08 on February 21, 2009 at 3:30 PM
18-year-olds in the service should be able to legally do a lot of things other 18 year olds can’t. Like drink and vote.
JiangxiDad on February 21, 2009 at 3:31 PM
They’ll love this up in Manitoba.
Sign of the Dollar on February 21, 2009 at 3:34 PM
How’s that “informed” 18-20 yr old voters working out for ya?
Tom
marinetbryant on February 21, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Not a really good point. You start paying when you start earning. I started paying at 14.
Hmmm … hey, that’s when I started drinking!
Dusty on February 21, 2009 at 3:38 PM
If they can serve in the military they should be able to drink responsibly.
FireBlogger on February 21, 2009 at 3:39 PM
I know I’d drink pretty heavily if I lived in Madison.
Sign of the Dollar on February 21, 2009 at 3:43 PM
When we stopped prosecuting aggressively is when the nanny state started regulating drinking age etc. If we don’t give people BS excuses to escape the consequences for their actions then I’d be all for legalizing EVERYTHING.
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 3:44 PM
My husband and I intentionally “drifted away” from quite a few friends, by choice, when our first child graduated from high school. People we had known for more than a decade, who we had raised our kids with from t-ball to select sports, all had graduation parties. My husband and I had a bbq and food and the adults drank, but no one under 21 as that was the legal drinking age where we lived. Everybody had a great time at our party, stayed well into the night, and the house rocked. It was great.
In the following days and for a couple of weeks after, we went to parties of friends who unbeknownst to us (for the first couple of parties anyway) had different policies. Beer for all! Kegs with hundreds of kids drinking irresponsibly, bringing really young girls over (14, 15…no 14 or 15 year old girls came to our party, but then we never allowed kids to drink at our house, so I’m sure it was well known that we would do what we always did to get the kids to come over, I practically went broke feeding entire baseball teams, but our house was a hangout, so it was worth every penny.)
Not so our fiends, who freely served alcohol to anyone that came to their kids parties. I’m talking about cream of the crop kids: hard-working, intelligent successful athletes with bright futures. The change in their behavior was striking. When not drinking, they had a great time, they didn’t care they weren’t drinking. But when alcohol was served, they dove right in with all the vigor and enthusiasm that they pursued everything else in their life. Hey, it was parental approved! Go for it, dude! They behaved foolishly, drove drunk, and were successful in getting really young girls drunk…I knew all their friends…at the parties where drinking was NOT allowed, I knew just about everybody. When it was allowed, I knew maybe 20% of the kids, and there was a much younger crowd, and the guys were plying the girls with drinks so they would get falling down drunk. It was sad.
It should be left at 21. But the people put their fate into the hands of the legislature, so they should choose wisely when they vote. Elections have consequences.
JustTruth101 on February 21, 2009 at 3:49 PM
If the drinkers are serving in the U.S. military then, yes, the age should be 18; otherwise, just leave it at 21.
Tim B.
Tim_B on February 21, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Not only is this not a canard, there is an underlying thruth to this.
There’s no reason that a legal adult should be expected to take on all the responsibilities of adulthood, and not be given all of the benefits of adulthood.
If there needs to be a drinking age, then the age of adulthood and the drinking age should be one and the same, whatever that may be.
But frankly I’m opposed to a drinking age at all. The only thing a drinking age accomplishes, is to ensure that teenagers will be drinking without adult supervision.
jjrakman on February 21, 2009 at 3:50 PM
That would good idea as long as you dont get killed when one slams your car as he blasts through the red light. We already have allot of drinking related death. Increasing the number of drunks increases all that comes with it.
Greed on February 21, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Just for drinking. It’s federal law.
baldilocks on February 21, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Quite frankly I’m not a big stickler on age (I’m 26 and I hardly ever drink) the only thing that I think is ridiculous is the different levels. I mean I know it may be difficult to do this but why not make everything 21? Voting, drinking, smoking, enlisting, etc. Driving would be the only thing that I think would be almost impossible to put at 21.
MobileVideoEngineer on February 21, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Eighteen? No. Twelve would be better, with a parent, guardian, or sibling over 18, present. Sixteen without.
htom on February 21, 2009 at 3:58 PM
No hat tip?
To be fair, they should also let 16 and 17 years olds to vote if they show up at the polls with their parents. /sarc
darwin-t on February 21, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Same here. I was based at Cannon AFB NM and we had beer machines everywhere.
Guardian on February 21, 2009 at 4:03 PM
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! Don’t do it, for God’s sake don’t do it.
Australia and Britain dropped the drinking age from 21 to 18 only just over one generation ago and we now have problems with 15 year olds who are binge drinking alcoholics.
You lower the age, then people younger than that expect that it is okay for them to start experimenting. Alcohol-fuelled violence in this demographic is a monstrous problem with 25% of all weekend hospitalisations alcohol related.
– Nick and Nora Charles
Gold Coast, Australia
The Thin Man Returns on February 21, 2009 at 4:06 PM
fejj nails it at 2:35 PM
.
How about setting the drinking age at the point of maturation where one is self-supporting and carries at least 1 million in liability insurance. I see no problem with the military allowing persons to volunteer for service at a lower age — but if it will mollify the strict libertarians, then it’s OK with me if combat duty 18 year olds are allowed to drink (but if you’re not on combat duty, you’re not allowed).
Mark30339 on February 21, 2009 at 4:09 PM
The problem with lowering the age is the leeway that sets up. With the current age in many parts of the US being 21, I’d assume 20 or nearly 20 year olds would be able to “get away with it”, ie buying and consuming alcohol. Lowering the age to 18 will allow, as it does here in Oz, 17 and nearly 17 year olds to “get away with it”. I myself could buy grog at 16 simply because I “looked” mature.
I’m not sure of the laws in the US, but here it is not mandatory to produce ID to purchase alcohol, it is encumbent on the store owner to ask for it if he/she is suspicious.
Chook on February 21, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Fine by me. Let people who sign up drink, but let’s not forget about the HUGE reductions in the automotive mortality rate when teenagers were prohibited from drinking. Will those who support teem drinking also accept the accountibility for the increase of dead kids?
This is all about goBernment getting more cash. At least those politicians will be getting money for selling out.
DannoJyd on February 21, 2009 at 4:12 PM
I’m too lazy to read through the previous comments, and I’m sure it’s already been brought up.
I spend a fair amount of time in Europe. In Germany, one must be 18 to drive, yet can drink beer and wine at 16. They don’t seem to have anywhere near the teen drinking problems we do, I suspect because alcohol is demystified and deglamorized at an early age.
When I was 18, that was the drinking age. Yeah, we had the occasional horrifying teenage alcohol-related traffic incident (I lost a friend to such an incident when I was 16), but I don’t think they were anywhere near as frequent as they are now.
flipflop on February 21, 2009 at 4:21 PM
When I was in the military 67 – 95, it varied. on base under 21 we could get “near beer” 3.2 alky beer. It took alot of that to get drunk!
I loved being TDY to German bases, they had beer in the dining halls for breakfast. Cornflakes and Weissen beer, THAT’LL wake you up in the morning!!!
E9RET on February 21, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Coming from Italy, I never understood the American approach to alcohol. When I was little, my parent would give me water and wine. It was a glass of water with a drop of wine. They taught me to drink responsibly, in moderation and getting drunk was unacceptable. I come to this country and find out that you have dry and wet areas (in Texas) and age limits. When I went to high school, my cohorts couldn’t wait to go out and “get drunk”. They couldn’t believe it that I could just go home and have a beer if I wanted to. I think my parents’ approach was better. It took the fascination and mystery out of alcohol. Stop the puritanical hypocrisy and raise kids to drink responsibly.
Chekote on February 21, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Military cannot drink on base if they are on base, but that law only applies in the states. Military under 18 on base overseas, however, can.
I guess the idea is that, if you are here in the states, you abide by the federal laws, but overseas, what’s the point of keeping you from doing it when you can simply go off base and do it legally…
Tremor on February 21, 2009 at 4:41 PM
I must say that a culture that handles drinking well (like Chekote says) doesn’t need a drinking age.
However, the irresponsibility of people these days has me worried.
IIRC, Japan has a rather low drinking age, but it’s DUI laws are _extremely heavy_. There’s also the fact that driving is seen as a privilege over there, and so you don’t have nearly the the problem as you do in the States, where driving is seen as a God-given right.
The ’18 for everything but drinking makes no sense’ is a good argument. I do like how both sides of the argument is presented, along with the practical implications.
Theoretically, the drinking age should be 18. However, the practical ramifications of that policy can be seen in countries mentioned already where this was done. Germany, Japan, and other countries don’t have the same problem, I think, because the legal drinking age never got that high.
Scott H on February 21, 2009 at 4:57 PM
You can join the army and kill at 18 (or 19… same thing), but have to wait till 21 to get a drink? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
AlexB on February 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM
I think the Government can’t do anything well except perhaps deliver mail… and also work out a healthy diet for everyone.
radiofreevillage on February 21, 2009 at 5:20 PM
I also missed the always novel “think of teh children!!1″ argument.
radiofreevillage on February 21, 2009 at 5:24 PM
If people are old enough to vote, fight and die for their country it follows they are old to enough to make the decision as to whether or not they are old enough to drink. Ultimately it is the individual that decides whether to drink no matter their age. It seems a contradiction that they can make a decision as to who will be their next President and not if they will have their next drink.
Brizzy29 on February 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Ed, this was a stupid, stream of consciousness position waaaay back in the late 60′s, and it’s been proven to still be a stupid argument. 18 year olds drinking legally, driving here and now, without MP’s to keep them in line, is and always will be, ignoramously a bad idea.
Don’t live there…just my two worthless cents.
marybel on February 21, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Terrible idea. You’re still incredibly dumb @ 18.
therightwinger on February 21, 2009 at 5:59 PM
Anyone here knowledgable in the physiological differences in the brain between an 18 yr old and 21 yr old?
I have seen some compelling evidence of how some “maturity” is measured by brain scans and cat scans and that the maturity level is not the same between the ages. Not just socially but physically. The argument is that to begin drinking alcohol in an immature body creates an environment that is more susceptible to alcoholism, or, more so, a dependency.
The use of the slogan “old enough to vote and die for your country” just seems a bit too knee-jerk to me.
I live here on Guam where the age is 18. While I have no quantitative evidence to provide as to the dangers and frustration felt with having the legal drinking age at 18, the anecdotal stories I could tell is abundant; just starting with the 18 yr soldiers stationed here is the tip of the iceberg!
Don’t forget the failures of having the drinking age lowered in New Zealand. A very compelling case for people to become a bit more ponderous rather than quickly agreeing to drop the legal age.
geckomon on February 21, 2009 at 6:28 PM
It’s amazing how quick conservatives are to throw all their “principles” out the window when it comes to things the Bible says are naughty. When it comes to sex, drugs, and rock and roll, Republicans display the same totalitarian leanings as the most left-wing Democrats do on economic matters. At least the progressives have the good taste not to speak lovingly of the “Land of the Free” while agitating for fascism.
hicsuget on February 21, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Found an enlightening article from the AMA website.
Check out below the article for many other links to the subject. Very info rich.
geckomon on February 21, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Broad generalizations never helped anyone’s cause. Your comment is no exception.
geckomon on February 21, 2009 at 6:38 PM
You guys have it all wrong. The problem is not the age for drinking. It’s the lack of teeth in the laws for violators and convictions.
I believe upon conviction of DWI ( And yes, the FIRST TIME ) you should forfeit your motor vehicle to to the state which will be sold at auction. Funds used for alcohol related programs ( the state should not make money on this ). There should also be MANDATORY sentences of 6 months in county lockup upon conviction. No plea bargaining, no choices. If you were driving someone else’s vehicle, they get their car back, but you lose the one YOU own instead.
No driver license for 2 years, no to-and-from-work temporary licenses either upon conviction of DWI. After two years, you have a breath tester device for 5 years paid for by you. Any violations of conditions result in another 6 months in jail.
Death penalty charges for DWI drivers in crashes who kill others upon conviction.
Those caught driving under 21 years old while having ANY alcohol in their system lose their driver license until they are 21 and will have to re-take the driver testing plus have alcohol breath testers for 5 years, paid for by themselves.
I could go on…BUT you get the idea. Theres no reason NOT to drive drunk, plain and simple with the way current law is written and “”"enforced”"” by district attorneys.
tx2654 on February 21, 2009 at 6:59 PM
Hmmmmmmm. Maybe infantry units are less stringent. The general feelings are that as long as they aren’t getting stupid, the command turns a blind eye.
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Why have any age limit? School could have the five R’s. Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Rubbers and Ripple.
Wade on February 21, 2009 at 7:22 PM
My comment seemed pretty specific to me in the context of Ed’s post. Let me be more clear:
Government are instituted among men for one reason and one reason only: to protect individual rights by banning the use of force from human relationships. To serve that end, government has three, and only three, legitimate functions: to prevent the use of force when as much is clearly threatened, to punish the use of force after the fact, and to provide an objective and binding system of dispute resolution so that contract disputes etc. can be settled without recourse to force.
Democrats advocate an additional function of government: protecting the stupid from the consequences of bad economic decisions. This end cannot be achieved without either the government declaring illegal certain peaceful, voluntary agreements between consenting adults, or without outright forcible confiscation of the property of those whose economic decisions were less stupid. In so doing, the government becomes the chief violator, rather than the chief protector, of individuals’ rights.
Conservatives, similarly, advocate an additional function of government: protecting souls from the consequences of un-Christian actions. This end cannot be achieved without either the government declaring illegal certain peaceful, voluntary agreements between consenting adults, or without outright forcible prohibitions on certain activities. Once again, the government that undertakes such a course of action becomes a violator of man’s rights.
The various prohibitions on alcohol in this country are clear examples of conservatives violating the rights of individuals with the intent of re-engineering society into their own image. A man who seeks to purchase beer after midnight or liquor on Sunday, or who drinks spirits at the age of 19, is using force against no one, and thus is violating the rights of no one. The government, by preventing / punishing all of the above, at the behest of conservative Republicans, is violating the rights of life, liberty, and property of the individuals so affected.
hicsuget on February 21, 2009 at 7:22 PM
and the correlation is ?
Wade on February 21, 2009 at 7:27 PM
As of 2005 when I got out of the military military personnel had to obey the law of the land. So if your base is in the US and it the state says 21 you have to be 21. If you are outside the US in a place that says you can’t drink…you can’t drink not even on base. However, if your base is located in another country with a lower drinking age sure you can drink you just can’t be drunk while on duty.
It use to be that you were allowed to drink on base if you were in the military but that was quashed years ago.
theguardianii on February 21, 2009 at 7:30 PM
me thinks there should be an age limit for commenter’s.
Wade on February 21, 2009 at 7:37 PM
What, I’m too experienced, knowledgeable, and intelligent for you to keep up with me? I’m sure there’s a kiddie pool you can play in somewhere.
hicsuget on February 21, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Although a society full of drunken teenagers is far from desirable, the argument that 18 year old adults/children in these times are too irresponsible to drink is far from convincing. The thought of immature teenagers ardently following the law seems somewhat oxymoronic. Yes, sometimes laws are necessary; however, parents (not laws) are the key to raising responsible citizens.
Upstater85 on February 21, 2009 at 9:11 PM
As a high school teacher I have long thought the drinking age should be lowered to 18
BUT
I would make the drunk driving penalties between the ages of 18 – 21 Dra-FREAKING-conian!!!!!
First DUI, you lose your liscence for ONE YEAR. No excuses! Need it to work? Sorry? Need it for school? Sorry. You are probably still living with Mommy and Daddy anway.
Just my two cents.
Teacher in Tejas on February 21, 2009 at 9:39 PM
. . . neither does verbosity.
geckomon on February 21, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Louisiana was the last state to raise the age to 21. They did so on the threat of not being able to get transportation funds. What has changed?
Here’s a compromise that even the filthy liar in the White House would call bipartisan. Lower the drinking age to 18 but raise the legal age for full driving privileges to 18 as well (with some gradiated level of driving possible before that). That essentially puts the societal recognition of adulthood at 18.
highhopes on February 21, 2009 at 9:59 PM
You are a high school teacher and yet spell license “liscence?” Say no more. That’s all we need to know about public education.
highhopes on February 21, 2009 at 10:03 PM
What makes anyone think that those under 21 don’t drink already?
Dr. ZhivBlago on February 21, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Yeah it actually does if you are talking about troops stationed in the US. These young people aren’t any different than their contemporaries that didn’t join the military. If an 18-year-old can’t get a drink in a bar outside the gates of Ft. Benning, why should he/she be able to drink on post?
highhopes on February 21, 2009 at 10:09 PM
It doesnt do the kids any good, but they do it any way.
I’d leave it alone.
johnnyU on February 21, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Two issues …
1. Eighteen year olds fight and die in wars and they vote. They have a right imo to be able to indulge in any legal activity that other adults do.
2. I see no where in the Constitution where the Federal Government has the right to limit alcohol consumption. This is an issue that should be left to the states. The federal government has no right constitutionally to coerce states to keep the drinking age at 21 – but they have been.
HondaV65 on February 21, 2009 at 11:10 PM
If there are anecdotal horror stories with these folk on sleepy ol’ Guam, imagine those 18 year olds, without any pending threat of military discipline, on a busy, congested freeway.
marybel on February 21, 2009 at 11:37 PM
My parents allowed me to have a small glass of wine on occassion when I was young, and I rarely drink (and I was usually the sober driver back in college). I’m with you, but how many so-called parents these days teach their kids anything. I’m trying to picture the current generation of baby-mamas teaching their kids right from wrong when they’re too busy finding new baby-daddy’s to “roll with”.
Liberals are brilliant. They have created a nation of stoopid ninnies, so that in cases such as the drinking age, we have to choose between horrific crashes with life or death consequences or nanny-state laws.
Laura in Maryland on February 21, 2009 at 11:57 PM
<blockquoteA question for our military readers: can 18-year-olds legally drink on base?
Yea, and you don’t even need to be a soldier for it to be allowed. When I was looking at colleges many years ago and visited West Point, the tour guides actually gave the families a pitcher of beer each, commenting on how it was one of the “perks” of going there.
Rainsford on February 22, 2009 at 1:22 AM
It was a loophole that allowed you to buy alcohol at 18. Technically it was illegal to sell alcohol to anyone under 21 but you could not procecute anyone selling alcohol to 18-20 yr olds. The Louisiana Supreme Court struck down the 21 law calling it age discrimination but the US Supreme Court reversed the law three months later.
The Clinton Administration threatened to pull highway funding. Gov. Foster and other Louisiana politicians wanted the loophole closed because of the bad press of teens coming from bordering states, getting liquored up, and trying to drive back home.
The feds may want to think twice before going after our drive thru daiquiri shops. I don’t think people here will take to lightly to it.
When I was in Korea in 2000-2001, you had to be 20 to drink. My 21st birthday didn’t live up to the hype since it was two months into my tour and I could already drink legally.
From what I was told, Ft Huachuca, AZ used to allow 18 and up to legally purchase alcohol on base. I think this was to keep soldiers, especially those who are still in initial entry training, from going to Mexico for alcohol.
Lay-Z on February 22, 2009 at 2:11 AM
It all depends on where you’re stationed on the whole “drinking age in the military.” Drinking while <21 in Orlando got a bunch of my classmates at NFAS and NNPS in trouble.
Conversely, while on deployment once, many of us (myself included) got pretty drunk in Japan while celebrating someone earning their dolphins. Quite a few of us were <21 at the time (again, myself included) and nobody got in trouble.
Take from that what you will.
ExSubNuke on February 22, 2009 at 2:22 AM
I only read the headline.
No is my answer. Alcohol should not be wasted on youth.
Limerick on February 22, 2009 at 3:44 AM
Okay, here’s my criteria.
You should be able to drink alcohol when you are a responsible adult. A responsible adult is one that is self-sufficient: pays rent, earns income, is not a dependent on anyone else’s tax return, and receives no government welfare in the form of WIC, EITC, TANF, SSI, etc.
If you are doing that, then by golly, you are indeed an adult. If you can’t meet that minimum threshold for adulthood, then no matter what your age, you should be treated like the child you are.
CJ on February 22, 2009 at 6:26 AM
Everybody seems to be missing what I thought was the bigger point. It lowers the drinking age to sixteen under certain circumstances.
darwin-t on February 22, 2009 at 6:27 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »