Drinking Age Debate - Chambersburg, PA

This seems like a fun discussion. I think we should lower the drinking age, and I have several logical, real-world reasons why we should. I know it's not a popular position, particularly here in the Alabama of Pennsylvania, but I'd be willing to a have a civil, intelligent discussion about it if anyone else is.

Typical arguments for lowering the age follow the lines of "If a kid is old enough to vote, or to serve in the military , they should be mature enough to decide what to drink."

My feeling is that brain developement isn't complete till age 25. Alcohol doesn't contribute to improved judgement, so I'm ok with not giving 18 years olds unlimited access.

Maybe they shouldn't vote or be encouraged to handle lethal guns either.(TIC) But that's a whole 'nother discussion. lol.

While the "old enough to vote/serve/etc" one is certainly valid, it's not one that I cite as my primary reason for lowering the drinking age.

The State University of New York at Potsdam's website has some very interesting - and scientific - studies regarding the effectiveness of the current drinking age.

I don't think physical brain development is a reliable benchmark - I don't know about the brain not being developed until age 25, it certainly varies among individuals if you consider intelligence and maturity.

I also don't necessarily advocate a drinking age of 18 - 19 is the drinking age in much of Canada without any significant problems.

The prevailing scientific opinion is that a drinking age of 21 - as opposed to a drinking age of 18 or 19 - does not significantly curtail the consumption of alcohol by the under-21 age group. However, there is evidence to suggest that over-consumption and binge drinking are more likely to occur among 18-20 year old's because of the legal ramifications of drinking in public.

An argument can be made that without the necessity to drink in secret (predominantly among college students), there will be far less motivation to drink excessively. Some studies also indicate that that preventing college-age young people under the age of 21 from buying alcohol actually drives them to drink (when otherwise they wouldn't) due to something called "preventive motivation."

As you can see, this isn't really an argument about maturity or rights - I'm trying to look at this using common sense. I was a college student, and I drank when I was 18-20. That's part of the collegiate culture, and no law or regulation will ever change that. And I just tend to hate meaningless, ineffective laws.

Whenever my wife and I consume alcohol with our meals at home, our children are free to taste what we are enjoying. Alcohol is to complement a fine meal. They recognize the consequences of overindulging. Age is immaterial in determining whether a child will abuse alcohol or not. It is primarily about the parents properly introducing their children to alcohol.

DGS wrote:

Whenever my wife and I consume alcohol with our meals at home, our children are free to taste what we are enjoying. Alcohol is to complement a fine meal. They recognize the consequences of overindulging. Age is immaterial in determining whether a child will abuse alcohol or not. It is primarily about the parents properly introducing their children to alcohol.

This is key - responsible use of alcohol by young people depends almost entirely on their being raised by thoughtful, responsible parents who teach self-control and moderation.

Successfully lowering the drinking age completely depends on kids being raised by thinking, reasonable, well-adjusted parents who also have a sensible approach to drinking alcohol.

So, Effington, you and DGS here would do it well. What about the rest of Franklin County? How much confidence do you have in your neighbors competently educating their children on the healthy, balanced use of alcohol?

DGS wrote:

Whenever my wife and I consume alcohol with our meals at home, our children are free to taste what we are enjoying. Alcohol is to complement a fine meal. They recognize the consequences of overindulging. Age is immaterial in determining whether a child will abuse alcohol or not. It is primarily about the parents properly introducing their children to alcohol.

And this is a fundamental problem with alcohol in American society - it's not age limits, it's attitudes. This is a very European perspective and the reason their drinking age is considerably lower than ours, yet they have fewer alcohol related problems.

If more American's took a responsible approach to alcohol consumption with their kids - rather than an abstinence only approach - there would be far less alcohol abuse. The law is so black and white to most people, that when their children reach an age (college) where they're exposed to alcohol for the first time, they often overdo it. I can tell you from personal experience, the average college freshman who is most likely to flunk out due to a preoccupation with drinking is the one who was never allowed anywhere near alcohol before that.

There are certainly exceptions, but attitude is as important as age limits - and lowering the drinking age along with a shift in attitudes parents have toward alcohol and its moderate, responsible consumption could make a hugely positive impact.

Now is probably a good time to mention the Amethyst Initiative (http://www.amethystinitiative.org/ ), an organization made up of U.S. college presidents and chancellors that launched a movement calling for the reconsideration of U.S. drinking age laws, particularly the minimum age of 21.

Dan the Man wrote:

<quoted text>
So, Effington, you and DGS here would do it well. What about the rest of Franklin County? How much confidence do you have in your neighbors competently educating their children on the healthy, balanced use of alcohol?

I certainly don't think that the 21 drinking age really does anything to prevent irresponsible young people with irresponsible parents from drinking.

Why should responsible people be punished because of them? This is America...

Effington wrote:

<quoted text>
I certainly don't think that the 21 drinking age really does anything to prevent irresponsible young people with irresponsible parents from drinking.
Why should responsible people be punished because of them? This is America...

The 21 drinking age clearly isn't being successful. I'd be in favor of eliminating a drinking age altogether and putting real penalties in place for adults who jeopardize their children's health and safety with alcohol. I haven't ever given the particulars of that a lot of thought, but pediatricians could certainly articulate how much alcohol is too much for various ages.

To your larger question of responsible people being punished for irresponsible ones - that's how our justice system works, isn't it? We legislate for irresponsible people, so you have to get a permit to carry a gun and a license to drive a car and hunt and so on - all because some people can't be trusted to do those things responsibly. That's just how the world works. If everyone was responsible we wouldn't need any laws at all.

Dan the Man wrote:

To your larger question of responsible people being punished for irresponsible ones - that's how our justice system works, isn't it?

Yes, and I agree with your point, but sometimes such a law is simultaneously ineffective and detrimental. That's how I feel about the 21 age limit.

I'm not saying eliminate the drinking age, but I think that 18 or 19 is appropriate. The main benefit would be curtailing binge and secretively drinking on college campuses - where underage drinking is both prevalent and dangerous, not to mention a very costly law to enforce. Campus police are spending their time running after 18, 19 and 20 year old's - adults for all intents and purposes - rather than focusing on actually keeping people safe.

The drinking age should be 14.

Buffalo Bill wrote:

The drinking age should be 14.

Dude, get an effin life.13

Old enough to die for this country,old enough to drink

Absolutely NOT!

Drinking should be outlawed and you awful people who drink should be afraid of what awaits you at the gates of hell.

MADD member wrote:

Drinking should be outlawed and you awful people who drink should be afraid of what awaits you at the gates of hell.

I always enjoy hearing the opinions of neo-prohibitionists - mainly because their arguments rarely have any basis in reality, science, logic or even the best interest of society.

But I can appreciate the brevity - if not the fire and brimstone overtones - of this comment.

MADD member wrote:

Drinking should be outlawed and you awful people who drink should be afraid of what awaits you at the gates of hell.

I haven't seen the "gates of Hell," but I have seen the door to Dilly's.

Snarky Rules wrote:

<quoted text>I haven't seen the "gates of Hell," but I have seen the door to Dilly's.

Close enough. Dilly's is the breeding ground for low lifes who mooch off of big Government. Please take care of me big Government, because I have a bad back, a bag shoulder, bad wrists, and every other absurd "injury" I can think of with my pee brain. Take care of me big Government so that I can sit at Dilly's with my peers on Sunday nights and drink draft beer and crappy mixed drinks. I hangout there on Sunday nights, because you see I don't have to get up for work in the morning, because I don't work.

Republican95 wrote:

<quoted text>Close enough. Dilly's is the breeding ground for low lifes who mooch off of big Government. Please take care of me big Government, because I have a bad back, a bag shoulder, bad wrists, and every other absurd "injury" I can think of with my pee brain. Take care of me big Government so that I can sit at Dilly's with my peers on Sunday nights and drink draft beer and crappy mixed drinks. I hangout there on Sunday nights, because you see I don't have to get up for work in the morning, because I don't work.

This post has all kinds of elements of crazy - paranoia, baseless accusation, implied self worth through the condemnation of others, and, well, downright slander.

Ain't America great?

Effington wrote:

<quoted text>I always enjoy hearing the opinions of neo-prohibitionists - mainly because their arguments rarely have any basis in reality, science, logic or even the best interest of society.

But I can appreciate the brevity - if not the fire and brimstone overtones - of this comment.

People drink because they hate themselves. We hate you too and we will show up to your DUI hearing and protest for the maximum sentence. Most alcoholics are men who suffer from self hate, impotency, and financial crises. People are in denial about alcoholism. If you drink more than 3 times a year you're an alcoholic which makes you a potential road terrorist. The Satan will await all of you alcohol people at the gates of hell and will pour an infinite amount of flaming alcohol down your throats as the flames of hell roar with fury.

MADD Member wrote:

<quoted text>People drink because they hate themselves. We hate you too and we will show up to your DUI hearing and protest for the maximum sentence. Most alcoholics are men who suffer from self hate, impotency, and financial crises. People are in denial about alcoholism. If you drink more than 3 times a year you're an alcoholic which makes you a potential road terrorist. The Satan will await all of you alcohol people at the gates of hell and will pour an infinite amount of flaming alcohol down your throats as the flames of hell roar with fury.

LOL! You're over-doing it, troll.

No matter how much you hate MADD, none of them - not even the most radical - sound this ridiculous.