NationStates Jolt Archive

So here's a question.

Is 21 (in the US) the minimum age to drink or the minimum age to buy liquor?

I know that in Canada you're permitted to serve liquor to minors in your own home in most provinces, and even in restaurants in some provinces as long as an adult consents.

In the US, are you allowed to serve liquor to your own children in the privacy of your home when they're under 21?


- this was initially in another thread, but it was somewhat off-topic there

both I believe. under 21 means no alcohol period.

You're not allowed any liquor, beer or wine if you're under 21. If your state doesn't have laws limiting drinking to age 21 or over they lose federal highway funding, so every state has those laws.

both I believe. under 21 means no alcohol period.
Well, that's a significant usurpation of parental authority.

Well, that's a significant usurpation of parental authority.

It sure is. the drinking laws in the US are in serious need of reform.

It varies by state, actually. I'm pretty sure in Georgia, at least, that minors can drink in the privacy of their own homes if they are under parental supervision and do not leave their property until the are completely sober. Though that might just be how they enforce it, and not the actual law.

It varies by state, actually. I'm pretty sure in Georgia, at least, that minors can drink in the privacy of their own homes if they are under parental supervision and do not leave their property until the are completely sober. Though that might just be how they enforce it, and not the actual law.

Right you are about Georgia. I just took my D&A awarness last year, and he kept telling us that. (he being the cop talking to us.) In Georgia it's legal for parents to give their children alcohol in their own homes.

Right you are about Georgia. I just took my D&A awarness last year, and he kept telling us that. (he being the cop talking to us.) In Georgia it's legal for parents to give their children alcohol in their own homes.

Oh, cool. I was right about something!

Well, if it's true in Georgia it's probably true in other states.

Well, if it's true in Georgia it's probably true in other states.

I believe it's true in Florida. At least, that's what I was told in Life Management Skills class back in ninth grade.

In Maryland it is legal to serve alchohol in the privacy of your own home to your own children. But anything else is illegal.

Actually, yes, as long as the parents agree. The reason being that some religions require the consumption of alcohol for certian events and the First Amendment trumps the liquor laws.

The drinking age should be lowered to 18. Same with voting, if you can die in a war then you should be able to drink.

I advocate lowering the drinking age to 16, but raising the driving age to 25 ;)

As far as I know, if you try that here in Washington and the cops find out, your ass is jailbound. But then, we still have some blue-laws on the books and all liquor stores are state-owned. Backwards effi' state this is.

Soviestan is right, drinking laws here in the US need some major overhauls. And this from someone who doesn't drink.

It is sort of amusing that here in America, at age 18, you are expected to handle all the responsiblities and obligations of being an adult, but you have to wait three years before you are allowed to partake of all the advantages.

Stupid system we have here, eh?

In New York you're allowed to serve liquor to a minor in your own home.

I agree that it should be lowered to 18.

You're not allowed any liquor, beer or wine if you're under 21. If your state doesn't have laws limiting drinking to age 21 or over they lose federal highway funding, so every state has those laws.

in both wisconsin and illinois i know that parents can legally give booze to their 8 year old. and in wisconsin, not just at home, but at bars and such too.

I advocate lowering the drinking age to 16, but raising the driving age to 25 ;)
But then who would deliver my liquor (I love having liquor delivered - it's so absurd)?

After a bit of research, only 15 states prohibit all drinking under 21. 20 states don't ban underage consumpton at all, and 15 more have exceptions based on location (home, church) or supervision (parents).

Furthermore, 31 states have location or supervision exceptions to underage possession laws.

The drinking age should be lowered to 18. Same with voting, if you can die in a war then you should be able to drink.

American youth has proven itself time and time again to be unable to responsibly take on these issues. Europeans drink at younger ages because they grow up with it and dont abuse it. Here people go on drinking binges just to puke their heads off. But I agree with another poster. The Driving age if anything should be raised to the mid 20's, as that would solve many problems.

Here people go on drinking binges just to puke their heads off.
Maybe they wouldn't do that if they were exposed to alcohol more when they were younger.

American youth has proven itself time and time again to be unable to responsibly take on these issues. Europeans drink at younger ages because they grow up with it and dont abuse it. Here people go on drinking binges just to puke their heads off.

wait, what is that 'because' doing within that sentence?

American youth has proven itself time and time again to be unable to responsibly take on these issues. Europeans drink at younger ages because they grow up with it and dont abuse it. Here people go on drinking binges just to puke their heads off. But I agree with another poster. The Driving age if anything should be raised to the mid 20's, as that would solve many problems.

Many people that young aren't mature enough for a lot of things. Voting, sex, spending money wisely, etc. We don't ban those things for people of that age. It is not right that they are denied the right to have a drink when they are legal adults.

The drinking age was raised to 21 in many states to combat drunk driving. Of course, it did absolutely nothing.

Many people that young aren't mature enough for a lot of things. Voting, sex, spending money wisely, etc. We don't ban those things for people of that age. It is not right that they are denied the right to have a drink when they are legal adults.

Given that alcohol unlike those other subjects you mentioned actually impairs ones ability to make a reasonable decision, and its inherent detremental effect on the body ... (and that its classified as a drug) . I would say yes, it is right to deny them the right to use this product. Most other drugs have limits on use so I fail to see how the government should not have the right to regulate this one.

The US drinking age laws suck, they're poorly designed knee jerk reactions because some cry baby's went and lobbied congress back in the eighties.

As such, I partake in regular civil disobedience against these laws.

The drinking age was raised to 21 in many states to combat drunk driving. Of course, it did absolutely nothing.

I dunno, here in New York drunk driving rates have plumeted. Of course this probably has something to do with the fact that they can now and will take your car if your caught drunk driving so... ^_^ I would say its a combination of tactics used by the state.

American youth has proven itself time and time again to be unable to responsibly take on these issues. Europeans drink at younger ages because they grow up with it and dont abuse it. Here people go on drinking binges just to puke their heads off. But I agree with another poster. The Driving age if anything should be raised to the mid 20's, as that would solve many problems.

Maybe because they've never been allowed to? And you just proved our point with your Euro example. If we lower the drinking age here, then teens would be more used to it by the time they reach adulthood.

Raising the driving age would solve nothing. What you'd end up with is 25 year olds driving like a 15 year old due to lack of experience.

The US drinking age laws suck, they're poorly designed knee jerk reactions because some cry baby's went and lobbied congress back in the eighties.

As such, I partake in regular civil disobedience against these laws.

Or it could be because drunk driving is one of the nations leading causes of automobile related deaths >.>

Most other drugs have limits on use so I fail to see how the government should not have the right to regulate this one.
I don't think they should regulate the other drugs either.

Maybe because they've never been allowed to? And you just proved our point with your Euro example. If we lower the drinking age here, then teens would be more used to it by the time they reach adulthood.

Raising the driving age would solve nothing. What you'd end up with is 25 year olds driving like a 15 year old due to lack of experience.

Then again, at 25 your less likely to go hot roding around at 100 miles an hour .. Teenagers do have the highest rates for high speed accidents. Thats not because of experiance w/ driving, but rather just more maturity.

Or it could be because drunk driving is one of the nations leading causes of automobile related deaths >.>

And how does making it illegal for people under 21 to drink do anything about that? Did it have an effect?

How is it just making it illegal to drink for someone who can serve in the military, get drafted, get married, smoke cigarrettes, make contracts, change my citizenship and many, many, many other things.

Hell, one of my friends "celebrated" his 21st birthday running the Ramadi Road.

Get rid of the worthless Norman coming of age limit, and stick with the Anglo-Saxon one. That's far easier.

Then again, at 25 your less likely to go hot roding around at 100 miles an hour .. Teenagers do have the highest rates for high speed accidents. Thats not because of experiance w/ driving, but rather just more maturity.

And yet most street racers are within the 20-30 year age range........

Maturity is not a function of age. I've know just as many mature teenagers as I have immature people in their 20's or 30's or older.

Myself being one of them. :D

And how does making it illegal for people under 21 to drink do anything about that? Did it have an effect?

How is it just making it illegal to drink for someone who can serve in the military, get drafted, get married, smoke cigarrettes, make contracts, change my citizenship and many, many, many other things.

Hell, one of my friends "celebrated" his 21st birthday running the Ramadi Road.

Get rid of the worthless Norman coming of age limit, and stick with the Anglo-Saxon one. That's far easier.

Given that drunk driving has been on the decline [atleast in my state that enforces a 21 year old age drinking limit] I would say yeah it has had an effect! ^_^. But then again I dont really know the particulars in other states.

The better question is, why should the government GIVE the right to people [teenagers] to use a product that impairs judgement, is highly adictive, and generally determental for the body.

Our idea of an 18 year old being an adult stems from a time when the life expectancy for an average person was like 40. And I'm betting given that, 18 years olds of that time were far more mature and responsible then the ones of today. Perhaps this number itself needs to be revisited [and revised upwards]

who needs a drinking age? many countries have been doing fine without one.

Given that drunk driving has been on the decline [atleast in my state that enforces a 21 year old age drinking limit] I would say yeah it has had an effect! ^_^. But then again I dont really know the particulars in other states.
Was there an immediate drop off after the change in the drinking age though? If the changes were effective, there would be no long term trend change, instead it would have been an immediate decrease. From what I've seen, there have been improvements resulting from increasing education on the matter, increasing enforcement and increasing punishment for doing so, those actions are the kind we'd expect to give us a trend line change over an extended period of time.

Changing the drinking age won't do that, it would give us an immediate cleft in the numbers, and then be irrelevant, if it did.

Prior to the nineteen-eighties, under-enforcement of DUI laws was a serious problem for many police departments, and renewed vigour spurred into existence by several high profile incidents brought it into the focus of police.

The better question is, why should the government GIVE the right to people [teenagers] to use a product that impairs judgement, is highly adictive, and generally determental for the body.
Because it is their own bodies. We allow people to do lot's of other potentially dangerous things like eat fatty foods, drink vast quantities of caffeine and smoke before they're 21, how is alcohol different?

You know, I've drank plenty, I've smoked two or three times, and the only thing I'm addicted to is caffeine. If I go a day or two without coffee or coke, I go into withdrawl. Would you use that as a rationale to ban caffeinated beverages?

Our idea of an 18 year old being an adult stems from a time when the life expectancy for an average person was like 40. And I'm betting given that, 18 years olds of that time were far more mature and responsible then the ones of today. Perhaps this number itself needs to be revisited [and revised upwards]

21 is also of that same time period, it's an arbitrary age, chosen unscientifically in order to fulfill political and economic expediencies of the day. Specifically ensuring that the firstborn male heir was married (preferably with his own male heir) and healthy enough to receive his inheritance.

So here's a question.

Is 21 (in the US) the minimum age to drink or the minimum age to buy liquor?


Both.

21. I believe in a few states you can drink in the company of your parents when you're, like, 16-17. I don't know for sure, though.

21. I believe in a few states you can drink in the company of your parents when you're, like, 16-17. I don't know for sure, though.

Under the pre-condition that your parents/legal guardians hand you the drink.

Under the pre-condition that your parents/legal guardians hand you the drink.

Yeah, I figured it was something along those lines. Is Wisconsin one of those states? :confused:

We have mythologized alcohol in the United States, in a thoroughly irrational manner. We've turned it into some sort of boogeyman, and everyone knows that nothing draws in your average teenager like something that's forbidden.

In Germany alcohol is common, you see it everywhere. People have a beer with lunch, or perhaps a Radler or Hefeweizen in the afternoon. Alcohol is commonplace. But driving under the influence is far less common, and people are far more responsible with their alcohol.

Yet, when I was in Munich, a city of 1,314,551 people, there had been a drunken driving accident the night before I had arrived there. Two people were killed, and it was a great tragedy. But what astounded me was that the newspapers covered it, as their primary front page story, for all three days I was in the city.

Yet, when three teens were killed in a drunk driving accident near my hometown in Canton, Ohio (a city of about 80,000) the local newspaper covered it for one day on the front page, and a second day buried deep in the local section.

The Germans were shocked by drunk driving, we're not. I'd say we're the country that has the problem with booze, and not because it's available, but because we mythologize it.

Yeah, I figured it was something along those lines. Is Wisconsin one of those states? :confused:
Yep.

How is it just making it illegal to drink for someone who can serve in the military, get drafted...
If you’re in the military, you can drink on base.

If you’re in the military, you can drink on base.

But not off, and my point is that I'm apparently old enough to make the decision to join the military, or to be conscripted against my will, but not old enough to crack open a bottle of Great Lakes at the end of the day. It seems awfully hypocritical to me.

But not off, and my point is that I'm apparently old enough to make the decision to join the military, or to be conscripted against my will, but not old enough to crack open a bottle of Great Lakes at the end of the day. It seems awfully hypocritical to me.

It’s not hypocritical when you understand where the lawmakers are coming from.

To them, Gay sex is worse than abortion which is worse than underage drinking which is worse than dieing for your country.

They aren’t hypocrites, just fucked up.

It’s not hypocritical when you understand where the lawmakers are coming from.

To them, Gay sex is worse than abortion which is worse than underage drinking which is worse than dieing for your country.

They aren’t hypocrites, just fucked up.

Feckers.