NationStates Jolt Archive

In the US they are having underaged drinking problems so they are thinking of lowering the drinking age from 21 down to 18.
Personally I think it is stupid. More drunkards, car wrecks, and bad health.
What do you all think?

You're old enough to get shot at for Uncle Sam and murder in his name you're old enough to drink.

i think its wrong to have adults who dont have all the rights of adults.

and that its wrong to turn young people into scofflaws by having too high a drinking age.

18 is a good age to allow independent drinking. 15 is a good age to allow drinking under the supervision of a parent.

I am 19 and I am joining the Army.
I think that drinking isn't good for
one's health. (But choose your own poison.)

Sounds good to me.

one could argue that it is unjust that we make 18 year olds sign up for the draft as adults but prevent them from relaxing as an adult. also improving statistics with laws is not always a good thing. I am sure we could improve health, lower drunk driving, and drunkards even more by raising the age to 25 or banning it out right. but Id rather not think of this as a free society if that was done.

In the US they are having underaged drinking problems so they are thinking of lowering the drinking age from 21 down to 18.
Who in the US is thinking this? And in which state?
Personally I think it is stupid. More drunkards, car wrecks, and bad health.
What do you all think?

18 seems far more reasonable than 21. When kids start drinking their parents will probably be more able to impress upon them the need to drink responsibly, and will be there to help when they don't. At 21 they'll be far more independent, off at college perhaps, with no more guidance than that of their equally inexperienced friends.

In the US they are having underaged drinking problems so they are thinking of lowering the drinking age from 21 down to 18.
Personally I think it is stupid. More drunkards, car wrecks, and bad health.
What do you all think?
The problem with the drinking age of 21 is that it is egregiously violated, so egregiously that suffering consequences as a result of violating it is the exception rather than the rule, even for rather exceptional violations. An 18 year old can drink twenty beers a week for a year without getting in trouble. The law serves primarily to develop contempt for the law, as the outright prohibition of alcohol did before.

The problem with a drinking age of 18 is that it then becomes impossible to keep beer out of high school, and that 14 year olds will readily have access to it. Of course, in my hometown, they've lately started to become concerned about keggers thrown by high school students, and in many areas, high school students have figured out how to get their hands on beer on an occasional basis.

The realpolitik solution to that would be to set the drinking age at 19, which does a pretty good job of keeping it out of high schools that manage to graduate kids in four years, and continue to turn a mostly blind eye to college freshmen drinking illegally. You might transfer 19 year olds who haven't finished high school to transfer to a community college GED program free of charge if you want to insure that no student in high school can legally purchase alcohol.

It does not affect me. Even if I lived in the US and were under 21 I don't think I would care at all. I don't drink and other people's drinking does not hurt me. However, the drinking age should be high enough so that by that age people's brains have developed enough so that alcohol doesn't cause too severe damage.

Why not 12? If children are allowed to drink alcohol from an age when they still much prefer sweet stuff then it might not seem such an attraction or a right of passage via rebellion.

Who in the US is thinking this? And in which state?


18 seems far more reasonable than 21. When kids start drinking their parents will probably be more able to impress upon them the need to drink responsibly, and will be there to help when they don't. At 21 they'll be far more independent, off at college perhaps, with no more guidance than that of their equally inexperienced friends.
It recently came up in the news not regarding a state government, but a coalition of college administrators, i.e., the people who are most intimately involved with dealing with underage drinking. It's called the Amethyst Initiative (http://www.amethystinitiative.org/). I suspect that campus police, typically funded by the university, shoulder most of the burden of enforcing underage drinking laws.

I wholeheartedly agree with their argument that the drinking age of 21 is simply not working, and if anything is backfiring on college campuses.

having the drinking age at 21 means that you have about 5 years of unsupervised sneak drinking under your belt by the time you can drink legally.

young people today have horrifyingly unsafe binge drinking habits because they dont get to gradually learn the more responsible way to approach drinking.

a younger age and being able to drink under parental supervision gives society a chance to establish better drinking habits before you are completely on your own.

It does not affect me. Even if I lived in the US and were under 21 I don't think I would care at all. I don't drink and other people's drinking does not hurt me. However, the drinking age should be high enough so that by that age people's brains have developed enough so that alcohol doesn't cause too severe damage.
Ironically, I seem to recall a study that came out a few years ago that demonstrated that the body generally isn't as "ready" to handle alcohol as a toxin (liver-wise, not brain-wise, IIRC) until around... 21.

^.^ Make of that what you will.

In Germany the legal drinking age is 16. I had my first case of quite serious intoxication, to the point of spewing everywhere and having no idea where I was, with 14, IIRC. That's the same age people started drinking at parties here in Australia, where the legal age is 18.

It doesn't matter what the legal age is, the time people start having alcohol is independent from it. What is needed is that kids are introduced to it by their parents some time before that, so they have some rough idea what their limits are and when they do go out to parties, they don't do what I did and drink half a bottle of all sorts of spirits mixed together.

Why not 12? If children are allowed to drink alcohol from an age when they still much prefer sweet stuff then it might not seem such an attraction or a right of passage via rebellion.
with parental supervision, why not?

The drinking age should gradually be repealed completely. Punishment for violations of drunkenness in public and others should be increased over that period. Other nations without drinking ages have significantly fewer problems and it is likely because people are able to become experienced drinkers before they become drivers instead of the other way around. They are able to experiment and learn proper drinking behavior at home instead of away from home.

The drinking laws - along with many other laws - are relics of a puritanical past when government succumbed to those who try to legislate morality. (actually, it still does)

I also think that marijuana should be legal. A police officer once lamented that he's never been called out for a domestic dispute when one or the other was stoned - but quite often when one or the other was drunk.

They are able to experiment and learn proper drinking behavior at home instead of away from home.
To be honest, they could do that already in the US. It may be illegal, but it's extremely improbable that there'd be any prosecution of the parents, since it's unlikely that anyone would find out and care enough to complain.

There's an attitude thing going on as well, I think. Binge drinking by young people is more a parenting issue than a legal one, and realising that is difficult. Hence fiddling about with punishments, legal cut-offs and alcohol taxes - it's easier for the voters to stomach.

IF kids want to binge drink - let em. IF the parents don't want to stop them - so be it. However if they venture out into public like that - kabam! Lock em up, dry em out, fine em hefty and start over. 3rd time they get a longer sentence and mandatory alcohol counseling. If they persist then... umm.... Aha! Public execution!

In the US they are having underaged drinking problems so they are thinking of lowering the drinking age from 21 down to 18.
Personally I think it is stupid. More drunkards, car wrecks, and bad health.
What do you all think?

They don't even need to have a drinking age, as long as people learn to drink responsibly.

I am 19 and I am joining the Army.
I think that drinking isn't good for
one's health. (But choose your own poison.)

Violence being yours.

I offer this choice; either:

a. Full adult rights (including lawful alcohol consumption), at 18 yrs. of age.
OR
b. Adulthood @ 21 yrs. of age (re: no vote, no draft, no consentual sex, no ability to enter into any and all covenants, BUT; no adult liability in your actions)

well, society; SPEAK! If for no other reasons, for the issues of equity, fairness, & justice.


If you are old enough to be trusted to choose our nations leadership, and you are mature enough to die for your country; you are old enough to order a Sam Adams at your local publick house.

Violence being yours.

and not exactly a fair judgement, in my opinion. In fact, I would call it a deliberately judgemental assessment. (Full Disclosure: I, myself am ex-U.S. Navy).

As a seventeen year old highschooler, it is my honor to inform you that not only does more than half of my highschool drink on a regular basis, but they do it in school as well.

Having the age at 21 is stupid and doesn't work.

Moreover, I am old enough to kill and risk my life for my country with parental consent. So why can't I drink with parental consent, given that drinking is rather less lethal than most battlefields?

Why make it based on an arbitrary object rotating around another object 93 million miles away 18 times? Instead, have them earn the right with a high school diploma or GED.

Obviously, people currently 18+ or high school dropouts would be exempted, but...

As a seventeen year old highschooler, it is my honor to inform you that not only does more than half of my highschool drink on a regular basis, but they do it in school as well.

Not exactly a newsflash, that. My Grandfather was telling me stories along these lines, against my Fathers' will, (as Grandparents are wont to do!)

Not exactly a newsflash, that. My Grandfather was telling me stories along these lines, against my Fathers' will, (as Grandparents are wont to do!)

Which just goes to show that it's a stupid law.

And go grandparents and innapropriate stories! :D

Anybody in college knows full well that there is little difference between 18 and 21 when it comes to the amount you drink...unless, of course, you're unfortunate enough to lack a good hookup for the stuff but that's a rarity. Frankly, I can say with 100% confidence that the drinking age has had no material effect on my decision to drink, a decision which I celebrate with every handle of vodka and every case of Guinness. Frankly, I think it can be a good lesson; you don't learn your limits until you push them, and it's better to get that unpleasantness over with ASAP rather than risk disaster down the line. I can assure you my 21st birthday will revolve more around stocking up to ensure a steady supply of alcohol in the future than drinking it all at once.

However, I oppose lowering the drinking age for no other reason than to screw over the little bastards coming after me. I had to wait to buy it legally, so there's no reason why I'm going to help out a bunch of kids, especially annoying-ass teenagers.

Why make it based on an arbitrary object rotating around another object 93 million miles away 18 times? Instead, have them earn the right with a high school diploma or GED.

Obviously, people currently 18+ or high school dropouts would be exempted, but...

Good point, Europe doesn't seem to lose too much sleep about this particular subject, let's hear from them! Speak Up, Europeons! :D

I tasted a beer when I was 7. It was sour and bad. I never drank again.

I gave a try on a cigarette when I was 6. It almost led me to vomit. I never smoked again.

Most of my friends began drinking and smoking for real when they were teenagers, with their friends. Now most of them are addicted to at least nicotine.

Which just goes to show that it's a stupid law.

And go grandparents and innapropriate stories! :D
Well DUH! The greatest joy of parenthood is knowing that you, too, may someday live long enough to make your kids' lives hell by corrupting the living shit out of your grandchildren with stories of not just their parents', but also YOUR illicit youthful indiscretions! :D

I tasted a beer when I was 7. It was sour and bad. I never drank again.

I gave a try on a cigarette when I was 6. It almost led me to vomit. I never smoked again.

Most of my friends began drinking and smoking for real when they were teenagers, with their friends. Now most of them are addicted to at least nicotine.

I see no need to sway your perceptions, but; I would ask that you refrain from any moral judjement on your friends until you have a few more years under your belt. If that sounds a little patronizing, I apologise, but the decisions of others DO seem to take on more of a grayscale, vs. B/W pattern through a lens of a few years. I shit you not. Wait, watch, love; but do not yet judge.

You're old enough to get shot at for Uncle Sam and murder in his name you're old enough to drink.

So...

If you're old enough to get shot, you're old enough to have a shot?

I agree.

So...

If you're old enough to get shot, you're old enough to have a shot?

I agree.

clumsy, but; yes.

It recently came up in the news not regarding a state government, but a coalition of college administrators

bah, what do those eggheads know, anyway?

You're old enough to get shot at for Uncle Sam and murder in his name you're old enough to drink.
I agree that you're old enough to vote. But that's it.

We got that law passed back when I was young. The drinking part followed -- it used to be that one could by liquor at 18. But the kids screwed the pooch and the law was changed back to 21.

For a while, and maybe still, it was legal for 18 year olds to buy liquor on base, but not necessarily in town. It depended on what the base commander wanted to allow.

Having any legal drinking age is unjust. Before the age of adulthood, it is up to the parents what their child may or may not do. After that age, it is up to the person what he may or may not do. As long as no other person is directly harmed, the action should be legal, even if it is self-harming.

I agree that you're old enough to vote. But that's it.

We got that law passed back when I was young. The drinking part followed -- it used to be that one could by liquor at 18. But the kids screwed the pooch and the law was changed back to 21.

For a while, and maybe still, it was legal for 18 year olds to buy liquor on base, but not necessarily in town. It depended on what the base commander wanted to allow.

Then I submit the validity of my earlier argument that those under 21 are not responsible for their actions, as they cannot be trusted with the full mantle of adulthood. You appear to concurr with this side of my argument.
Black
White
No Greyscale
Pick an argument.

Having any legal drinking age is unjust. Before the age of adulthood, it is up to the parents what their child may or may not do. After that age, it is up to the person what he may or may not do. As long as no other person is directly harmed, the action should be legal, even if it is self-harming.

Welcome to Europe, please try not to step on the proletariat.

Welcome to Europe, please try not to step on the proletariat.

That's also the de facto policy here in the US; the police are not going to do anything unless they have proof of you buying and providing alcohol to kids under 18 (which is stupid no matter the legal status). By and large, the general attitude seems to be that it's something best left up to the parents unless there's some pretty egregious violations going on.

That's also the de facto policy here in the US; the police are not going to do anything unless they have proof of you buying and providing alcohol to kids under 18 (which is stupid no matter the legal status). By and large, the general attitude seems to be that it's something best left up to the parents unless there's some pretty egregious violations going on.

Until you get Barney Fife trying to prove what a badass he is by ruining some 19 y.o.'s life by fucking up some kids' scholarship for having a beer with his buddies.
(ain't you just COOL! Barney!)

Until you get Barney Fife trying to prove what a badass he is by ruining some 19 y.o.'s life by fucking up his scholarship for having a beer with his buddies.

Yeah, that's why you have to be careful. One of the best things about college is unless you're a total dumbass you can usually get away with it no problem or have it handled by the university, and unless you're really out of hand it's a slap on the wrist.

Welcome to Europe, please try not to step on the proletariat.

True. Much as I love America, this is one area where Europe is ahead of us.

In Germany the legal drinking age is 16. I had my first case of quite serious intoxication, to the point of spewing everywhere and having no idea where I was, with 14, IIRC. That's the same age people started drinking at parties here in Australia, where the legal age is 18.


16 is the unsupervised drinking age (for beer) in Germany. I was there when I was 15 and in the company of an adult I could drink all I wanted. In fact, I ordered a Coke in a restaurant the first night I was there and they looked at me like I was from Mars.

Demystifying is the key to encouraging responsible drinking. I think the Germans have it right; in the company of adults you can drink at whatever age they (your parents) deem suitable.

one could argue that it is unjust that we make 18 year olds sign up for the draft as adults but prevent them from relaxing as an adult. also improving statistics with laws is not always a good thing. I am sure we could improve health, lower drunk driving, and drunkards even more by raising the age to 25 or banning it out right.

Last time we tried the bolded health took a down turn from the poorly made bootleg liquor and the gun fights between the feds and the gangsters.

Heh. Legal age of consent/drinking/draft is 18 around here. I had my first raki when I was 6 - my grandfather gave me his glass and my parents thought I'd hate its taste and never try it again. I have vague memories of that day - with lots of stumbling and dizziness involved ;)

The only applicable part of that law around here is, a bar/shop is closed for a while (3-4 days to a month depending on the number and frequency of offenses) when they sell alcohol to minors.

Still, I think I wouldn't be a drunkard if it was not illegal - since I did almost everything I do now to rebel against my family.

Cheerio!

In Germany the legal drinking age is 16. I had my first case of quite serious intoxication, to the point of spewing everywhere and having no idea where I was, with 14, IIRC. That's the same age people started drinking at parties here in Australia, where the legal age is 18.

It doesn't matter what the legal age is, the time people start having alcohol is independent from it. What is needed is that kids are introduced to it by their parents some time before that, so they have some rough idea what their limits are and when they do go out to parties, they don't do what I did and drink half a bottle of all sorts of spirits mixed together.

16? Are you sure, I only ask because when I was in Germany and I ordered a beer I was asked if I was 18 and had to produce my passport to prove it. Are you saying you were 14 years old when you had your first (I like that first) case of intoxication?

As for your second paragraph my thoughts exactly.

Demystifying is the key to encouraging responsible drinking. I think the Germans have it right; in the company of adults you can drink at whatever age they (your parents) deem suitable.

Exactly

I don't like the idea of a fixed drinking age. A system where kids under a certain age can drink with parental supervision would be preferable.

I'm pretty sure no teenager in the UK really cares about the drinking laws. They can be effective when used to target alcohol retailers rather than the kids themselves but it can have unintended consequences - the crackdown on tolerating under 18s drinking in pubs may encourage teenagers to drink spirits rather than beers. And if they are in a pub they are more likely to behave themselves.

In the US they are having underaged drinking problems so they are thinking of lowering the drinking age from 21 down to 18.
Personally I think it is stupid. More drunkards, car wrecks, and bad health.
What do you all think?
I think less drunkards, car wreaks, and bad health. Most of the dangerous drinking goes on in colleges and its particularly bad because it's illegal. Part of the problem is the new found independence that comes from going to college is hard to cope with, so it's better to get the kids used to alcohol before that happens.
I say lower the drinking age to 16 and raise the driving age to 18. Get them used to alcohol and what it does before letting them drive.

16? Are you sure, I only ask because when I was in Germany and I ordered a beer I was asked if I was 18 and had to produce my passport to prove it. Are you saying you were 14 years old when you had your first (I like that first) case of intoxication?

As for your second paragraph my thoughts exactly.16 for beer, 18 for harder stuff. It's possible the place you went and bought something had their own rules.

Then I submit the validity of my earlier argument that those under 21 are not responsible for their actions, as they cannot be trusted with the full mantle of adulthood. You appear to concurr with this side of my argument.
Black
White
No Greyscale
Pick an argument.
Of course there's middle ground. It's silly to think otherwise. Ohio had a convenient system regarding drinking. 3.2% beer for 18-21 and anything after 21.

16 for beer, 18 for harder stuff.

Which is a good system. Give kids a chance to get used to mild alcohol before letting them drink vodka, absinthe and so on. The exact ages to use can of course be a matter of debate.

They should definitely lower the drinking age...

A) it isnt stopping people my age from drinking...
B) I can get lung cancer and kill things...But drink? nah, thats just tooo dangerous..
C) they should also lower the Gambling Age to 18, lol...

You're old enough to get shot at for Uncle Sam and murder in his name you're old enough to drink.

You got that right. I can sit in a silo with a MX missile armed with nukes, but I can't go to a bar and have beer? That makes no sense.

16? Are you sure, I only ask because when I was in Germany and I ordered a beer I was asked if I was 18 and had to produce my passport to prove it.

Are you an American ? Ordering a decent brew ?
The proprietor probably assumed you were used to American Beer, i.e. water, then and was concerned.

You're old enough to get shot at for Uncle Sam and murder in his name you're old enough to drink.Maybe we should look at it the other way around.

If you're not old enough to drink, maybe you shouldn't be old enough to murder and/or get shot for the country.

Raise the age for military draft/enlistment.

Maybe we should look at it the other way around.

If you're not old enough to drink, maybe you shouldn't be old enough to murder and/or get shot for the country.

Raise the age for military draft/enlistment.

Unfortunately the US military has opted for solution number 2:
one can buy booze with a soldiers licence.

Maybe we should look at it the other way around.

If you're not old enough to drink, maybe you shouldn't be old enough to murder and/or get shot for the country.

Raise the age for military draft/enlistment.

Yeah, but then youd be missing out on ALOT of Able Bodies...

And China's been lookin at us funny, lol...

Which is a good system. Give kids a chance to get used to mild alcohol before letting them drink vodka, absinthe and so on. The exact ages to use can of course be a matter of debate.

But 16 year olds are so annoying, I'd rather them not be in any pub I go to.

I wholeheartedly agree with their argument that the drinking age of 21 is simply not working, and if anything is backfiring on college campuses.Even if there's some truth to that, lowering the age to 18 just shifts the burden back on the high schools, which would have exactly the same situation colleges have now: seniors who can drink and buy for underage friends.

Unfortunately the US military has opted for solution number 2:
one can buy booze with a soldiers licence.

Make sense, but the basic argument people have against 18 year olds drinking is the responsibility. I had this discussion at my old high school a couple of months back, a bunch of my friends got caught drinking by the cops.

But my counter argument is then why is an 18 year old trusted with dangerous and not mention expensive military equipment in a warzone?

young people today have horrifyingly unsafe binge drinking habits because they dont get to gradually learn the more responsible way to approach drinking.

a younger age and being able to drink under parental supervision gives society a chance to establish better drinking habits before you are completely on your own.This is really a myth. It's the old "European responsible drinking" myth.

The fact is, Europe has higher rates of alcoholism, higher rates of binge drinking (especially among young people), higher rates of liver disease and cirrhosis, higher rates of psychological problems related to drinking.

Of course, underage drinking is not perceived as nearly the problem in Europe as it is in the United States. That's because everything I've just listed tends to be more "hidden" than the real problem in the United States: drunk driving and accidents caused by irresponsible underage drinkers. Most of Europe doesn't have this problem--not because they don't have problem drinkers, but because they are far less likely to be driving. Good public transportation and so on.

This is really a myth. It's the old "European responsible drinking" myth.


Indeed, a trip to a town centre in some crappy city in the UK late at night would rapidly dispel this myth.

This is really a myth. It's the old "European responsible drinking" myth.

The fact is, Europe has higher rates of alcoholism, higher rates of binge drinking (especially among young people), higher rates of liver disease and cirrhosis, higher rates of psychological problems related to drinking.



Sounds like my kinda party ;) lol

To quote my Grandfather who was in 'Nam:
If you're old enough to get shot and die for this country, you should be old enough to get a beer if you want one.

Instead of lowering the drinking age to 18 in America, lower it to age 1. That way no one will break the law.....and everybody will be safe again! There; problem solved.

Instead of lowering the drinking age to 18 in America, lower it to age 1. That way no one will break the law.....and everybody will be safe again! There; problem solved.
Yaaaaaaaaaaay!

Instead of lowering the drinking age to 18 in America, lower it to age 1. That way no one will break the law.....and everybody will be safe again! There; problem solved.

What about the poor 3 month olds? :(

What about the poor 3 month olds? :(
:O I mean 3 month olds are just going to get alcohol from their 1 year old friends.

There's always the death penalty for those damn 3 month old, underage drinkers to consider!

Who in the US is thinking this? And in which state?


18 seems far more reasonable than 21. When kids start drinking their parents will probably be more able to impress upon them the need to drink responsibly, and will be there to help when they don't. At 21 they'll be far more independent, off at college perhaps, with no more guidance than that of their equally inexperienced friends.

Who in the US you ask? The president of America has gone all over the country to colleges and certain states are wishing to persue it.
The possibility of the entire country is unlikely and I am glad for that.

In my opinion booze > highway funding. But since I already live in a country where I legally get a pint at 18, this doesn't really affect me.

Who in the US you ask? The president of America has gone all over the country to colleges and certain states are wishing to persue it.
Isn't it already 18 in some states?

Isn't it already 18 in some states?
It certainatly isn't in Florida. My 50 year old parents got ID'd there.

It certainatly isn't in Florida. My 50 year old parents got ID'd there.

And it certainly isnt here...hell, you have to be 17 to get in the fuckin Movie Theater after 6....and we dont even serve alcohol...

I hate havin to enforce that shit at work...

Violence being yours.

I am not a violent person but put into a difficult situation where the military is the only way to get further education and the cost of my housing & car are paid.

Maybe we should look at it the other way around.

If you're not old enough to drink, maybe you shouldn't be old enough to murder and/or get shot for the country.

Raise the age for military draft/enlistment.

I like the idea.

Make sense, but the basic argument people have against 18 year olds drinking is the responsibility. I had this discussion at my old high school a couple of months back, a bunch of my friends got caught drinking by the cops.

But my counter argument is then why is an 18 year old trusted with dangerous and not mention expensive military equipment in a warzone?

Here is the answer as to why 18 year old people are trusted with military equipment. They are taught and trained. Weeks of lessons and months of training for whatever equipment that they use for their certain job. Drinking doesn't really have a "training" part and may I add you have to take a certain test before even joining any military branch to see what kind of jobs you can do.

This is really a myth. It's the old "European responsible drinking" myth.

The fact is, Europe has higher rates of alcoholism, higher rates of binge drinking (especially among young people), higher rates of liver disease and cirrhosis, higher rates of psychological problems related to drinking.

Of course, underage drinking is not perceived as nearly the problem in Europe as it is in the United States. That's because everything I've just listed tends to be more "hidden" than the real problem in the United States: drunk driving and accidents caused by irresponsible underage drinkers. Most of Europe doesn't have this problem--not because they don't have problem drinkers, but because they are far less likely to be driving. Good public transportation and so on.

I liked reading that. Why do we place foreign countries on pedestal when they have problems just like we do?

If Obama gets elected, EVERY American, regardless of age, will need to be drunk 24/7 for at least 4 years to deaden the pain!

In the US they are having underaged drinking problems so they are thinking of lowering the drinking age from 21 down to 18.
Personally I think it is stupid. More drunkards, car wrecks, and bad health.
What do you all think?

I learned in school that teenagers and those younger have maturing proteins in their head and that the ones in adults are mature so if anyone under 20 drinks they suffer some brain damage.

In my opinion this will only show the populace that the great government buckles under pressure and that it has very little ability to enforce the law. It'd be like parents saying "oh I can't make Timmy eat his vegetable or stop playing with matches in the house so I'll tell him it's ok"

Also what the OP said. When regulated it's bad enough but once the drinking age is lowered there will be more alcoholic related problems.

I learned in school that teenagers and those younger have maturing proteins in their head and that the ones in adults are mature so if anyone under 20 drinks they suffer some brain damage.

In my opinion this will only show the populace that the great government buckles under pressure and that it has very little ability to enforce the law. It'd be like parents saying "oh I can't make Timmy eat his vegetable or stop playing with matches in the house so I'll tell him it's ok"

Also what the OP said. When regulated it's bad enough but once the drinking age is lowered there will be more alcoholic related problems.

So, until these laws came about everyone was mentally damaged?

and the European countries that currently dont have these laws are also mentally damaged?

Sounds like a bunch of crap to me....

So, until these laws came about everyone was mentally damaged?

and the European countries that currently dont have these laws are also mentally damaged?

Sounds like a bunch of crap to me....

Dammit! Propaganda strikes again! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! :eek:

18 is the world standard. Many countries ie MOST have been coping well with 18+ drinking laws. Still there will always be some that illegally drink. Im not too sure it will do much. Instead od having 19 year olds it may just be 16 year olds

Every nation has drink related problems.

The UK's system seems okay to me. 18 to buy, 18 to Drink in public, on private ground you can drink what you like from any age. There are also some leniences in restaurants. eg, 16 with meals. Weak beer at 14 with parents and a meal. It is quite fiddly.

So, until these laws came about everyone was mentally damaged?No, but the evidence is that health issues (including mental illness) related to alcohol consumption have decreased since, especially among young people.

and the European countries that currently dont have these laws are also mentally damaged?Well, if we're going to talk about "countries" being "mentally damaged," clearly the United States is at the top of the list... but if you want to talk about statistics among individuals, then yes: alcohol-related mental illness as well as alcoholism are more prevalent among countries, including the supposedly "responsible" countries of Europe, with lower legal drinking ages.

No, but the evidence is that health issues (including mental illness) related to alcohol consumption have decreased since, especially among young people.

Well, if we're going to talk about "countries" being "mentally damaged," clearly the United States is at the top of the list... but if you want to talk about statistics among individuals, then yes: alcohol-related mental illness as well as alcoholism are more prevalent among countries, including the supposedly "responsible" countries of Europe, with lower legal drinking ages.

I wasnt saying theyre more responsible...just that i dont think the data is accurate...

If you have physically more people drinking, then Of Course theres gonna be more drinking related illness and vice versa...

16 for beer, 18 for harder stuff. It's possible the place you went and bought something had their own rules.

Ah ok, I see, I see.

Are you an American ? Ordering a decent brew ?
The proprietor probably assumed you were used to American Beer, i.e. water, then and was concerned.

No I'm not American, and I had been drinking proper beer for a long time before I got to this pace.

Though it may explain why the American students were crazy after only drinking a litre stein, since they aren't used to better beer.

Indeed, a trip to a town centre in some crappy city in the UK late at night would rapidly dispel this myth.

The UK is not apart of Europe vastly different cultures (like it or not Americans you have more of the British culture in you than any European culture), now if a trip to the centre of a French town or a German town it may dispel the myth.

The UK is not apart of Europe vastly different cultures (like it or not Americans you have more of the British culture in you than any European culture), now if a trip to the centre of a French town or a German town it may dispel the myth.

I dont not like it...My whole nation was built around Celtic Culture...

But, this thread really makes me wish to try some European Beer...

I dont not like it...My whole nation was built around Celtic Culture...

But, this thread really makes me wish to try some European Beer...

Glad you like it. You should it is much better than American beer.

Isn't it already 18 in some states?

It is in Colorado and Vermont. But its like 4 proof beer or something.

In the US they are having underaged drinking problems so they are thinking of lowering the drinking age from 21 down to 18.
Personally I think it is stupid. More drunkards, car wrecks, and bad health.
What do you all think?

I think that, initially, drinking problems will skyrocket because it's available but then it'll wane back to current levels. I don't think that anything's really going to change, per say. I do think it is absurd though that you can go to fight in war, drive a car, vote, own a firearm, run for public offices (not all but some), go to jail as an adult, etc. but not drink.

In the US they are having underaged drinking problems so they are thinking of lowering the drinking age from 21 down to 18.
Personally I think it is stupid. More drunkards, car wrecks, and bad health.
What do you all think?
I think that if someone is legally an adult, they should be able to buy booze.

...also, the legal drinking age here (Canada) is 18 or 19 depending on the province and I don't think our rate of DUI is higher than yours.

But yeah, keep the legal drinking age high, you'll just have undergrads making crappy moonshine and young adults hopping borders to the countries to the north and south if they're close enough. I'm sure Windsor gets a fair chunk of change from 19-20 year olds coming up to have some fun.

They should definitely lower the drinking age...

A) it isnt stopping people my age from drinking...
B) I can get lung cancer and kill things...But drink? nah, thats just tooo dangerous..
C) they should also lower the Gambling Age to 18, lol...

As far as I know the gambling age IS 18. You can go to a horse/dog track and bet, you can play the lotto . . .

The issue for casinos IIRC is that they serve alcohol.

And it certainly isnt here...hell, you have to be 17 to get in the fuckin Movie Theater after 6....and we dont even serve alcohol...

I hate havin to enforce that shit at work...

8 words for you to use on your boss. "He showed me ID. Must have been fake."

I learned in school that teenagers and those younger have maturing proteins in their head and that the ones in adults are mature so if anyone under 20 drinks they suffer some brain damage.


I learned a lot of things in school that were factually incorrect.

Its nothing more then a Christian Conservatism, trying to convince you that all that is pleasurable is sinful. I can get married at eightteen, but I cant have a glass of champagne to celebrate? American Logic for you.

Here in Ontario, it's 19. In other parts of Canada, such as Quebec,Alberta and Manitoba it is 18. I even think it should be 18 all across Canada. America's drinking age is way to high and needs to be lowered to at least 18. No wonder we have so many Americans coming here to drink. Leave it to the USA to put such a stupid law into effect.

I wasnt saying theyre more responsible...just that i dont think the data is accurate...

If you have physically more people drinking, then Of Course theres gonna be more drinking related illness and vice versa...Umm... Let me see if I can sort this out for you.

Besides the "if you can fight, you can drink" fairness principle, the argument for lowering the drinking age in the United States has been that doing so would result in a more responsible drinking culture among American youth: less binge drinking, less alcoholism, and so on.

But this doesn't hold up. Countries that have a lower drinking age see more binge drinking, more alcoholism... and so on.

So... wait, did you have a point?

Here in Ontario, it's 19. In other parts of Canada, such as Quebec,Alberta and Manitoba it is 18. I even think it should be 18 all across Canada. America's drinking age is way to high and needs to be lowered to at least 18. No wonder we have so many Americans coming here to drink. Leave it to the USA to put such a stupid law into effect.

No don't lower the drinking age in USA because Canada and Mexico will lose all the tourist dollars from college kids!

Umm... Let me see if I can sort this out for you.

Besides the "if you can fight, you can drink" fairness principle, the argument for lowering the drinking age in the United States has been that doing so would result in a more responsible drinking culture among American youth: less binge drinking, less alcoholism, and so on.

But this doesn't hold up. Countries that have a lower drinking age see more binge drinking, more alcoholism... and so on.

So... wait, did you have a point?

Do you have some statistics for that? I wouldn't have asked if you had said the same as that is more believable.

As far as I know the gambling age IS 18. You can go to a horse/dog track and bet, you can play the lotto . . .

The issue for casinos IIRC is that they serve alcohol.

Nah, in MS its 21...just a year and three months...

Here in Ontario, it's 19. In other parts of Canada, such as Quebec,Alberta and Manitoba it is 18. I even think it should be 18 all across Canada. America's drinking age is way to high and needs to be lowered to at least 18. No wonder we have so many Americans coming here to drink. Leave it to the USA to put such a stupid law into effect.
In Ontario it was only 19 because of OAC, they didn't want high school students to be old enough to drink because they could get alcohol for their younger classmates. Of course, now that there is no OAC, the drinking age should be brought back down in theory.

I really think it should be brought down because there's no reason to keep it high.

Of course, I also think that kids should start getting small amounts of alcohol at home by their mid teens, just something like half a glass of wine with dinner and the like so they don't view alcohol as a binging thing, but just something where one can happily have one or two.

Since I had to wait until I was 21, I want everyone else to have to wait as well. :)

Do you have some statistics for that?

Why yes, I do.

http://captus.samhsa.gov/central/documents/2Europedrinkresponsibly.pdf

It is commonly perceived that Europeans are socialized to drink at an earlier age, and because of this they drink more responsibly. But, the truth of the matter is, surveys show higher rates of binge drinking among European youth than U.S. youth. Only Portugal (at 14 percent) is lower than the US (at 24 percent). The US is lower than Italy (31 percent), Greece (33 percent), and Spain (39 percent)—with Denmark showing the highest rate at 61 percent of 15 and 16 year olds binge drinking.

Why yes, I do.

http://captus.samhsa.gov/central/documents/2Europedrinkresponsibly.pdf

Nitpick: Your quote states that young people that are not allowed to drink in the USA drink less than those in Europe who can. That of course leads to a big "duh".
It says nothing whatsoever about how responsibly adults or 21 year olds drink.

However, now to actually click the link and read the article ;)

Why yes, I do.

http://captus.samhsa.gov/central/documents/2Europedrinkresponsibly.pdf

binge drinking in that is defined as at least 5 drinks in a row. if that is a binge, then binge drinking merely means drinking to get drunk. which is sort of the point. getting drunk is not in itself irresponsible. the real question is one of rates of alcohol poisoning, driving under the influence, bar fights, missing class/work because of hangovers, etc.

i would fully expect that i would have drank more if i could have drank legally while younger. that doesn't surprise me in the least.

Nitpick: Your quote states that young people that are not allowed to drink in the USA drink less than those in Europe who can. That of course leads to a big "duh".Hardly a "duh" when the "common wisdom" in the United States is that underage kids a) have access to alcohol anyway; and b) tend to binge drink because they cannot do so with proper, legal supervision.

Just read back over this thread to see this myth repeated again and again.

It says nothing whatsoever about how responsibly adults or 21 year olds drink.Try this, then, measuring heavy drinking among the adult populations of various countries.

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/alcohol/figtableboxes/table7.htm

The evidence is all out there. I could keep providing links and more links all day. So let's say that the ball is in your court. If you still think I'm wrong, find empirical evidence that actually contradicts what I'm saying, and then we can evaluate which evidence is better.

binge drinking in that is defined as at least 5 drinks in a row. if that is a binge, then binge drinking merely means drinking to get drunk. which is sort of the point.The "point" is, indeed, that alcohol is abused precisely when getting drunk is taken to be the point.

You know, the real problem is that too few people appreciate the value of a good buzz. A buzz, not drunkenness.

i would fully expect that i would have drank more if i could have drank legally while younger. that doesn't surprise me in the least.As would I. And at least this means we're both reasonable enough to see through the popular myths of the U.S. drinking age--particularly the notion that young people would drink less, not more, if the drinking age were lowered.

Meanwhile, people are still horribly informed about just how much drinking goes on. In a recent study using breathalyzers on college students coming home late on Friday and Saturday nights (heavy party nights), only about 1 in 3 had ANY alcohol on their breath. That's right--2/3 of college party-goers come home showing a 0.00 on a breathalyzer.

In the US, many activities seen as "taboo" (underage drinking, premarital sex, etc) are indulged in to excess precisely because of it's taboo status. If you're an adult in every other legal respect at 18, then you should be allowed to drink whatever you want at 18. However, unacceptable conduct--drunk driving, disorderly drunkenness, etc--should be punished much more severely: anything from extended loss of driving privilege to public display and confinement in the stocks (the constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, not cruel or unusual punishment). Less freedom + minimal accountability for your acts is far worse than maximum freedom + maximum personal accountability.

The "point" is, indeed, that alcohol is abused precisely when getting drunk is taken to be the point.

eh, there's nothing wrong with the occasional bout of drunken debauchery. i mean if you are doing so like 4 times a week, yeah, you've got a problem, but there is nothing inherently irresponsible about getting drunk sometimes. alcohol abuse is only occurring when your alcohol use is causing significant negative impacts on your life and you keep drinking anyway.

which reminds me - one of the biggie college ones that i'd be interested to see some international statistics on is the far too common "freshmen partying themselves to straight Fs" story. do you know any likely sources for something like that off the top of your head?

You know, the real problem is that too few people appreciate the value of a good buzz. A buzz, not drunkenness.

i, on the other hand, know too many people that use a good buzz as their baseline state

eh, there's nothing wrong with the occasional bout of drunken debauchery. i mean if you are doing so like 4 times a week, yeah, you've got a problem, but there is nothing inherently irresponsible about getting drunk sometimes.Most psychologists would consider ONCE a week a serious problem.

alcohol abuse is only occurring when your alcohol use is causing significant negative impacts on your life and you keep drinking anyway.The problem is that you may not realize what effects it's having, especially when it comes to physical and mental health effects that develop over time.

which reminds me - one of the biggie college ones that i'd be interested to see some international statistics on is the far too common "freshmen partying themselves to straight Fs" story. do you know any likely sources for something like that off the top of your head?Not off the top of my head, no... and given differences in how higher education is handled, it would be difficult to compare such statistics anyway. (What sense do you make of comparisons between U.S. state schools with open or near-open enrollment, and global policies that tend to be more selective?)

You may be interested, however, in a related issue. While measures of student performance in secondary schools have the United States pulling very low numbers, for reasons that are not yet well understood we perform much better in college. One plausible explanation has to do with the pressures facing primary- and secondary-level students in much of the world to excel in order to advance to the best schools at the next level--pressures enforced by parents, and which tend to vanish when students go off by themselves to university.

Ironically, according to some analyses the "easy-going" nature of American primary- and secondary-level schooling is precisely what helps our students develop the independence to perform well in post-secondary schooling.

New Zealand lowered its drinking age from 20 with permission for 18 year olds to drink with supervision, down to 18 with 16 year olds to drink with supervision

much as one cannot compare NZ to the rest of the world, as most other countries were not colonised by retards and criminals deported from the UK,

the otherwise immature personality and attitude of most people of 20 years old or under, born and raised in democratic nations, provides enough evidence to deny lowering the drinking age

for further evidence on how bad calls on alcohol control can turn nasty, check out the police and hospital reports from new zealand and australia and see how many life-altering serious injuries happen each week

its bad enough NZ and Oz are trying to copy USA for the retarded hip-hop image among its youth, without the youth of USA trying to copy the drunken retard image of NZ/Oz youth on a friday/saturday night

Most psychologists would consider ONCE a week a serious problem.

what level of drunkenness are we talking here? 'cause that seems a bit extreme.

Ironically, according to some analyses the "easy-going" nature of American primary- and secondary-level schooling is precisely what helps our students develop the independence to perform well in post-secondary schooling.

you know, this actually would seem to fit with my anecdotal reading of the party-hard freshman dropouts in the states, who seem disproportionately likely to have had strict and controlling parents (and we all know the plural of 'anecdote' is 'data')

Why yes, I do.

http://captus.samhsa.gov/central/documents/2Europedrinkresponsibly.pdf

The point i was trying to make is that, regardless of age...If statistics are done on a percentage, then the higher percentage of your population drinks...then obviously the percentage of drinking related illness is going to be higher...

Regardless of the age of your drinkers, its the fact that they have a higher ratio of drinkers:Non Drinkers than the US...

The problem with the drinking age of 21 is that it is egregiously violated, so egregiously that suffering consequences as a result of violating it is the exception rather than the rule, even for rather exceptional violations. An 18 year old can drink twenty beers a week for a year without getting in trouble. The law serves primarily to develop contempt for the law, as the outright prohibition of alcohol did before.


QFT. (same kinda arguement goes for cannabis, too)

imo, problems with drunkenness are primarily a cultural concern. France and Germany have the same legal drinking age as us in the UK, but we have some of the biggest problems with binge drinking and underage drinking - to my knowledge - in the developed world. its not the age of consumption that's doing this, its the culture we have built up around drink that's the problem. addressing these concerns is complex and difficult, and one the US should worry about more than what the legal age may be.

I live in the UK and our drinking age is 18. I believe that an 18 year old is an adult. They have the right to vote, they are taxed and can get full prison time. There would be an uproar if they made the legal age higher over here.

I don't think it matters too much. Making it illegal simply drives it underground, it still happens, if not more, because it is taboo. And kids/teenagers love to break rules.

I say forget drinking Age and create a drinking licence.

Make it illegal to serve/provide alcohol to anyone without their licence

Any illegal activity caught while DUI (I.E. Drunk Driving, Disturbing the peace, etc) will result in suspension or removal of said licence.

I say forget drinking Age and create a drinking licence.

Make it illegal to serve/provide alcohol to anyone without their licence

Any illegal activity caught while DUI (I.E. Drunk Driving, Disturbing the peace, etc) will result in suspension or removal of said licence.

That...Is actually a brilliant plan...

I wonder how you would test for it though?...or what age youd need to be to apply for it?

As an 18 year old college freshman, i can tell you that it doesn't really make much of a damn what the legal drinking age is. But it would be nice to be able to buy my own beer instead of soliciting an adult..

That...Is actually a brilliant plan...

I wonder how you would test for it though?...or what age youd need to be to apply for it?

hmm... let's think about it...

normally the earliest age for diving is 16. I would say earliest is 17. let's not overwhelm them teens with alot of freedom at one time. ;)

tests would include...
Reconizing DUI and other substance abuse laws.
Reconizing the penalties of DUI and breaking other substance abuse laws.
Legal paperwork to prove age
Parent/Guardian Signature (untill age of 18)

after that, it's dependant on how many, how frequently and what type of alcohol basied laws are broken. (concerning renewal of licence)

and the licence validity can be the same for Divers licences...

Just look at Europe's vastly smaller number of alcohol related problems and their drinking ages and you will find your answer.

what level of drunkenness are we talking here? 'cause that seems a bit extreme.Binge drinking--five or more in a drinking session.

There is probably an age variable here in the sense of how "extreme" that is. When I was in college, the notion of going a weekend without getting drunk (usually at a party) seemed ridiculous.

Just a few years later, there are still plenty of parties... but it's a very small minority of party-goers who have more than three or four drinks. For that matter, my friends and I have a regular bar night every Thursday... and I go some weeks without drinking at all. I get to talking, and going to the bar for a drink actually becomes too much of a chore. Most weeks I have two or three, no more.

Every once in a while, of course, I'll get downright drunk. But the notion of doing that every week? That's what seems "extreme."

The point i was trying to make is that, regardless of age...If statistics are done on a percentage, then the higher percentage of your population drinks...then obviously the percentage of drinking related illness is going to be higher...No. Not "obviously," anyway... since drinking-related illness derives from the abuse of alcohol, not using it responsibly.

To the extent a population drinks responsibly, they should see lower rates of alcohol-related problems even if more of them drink in total.

Just look at Europe's vastly smaller number of alcohol related problems and their drinking ages and you will find your answer.If you have evidence contradicting mine--which shows the exact opposite to be true--please, don't hold back on us.

No. Not "obviously," anyway... since drinking-related illness derives from the abuse of alcohol, not using it responsibly.

To the extent a population drinks responsibly, they should see lower rates of alcohol-related problems even if more of them drink in total.

Yes, but if you more people drinking then there is going to be more Abuse...

You're old enough to get shot at for Uncle Sam and murder in his name you're old enough to drink.

That's what they thought back during Vietnam.

Fatal car crashes rose by 50% immediately thereafter.

binge drinking in that is defined as at least 5 drinks in a row. if that is a binge, then binge drinking merely means drinking to get drunk. which is sort of the point. getting drunk is not in itself irresponsible. the real question is one of rates of alcohol poisoning, driving under the influence, bar fights, missing class/work because of hangovers, etc.

i would fully expect that i would have drank more if i could have drank legally while younger. that doesn't surprise me in the least.

The dreaded binge drinking is 5 drinks in a row? I only ever drink less than that when I'm at home.

Yes, but if you more people drinking then there is going to be more Abuse...Well, that's part of the argument in favor of a high drinking age: fewer kids drinking, fewer kids abusing.

But opponents have long held, against the evidence, that lower drinking ages would result in lower rates of abuse, among young people in particular, by "normalizing" the activity and presenting opportunities for responsible alcohol education.

It sounds like you agree with me: the higher drinking age works.

Well, that's part of the argument in favor of a high drinking age: fewer kids drinking, fewer kids abusing.

But opponents have long held, against the evidence, that lower drinking ages would result in lower rates of abuse, among young people in particular, by "normalizing" the activity and presenting opportunities for responsible alcohol education.

It sounds like you agree with me: the higher drinking age works.

Well, not that im in agreement with it...Im saying that its the physical number of drinkers that are causing those statistics...

And that Age shouldnt be a factor...

Im saying that its the physical number of drinkers that are causing those statistics...Right. Very much contra the argument that lowering the drinking age would reduce alcohol abuse.

I'm not sure where we're missing a beat in communication here. Seems simple enough.

And that Age shouldnt be a factor...But why?

The most popular argument is that the higher drinking age either doesn't work, or it's counterproductive. I've debunked these myths again and again.

The only other argument, really, is one of "fairness." Is that your argument? I haven't spent much time on it other than to remark that it turns both ways--if you're too young to drink, you should be too young to fight--and I'll add now that it only works either way once you establish that such privileges should be judged according to the same criteria. Which no one has bothered to do.

Right. Very much contra the argument that lowering the drinking age would reduce alcohol abuse.

I'm not sure where we're missing a beat in communication here. Seems simple enough.

OH, thats where we're missing the beat...Im not saying itd reduce it...

Im saying i dont care, and that Alcohol Abuse is across the entire age spectrum...

Abuses should be handled on an Individual basis, IMO, not by Blanket Bannings...

Im saying i dont care,Well, that's a different argument entirely. And I suspect it comes from some sort of libertarian argument about individual choices. That's a popular view... although in focus group research it tends to be deflated when someone points out the various social costs of such choices.

and that Alcohol Abuse is across the entire age spectrum...But that's not true. And perhaps more importantly, the probability of alcohol abuse is directly (and strongly) correlated with the age at first use.

Among adults aged 21 or older who had ever used alcohol, rates of past year alcohol dependence or abuse were lowest among persons who first used alcohol at an older age and highest among persons who initiated alcohol use at a younger age (Figure 3).

Link: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/ageDependence/ageDependence.htm

Note that this is the exact opposite of the result expected by those who argue that getting used to alcohol at an early age will make adults more responsible drinkers.

Well, that's a different argument entirely. And I suspect it comes from some sort of libertarian argument about individual choices. That's a popular view... although in focus group research it tends to be deflated when someone points out the various social costs of such choices.

But that's not true. And perhaps more importantly, the probability of alcohol abuse is directly (and strongly) correlated with the age at first use.

It may be a lower rate...but it still comes at all ages...

and yes, it does come from a Libertarian argument about individual choices...idc about focus groups, lol...

I actually saw a story on the evening news a few nights ago discussing this very issue. According to the report, a number of university professors across the United States support a reduction from 21 to 18...arguing that students wouldn't drink as excessively.

I think a reduction in the drinking age could be relatively harmless. European states (for the most part) allow drinking at 18 (although Sweden only allows Beer/Wine at 18, hard liquor at 21). When I was in Europe, I spoke with a few guys from England, and they were STUNNED when I told them that we have people dying in our Universities from alcohol poisoning...apparently, it's unheard of over there. Another crucial difference is driving age and access to public transportation. If you can get everywhere on the Metro, you won't wrap a car around a tree when you've had one too many.

lol changing the drinking age is just a silly idea to stop certain behaviour it just lowers or highers the age that people do drink, in the UK it is 18 and you get people as young as 15 drinking but if we raised it to 21 we would get people 15 still drinking but also more people doing it illegally, if people want to drink there isn't MUCH that is gonna stop them.

The UK kinda has the same problem as the US in that we have very drunken behaviour when people drink, its not such a problem in countries like France, I was there just recently and French teenagers know how to drink because they are introduced to it at such an early stage, they know their bounderies they know when they have had enough and when its time to stop, people in the UK and I assume in the US don't because there are such draconian laws on drinking!

lol changing the drinking age is just a silly idea to stop certain behaviour it just lowers or highers the age that people do drink, in the UK it is 18 and you get people as young as 15 drinking but if we raised it to 21 we would get people 15 still drinking but also more people doing it illegally, if people want to drink there isn't MUCH that is gonna stop them.

The UK kinda has the same problem as the US in that we have very drunken behaviour when people drink, its not such a problem in countries like France, I was there just recently and French teenagers know how to drink because they are introduced to it at such an early stage, they know their bounderies they know when they have had enough and when its time to stop, people in the UK and I assume in the US don't because there are such draconian laws on drinking!


Well put. The French have a culture that incorporates wine at a young age and they're a very stable country.

I could not imagine university without the SU bars and alcohol. Hooray for a drinking age of 18!

There was an article (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1812397,00.html)in Time a couple of months ago that had some good information. It seems that lowering the drinking age would do, eh, nothing, at best.
As researchers John Schulenberg of the University of Michigan and Jennifer Maggs of Penn State point out in a 2002 Journal of Studies on Alcohol paper, "during the past two decades, despite many social, demographic, political and economic changes — and despite dramatic shifts in cigarette and illicit drug use — rates of frequent heavy drinking among those ages 19 to 22 have shifted little."
Finally, lowering the drinking age to 18 would stop infantilizing college students, but it would probably kill more of them in traffic accidents. In 2006, 2,121 people ages 16 to 20 died in alcohol-related fatalities on U.S. roads, according to data compiled for me by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; in 1984, the figure was 4,612. McCardell has argued that improvements in seat-belt use and car safety partly explain these gains, but traffic fatalities unrelated to alcohol have increased 21% in that age group during the same period (the raw numbers are 2,915 in 1984 and 3,537 in 2006).
And I don't really see how the "if you're old enough to get shot for your country..." argument applies, because there's no draft (now). Even if there were, I'm not sure drinking alcohol is a fundamental right in the same way voting is.

There was an article (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1812397,00.html)in Time a couple of months ago that had some good information. It seems that lowering the drinking age would do, eh, nothing, at best.


And I don't really see how the "if you're old enough to get shot for your country..." argument applies, because there's no draft (now). Even if there were, I'm not sure drinking alcohol is a fundamental right in the same way voting is.

The point remains, you're an ADULT when you turn 18.

I could not imagine university without the SU bars and alcohol. Hooray for a drinking age of 18!

Seconded. Much fun was had last year under the influence of alcohol.

The dreaded binge drinking is 5 drinks in a row? I only ever drink less than that when I'm at home.

apparently you and i are goddamned alkies.


so this 5 drink binge - does it distinguish between shots, mixed drinks, and beers? and 'in a row' over how long?

The point i was trying to make is that, regardless of age...If statistics are done on a percentage, then the higher percentage of your population drinks...then obviously the percentage of drinking related illness is going to be higher...

Regardless of the age of your drinkers, its the fact that they have a higher ratio of drinkers:Non Drinkers than the US...
But is that because of the lower drinking age or the fact that the US has a higher portion of the population belonging to religious groups that abstain from alcohol who wouldn't admit it if they did drink it?

apparently you and i are goddamned alkies.


so this 5 drink binge - does it distinguish between shots, mixed drinks, and beers? and 'in a row' over how long?
Man, I polished off a bottle of wine last Friday and followed it with a couple of mixed drinks (crown + coke). I wasn't even drunk and I'm a girl... I would hardly call five drinks a "binge" to me a binge would require the binger to be drunk at the end of the binge.


I should note that drinking an entire bottle of wine to myself in one evening isn't the norm for me. It was a party and I don't party often.

Let me say this: I am personally against drinking.

Now, having said that, I say the legal drinking age should be 10 or less. See, I believe the main reason kids drink is becuase They Aren't Allowed To! After all, I drive 75-80 becuase I'm only supposed to drive 65 or less. Now, say a Police Officer told me I could drive just as fast as I wanted to. After a week of driving 80 Mph legally it would get boring. So, if all teens, and kids even, were allowed to get boozed up, where's the fun? where's the thrill of law-breaking? It wouldn't be there anymore.

Why yes, I do.

http://captus.samhsa.gov/central/documents/2Europedrinkresponsibly.pdf
Do you have some statistics in a peer reviewed journal that compare rates of alcoholism in Western European countries with lower drinking ages (i.e. France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal [I think Germany]) to American drinking ages?

I say western European countries because there tend to be other social issues in eastern Europe which will often lead to alcoholism.

And here's a slightly twisted arguement for supporting lowering the drinking age to 18:

Accroding to statistics(on some anti-DWI movie I had to watch to get my liscense). Middle and High School students comsume 35% of all the wine coolers in the US and 1.1 billion cans of beer annually. Think of the economic impact of a decrease in teen drinking;).

And the DWI (Or DUI depending on what state you live in), aguement kind of falls on its face. Plenty of people OVER the age of 21 who have commited DWI so...

The dreaded binge drinking is 5 drinks in a row? I only ever drink less than that when I'm at home.

5?

My government came out recnetly and said 4 drinks in a day was binge drinking. Of course my governent plays tabloid politics so it is understandable they don't know what they are talking about.

Link: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/ageDependence/ageDependence.htm

Note that this is the exact opposite of the result expected by those who argue that getting used to alcohol at an early age will make adults more responsible drinkers.

Well no because part of the argument states responsible drinking when younger under supervision of adults, rather than people under the age of 15 who are sneaking it out of the parents fridge and drinking heavily.

Thanks for the stats by the way, but can we say that a higher legal drinking age means lower binge drinking?

its bad enough NZ and Oz are trying to copy USA for the retarded hip-hop image among its youth, without the youth of USA trying to copy the drunken retard image of NZ/Oz youth on a friday/saturday night

Well we could say that NZ/Oz is also copying the 'drunken retard image' of the US. After all it is glorified pictures of the US that come to Oz more than the other way around.

apparently you and i are goddamned alkies.


so this 5 drink binge - does it distinguish between shots, mixed drinks, and beers? and 'in a row' over how long?

I think it refers to standard drinks, so a bottle of beer may be 1.5 standard drinks.

As an 18 year old college freshman, i can tell you that it doesn't really make much of a damn what the legal drinking age is. But it would be nice to be able to buy my own beer instead of soliciting an adult..

Do you want to rephrase that, or are you so desperate for beer that that's actually how you get it?

I'm all for it because i'm 19 and i think it'd be cool if they at least lowered it to 18....i do believe you should have an parent or older person in whom you trust, aka trusted adult, introduce it to you though so that you have an idea of how much you can intake....

apparently you and i are goddamned alkies.


so this 5 drink binge - does it distinguish between shots, mixed drinks, and beers? and 'in a row' over how long?

Apparently I'm also a "binge drinker" by this ridiculous definition. But I've also been told that I'm an alky because I never get hangovers.

Binge drinking--five or more in a drinking session.

Define "drinking session". If I'm at a party for five hours and I have five drinks, is that a "binge"? What if those five drinks are in the span of six hours? Seven?

In the US they are having underaged drinking problems so they are thinking of lowering the drinking age from 21 down to 18.

Yeah! That'll reduce the problems.

Personally I think it is stupid. More drunkards, car wrecks, and bad health.
What do you all think?

I think they should raise the drinking age to 40. Worked for me.

Ironically, I seem to recall a study that came out a few years ago that demonstrated that the body generally isn't as "ready" to handle alcohol as a toxin (liver-wise, not brain-wise, IIRC) until around... 21.

^.^ Make of that what you will.


That's unarguably why the legal drinking age in the U.S. is 21, however..."a study" doesn't mean anything. The scientists behind it were probably paid by anti-alcohol campaign to get those results to prove their point. Personally, I hate the phrase "a recent study shows..." because one study proves nothing. When at least 100 different studies show the exact same thing, I become a believer. For instance, I believe in gravity.

To the topic on hand, however, everything seems to kill you. I mean, seriously? Don't go out in the sun too long or you get melanoma. But if you stay inside, you'll develop heart disease and obesity. And not to mention the foul air protruding into your lungs every time you work your diaphragm. Then all the crap they put in soft drinks that supposedly cause cancer. At this point in our humanly, disgusting, and lethal lives, I'm not sure a drinking age really matters. I'm sure that sounds horribly barbaric. But if we MUST keep the facade of a civil society, why not drinking licenses? Show that you know the potential risk of drinking, and plus, it's one more way to weasel money out of citizens pockets to put towards schools and roads and wars and stuff.

That's unarguably why the legal drinking age in the U.S. is 21, however..."a study" doesn't mean anything. The scientists behind it were probably paid by anti-alcohol campaign to get those results to prove their point. Personally, I hate the phrase "a recent study shows..." because one study proves nothing. When at least 100 different studies show the exact same thing, I become a believer. For instance, I believe in gravity.

To the topic on hand, however, everything seems to kill you. I mean, seriously? Don't go out in the sun too long or you get melanoma. But if you stay inside, you'll develop heart disease and obesity. And not to mention the foul air protruding into your lungs every time you work your diaphragm. Then all the crap they put in soft drinks that supposedly cause cancer. At this point in our humanly, disgusting, and lethal lives, I'm not sure a drinking age really matters. I'm sure that sounds horribly barbaric. But if we MUST keep the facade of a civil society, why not drinking licenses? Show that you know the potential risk of drinking, and plus, it's one more way to weasel money out of citizens pockets to put towards schools and roads and wars and stuff.

You needed at least 100 studies to tell you that there really is such a thing as gravity before you believed it? :confused:

Requiring evidence for gravity isn't all that weird if you think about it.
Gravity is a force that allows every body, regardless of composition, to act on any other body, regardless of composition, when the two bodies are not in physical contact with one another. This is far from intuitive.

Requiring evidence for gravity isn't all that weird if you think about it.
Gravity is a force that allows every body, regardless of composition, to act on any other body, regardless of composition, when the two bodies are not in physical contact with one another. This is far from intuitive.

You're right! it's sensual.

Requiring evidence for gravity isn't all that weird if you think about it.
Gravity is a force that allows every body, regardless of composition, to act on any other body, regardless of composition, when the two bodies are not in physical contact with one another. This is far from intuitive.

But do you need 100 studies to prove something you can experience already or do you just need a study explaining what it is and how it works.

You're right! it's sensual.

We have to differentiate between the experience of gravity and the explanation of gravity. The experience of gravity (the not-flying-off-the-earth, always-fall-back-to-the-ground feeling) is immediately grasped, requiring no justification for belief. What does require justification is the explanation of gravity, the theory of gravitation, which cannot be apprehended by the senses.

Requiring evidence for gravity isn't all that weird if you think about it.
Gravity is a force that allows every body, regardless of composition, to act on any other body, regardless of composition, when the two bodies are not in physical contact with one another. This is far from intuitive.

shit, i've met people that wouldn't believe that coins and basketballs fall at the same rate on earth even after watching it done. gravity is, if anything, counter-intuitive.

You needed at least 100 studies to tell you that there really is such a thing as gravity before you believed it? :confused:

More. Each instance of belief in it is a study.

shit, i've met people that wouldn't believe that coins and basketballs fall at the same rate on earth even after watching it done. gravity is, if anything, counter-intuitive.

Technically, coins and basketballs don't fall at the same rate on earth because of the wind resistance, but your point is well taken.

The point remains, you're an ADULT when you turn 18.Yeah, but you can't run for President...

In any case, the abstract notion of "adulthood" is hardly relevant here when it turns out that, empirically, brains and behaviors are different with respect to the effects of alcohol before (roughly) age 21.

Man, I polished off a bottle of wine last Friday and followed it with a couple of mixed drinks (crown + coke). I wasn't even drunk and I'm a girl... I would hardly call five drinks a "binge" to me a binge would require the binger to be drunk at the end of the binge.A) You were almost certainly drunk, unless you also weigh 250+ pounds. Which means you don't even know what "drunk" actually feels like.
B) If you were, in fact, NOT drunk... then that indicates a very high tolerance... which itself is considered a symptom of alcohol abuse.

Do you have some statistics in a peer reviewed journal that compare rates of alcoholism in Western European countries with lower drinking ages (i.e. France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal [I think Germany]) to American drinking ages?I'm sure I can dig some up, but not at the moment... ironically, I'm too drunk to care. :p How much did I have? Let's see... Three beers, two shots and a vodka gimlet. Wasted? No. Drunk? Yes... but then, I'm experienced enough to tell the difference.

I say western European countries because there tend to be other social issues in eastern Europe which will often lead to alcoholism.Actually, the major differences are really between northern and southern European cultures. People along the Mediterranean tend to be very moderate drinkers, while the north binges away. If memory serves, Denmark is the worst on the continent.

Thanks for the stats by the way, but can we say that a higher legal drinking age means lower binge drinking?Yes. That's exactly what I've been saying, and supporting with empirical evidence from every available source.

So far, NO ONE has offered contradictory evidence. NONE. Yet people insist on repeating the same myths over and over and over again.

Yeah, but you can't run for President...

In any case, the abstract notion of "adulthood" is hardly relevant here when it turns out that, empirically, brains and behaviors are different with respect to the effects of alcohol before (roughly) age 21.

That's what we should do, only people eligible to be able to run for President can buy and consume alcohol.

Well I would say some people may still act the same when they are 30 when they were 19.

Yes. That's exactly what I've been saying, and supporting with empirical evidence from every available source.

So far, NO ONE has offered contradictory evidence. NONE. Yet people insist on repeating the same myths over and over and over again.

I know that is what you have been saying, but I am asking if it is the cause of it? As opposed to other factors, after all Portugal was lower how do you explain that.

Define "drinking session". If I'm at a party for five hours and I have five drinks, is that a "binge"? What if those five drinks are in the span of six hours? Seven?Yes. Yes, and yes.

You may not get very drunk, but the fact that you are maintaining a non-zero BAC for six+ hours? Yeah, that counts as a binge.

Yes. Yes, and yes.

You may not get very drunk, but the fact that you are maintaining a non-zero BAC for six+ hours? Yeah, that counts as a binge.

Which is why the concept of binge drinking is ridiculous. Now if we were to say a binge was having 5 drinks in say an hour or less than 5 hours (as it takes approximately 1 hour for your system to clear 1 drink) that might be a bit more acceptable.

It is also why when people go on about binge drinking and incorporate these parameters as abuse of alcohol and what not, you just have to turn off.

Of course you just binge drinked yourself, yes you are drunk as you stated you may not be wasted but you are a bringer.


Now if you will excuse me it's 4:30 on a Friday afternoon and I am off to the pub.

I know that is what you have been saying, but I am asking if it is the cause of it? As opposed to other factors, after all Portugal was lower how do you explain that.Culture.

The most relevant comparisons for the purposes of social science are comparisons to countries similar to the United States on various social/economic factors, e.g. the United Kingdom... and when we do these kinds of analyses--yes, it seems very likely (social science is never "certain") that the higher drinking age is a causal factor. Especially when we add medical evidence and studies showing that the younger a person starts drinking the more likely he/she is to abuse alcohol later in life (which I have posted).

The sum of the evidence gathered by several disciplines suggests very strongly that a higher drinking age reduces alcohol abuse--not only among young people, but in the population as a whole.

Yeah, but you can't run for President...

says you. if john mccain doesn't need to literally satisfy the constitutional requirements of being a natural born citizen, then i don't need to literally satisfy the constitutional requirements of being 35.

Which is why the concept of binge drinking is ridiculous. Now if we were to say a binge was having 5 drinks in say an hour or less than 5 hours (as it takes approximately 1 hour for your system to clear 1 drink) that might be a bit more acceptable.What does "acceptable" mean? "Acceptable" because it's what we want to hear? Certainly not acceptable because it reflects a considered scientific consensus.

Of course you just binge drinked yourself, yes you are drunk as you stated you may not be wasted but you are a bringer.Indeed. But I don't do it every week. And the consensus is that a binge or two here or there (short of alcohol poisoning, which means short of nausea and related symptoms) is not unhealthy.

Doing it every week? Yeah, that's unhealthy.

You know, it occurs to me that drinkers are like creationists.

Science is great, as long as it agrees with what we WANT to believe. But as soon as it tells us that humans share an ancestor with chimpanzees, or more than five drinks in a sitting is unhealthy... well, fuck science. Right?

You know, it occurs to me that drinkers are like creationists.

Science is great, as long as it agrees with what we WANT to believe. But as soon as it tells us that humans share an ancestor with chimpanzees, or more than five drinks in a sitting is unhealthy... well, fuck science. Right?

i'll drink to that!

Yes. Yes, and yes.

You may not get very drunk, but the fact that you are maintaining a non-zero BAC for six+ hours? Yeah, that counts as a binge.

Someone here is high, and last I checked it wasn't me.

You know, it occurs to me that drinkers are like creationists.

Science is great, as long as it agrees with what we WANT to believe. But as soon as it tells us that humans share an ancestor with chimpanzees, or more than five drinks in a sitting is unhealthy... well, fuck science. Right?

You aren't science, and last I checked you only sourced one study.

You aren't science, and last I checked you only sourced one study.I've provided at least three sources--one of which, as I recall, was not so much a "study" as a meta-analysis of research in the field.

If ever the burden of proof were on me, it shifted a long time ago. I'll reiterate: NO ONE has managed to find a scientific source contradicting mine. NONE.

the drinking age isn't the problem. the THINKING age is!

i'm all for eliminating ALL forms of age discrimination.

there should be no such crime as statutory and two year olds who commit real premeditated crimes should be sent to maximum security prison.

and no one should be forced to retire, or quit driving for that matter, because the're too near sighted to see a stop sign or see over the dashboard, or about to keel over from a heart attack at the next moment.

actually driving wouldn't be pertinent, with no cars being manufactured, or roads maintained except by hobbiests, no gas stations and no motor fuels anyway, and little people sized trains going everywhere all the time frequently, there really wouldn't be anyone depending on them anyway. it was just an example to illustrate the point.

actually as aghast at such a world as some people might be, i find it in no way any less desireable then the one we currently find ourselves in.

and yes there'd be plenty of tecnology, of kinds gratifying to create and explore with. but all in harmony with nature and none of it about hurting anyone.

there would also be no building codes, no closed borders, and not much, if anything, in the way of governments to enforce them with anyway.

the closest thing to governments would be village elders, a world government that was nearly invisible and didn't affect anyone's lives directly but only to keep local councils from getting too obsurd in their treatment of individuals, and then you have the actual individual service infrastructures to maintain such tangable physical infrastructure as those little people sized trains, and the power and data communication grids.

i don't know if anyone can imagine such a world. but i live in one every time i close my eyes. it doesn't begin and end with little pieces of paper either, although a few localities, for whatever reason, seem to use some form of plastic currencey, like little plexi french curves of oddly different shapes and tintings to represent different denominations. but that is only in a very few villages that opt for that sort of economy, which most places don't.

the option being entirely local.

ah but drinking age, well you can see, i hope, how such a question is completely meaningless in a context of no anything age, and a constitution that forbids enacting any statute restricting an individual's right to possess anything (in no more then personal quantities of course, but makes no such restriction against banning the mass procuction, sale for profit, or wholesale importation of whatever it is deemed desirable to so ban THE LARGE SCALE PRODUCTION OF, such as for example fire arms and automobiles)

hmm... let's think about it...

normally the earliest age for diving is 16. I would say earliest is 17. let's not overwhelm them teens with alot of freedom at one time. ;)

tests would include...
Reconizing DUI and other substance abuse laws.
Reconizing the penalties of DUI and breaking other substance abuse laws.
Legal paperwork to prove age
Parent/Guardian Signature (untill age of 18)

after that, it's dependant on how many, how frequently and what type of alcohol basied laws are broken. (concerning renewal of licence)

and the licence validity can be the same for Divers licences...

love it

Here's a proposal that I've heard from people before. At age 18 you can purchase and consume beer and wine. At 21 you can consume and purchase hard liquor.

Here's a proposal that I've heard from people before. At age 18 you can purchase and consume beer and wine. At 21 you can consume and purchase hard liquor.

Why condemn them to that piss they call beer for three years?

A) You were almost certainly drunk, unless you also weigh 250+ pounds. Which means you don't even know what "drunk" actually feels like.

First of all, I'm betting that you don't quite know how alcohol affects people. People with more body fat get drunk on less than people with less body fat. I mean, yes, there is some correlation with not getting drunk if one weighs more, but that's not all there is to it.
Secondly, I wasn't drunk, I was maybe a little buzzed.

B) If you were, in fact, NOT drunk... then that indicates a very high tolerance... which itself is considered a symptom of alcohol abuse.

Or it indicates that I opened the bottle of wine around 6pm, drank while my veggie burgers cooked on the BBQ and continued to drink until 3am while sitting around the camp fire snacking on graham crackers and chocolate. It probably took me until 1 or so to finish the bottle of wine and then I was offered a crown and coke or two.
Mixing alcohol and food is a way to stay sober while drinking more.

Further, I would hardly call what I do alcohol abuse. I'll generally have like a glass or two of wine in with dinner, but not even every night (less than once a week) and have a couple of pints of beer with my colleagues at the end of a week and maybe a beer when I get home from work every now and again (maybe once a week). I hardly ever drink to the point of being drunk and if I do, it was unintentional and I don't have to drink to enjoy myself.

Just because a girl enjoys her liquor every now and can hold it well doesn't make her an alcoholic and I would thank you to not judge people you don't even know.

Actually, the major differences are really between northern and southern European cultures. People along the Mediterranean tend to be very moderate drinkers, while the north binges away. If memory serves, Denmark is the worst on the continent.

The Czech Republic has the highest consumption of alcohol per capita in the world. I think it's followed be Ireland.

A south to north gradient would make sense though, when you think of it in terms of how little sunlight a place gets in the winter and how SAD can kick in.

So far, NO ONE has offered contradictory evidence. NONE. Yet people insist on repeating the same myths over and over and over again.

I can't get the whole article because it's from an actual journal, but the abstract sums it up:

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001970912

Youth in New Zealand drink less three months after the drinking age is dropped from 20 to 18 than three months prior.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n12/full/5201694a.html

A paper explaining the genetic link of alcoholism (i.e. it's not the age you start drinking, it's your genes).

Your studies haven't been peer-reviewed. The US government agencies have their own reasons for saying that low legal drinking ages are bad. This guy expresses them better (and I should be leaving): http://www.reason.com/news/show/29270.html

First of all, I'm betting that you don't quite know how alcohol affects people. People with more body fat get drunk on less than people with less body fat. I mean, yes, there is some correlation with not getting drunk if one weighs more, but that's not all there is to it.Oh, I'm aware of that. That's why pound-for-pound women get drunk faster.

Secondly, I wasn't drunk, I was maybe a little buzzed.That's possible, if you really did take such a long time to drink it--your tone earlier suggested otherwise. Either way, drinking that much alcohol in a session is not something one should do frequently.

Mixing alcohol and food is a way to stay sober while drinking more.Actually, that's a myth. Having food in your stomach has some effect on slowing the rate at which alcohol reaches your blood, but once there it's still processed at a constant AND MUCH SLOWER rate. So if you start drinking with food in your stomach, you don't get drunk as quickly as you would on an empty stomach, but you still get just as drunk and stay drunk for just as long. Eating while drinking is like putting a tiny dam at the mouth of a stream filling a reservoir--the reservoir gets just as full, it just has to wait for the little dam to fill up.

EDIT: Since posting, I've found mixed evidence on this suggesting that there may be an effect after all in that the body metabolizes alcohol FASTER when it is in the blood in lower levels, meaning that by slowing the absorption rate you actually increase the processing rate... which could, in fact, mean you get less drunk. It's not conclusive, and as a practical matter I think it's better to give the benefit of the doubt to caution--don't think you can drink MORE because you're eating--but as a theoretical matter I won't push this one.

Further, I would hardly call what I do alcohol abuse. I'll generally have like a glass or two of wine in with dinner, but not even every night (less than once a week) and have a couple of pints of beer with my colleagues at the end of a week and maybe a beer when I get home from work every now and again (maybe once a week). I hardly ever drink to the point of being drunk and if I do, it was unintentional and I don't have to drink to enjoy myself.Well, that's good.

Just because a girl enjoys her liquor every now and can hold it well doesn't make her an alcoholic and I would thank you to not judge people you don't even know.Hey, I never said "alcoholic." I said "abuse." There's a difference. I'd say the vast majority of us have abused alcohol in our lives, probably quite a few times. Myself included. But only a very, very small percentage of us are addicts properly speaking.

Why condemn them to that piss they call beer for three years?

Because
A. It would be easier to get through a legislative body
B. I'm 18 almost 19 and I like beer

I can't get the whole article because it's from an actual journal, but the abstract sums it up:

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001970912

Youth in New Zealand drink less three months after the drinking age is dropped from 20 to 18 than three months prior.That's a terrible study. Unless you can tell me how they account for the possibility that these students would have been drinking less after three months anyway? (This is always the problem with pure time-series data: you have no "control," experimental or statistical.)

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n12/full/5201694a.html

A paper explaining the genetic link of alcoholism (i.e. it's not the age you start drinking, it's your genes).Oh, I think it's both. I have no quarrel with the notion that genetics are a factor.

Your studies haven't been peer-reviewed.Actually, if you look closely I think the articles I cite turn to peer-reviewed evidence--I just didn't post any journal articles directly, if only because usually you're stuck relying on abstracts anyway. At any rate I've always selected articles that are transparent about sources and methodology, and I've been happy to answer criticisms of that methodology--which is, I'd say, at least more fun than trusting to peer review. ;) Anyway, the fact that an article makes it through peer review doesn't put it beyond criticism--and I would be curious to know more about the methodology in your first study, because based on the abstract it sounds absolutely atrocious.

EDIT: In addition to my first criticism, doing the study immediately before and three months after the lowered drinking age makes it virtually impossible to conceal from respondents the purposes of the study--and the fact that they rely on self-reporting means that respondents' feelings about what the results "should" be are likely (consciously or unconsciously) to influence their answers. Students know (as we have seen all too clearly in this discussion) the theory that a lowered drinking age will reduce drinking--how likely is it they did not have this in their heads when they were answering the survey?

That's really, really sloppy work.

Culture.

The most relevant comparisons for the purposes of social science are comparisons to countries similar to the United States on various social/economic factors, e.g. the United Kingdom... and when we do these kinds of analyses--yes, it seems very likely (social science is never "certain") that the higher drinking age is a causal factor. Especially when we add medical evidence and studies showing that the younger a person starts drinking the more likely he/she is to abuse alcohol later in life (which I have posted).

The sum of the evidence gathered by several disciplines suggests very strongly that a higher drinking age reduces alcohol abuse--not only among young people, but in the population as a whole.

Culture. Yes that is exactly what I have been saying all along, the culture towards alcohol needs to be changed.

Regardless I like the culture of Australia where some Alcohol abuse (though I use it in the general scientific definition) is considered alright, if I want to have a six pack of beer while having a BBQ one Sunday afternoon than I prefer that rather than ensuring that I only drink 2-3 bottles depending on the alcohol content over those 6 hours.

What does "acceptable" mean? "Acceptable" because it's what we want to hear? Certainly not acceptable because it reflects a considered scientific consensus.

Indeed. But I don't do it every week. And the consensus is that a binge or two here or there (short of alcohol poisoning, which means short of nausea and related symptoms) is not unhealthy.

Doing it every week? Yeah, that's unhealthy.

Now who is being a creationist. Though I would challenge that, it is not they dismiss the science as false it is more that they would rather not care and do what they want to do. A bit like how some smokers know that every cigarette cause them some harm but they want to continue anyway because they enjoy it.
Yeah I wish I had the article that discussed how doesn't matter how often you abuse alcohol it is still unhealthy for you. I will speak to the Professor who gave me a lecture using many sources on Monday if I can find him and post them for you. Now who

Now who is being a creationist.Umm, about what?

Though I would challenge that, it is not they dismiss the science as false it is more that they would rather not care and do what they want to do.Well, that's a different argument. If that's the case, they should stop arguing with me about the science.

We all take some calculated risks. You suggest that even an occasional binge is unhealthy--and certainly I'll agree that in the short term it is decidedly not good, though I'm more skeptical of long-term effects, which is what I care about. Of course, if you have evidence for long-term effects of drinking in excess (but not to the point of alcohol poisoning), say, once a month--then I'll have to take that into account. And I suspect, unless those consequences turn out to be surprisingly dire, that I will still choose the occasional "binge."

But I will take it into account as an informed individual willing to look honestly at the best available evidence regarding the choices I make, including their consequences for me as well as their broader social consequences.

I will NOT live in denial, refusing to believe that the world doesn't work the way I would like it to work.

The point remains, you're an ADULT when you turn 18.

Exactly. An adult who can't drink, just like you can't run for Congress, or collect Social Security.

In the US they are having underaged drinking problems so they are thinking of lowering the drinking age from 21 down to 18.
Personally I think it is stupid. More drunkards, car wrecks, and bad health.
What do you all think?

Well, if they would just be reasonable and follow most of Canada's lead, 19 would be just about right. Although 18 works for Quebec, so it would be acceptable.