Should the USA drinking age be lowered to 18?

Cigarettes are not causing that number of deaths in young adults. In 2014, 2, 270 teens and young adults aged 16-19 died in motor vehicle crashes. That is 6 teens every day that were killed. Adding alcohol to that mix would increase. We already know that distracted driving is a big part of crashes nowadays, we do not need drunk teens (really anyone) driving distracted as well.

The age is already arbitrary, so sure why not.

I'm staunchly against having a government mandated age limit on what you can put in your body that is older than the age limit at which you can be drafted for war.

So yes.

I think 19 should be the legal age because by that age they should be out of school. Large portion of high schoolers turn 18 doing their senior year.

It would be pretty epic if there was no drinking age and it was up to the individual or parent to decide if they're drinking.

I think their should be higher restrictions on alcohol to be honest.

Limiting the places its sold and banning it from television advertisement is where I would start.

No, it should be lowered to 19. This would allow the vast majority of the military the ability to drink legally, while still keeping alcohol at arms length from high schools. Likewise, 19 for legal Marijuana use, but I don't think it should be legal for those in the military because of Marijuana's lingering effects. So those joining the military should understand they will sacrifice marijuana use in doing so.

Though they will do it anyways, 18 is an open invitation for alcohol in high schools. No need to make that worse.

On another note, I vote making 16 the national Age of Consent. Old enough to drive, old enough to dive. But stricter punishment for breaking this law to dissuade pedophiles.

@Black96Z:

I saw your post late, but I agree with your answer and your reasons exactly.

Better to not make it even easier for teenagers to get alcohol in high school.

This.

But idk, more than anything I think it just makes it harder on cashiers at stores to have to worry about carding people for things. Some sneaky dipshit gets their older friend to buy booze for them and gets alcohol poisoning, and because of that the cashier loses their job and goes to jail.

Okay, so people under 21 can do other stuff and not drink alcohol. I fail to see how the fact that they can do other stuff besides drinking alcohol means that they should also be allowed to drink alcohol.

Keep in mind, I'm not even arguing against lowering the drinking age. I just don't find "well, they can do other things so they should be allowed to do this thing too" to be a compelling argument.

Not really, you're kind of expected to graduate high school around that time. I think thats why 21 is the age. The difference between highschool and college is pretty wide when it comes to being responsible. Which in turns means you're already likely developed better habbits by the time you're allowed to drink. IE you're smart enough to not act like a child that just graduated the required level of school so you party and kill a family while drunk driving.

I don't think there is a foolproof way of moderating anything. People thought the Titanic was unsinkable, and it wasn't.

The fact of the matter is, people under 21 years of age drink now, most of them find ways to. Probably the only people who aren't drinking? Are the kids who don't have a lot of friends and are kind of quiet. The popular and outgoing kids, and the troublemakers, and the followers, are likely to find a way. They always do.

People still talk about pot like it's some drug far away from here. But it's probably in every other home nowadays, despite the fact that it's illegal. And that all it really does is dry out your throat and set you back a couple hundred bucks each paycheck.

I used to be totally in favor of lowering the legal age, but public transportation in the US is so terrible most people have no choice but to drive most of the time. I don't support young people driving home even mildly intoxicated, especially in light of how easy it is to get one's drivers license in this country.

I'd be OK with lowering it to 19, though.

Considering how dumb these kids be acting nowadays especially on the roads......sure, why not...

The drinking age is irrelevant. It is nothing more then a feel good measure. It doesn't stop a single teen who wants to drink from drinking. The only thing that stops them is adult supervision. There is not an 18 year old in America who lives on their own but has a hard time getting booze. Worst case they have to bribe someone, but for the most part they need only offer to share. "Hey you fly if I buy?" will get any 18 year old in the US enough booze to bring down a buffalo. Changing the drinking age from 21 to 18 is not going to change how teens consume alcohol. It would have the same impact as raising the requirement to view pornography to 21.

If you have enough time on your hands without adult supervision to drink dangerously, the law isn't stopping you from doing so. Lower it to 15 or raise it to 25, and the results will be the same. If you don't want teens drinking, have a conversation with the adult that should be looking after them. The law can not fix this issue, it can only pander to those who want to stick their nose into other people's business. Heck I don't know a single person I grew up with who started drinking more after they turned 21. Most started drinking less, the rest just continued to be the booze hounds they were always going to be.

I was drinking at 14 so age limits don't matter. In UK it is 18 to drink doesn't really deter drunk drivers though the cops are zero tolerance during winter when roads more likely to be wet/icy and more people are drinking because of Christmas holidays.

That's all fine and well, but I think it's missing the point. If one argues that the drinking age is irrelevant then who exactly should it be legal to SELL alcohol to? If I'm a bartender, should I be allowed to sell alcohol to a 16 year old kid? If a man orders shots for his 11 year old daughter, does the "adult supervision" aspect make that okay?

One could say that the laws are less about whether or not underaged people can find a way to get the stuff, and more about whether or not it's okay to legally PROVIDE them with the stuff. I mean, no one's denying that snyone so inclined can find a way to obtain rotten meat, but that doesn't mean that it should be all fine and dandy for restaurants and grocery stores ,to SELL rotten meat. The drinking age doesn't just mean "you can't legally get booze before this age", it also means "you can't legally SELL booze to people under this age."The fact that people can easily find a way to break laws does not in any way mean that such laws shouldn't exist.

College students are really good at binge drinking.

And? they've had more time to become an adult, understand their environment, and likely do it safer. Binge drinking has nothing to do with it. Its about being a more responsible human being so you can do stupid shit in a safer way.

So what about that guy in Cali who while drunk raped a passed out drunk college girl behind a dumpster and only got 6 months for his crime? Did either one of them drink responsibly? The simple fact is, there are college students who are not responsible, even at a higher age, who should not have access to alcohol. Way too many college students go to school with a party mentality and would rather do that than study.

You're still missing the point, bad things will happen when people drink, more bad things will happen if you let people that aren't as responsible get drunk. The law only mitigates the issues, not outright stops them. You can do everything you can to protect yourself and still make a mistake and put yourself in a bad situation. So the law is about managing probability to some extent. When they lowered the drinking age to 18 the amount of fatal car crashes for 18-20 year old increased. In fact the alcohol related deaths 26,173 in 1982 to 16,885 in 2005. 1985 I think they standardized on 21 again federally. Granted binge drinking is also a problem but this is due more to a lack of education for alcohol. Other than most people saying don't do that, its generally a learning experience for young people because they have to figure out why. So better education might help, and make people more responsible when drinking. The other problem with raising the age or eliminating drinking... it'll just increase crime again. People want to drink. And you can only do so much to stop them.

Hahah like that age limit matters. All it would mean is less people with underage drinking citations.

The drinking age can be whatever, but you should lose your license permanently, forever, never to returned, if you are caught drinking and driving.

I am fully aware of what happens when people drink and that laws can only mitigate the vast majority of them. I am also fully aware that people will drink no matter what the laws are. Still, they can play with fire if they are underage. They can face the consequences for their actions if they do something while drunk. Lowering the limit to allow more people do drink, especially during that age period where they are likely to kill themselves is idiotic and that is what this thread is about, lowering the age limit.

i think making alcohol available to younger adults would make them less likely to lose their fucking minds over it in college when access is abundant.

of course, i don't have an data to back that up.

So why are you arguing against me? Or just making random statements and being vague about you're stance. It seemed like to you it didn't matter because college students are still capable of making mistakes. The point I made it doesn't matter, mistakes will happen no matter what, even adults get themselves killed so its its a mute point when they start drinking. Late college life you've likely developed the habbits you'll have when you're 30 so 21 is a pretty reasonable age.

Yes although it doesn't make a difference because anyone can get alcohol regardless of their age anyway. But it never made sense how an 18 year old can go to war and die but can't legally drink a beer.

In most states if you want to give your teenie bopper a couple of shots of vodka before bed that is a-okay, so long as it is your teenie bopper. So yeah adult supervision makes underage drinking perfectly legal. As for the rest: If a law is casually ignored almost universally then it is pointless. It isn't really a matter of if the law should or should not exist at that point. The law it's self is irrelevant, and changing it won't change anything. Like how if they raised the age to view pornography to 21, 50, or 90. It wouldn't mean less people consume porn. It would just mean that a lot of websites would be visited by an astonishing number of '90+ year olds'.

Not going to happen but I think it would be okay to lower it. And while I agree that 18 generally makes you an adult....it would be problematic if they were still in high school.

And the binge drinking and stupidity in college is because it's banned and they haven't much experience with it. People always want what they can't have.

Those talking about irresponsibility should meet some adults that drink. Not responsible at all.

It's not culturally advisable.

I think it should be based on state statistics and leave it up to states to decide.

That's how it used to be until the Republicans blackmailed them.

Well said.

Plus, I think it would really help a lot of our problems if people first learn to drink casually around their parents, instead of binge drinking at a friend's party. When something is forbidden, you tend to do as much as you can when the rare opportunity arises. European countries tend to have lower to non-existent drinking ages, tend to drink more, and yet have fewer alcohol related fatalities than the US because they don't binge.

They also use public transportation more.

All we need is more stupid drunks in this world, and teen drunks...sheesh.

I think 19 would be fine, but I don't really have an issue with 21, either. I do think that penalties for breaking the law as a minor are a little bit too stiff, though. It also doesn't make sense to me that the legal limit to drive under the influence is so much lower for minors.

Absolutely.

You cant suggest someone can..... die for their country, become a paid killer for their country, smoke, smoke weed (in some states), be given the death sentence for actions, etc. etc. etc. and then say "well this beer is just too much for you to handle". sorry, thats stupid and it makes no sense.

I think its a bit funny because in the land of "freedom", we are the only one's who seem to have this issue with alcohol and of the first world nations, we are the only one with a drinking age of 21 and funny enough, we have the worst alcohol problem.

@LJS9502_basic: Yes, that does help too.

But teens already drink. The vast majority of HSers will drink alcohol.

IMO its much like the marijuana argument and facts. There tends to be this idea that legalization would create more smokers, when every piece of data we have suggest it actually lowers it.

Which states allow this.

Firstly, there's a difference between a parent giving their kid a shot of vodka in their own home, and a restaurant serving kids shots because the kids' parents say it's okay. And to be fair, the difference isn't necessarily one of legality but of enforceability. You give your kid a shot of vodka or a glass of wine and it's very hard to get caught regardless of legality. By contrast, alcohol consumption in public is very visible and CAN be enforced.

Secondly, the law against selling booze to minors is most certainly NOT casually ignored almost universally. Doing that is how businesses lose their liquor licenses.

@MrGeezer: The law in question is ignored every time someone buys booze for a minor, or a minor buys booze for themselves. Given that any 18 year old in the country that has their own place has easy and casual access to enough 151 to put down rugby team, I think it is more then safe to say the law is meaningless. If you wish to argue that it has meaning or value feel free, but I don't feel like quibbling over the semantics of a position you are not contesting.

Adult supervision stops teen drinking. Absent that the law is as effective as an "Are you 18?" button on a pornographic website, or an NC17 rating on a video rental, or a parental advisory on the thumbnail for a music video.

Your stance is nonsensical. How in the heck is adult supervision supposed to stop teen drinking when you yourself claim that every 18 year old in the country with their own place has easy access to unlimited booze?

Clearly adult supervision isn't stopping underaged drinking either. So by your logic...f*** it, don't even require adult supervision, just sell booze to anyone who wants it, regardless of age. And while we're at it, let's remove the age restrictions on cigarettes and let kids buy those too (seeing as how I don't know any smokers who waited until they were 18 to actually start). There are ways for under-aged people to get around the smoking laws, so I guess the only solution is to do away with smoking laws and just let people sell cigarettes to anyone?

@MrGeezer:Yes, I claim that every 18 year old who has their own place has easy access to as much or as little booze as they want. The qualifier in that sentence "with their own place" implies a lack of adult supervision. So your question to me is how the heck is adult supervision supposed to stop teen drinking when I claim that adult teens without adult supervision have easy access to unlimited booze? You either provide the adult supervision, or you don't stop it at all obviously.

As for the "Clearly adult supervision isn't stopping it either" bit I don't know what you are on about. Except in the rare cases that parents are giving their children smokes and booze, teens who engage in such activities tend to do so when responsible adults are not around. It is pretty easy to spot a responsible adult surrounded by a bunch of underage smokers doing keg stands. They are the one putting a stop to the festivities.

"teens who engage in such activities tend to do so when responsible adults are not around"

Exactly, dude. What the heck is the point of even having the "fine with adult supervision" clarification in the law when kids will just get around the law by doing the stuff when adults aren't around? You're arguing that people should do away with the age law since that law doesn't stop under-aged kids from illegally acquiring booze (never mind that the law law most ceratinly does stop most establishments from selling booze to underaged kids) but the EXACT same logic applies to ANY similar law. Might as well do away with the tobacco laws since kids get cigarettes under the legal age too. And there'd be zero point in the law that says "kids can do it but only with adult supervision" since those kids can easily just break the law by doing it when there are no adults around.

Essentially you're arguing that there's no point in having the age law just because people break the age law. Which is kind of absurd since one could apply that logic to ANY law. Of course people find a way to break the law, that's why people get arrested.

Also, I too am curious which states it's legal to serve kids drinks as long as the parent is supervising.

Bartender, clerk charged with selling liquor to minors, Store clerks charged with selling alcohol to minors, Police bust Chesterfield clerks selling alcohol to minors, More than 20 charged with selling alcohol to minors are all stories about clerks who have been arrested or charged with selling alcohol to minors. Police departments use teens or those under 21 to see if people will sell to minors. While some do not get caught, those that do face consequences from a misdemeanor to greater charges.

2 Lowell liquor stores lose permit a day each for underage sales show 2 places that cannot sell alcohol for one day. The liquor store stands to lose lots of money for the miscommunication between the clerks for not carding the under aged person. Liquor Store To Lose License After Second Sale To Minor for 15 days.

While teens and young adults under 21 can get alcohol if they try hard enough, those who sell to underage people can get in some serious trouble as well as the establishments who allow such sales. Heck, I didn't even have to ask others to buy alcohol for me, I just stole my parents (they caught on, but didn't do much to stop it). Of course, once I turned 18 I could buy beer legally, at least in the state I lived in at that time. I was ahead of the law changes to 21.

@WhiteKnight77: Yeah, I could understand Kittennose's point if the age laws were completely ineffective, but they clearly aren't. Businesses are going to be FAR less likely to sell to minors when they stand to lose their liquor license. And while kids still can get booze through various means (getting a fake ID, convincing an adult to buy the booze for them), those are extra hurdles that make it harder for kids to get booze and therefore reduces the number of kids getting it.

This isn't even to say that I'm against lowering the legal drinking age, I just think that the fact that the laws get broken is a very poor reason for doing away with the laws. Of course some people are going to break the law and get away with it, but the law and the fact that it is actually enforced most certainly is an effective way of cutting down on under-aged drinking.

Exactly. This isn't like it was where the deputies made me and my friends pour out our beers at Yorktown Beach 2 days before my 18th birthday (we had more so it didn't matter). Nowadays, I have been carded (at least asked) for buying grape soda as Kroger cards even white haired old ladies. There is too much to lose by selling alcohol to those under 21 for both the store as well as the clerk who sold it. When I worked at a convenience store, I wouldn't sell anyone beer or wine if they didn't have ID no matter how much they protested. I was not going to jail for anyone (I felt the same way when I became an emissions inspector).

@MrGeezer: First off I am arguing that the law is irreverent, as it doesn't stop adults from drinking. Second I am arguing that it doesn't stop underage adults from drinking, I said nothing about underage children. The entire point of "who have their own place" qualifier is that I am talking about adults, not children. I don't know what part of that you have trouble grasping but I am not going to attempt to explain the distinction again.

If you would like to argue against my position feel free, so far however you haven't actually done any of that.

No not all minors have easy access to alcohol just because they live alone. One has to know someone willing to break the law for them. Also easy access is walking in and purchasing for oneself rather then finding alternative means.

Also the fact is most underage teens who get alcohol get it from home. Either because parents are lax about the law or the teens steal it when the parents are away. So your premise is wrong.