Drinking age limit changed to 18?

I forgot to mention that I was well over 18 when the law took effect, so it never applied to me. I was just illustrating a point.

On 17-Sep-2009 Ichigo Kurosaki said:

The drinking age in America was 18 until 1984. It was raised to 19 on 1/1/84; 20 on 1/1/85; and 21 on 1/1/86.
The claimed purpose was to curb drunk driving by youngsters. DUI rates haven't changed a damned bit in the past 25 years. The ONLY reason there fewer drunk-driving-caused deaths is due to cars having better safety equipment such as airbags.
When I was 18, I was in charge of a piece of military hardware worth over $22 million and could flatten entire city blocks, but I am not fit to drink a beer on off-hours?! When I was 18, I was in combat. Got shot. But, I am not capable of handling a shot of whiskey?!
Lower the drinking age BACK to 18 and INCREASE the penalties for DUI, including mandatory jail time for causing bodily harm or death; mandatory revocation of driving privileges on the third conviction for DUI. THAT will do more to lower DUI rates than anything else.

A fair point, we allow people of that age to do a load of stuff that requires a great deal of responsibility yet we believe they can't act responsible when it comes to drink. I agree that the laws should be made tougher on this but I don't think it would have that big an impact, if your drunk enough to think that you can still drive a car your probably not going to be worried about much else at that point.

Prohibition never works. Although I think there should be some age limit to alcohol 18 isn't it.

When you prohibit something it only makes the people who can't have it want it more. Cannabis is a prime example.

In The Netherlands the minimum drinking age limit is 16 and cannabis is legal yet how often do you hear about horror stories relating to drink and cannabis there?

In Australia, it is 18 already ^.^ (Around my place, the cops don't seem to care about this limit though)

If your'e out out of school and working just like a regular adult, you should be aloud to drink in my opinion.

In Australia(where i live)its 18.And sometimes young people get caught.Some 14 year old in my class went to a party,cops came to tell them to quiet down and saw her and she got sent to the police station.But what i find funny is one girl in my class got caught selling marijuana and nothing happened.

In my opinion this is a hit and miss situation.
Some teens ARE responsible enough to drink alcoholic beverages and no get wasted by them. Others... Aren't....
For instance. I have a friend (23 last week) who used to drink, even when he was underage. When he bacame of age, herealised that it wasn't cool anymore so he quit drinking it in large quantities. I think that this could be a law IF the person is responsible enough to drink. Other than that, they can wait another three years (that is, if they haven't been drinking it illegally anyway)

On 19-Sep-2009 Repose said:

Prohibition never works. Although I think there should be some age limit to alcohol 18 isn't it.

When you prohibit something it only makes the people who can't have it want it more. Cannabis is a prime example.

In The Netherlands the minimum drinking age limit is 16 and cannabis is legal yet how often do you hear about horror stories relating to drink and cannabis there?

That's because cannabis doesn't make poeple crazy, it relaxes you, and make you insanely hungry..

Drinking is dangerous if you make bad decisions, but if you're not driving then you're fine.

On 22-Sep-2009 Brandon 2006 said:

That's because cannabis doesn't make poeple crazy, it relaxes you, and make you insanely hungry..

Drinking is dangerous if you make bad decisions, but if you're not driving then you're fine.

St adding to the last thought....

or if your in public, or walking, or moving, or doing anything that requires sanity

On 23-Sep-2009 pkmn boy32 said:

St adding to the last thought....

or if your in public, or walking, or moving, or doing anything that requires sanity

Not at all if you're not a lightweight. People who are drinking for their first or second time you need to keep in a house so they don't get taken to the drunk tank, but if you know how to handle your liquor your fine.

I was completely wasted and stumbling around friday night, but I'm use to having that much liquor in my system so when we wanted to go to the store, I was able to tighten myself up a bit and get back in control a bit.

Liquor is funny in how if you let yourself go, you are wild, but you do have the ability to sober yourself up enough not to be crazy unless you've gone over your limit and are blacking out.

Once I did get back to my place though and we figured out who was going home and who was gonna crash I then drank myself till passing out, knowing I'd have more fun and wasn't gonna be out in public.

I even had many cops pass by me and continued on there way, the only close call was when I left the house still drinking a beer, but no cops were around there.

Well I take it that you may be am expert on the subject (well, compared to me at least... Unlike some of my friends, I obey the laws haha)

On 27-Aug-2009 pwnthemonkeys said:

Do you think that the legal age limit to drink alcohol should be changed to 18 in the states? Since once you turn 18 your technically an adult (by law) then why not be able to drink? What are your thoughts?

I Have nixed feelings on the issue.

You can be drafted into the Miltary at age 18. You are treated as an adult, why shouldnt you be able to drink

On the other hand, people seem to get more mature and responsible from age 18-21.

« Last edited by K Dawg on Oct 4th 2009 »

There are problems to having the drinking age lowered......its like teens are to be trusted to be smart and not drink and drive....but you have those few that think no matter what they do they are indestructible on the road...if the drinking age is lower there might be some more deaths cause teens do think like that and drinking can also affect judgment. Another downfall its like everyone says and the age 18 maybe some teens won't know what is enough for a drink and as a consequence of it could get alcohol poisoning and die in car/regular accidents. 18 might be to young of a age to trust teens will that responsibility and even though at 18 you are consider an adult, some who reach that age don't act like one. Changing the drinking age to me is add something to those few's list for something else to abuse. Cause like smoking, drinking can also be abused. Both do damage to your system.
So basically changing the drinking age to 18 is like saying now we are trusting you at a younger age to drink. so the next question that should be asked is....can 18 year olds be trusted enough to handle the drinking at that age?
Even though in the end...it is really up to you if you want to drink or not.....drinking is a choice.

« Last edited by kimmy456 on Oct 6th 2009 »

On 06-Oct-2009 kimmy456 said:

There are problems to having the drinking age lowered......its like teens are to be trusted to be smart and not drink and drive....but you have those few that think no matter what they do they are indestructible on the road...if the drinking age is lower there might be some more deaths cause teens do think like that and drinking can also affect judgment. Another downfall its like everyone says and the age 18 maybe some teens won't know what is enough for a drink and as a consequence of it could get alcohol poisoning and die in car/regular accidents. 18 might be to young of a age to trust teens will that responsibility and even though at 18 you are consider an adult, some who reach that age don't act like one. Changing the drinking age to me is add something to those few's list for something else to abuse. Cause like smoking, drinking can also be abused. Both do damage to your system.
So basically changing the drinking age to 18 is like saying now we are trusting you at a younger age to drink. so the next question that should be asked is....can 18 year olds be trusted enough to handle the drinking at that age?
Even though in the end...it is really up to you if you want to drink or not.....drinking is a choice.

Another downfall its like everyone says and the age 18 maybe some teens won't know what is enough for a drink

I can see where you are coming from but if you don't drink until your say 21 then how will you know how much you can drink even then, without actually drinking you don't know what you will be able to safely cope with.

On 06-Oct-2009 super craig said:

Another downfall its like everyone says and the age 18 maybe some teens won't know what is enough for a drink

I can see where you are coming from but if you don't drink until your say 21 then how will you know how much you can drink even then, without actually drinking you don't know what you will be able to safely cope with.

No one can tell how much they can take of anything before having experience.

Alcohol takes a few tries. Sometimes you have too little and your only buzzed up, then the next time you'll over do it and end up passing out. Takes a while to find that sweet spot.

Also the type of alcohol you are drinking changes everything. 40 whiskey is not the same as 40 tequila, and so on and so on.

Beer is also not a way to get drunk if you are having a night out. It fills your stomach up and can cause you to puke, stick to the shots or mixed drinks.

The "type" of alcohol is not the issue, but the PROOF of the drink. 80-proof whiskey has the same alcohol content as 80-proof tequila, or 80-proof rum. They taste differently, but you'll get drunk at the same rate. You'll have to drink far more beer than whiskey to get drunk. Beer and wine are close in alcohol content. Typically 2-5 alcohol.

Too much alcohol can kill you. Long term excess drinking can ruin your liver.

Some people believe that the drinking age should stay at 18-19 but the driving age should be bumped up to 21. Perhaps it's not the driving that is the problem but the alcohol which accompanies it. But I disagree with the increase of penalties, it will not change the numbers of DUI's as people and youngsters will still drink and drive. A crackdown should be made more on the drinking instead of the consequences when it is too late.

Increasing the minimum penalties WILL work as long as the courts have no discretion. THAT'S the problem.

On 07-Oct-2009 Ichigo Kurosaki said:

The "type" of alcohol is not the issue, but the PROOF of the drink. 80-proof whiskey has the same alcohol content as 80-proof tequila, or 80-proof rum. They taste differently, but you'll get drunk at the same rate. You'll have to drink far more beer than whiskey to get drunk. Beer and wine are close in alcohol content. Typically 2-5 alcohol.

Too much alcohol can kill you. Long term excess drinking can ruin your liver.

The type of alcohol does change a lot. The proof is the main factor but the type also changes it.

I get drunk after a 26er of 40 whiskey, but with rum I'm still not where I want to be. Jagermeister is only 35 and it gets me drunk after a full bottle, but with the 40 rum I'm still not drunk.

The type plays a factor and so does the proof.

I disagree IK, why should the penalties for the drinking be cracked down when it's too late? Instead, why not avoid the situation altogether by cracking down on the drinking? If a man drinks and when driving kills someone, can you give him capital punishment? If so, what about a man who was not drinking and driving but did the same thing? You have to raise the rules for non-drinkers and drinkers in order to establish order in this sort of situation.

« Last edited by MenaceSG on Oct 7th 2009 »

We already tried that. It failed miserably. We have some severe penalties for DUI, but they aren't imposed.