Legal Drinking Age

I am in no way supporting alcohol, but this topic is constantly on my mind and I thought this could be a topic that can be discussed.

I'm not sure if the legal drinking age is 18 in every country, but I know for a fact that it sure isn't in the United States.

It used to be in the US until 1984, when it was risen to 21 as most probably know of America, but practically everything else remained at 18. It's still the legal age to buy lottery tickets, buy cigarettes, buy pornography, and what stands out to me is that you can still fight and die for your country in the military. But in the midst of it all, you're not allowed drink a beer or two.

Everything in moderation is perfectly healthy for you, so I don't see why it's so illegal for 18-year-olds to drink when they can do so perfectly fine in almost any other country. I know that America is flawed in many other ways, but this is something that, in my opinion, should just be changed back to the way it used to be.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

It's 18 here in New Zealand.

It's a double-edged sword. Raising the drinking age, your only going to get more & more people doing it out of spite. Every single teenager I knew, from the age of 14 went out on Friday & Saturday nights & had a few drinks at the parties they went too. Most of them only started doing it because it was "your not allowed to drink, don't you DARE think of doing it!?!?!" from their parents.

Then we have the other side in that young people tend to over-do things & end up binge drinking & causing accidents & ending up in hospital. The whole binge-drinking culture here in NZ has gotten the Government talking about raising the drinking age... like it would make a difference. If people want to drink, they'll find a way to do it, legal drinking age or no.

What is needed is not so much a rise in the age, but more stringent requirements around the buying of alcohol.

People aged 18-20 can only buy X amount of beer. Or X amount of wine/spirits or any combination therefore.
People aged 21-25 can buy X percent more than those younger.

With more focus on photo ID checks, even implementing a system which checks IDs against a regional/national database to prevent the sale of alcohol to those with a history of alcohol-related crimes would do much, much more than saying "under 21 can't drink! that's all we're going to do about it."

I concur with sphynxx. It doesn't really matter what age you are or what age the legal limit is, you can get alcohol. I live in the US, by the way. Anyhow, I overheard someone at my school the other day talking about not going to a party because he was the only one of his friends without a fake ID.
If the legal age is put back down at 18 (which I don't think it will be), the government would have to be more serious in checking ID or examine motives or something. They're not getting the job done at the more stringent age, why would they change it? It's the same either way if they do nothing.

I realize that the original topic is about legal drinking, I kind of went off on my own spin. But I stand by my post.

The US has no official federal drinking age. It can vary from state to state. However, the federal government will cut some funding (I think it's specifically highway funding, but I'm not certain.) to the state if the age isn't 21, so every state has a drinking age of 21. That said, some states do have different laws around alcohol, such as Indiana, where I live, where you can not purchase alcohol on Sundays. Or Ohio where anyone 18 or older is legally allowed in a bar.

Now, as for my personal feelings, I think 21 is the right age. Alcohol is probably the worst drug as far as short term impairment. Therefore, give them 3 more years to mature.

I think that the legal drinking age should be 18. Of course we're going to get the odd person who doesn't drink sensibilly, but why should those individuals spoil it for the people who can control it & behave? I'd say if there is any anti-social behaviour in the streets, those "individuals" should be taught a lesson. Simply by being locked up in a cell for one week. The reason why I'm against the legal drinking age being 21 is that we have waited long enough to have a drink & have some fun, why should us sensible ones miss out & have no fun? When our body can cope with alcohol because we're getting older. Also just thought I'd let everybody know that her in the United Kingdom the legal drinking age is 18, so I'm happy with that

KYR, just so you know, the body is still growing at 18. Puberty doesn't end until 24 or 25.

All I'm say is that your body can cope more as it grows up, a few glasses won't harm it, surely.

I believe that one of the reason it was supposedly risen was because of drunk driving at the young age and young adults getting killed in car accidents who were drunk or young adults killing another motorist because they were drinking, or so I heard. Even though they raise the drinking age up it really doesn't say much to the population since you still have those 18 year old and even some younger people in many cases drink Alcohol. In the long run do I think it should stay 21, sure why not, gives three extra years for people to be arrested for drinking under the legal age limit. In the long run I'm not really sure if much will change if it got brought down to 18 again besides more people drinking cause they wouldn't be under the age limit.

In relation to the post above I have a little story I'd like to share. So, basically I was in religious class yesterday morning & we were having a discussion on 'Death Row'. Now you're all thinking isn't this meant to be in the 'Death Penalty' topic which I started a few weeks ago, but no, it's all to do with drink driving, basically in some foreign country (couldn't remember the name) first off, you get a warning for it then the second time your put on Death Row. I was honestly amazed when I found out about it, but I honestly wouldn't like to have a drink & a drive over there ;o

Yes, the religiously run countries are much worse off and have inhumane penalties.

Personally I think 21 is a little low for the drinking age. If you have to pay more for car insurance at 21 than you do at say, 26 or so, why should you be allowed to drink? The insurance providers are the people who deal with car accidents involving drunk and buzzed driving, and they're the ones that pay for all the damage that the say...less mature people of this world can create.



:D


« Last edited by violet vortex on Mar 12th 2011 »

What car insurance companies (private entities) use as a model should have no bearing at all on government regulations.

Women have a lower rate of collision and therefore a lower insurance premium. Should women be able to drink legally before men?

Also, this isn't just about drinking and driving. It's about drinking in general. I believe that a person can be a responsible drinker at 18, 21 or even 15 or 16. The point is what alcohol does to the body. And at 18, the body still isn't fully adult.

YoSoyJu said:

What car insurance companies (private entities) use as a model should have no bearing at all on government regulations.

Women have a lower rate of collision and therefore a lower insurance premium. Should women be able to drink legally before men?

Also, this isn't just about drinking and driving. It's about drinking in general. I believe that a person can be a responsible drinker at 18, 21 or even 15 or 16. The point is what alcohol does to the body. And at 18, the body still isn't fully adult.

Is there any evidence showing a link between mild/moderate drinking in 18 year olds with long term affects on the body? I don't mean this in a challenging way, I'm just curious if you know of any. Obviously if your a heavy drinker you're going to do damage but that is the same if you're 18 or 80.

I'm always slightly amused by the fact that you can serve in the armd forces before your allowed to drink (21 anyway). We don't want young people being damaged by alcohol but an IED is fine.

I don't know of any personally, craig. I also know that's not a huge part of the argument. I also seem to be a little wishy washy on the subject. I really could see logical reasons for both.

Well personally i dont really see the difference between being 18 or being 21. It's only a 3 year difference and what does the government expect? that from turning 18 to turning 21 people will gain more maturity and what not? If someone wants to drink it's not going to matter what age they are. They will just be doing it out of spite like Sphynxx said.
I also agree, they should change it so that people of different ages (18 and up) can only get a certain amount of alcohol, where older people can drink more, and up to a point where people of a certain age and up can drink until they reach the legal limit of blood alcohol level. These are all my personal opinions and i am by no way saying they are right.

sphynxx said:

It's 18 here in New Zealand.

It's a double-edged sword. Raising the drinking age, your only going to get more & more people doing it out of spite. Every single teenager I knew, from the age of 14 went out on Friday & Saturday nights & had a few drinks at the parties they went too. Most of them only started doing it because it was "your not allowed to drink, don't you DARE think of doing it!?!?!" from their parents.

People aged 18-20 can only buy X amount of beer. Or X amount of wine/spirits or any combination therefore.
People aged 21-25 can buy X percent more than those younger.

Let's just say if I had my own country any alcohol products would be illegal.

Ki Stryfe said:

Let's just say if I had my own country any alcohol products would be illegal.

Any particularly reasons why? If you were to make all alcohol products illegal you would have to get rid of things like alcohol hand gels in hospitals causing infection rates to sky rocket, it would also make things like bioethanol fuels a bit tricky, not to mention all of the other industrial process that require some form of alcohol. If you simply mean all alcohol products as drinks then small amounts of alcohol are not harmful and indeed can even confer some protection to us.

Of course drinking large amounts can be harmful immediately in the case of doing stupid things or more long term on its effects on the body but is that in itself enough to ban all alcohol? An example most people hit by a car at 10mph will survive whereas most hit by a 70mph car will die therefore we should ban all road transport because at higher levels it can cause harm?

« Last edited by super craig on Oct 4th 2011 »

Ki Stryfe said:

Let's just say if I had my own country any alcohol products would be illegal.

They already tried that in America. It was a catastrophic failure. In a nutshell - alcohol was made illegally by criminal gangs, people could still buy it easily and the gangs grew immensely powerful thanks to the huge profits they got from their bootlegging.

Crime rates increased, the strength of alcohol increased (it's easier to make good hard liquor than good beer) and it was a generally counterproductive measure. It's the same reason the "War on Drugs" isn't working, but that's another topic...

That's where executions come in

...Yeah, you do know Al Capone had so much money to give in bribes to various officials that the only thing they could get him for was tax evasion, right?

Regardless... you haven't actually said why you want all alcohol made illegal. Why do you feel the need to impose your own choices (e.g. not drinking) on the rest of the population, given that drinking only harms the drinker unless they behave antisocially, which is a separate offence?