Lowering the Drinking Age?
Over the years, the argument has been made that “If I can die for my country at 18, then I should be able to drink!” Is this morally and socially correct? Or just a trend and something that we all have just accepted over the years?
-Alan S.
Tags: Alchohol, becoming an adult, drinking, drinking age, Laws, legal drinking age
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
May 21, 2008 at 6:51 am
I believe that it is a valid argument. Drinking by underage youth is seen as an enticing “forbidden fruit,” a “badge of rebellion against authority” and a symbol of “adulthood.” Those under the age of 21 are more likely to be heavy or “binge” drinkers (consuming over 5 drinks at least once a week). For example, 22% of all students under 21 compared to 18% over 21 are heavy drinkers.
The law arbitrarily draws the line of personal responsibility at 18. On his/her 18th birthday, in the eyes of the law, the person no longer has a lack of capacity, s/he now has a brain. S/he is suddenly held responsible for his/her actions; smoking, porn, crime are all vices that the new adult must be accountable for, yet s/he is still believed to lack capacity when it comes to alcohol consumption. This does not make sense. If you’re going to heap on the responsibility all at once, why not include all of it?
Groups such as Italians, Greeks, Chinese and Jews, who have few drinking related problems, tend to share some common characteristics. Alcohol is neither seen as a poison or a magic potent, there is little or no social pressure to drink, irresponsible behavior is never tolerated, young people learn at home from their parents and from other adults how to handle alcohol in a responsible manner, there is societal consensus on what constitutes responsible drinking.
The 1987 law setting the drinking age at 21 is ineffective in preventing irresponsible alcohol consumption.
You’re old enough to be responsible for your life, whether you give it, take it, or keep it. Sometimes the pressures of the military life need to be drunk away. Knowing the consequences of your actions puts the responsibility solely on you. That should be enough.
May 21, 2008 at 9:08 pm
This has been a topic thats come up a lot for me lately. The government seems to be going halfway on the accepted idea that at age 18 a man or woman has responsibility for their own actions. For example, the state of Washington just recently outlawed the turn-in of games to trade/buy/sell companies for anyone under 21. Thats just plain ridcilous. I could be moved out of my parent’s house, I could be in the military, yet I cant turn in my used games? I think the larger problem here is not just drinking at age 21, but having the freedom of spending our time the way we wish at the age of adulthood, 18.
May 22, 2008 at 5:33 pm
First off, I love the idea of this blog.
About underage drinking, I would argue that the reason underage drinkers are more often “heavy” drinkers, is not because of age, but because of the fact that it is illegal for them to drink. (By the way, a source for that would be appreciated)
When something is forbidden it is often abused a lot more heavily. I have been at WSU for a year now, and trust me everyone drinks. The true tragedy in the situation, is people who grew up in Pullman who say that their friends in MIDDLE SCHOOL would crash all the parties. I’m sorry, but that’s fucked up.
So I agree the law is ineffective. What could be done to change it? I believe that if the drinking age were dropped to 18 the law would be enforced by many many more people. I know that my fraternity, Delta Sigma Phi, at all our parties would adhere very strictly to that, because it is a general consensus that under 18 is just too young to drink, especially in a college party scene. Besides, when i’m “illegal”, and a good portion of everyone around me is too, it would be risky to turn a 15 year old over to the police for being drunk, because I would be putting all my friends in danger of an MIP. Thank goodness I have never seen nor had to deal with younger drinking, because I don’t know how I would deal with it. I truly believe that the drinking age of 21 contributes to much younger drinking,
There are issues with being 19 and an “illegal” drinker. I’m going to drink whatever the law, its inevitable. Everyone at my school does. Besides, cops in Pullman don’t even enforce it. One place had a huge party out on their lawn, with 400 people and the cops were standing on the outside just waiting for a fight. I don’t know why they enforce it as such, but the presence of a law that is unenforced is hypocrisy. But if I had a bad alcohol overdose and needed detox, or one of my close friends did, it would be a hard decision to make, as there are going to be legal ramifications for it. The sanctuary comes with an unneccessary cost.
That’s my two cents
May 22, 2008 at 6:36 pm
It is legal for the government to charge us with murder, as an adult, at the age of 16.
We can take out loan for a house or car at the age of 18.
At the age of 16 we are allowed to control a giant hunk of metal at speeds up to 75mph which could easily kill a human being.
You are allowed to marry at the age of 18.
But no drinking until 21.
These are more proof to add to Bock’s prior statement
May 22, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Question: Would you all apply your prior reasoning to all legal issues regarding age? Specifically the age requirement for Concealed Weapons Licenses (21 years) and firearms purchases?
May 22, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I would apply it to all things if we are held responsable for all of our actions at 18 then they should not limit our choice of actions. If you limit somebody part of the balme shifts to you. You cannot say that every action is your choice when your choices are taken from you.
May 23, 2008 at 1:11 am
A good point to throw into this is: I’m married, I have a son, I’m in the military ready to die for my country, and I can legally smoke. Trust me, there is just a little temptation to have a drink to take the edge off once in a while. But legally, I can’t, so I don’t.
Not to mention that I think concealed weapons permits should be for 18 year olds and up, because I myself fear what goes bump in the night. And what goes bump in the night tends to be afraid of a .45 ACP Handgun that MAY OR MAY NOT be attached to my hip (that is why CCW is an effective crime deterrent, because you don’t know if the nice old lady down the street is packing or not).
May 22, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Another thought to add to the heap: isn’t the current drinking law resulting in the same effects as what Prohibition brought? Maybe a different age group, but the parallels are there.
May 29, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Yet another thing that you have to bring up, is the adverse effect of alcohol on the brain.
There is a part of the brain near the front that doesn’t fully develop until one reaches the age of 21. This section of the brain brings with it the ability to predict the long-term consequences of our actions. Now, alcohol impedes the development of this important part of the brain. It’s research that says it is fully developed at age 21, that is why the drinking age is 21.
So it’s really not the fact that you are an adult at 18. It’s the fact that your brain is fully developed at age 21.
-Shown
May 29, 2008 at 11:16 pm
First off, to Mr. Deturk, NOT everyone drinks. I personally believe that alcohol is the most vile substance on the planet. It has the ability to kill, it has the ability to tear families apart. So you are greatly mistaken when you say that.
I have personal experience in this area and I know what it can do. These so called “binge drinkers” that have been mentioned earlier are much worse than “more than 5 drinks in a week.” I think you should be saying more than 5 drinks a DAY. This is a serious issue and should not be taken lightly.
With the argument of alcohol is a traditional drink, that was only in great moderation at social events. Todays drinkers are drinking just to get drunk, and they want nothing more than to get drunker than the guy sitting next to them. it’s all pointless and purely mindless. Nothing less.
Alcohol is a drug, it is in the same league as marajuana, meth, and cocaine. It is a VERY addicting substance. The people that become “binge” drinkers are those who are addicted. And the people that become addicted are the people that start young. That would be the reason the drinking age is set at 21.
I have many people that I know (underage) that are drinking just so they can sleep at night, or so they can forget something that has happened to them. If alcohol was the solution to everything I would have died from alcohol poisoning a very long time ago. But I am still here today, and completely sober. I have lived my entire life with out a single drink of alcohol, and I am now one of the happiest people on the planet.
On addiction, you will never stop being an addict. You may stop using what you use or watching what you watch, but you will just switch to something else. AA is for alcoholics that are in RECOVERY, they will never fully be, “unaddicted.” they could be carrying around a 3 year chip in their back pocket, and completely undo all that work with one sip of alcohol. They have to start from square one.
If one thing is bad about alcohol, above all else, it is the creation of addiction. That’s all we’re doing by asking to lower the drinking age. You are all just sanctioning the creation of more addicts.
June 6, 2008 at 1:00 am
OUCH!!!
A couple problems here…
Shown- the research you speak of wasn’t out when the law was passed and the actual time frame is 21-22. It wasn’t a research based decision, it was arbitrary at the time, they just happened to be right.
However, with this knowledge, what about increasing the driving/smoking/signatory/military ages to 21?
Zach- my friend, I am sorry, but the AA tagline of “once an addict – always an addict” simply does not hold water. In fact I’d be reticent to try carrying anything smaller than a basketball with that argument, the holes are THAT big. Numerous empirical studies as well as ethological studies (out of Europe) have demonstrated that people don’t have to abstain for life to end addiction.
AA is great if that’s the path a person chooses to recovery, but it is by no means the only one available.
Addiction can end. And further, it’s desirable in an open forum like this to define addiction before you begin the discourse, because there are many competing conceptualizations/interpretations/definitions, and not all of these are created equal in the eyes of empirical science.
Thanks,
Paul
June 7, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Excuse me Paul. I would say that my personal experience would outweigh any and all medical research that you have done on the internet or whatnot.
Adiction: the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.
What you have said here Paul Proves to me that you know not what you speak of. Addiction is very serious. Yes there is rehab, but if you have watched the news at all, almost everyone who has gone through rehab has had a relapse and started doing drugs/drinking alchohol again.
If you were an addict then you would know that addiction does NOT end. I myself am addict, and I live in daily struggle to not get my fix. (My addiction is minor and does not cause any physical harm so all of those on here who know me, there is no need for alarm.) I am in recovery and forever will be.
So you are the one who needs to do your research Paul, not me.
-Chief
June 7, 2008 at 9:55 pm
I am sorry to offend Zach, but alas, you misunderstand I’m afraid. I made (and continue to make) no claim to the intricacies of your own experience. The mechanism by which AA works, for those that it does, is by wholesale buying into its philosophy of those who use it for treatment. Thus, the simple fact that it worked for you, and that the tagline fits your own experience is neither surprising, NOR contradictory with what I stated.
Furthermore, I WAS AN ADDICT, and I am not anymore. This transition required a great deal of hard work for a LONG time, but required no inspiration from God, nor “acknowledging” that I ‘will always be an addict.’ So, I’m sorry Zach, but your experience is not conclusive. On the bright side, mine isn’t either. This is why we use SCIENCE/RESEARCH to answer important questions like those addressed above.
So, I’m thrilled that AA worked for you my friend, but it’s not the ONLY way to overcome addiction. And addiction does NOT have to be viewed as a life-long issue. I study these things for a living, people can have tremendous and lasting success without the AA approach. While I appreciate your perspective and your experience, neither is sufficient to inform us about the experience (or more to the point, range of experience which is possible) of the multitudes of people that share our history with this problem.
Thanks,
Paul
P.S. I have done my research, and the results are in- as stated above, thank you.
June 15, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I was not saying that AA was the only solution, but it is extremely difficult to recover from an addiction on your own. Paul, you can not honestly say that you recovered from your addiction entirely on your own. And if you do I will persist to call you a liar. Because the first step in AA (sorry but it just fits) is to admit you have a problem and that you are powerless to control it on your own. So if you are a addict that “recovered on your own you were never an addict in the first place. And if you continue to profess that you did that would just make you a liar and I am sorry for you.
June 17, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Zach, wow brother, you persist in having an extremely limited acknowledgment of the world around you. Impressively so, though it’s admittedly not a trait that I admire.
Okay, I never thought you’d serve this up on a silver platter, perhaps I over-estimated you (sorry, that’ll be the last dig, but after the personal attacks you levied against me, I find it warranted).
“Because the first step in AA (sorry but it just fits) is to admit you have a problem and that you are powerless to control it on your own.” Wow man, I’m not quite sure where to begin with this…
Alright, this is EXACTLY why I despise the AA methodology. Before I get into all that though, it is of note that when you call me a liar for holding my view you are revealing a great deal about your own self-imposed cognitive limitations (not intended as a dig, just an important observation). We BOTH have anecdotal experience, but I also have SCIENCE and RESEARCH. You should give ‘em a try sometime, they’re not so bad (alright, that was a little untoward, but more in tone than in content).
So, when you say that you “know” I’m a liar for saying what I do (I do maintain that I beat my addictions on my own, by the way) I take this to indicate that you BELIEVE this because of what you “learned” in AA.
Again, I’m not saying AA doesn’t work, I am saying that people are not powerless to change themselves or their environments until they abdicate their power by asserting that they are powerless. The AA tagline you stated above (quoted herein) is directly from the Christian idea that people need God’s help to do ANYTHING. If this is where your conviction comes from, you may either think it over and agree with me or agree to disagree. I was a Christian, I’m now an atheist. I recognize people’s inherent ability to change themselves if they so choose. It is EXTREMELY difficult in the case of addiction in particular, but it is all the same possible. Take a psych class or two if you think you might be ready to understand this more. The current state of the science of addiction sheds a great deal of light on how it is overcome, with no inherent need to “accept that you are powerless to control it.” A number of other interventions actually have MUCH better success and recidivism rates than does AA – again, without the addict believing they are powerless to change on their own. Understanding these mechanisms can allow a person to change with little to no support from other people (as I myself did).
So, while I appreciate the condescending tone and blatant disrespect of your previous post, I must respectfully – and with the authority of one who possesses a genuine and commanding knowledge of the subject – disagree.
Thanks,
Paul
June 18, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I”m going to agree to disagree on this one paul. As we seem to be getting nowhere I find it pointless to continue with the personal attacks and the useless banter. You seem to have recovered quite nicely with your own method of recovery and I commend you for that.
Furthermore, I appologize for my personal attacks against you and I hope there are no hard feelings.
-Chief
September 18, 2008 at 8:57 am
Thanks Chief,
I appreciate and accept your apology. And of course, no hard feelings. I’m glad your method worked for you as well, thank you.
-Paul