.jpg)
President Obama owes his young supporters a (legal)
celebratory beer.
In the recently concluded presidential election, just two candidates truly energized young Americans and brought them into politics: Ron Paul and Barack Obama. And only Obama ended up as president of the United States. For the overwhelming support he received from the it-doesn't-yet-hurt-when-I-wake-up set, the hip, new resident of the White House owes his fans a round of drinks. Or, at least, he owes them the opportunity to legally buy themselves a round of drinks.
The United States has the highest national drinking age in the world. Technically, the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to impose any such thing, but Congress got around that by linking federal highway funds to a national effort to breathe new life into the fake ID industry.
Some countries, including China and Portugal, have no minimum drinking age at all. Much of Europe sets the age at 16. Most countries put it at 18. And the U.S. is all alone in threatening legal adults as old as 20 with legal penalties if they sip a beer while contemplating whether to risk their lives in the country's armed forces.
But, as the comment above suggests, Americans 18-20 are still expected to undertake the full range of adult responsibilities, including military service, voting, signing contracts and (God help them) marriage. Frankly, all of these tasks are best undertaken either under the influence of a drink or with the promise of one to come.
Supporters of the drinking-age hike have argued (PDF) variously, over the years, that raising the age would save lives on the highways and spare teens the ill-effects of marinating their still-forming brains in alcohol.
But Choose Responsibility, an organization skeptical of the high national drinking age, points out that the most troubling data about brain development and alcohol comes only from rats, while the one study to look into the matter in humans found no difference in brain function between those who started drinking before 21 and those who started later.
And while drunken-driving fatalities did decline after the 1984 imposition of the mandated drinking age of 21, Choose Responsibility makes a strong argument that fluctuations in drunken driving numbers for different age groups more closely correspond with the sizes of those age groups from year to year than with any changes in the law.
That makes sense. While it's clear that the law changed in 1984, there's no evidence that the drinking age has been any more successful at cutting off access to the widely available stuff than have outright prohibitions on such substances as marijuana.
In fact, to teach responsible use of alcohol, Professor David J. Hanson, of the State University of New York, Potsdam, a recognized authority on alcohol-related issues, recommends that alcohol sould be presented as a "neutral" part of life that is "natural and normal." Moderate use should be taught early and at home.
College presidents who'd rather not take on the task of teaching responsible drinking all at once to thousands of young adults agree. Many of them have signed on to the Amethyst Initiative, calling for reconsidering the national policy of trying to prevent some adults from having a legal beer.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving is predictably outraged, but that's a group that has gone completely off the rails. MADD has been derided by its own founder, Candy Lightner, as "neo-prohibitionist."
So come on President Obama. It's time to push Congress to let your young supporters crack open a cold one in celebration. Honestly, they're doing it anyway. So just let them have a sip in the open.
You might also enjoy these:
- Colorado Beer Examiner: Should 18 be the proper age to drink beer?
- Lay off my caffeinated beer
- Fake or real, you are your ID
Civil Liberties Examiner is now on Facebook!
Or follow the latest civil liberties news on Twitter: Libertywriter
Contact J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com
Comments
It shows what bureaucrats and politicians really think of us when the only data they'll use to make policy comes from rat studies.
Documented studies prove that alcohol drinkers under age 21 cause a disproportionate amount of automobile accidents & deaths. The prefrontal cortex needs time to grow, develop & mature. This brain region has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behaviors, personality expression, decision making and moderating correct social behavior. Alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs can interfere with the development of the prefrontal lobes. This is the reason I'm not happy about 18 year old males being sent off to war. The thought of a amped up teenager running around with a fully automatic weapon should make his fellow soldiers be very wary. Changing the military service age to 21 would end the 'if he's old enough to serve' argument, too. But, what the heck do I know?
Limiting an action based solely upon age is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
I was in college when the age was raised. What I observed was:
1) a rapid onset of anti-social behavior associated with drinking based on exactly the lack of oppotunities for modeled moderation in drinking behavior among those entering college behind me.
2) The onset of a very profound stigma associated with drinking while/before driving that was not evident among those in college before me.
I think #2 here has been dismissed as causative but may have played a larger role in reducing traffic deaths, while #1 has had a disparate range of negative impacts less readily measured but perhaps every bit as severe.
Lowering the age to 18, but reinforcing the stigma around drinking and driving would have better outcomes than the current status (which is a really ridiculous state of affairs.)
Mark's comments amount to "the age of majority should be 21". It was, it's not an irrational position, but we rejected that in the 70's. I was there when the age dropped to 18...and saw no problems UNTIL MADD and the Nanny State took it back up. Pick an age- and quit trying to niggle it. You're an adult, or you are not.
This has been a hot topic for a while now. I wrote an article for the Examiner.com a few months ago that also covers this topic. Seems you're not alone in groups wanting to lower the drinking age back to 18 where it once was. Many pros and cons on either side of the issue. If we can't trust 18-20 year olds with alcohol, why trust them with cars then? Make one age for all legal limits.
"Chipper" Dave Butler
Northern Colorado Beer Examiner
If drinking and driving is the prime issue (and, in my mind, it should be), then perhaps the solution is not having a higher drinking age, but rather having harsher punishments for actually drinking and driving. Combine that with appropriate education and you have a winning combination.
Of course, this solution would require that parents be responsible and do their jobs of teaching their kids the responsibilities that goes along with drinking... and we all know how likely that is in our era.
PLEASE, next time do not add the beautiful picture of a nice tall cold beer with that delicious head WHILE WE ARE WORKING!
My dad taught highschool when the drinking age went down to eighteen. The problem wasn't drunk driving it was the eighteen year olds buying for the fifteen and sixteen year old high school students. And there were those students who went out at lunch and got drunk.
Yes, there was drinking by high school students before the age was lowered, and after it was raised, but it became a much bigger problem in the schools then. Twenty-one year olds do not hang out with fourteen and fifteen year olds that much.
This is is a scam by College Administrators (not too different then recent government scams). This was started to relieve themselves of liability. It was tried once before and it proved disastrous. When you lower it to 18, the 16 year olds drink; it is really a bad idea. Lots of people die from either drinking or drinking and driving.
Get rid of the drinking age altogether. If you are a responsible parent, what do you have to fear? If you are an irresponsible parent, well, you probably have bigger problems already.
Lower the drinking age and the age of consent. Stop the fear-mongering and stop criminalizing our youth - they belong in school, not incarcerated.
How about we stop worrying about adults sipping beer, and start worrying about an out of control government that grabs any power it can, by any means possible?
Naw...
What does a responsible parent have to fear? Peer pressure is an incredible force, especially in high school. High school is not university or college; and if the argument is about serving in the military, then put in an exception for those who are on active duty.
i was an exchange student in germany when I was 16. Did I drink too much on occation? Yes. Was I driving, No. But we acted responsibly most of the time. Through the rest of high school, in the 80s, my friend's parents and mine would allow us to drink at their houses; but we were forced to be responsible. If you drove, you handed over the keys when you got there and before you left you had to go ask for them and usually was combined with a short friendly conversation to make sure you were ok. We learned some personal responsibility and were treated like adults. When we got to college and were treated like kids again, most of my friends would binge every weekend, or they just started smoking pot. For pot was a lot easier to get then beer.
Treat people with respect and give them some responsibility, most will act like adults.
why have an age limit at all? it's just an excuse to give the government an excuse to intervene in our lives. get rid of the age limit completely.
Just because you are 21 doesnt mean you are suddenly capable and mature enough to drink, I know a lot of people under 21 that drink and have never got into any trouble and I know a lot of peopel over 21 that have drank and gotten into a lot of trouble, so yeah this law works great.
Here's a plausible reason for this "groundswell" of support to lower drinking age. The projected revenue from arresting drunk drivers has plummetted recently. In Texas, the amount of money the State has raised by the stiff fines assessed to drunk drivers has dropped to half what it was in 2002. The state "needs" that money. If you lower the drinking age, you arrest a lot more younger drivers, not experienced enough to know they don't have to submit to roadside sobriety tests or breathalizers, and can have a much better chance of fighting a possible conviction by hiring a lawyer. Lowering the drinking age is merely a money play.
Here's a plausible reason for this "groundswell" of support to lower drinking age. The projected revenue from arresting drunk drivers has plummetted recently. In Texas, the amount of money the State has raised by the stiff fines assessed to drunk drivers has dropped to half what it was in 2002. The state "needs" that money. If you lower the drinking age, you arrest a lot more younger drivers, not experienced enough to know they don't have to submit to roadside sobriety tests or breathalizers, and can have a much better chance of fighting a possible conviction by hiring a lawyer. Lowering the drinking age is merely a money play.
As someone 21+, I could be persuaded to go along with 18-year-old's consuming alcohol. But with another change in the law. Raise the age for driving from 16 (mere babies) to 18.
This would reduce the number of fatalities. There is significant difference in maturity level at 16 than at 18.
Of course, you wouldn't want to make the mistake of legislating every single thing that would save lives.
We would end up legislating all the risk out of life. Think how many lives would be saved if we just banned swimming alone. Throw in skydiving, bungee jumping and riding motorcycles and we could save thousands more.
It's a stupid and pointless exercise.
If we really wanted to save lives overall, we'd reduce government - period.
If we send the police to brutally beat the brains in of all 18, 19 and 20 year olds, maybe they will have some respect for the law. Maybe not.
"Americans 18-20 are still expected to undertake the full range of adult responsibilities, including military service".
I hate when politically correct writers lump women in with men when it comes to military in an attempt to make women feel completely "equal" in this category. Only American men (not women) are subject to the current "draft" (SSS) and the penalties associated if they fail to comply. Should only men aged under 21, but 18+ be allowed to drink? Perhaps.
They knew the drinking age was totally unacceptable to a lot of its victims, and they imposed it anyway, knowing the victims are vastly outnumbered at the polls and unable to oust the tyrants on election day. The government never had any right to employ gun-toting goons in bulletproof vests as weapons of unprovoked violence, to intimidate Mr. and Mrs. Twenty into drinking only nonalcoholic beverages. The government and its cops get away with enforcing the drinking age only because good cop-killers are hard to find these days.
This debate is almost pointless, since we are going into a depression. The bottom line is that we will no longer be able to enforce a drinking age even if you have on due to the economic situation. Americans have been overconsuming since the 1960s and the consequences are finally becoming realized. The drinking age is a symptom of our excessive wealth, as no other country in the world with the exception of Canada actively enforces a drinking age either.
As rolls swell in the recession, workers find firms are contesting claims by alleging wrongdoing or quitting in a bid to not pay benefits.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!