Seriously now, the whole reason high schools host after-proms is to keep wasted teenagers from driving. As far as I know it's been pretty effective.Originally Posted by pancakeman
Age to drink in America is 21, because the federal government bribed the state governments with transportation funding. States like Oklahoma had drinking ages of 18, and the government wanted to make the age 21, but the Supreme Court said they couldn't force a state to adopt 21 as the age. So they used tax money taken from the states to create what we now know as government transportation money for things like bridge, roads and other stuff. Any state wanting a share of the money had to make age 21 the drinking age, and no state government wanted to anger the voters, so they complied.
However, it has not been age 21 or age 18 forever. At times some states have had different drinking ages for males/ females. Oklahoma was taken to court of the fact they let females drink at 18, but made males wait until age 21.
When my grandfather (born in 1909) was growing up, the age of majority was 25! You were not fully emancipated until 25, so no drinking and you were still a minor. They had 25 as the age, because of things like college and didn't feel people were truly ready for the world and being of their parents until after college or when they reached the age of 25. Obviously many people didn't go to college back then, but that was one of the reasons for an age limit of 25.
So my grandfather grew up with the drinking age at 25, and then it was later changed to 21 or 18 depending on the state, but followed by the government enacting prohibition.
Kids will respect alcohol more if the drinking age is 18. And by that I mean, they will be able to buy good booze when they are 18, so they will learn there is more to drinking than finding the cheapest beer around.
I don't doubt that some do, but it would be different if you didn't have to commit a crime to do so.Is it currently uncommon for high-schoolers to drink at/after prom? Or has The War Against Under-Age Drinking been about as successful as, say, The War Against Drugs?
I say, set all of the age requirements to 18.
Drinking age - 18
Driving age - 18
Voting age - 18
etc etc...
Basically, when you become an adult you get to do all of these things.
I think starting people out on driving younger is a good idea. Giving them all those rights in one fell swoop seems like a recipe for disaster.
We had one. Issues were similiar. Except our organised crime around the bootlegging was more renown of men in long rubber boots rather than trenchcoats (helped when shipping it across the bay from Estonia), but that's about the differences.
The sentiments generally expressed about it are very similiar; i.e. it is not held in very high esteem, and considered to be a prime example of the State exceeding both it's rights and capabilities in restricting the actions of the people. Reason to this, however, has more to do with the Finnish tradition of excessive binge drinking rather than our love for personal liberties, though.
I personally think driving a combustion-engine vehicle with considerable weight carries more responsibility than many of the 16-year olds I have known are ready to shoulder, so in my eyes that should perhaps not be the one to be first divided from the lump of rights - at least by lowering it's age from the mode. Other than this small disagreement, I agree with you.
I think that age for getting a drivers license should be 16. Because at the point a child is capable of driving a vehicle (physically, mentally) and will have the capacity to understand the consequence of their actions.
To pancakeman:
If you are capable of being tried as adult in a court, voting for a president, going to war - then you should be capable of buying a beer.
Part of the problem with teenage drinking is that since it is illegal they do not receive enough education from the role models in their lives. When kids' parents were completely opposed to them drinking - even at 18 (I'm Cdn) they ignored the topic. As a result those kids were more likely to not understand their tolerance and make bad decisions. Knowledge is power - the kids who grew up with it understood their boundaries and seldom were the ones getting effed up.
Obviously there are exceptions to everything, but this what I noticed from my own perspectives of there past couple yrs of starting university/finishing high school.
I understand what you mean, I'm just talking about the ones that are too stupid, too naive, or too something else to be responsible. For instance, my brother had sips of beer or wine growing up, and my parents let him have beers before he shipped off to basic. I am really not worried about someone like him getting gooned and driving into a pedestrian or something.
But, on the other hand, you take someone who does whatever they think "everyone is doing". If they see people drinking, they'll drink, even if they know they can't handle it. (I'm not exactly out all night clubbing or anything, but even I have seen people who can't hold their liquor and insist on drinking anyway) So if you have someone like that, combined with the fact that they really havn't had much alcohol before, their will be problems. Combined with a car, someone will get seriously hurt.
So, I guess I agree with you, at least on the second part of what you said. If they are responsible teenagers, and have maybe been allowed to drink a little before, it's not a big deal. I'm just saying that I believe most of the people that would be affected (effected?) by this law are not responsible enough, have not had much to drink before, and would make it a big deal.
Funny that the age you can become a parent is subject to only the laws of Biology.
And if you do become pregnant while considered "under age" you lose your right to decide to abort.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks