Should the legal drinking age be lowered to 18?

[miami_fan]

Poll forthcoming

College presidents: Cut drinking age - 08/18/2008 - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/519/story/647473.html)

ALCOHOL ABUSE
College presidents: Cut drinking age

University presidents from a wide range of U.S. colleges are calling for a debate over drinking laws, arguing that the legal drinking age should be lowered to 18.

BY JUSTIN POPE
Associated Press

College presidents from about 100 of the nation's best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.

The movement called the Amethyst Initiative began quietly recruiting presidents more than a year ago to provoke national debate about the drinking age.

''This is a law that is routinely evaded,'' said John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont who started the organization. ``It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory.''

Other prominent schools in the group include Syracuse, Tufts, Colgate, Kenyon and Morehouse.

But even before the presidents begin the public phase of their efforts, which may include publishing newspaper ads in the coming weeks, they are already facing sharp criticism.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting science and looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem. MADD officials are even urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on.

''It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses,'' said Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of MADD.

Both sides agree alcohol abuse by college students is a huge problem.

Research has found more than 40 percent of college students reported at least one symptom of alcohol abuse or dependence. One study has estimated more than 500,000 full-time students at four-year colleges suffer injuries each year related in some way to drinking and about 1,700 die in such accidents.

A recent Associated Press analysis of federal records found that 157 college-age people, 18 to 23, drank themselves to death from 1999 through 2005.

Moana Jagasia, a Duke University sophomore from Singapore, where the drinking age is lower, said reducing the age in the United States could be helpful.

''There isn't that much difference in maturity between 21 and 18,'' she said.

McCardell's group takes its name from ancient Greece, where the purple gemstone amethyst was widely believed to ward off drunkenness if used in drinking vessels and jewelry. He said college students will drink no matter what, but do so more dangerously when it's illegal.

The statement the presidents have signed avoids calling explicitly for a younger drinking age. Rather, it seeks ''an informed and dispassionate debate'' over the issue.

But the statement makes clear the signers think the current law isn't working, citing a ''culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking,'' and noting that while adults under 21 can vote and enlist in the military, they ''are told they are not mature enough to have a beer.'' Furthermore, ``by choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law.''

''I'm not sure where the dialogue will lead, but it's an important topic to American families and it deserves a straightforward dialogue,'' said William Trout, president of Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn., who has signed the statement.

But some other college administrators sharply disagree that lowering the drinking age would help. University of Miami President Donna Shalala, who served as secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, declined to sign.

''I remember college campuses when we had 18-year-old drinking ages, and I honestly believe we've made some progress,'' Shalala said.

McCardell claims that his experiences as a president and a parent, as well as a historian studying Prohibition, have persuaded him the drinking age isn't working.

But critics say McCardell has badly misrepresented the research by suggesting that the decision to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 may not have saved lives.

MADD CEO Chuck Hurley said nearly all peer-reviewed studies looking at the change showed raising the drinking age reduced drunk-driving deaths. A survey by the Centers for Disease Control also reached the same conclusion.

Associated Press Writer Barbara Rodriguez contributed to this report from Durham, N.C.

[MikeVic]

I live where the age is 18 so I'll say yes to this.

[VPI97]

My parents never had a problem with me drinking when I was 18, 19 or 20. In fact, Dad sent me off to college with a pat on the back and a case of beer in the trunk. Their reasoning was that a) the drinking age was 18 when they were kids and b) if you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to drink. Can't say I can argue with that rationale.

[Marc Vaughan]

I'd have to say "Yes" - at least partially because thats how it stands in England which is what I'm used to.

I also think that responsible drinking from an early age (ie. a glass of wine with a meal) at home helps curb teen drinking problems personally.

[claphamsa]

I think our society needs to be changed more than the drinking age! we still have tons of nutjobs who think prohibition is a good idea, the simple idea of a drinking age is rediculous! look at countries where peopel drink responsibly..... no drinking ages. its a cultural thing!

[Fidatelo]

Anything higher than 18 seems crazy to me. If you are old enough to vote you should be old enough to drink (to say nothing about going to war). I also agree that making it 21 just adds to the problem with college kids; the party atmosphere in college seems to be way more pronounced in the US than it does up here where the age is 18 or 19.

[larrymcg421]

I don't mind lowering the drinking age as long as we increase the penalties for drunk driving.

[molson]

I voted yes, but you're not going to change the culture overnight by lowering the drinking age.

There would definitely be a HUGE increase in drunk driving and death in college towns, as students are out and about with their boozing, instead of containing it to their dorm rooms, etc. There wouldn't be much support for the "let's wait it out for the culture to change" idea.

Maybe it would make sense to lower it to 20, then 19 after a few years, then 18.

[Young Drachma]

Pretty simple. If you can vote and die, you can drink.

[molson]

What does voting or going to war have to do with drinking, specifically, other than the "if you're old enough to do this than you're old enough to do that". I never found that compelling. You can go to war and drive a tank and still not rent a car from most places until you're 25. But other than the snappy saying, it makes perfect sense because male drivers under 25 are a HUGE liability.

[Young Drachma]

I think our society needs to be changed more than the drinking age! we still have tons of nutjobs who think prohibition is a good idea, the simple idea of a drinking age is rediculous! look at countries where peopel drink responsibly..... no drinking ages. its a cultural thing!

Remember, the US was founded by a bunch of folks who were kicked out of England for being too uptight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan#The_Puritan_spirit_in_the_United_States). It's our legacy.

[Young Drachma]

What does voting or going to war have to do with drinking, specifically, other than the "if you're old enough to do this than you're old enough to do that". I never found that compelling. You can go to war and drive a tank and still not rent a car from most places until you're 25. But other than the snappy saying, it makes perfect sense because male drivers under 25 are a HUGE liability.

Renting a car isn't a legal right bestowed upon you by the law, but is decided by a private company renting you the car.

[Hurst2112]

I don't mind lowering the drinking age as long as we increase the penalties for drunk driving.

I agree 100% with that comment.

I don't understand how lowering the drinking age will decrease 'binge drinking'. I knew/know just as many 21+ people that binge.

[RendeR]

You can vote for the leadership of this country at age 18.

You are legally an adult at age 18.

You can serve and die for this country at age 18.

There is no excuse in the universe for forcing someone with THOSE rights to not consume alcohol for 3 years longer. It does not increase the maturity level enough to matter and leads to creating alcoholism by forcing kids to hide what they do and binge drink when they get the opportunity.

If the leaders in this nation wish to change the situation they have 2 choices:

Lower the drinking age to match those rights

or

Raise the age of those rights to match the drinking age. basically creating a dead pool of 18-20 yr olds who have no say in how their lives are governed and who can't be entered into the military (killing of a good 40-60% of the active duty military)

[Hurst2112]

But other than the snappy saying, it makes perfect sense because male drivers under 25 are a HUGE liability.

So are 16-18 year olds. haha

[rowech]

I voted yes but I think unfortunately, this isn't going to do much to change anything. It has to come from parents. If parents teach responsibility with it, then things will go well. If they're constantly binge drinking in front of their own kids or the kids see the effects of this, then what difference is it going to make?

Kids, in general, will model the behavior at home. If they see parents modeling responsible drinking, they are much more inclined to do so themselves.

[claphamsa]

Remember, the US was founded by a bunch of folks who were kicked out of England for being too uptight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan#The_Puritan_spirit_in_the_United_States). It's our legacy.

i know! thats the problem not the drinking age. as long as drinking is viewed as bad by a large portion of our society....... who cares what the drinkign age is. and honeslty who ever had problems buyign beer when they were teenagers? We just rode our bikes down to east cleveland and bought 40s at bP!

[Klinglerware]

I don't mind lowering the drinking age as long as we increase the penalties for drunk driving.

I agree with this. It is obvious that the drinking age laws are not a deterrent to underage drinking. Of course, I am assuming that the laws are there to address the drunk driving problem (this being the US, moral issues could be a reason for the laws).

However, making the BAC thresholds and penalties for hitting those thresholds/causing accidents draconian would be more of a deterrent--much as it is in Northern Europe.

I suspect that this will never happen in the US. There will be an uproar from the Restaurant and Bar industry. Unlike Europe, where public transportation is accepted and readily available, the US is too car dependent for this to fly.

[Hurst2112]

and honeslty who ever had problems buyign beer when they were teenagers? We just rode our bikes down to east cleveland and bought 40s at bP!

I had an easier time buying weed than I did liquor. Course, I didn't really drink till I was 21.

[molson]

Renting a car isn't a legal right bestowed upon you by the law, but is decided by a private company renting you the car.

My point is that I'm sure there's similar statistical justification for having the drinking age of 21 (lower drunk driving deaths, etc). And problem drinking is more damaging to society and innocent victims than voting or serving in a war (political jokes aside).

I've never seen any real support for lowering the drinking age except, "If you can do this, you can do that". That's not an argument, just a conclusion.

Just a pet peeve, I could care less. Kids would be better off with a little wine here and there.

[samifan24]

Yes, lower the drinking age. Hopefully doing so will ease the social burden on kids who drink now, for the first time, at college. Trust me, as an RA and RD in college, drinking related incidents accounted for 95% of all incidents I dealt with over the years.

[RendeR]

What does voting or going to war have to do with drinking, specifically, other than the "if you're old enough to do this than you're old enough to do that". I never found that compelling. You can go to war and drive a tank and still not rent a car from most places until you're 25. But other than the snappy saying, it makes perfect sense because male drivers under 25 are a HUGE liability.


Maybe this will make it make more sense then:

The government is legislating away your right to drink alcohol until you turn 21.

however, you are a legal and free citizen with all the rights and protections afforded you in the constitution at age 18.

I would propose then that the drinking age is an unconstitutional restriction of your rights as an adult citizen in this country to live your life as you see fit.

[Warhammer]

I think reducing the drinking age will do two things:
1) Make it less of a forbidden fruit.
2) Make it easier for the kids to get so they don't binge when they do get it.

[molson]

Maybe this will make it make more sense then:

The government is legislating away your right to drink alcohol until you turn 21.

however, you are a legal and free citizen with all the rights and protections afforded you in the constitution at age 18.

I would propose then that the drinking age is an unconstitutional restriction of your rights as an adult citizen in this country to live your life as you see fit.

The state government is allowed to place age-related restrictions on you as long as there's a rational basis, which there is here. That isn't contradicted by anything in the Constitution about adulthood. Even children maintain most Constitutional rights.

[Mustang]

Unfortunately, the damage is done in this society. We've turned drinking into some big rite of passage and benchmark in a person's life. We should have never had prohibition and not have turned drinking into something taboo and that is not something that is going to be undone overnight. I believe you need to ratchet back, but not 21 to 18, but rather 21 to 19 and allow college age students to drink.

And for the people that are using the 'Old enough to do X.. ', I hope you are arguing that an 18 year old should also be able to be president or in congress because as they can vote for those offices, but not hold those offices.

[molson]

I think there's also other sensible ways to acknowledge that culture and ease into it, rather than lower the drinking age just because "one can go to war at 18".

Maybe the drinking age could be 19 to purchase at a liquor store, but 21 to purchase at a bar or restarauant, etc.

[Hurst2112]

I think reducing the drinking age will do two things:

2) Make it easier for the kids to get so they don't binge when they do get it.

Making it easier to get introduces just as many bad practices. Chronic drinking is more dangerous than binging.

As I said before, I know many people above age who binge. It's not a habit just for minors. Saying that 'kids' won't binge shows that these people aren't responsible enough to moderate themselves.

I don't smoke weed or anything anymore but when I did, I didn't binge. It wasn't legal and most people i did things with didn't blow though their stash all at once.

[johnnyshaka]

I think reducing the drinking age will do two things:
2) Make it easier for the kids to get so they don't binge when they do get it.

What makes you think an 18 year old is more mentally equipped to avoid binge drinking than a 21 year old?

What stops binge drinking is experience...and that is sad to say. No matter how many people (parents, older siblings, teachers, friends, etc...) tell you not to do it you still do it and don't stop until you are sick of dealing with the consequences. Heck, I've known guys who have died from alcohol poisoning but that never stopped me from trying to drink a case of beer in a couple of hours. What finally stopped me from that crap was the shitty day or two following one of those nights and the empty wallet for the following week(s).

As a parent, I'm not looking forward to those days when I have to watch my teenagers leave in a cab with their friends headed to the bar full well knowing how the night/morning is going to end up. I just might start binge drinking again on that night.

[Tekneek]

I don't find the argument about the US Constitution specifying particular ages to qualify for federal offices a compelling one in this discussion. You might note that there is nothing in it about drinking age, is there?

I don't honestly care whether there is a "drinking age" or not. There are people of any age that are not capable of responsible drinking. If that was not the case, we'd never have drunk driving accidents by people 21 and over. The whole issue around raising it to 21 was a misguided attempt to solve a problem without actually figuring out what the true problem was. In typical fashion, it was deemed much easier to just make it a crime than solve the real problem. Let's not deal with the problem when we can just make it go away with legislation (aka the easy way out).

[Super Ugly]

It's 18 here in the UK, and I'd actually like to see it raised to 21. I don't buy the idea that a lower drinking age would prevent binge drinking and its related social problems. If anything, I can see the problem getting worse. I say that as someone who's been on the receiving end of violence dealt out by drunk teenagers. It's a different culture in the US, but I honestly couldn't see a whole lot of good coming out of a lower drinking age. The continental countries don't have so many problems with teenage drinkers, but the US is way closer to the UK than it is to countries like France and Germany.

[Tekneek]

The continental countries don't have so many problems with teenage drinkers, but the US is way closer to the UK than it is to countries like France and Germany.

Correct. However, don't you think the smart thing to do would be to find out why France and Germany don't have problems? Instead of sticking your head in the sand and saying Brits and Yanks are just reckless bastards who will never get it?

[molson]

I don't find the argument about the US Constitution specifying particular ages to qualify for federal offices a compelling one in this discussion. You might note that there is nothing in it about drinking age, is there?

I don't honestly care whether there is a "drinking age" or not. There are people of any age that are not capable of responsible drinking. If that was not the case, we'd never have drunk driving accidents by people 21 and over. The whole issue around raising it to 21 was a misguided attempt to solve a problem without actually figuring out what the true problem was. In typical fashion, it was deemed much easier to just make it a crime than solve the real problem. Let's not deal with the problem when we can just make it go away with legislation (aka the easy way out).

Just because there's not a 100% correlation, that doesn't mean there's not an extremely relevant one.

Any time you try to draw a line somewhere, there's going to be elements on both sides of it that just don't fit. Some people can drive fine at 0.08. Others are a huge hazard at .06. Still, you need a workable number, so you set it at an acceptable standard. Even beyond numbers - a "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminal trial standard guarantees that you'll have some innocent people in prison. Still, we decided that's an acceptable place for the line.

[Tekneek]

Just because there's not a 100% correlation, that doesn't mean there's not an extremely relevant one.

So, are you saying the drinking age should be 35 because you can't be President until then? Or 30 because you can't be a Senator until then? Perhaps just 25, like a member of the House of Representatives? I don't see the logic...still. If equating it to 18 because the Constitution says you can vote at 18 is not good, what relevance do the others have?

[molson]

Correct. However, don't you think the smart thing to do would be to find out why France and Germany don't have problems? Instead of sticking your head in the sand and saying Brits and Yanks are just reckless bastards who will never get it?

It's not rocket science, France and Germany have had wine and beer as a big part of their culture for hundreds of years. We can get there too, if that's a goal, but it ain't gonna happen tomorrow even if you lower the drinking age.

[molson]

So, are you saying the drinking age should be 35 because you can't be President until then? Or 30 because you can't be a Senator until then? Perhaps just 25, like a member of the House of Representatives? I don't see the logic...still. If equating it to 18 because the Constitution says you can vote at 18 is not good, what relevance do the others have?

I don't get your point - I was actually arguing the opposite, that various age limits have nothing to do with each other.

I'm just saying that 21 isn't a "bad" drinking age just because there's some 19 year-olds that can drink responsibility, just like a 35-year age limit for president isn't necessarily "bad" just because there's a 34-year old that would make a good president. Thus, the correlation isn't 100%, but in the case of the United States, there is huge statistical support for a higher drinking age - young males are an absolute disaster behind the wheel.

As for why those age limits for public office exist, I have no idea - I imagine that in terms of the president age limit, the framers of the Constitution wanted some track record of a candidate's loyalty to America, but that's just a guess.

[Racer]

I know this isn't exactly relevant, but personally I think we coddle drunk drivers in this country and would love for that policy to be changed regardless of the drinking age.

I agree with this. I don't see anything wrong with lowering the drinking age, but America really needs to address its problem with drunk drivers. Laws are far to lenient currently.

[JediKooter]

I think it should be lowered to 18.

The problem in America, drinking is treated like anything else in this country that is considered 'taboo'. If there wasn't such a big deal made about drinking from an early age, I don't think drinking would be such a big deal to younger people. Just like nudity and sex in this country, drinking is treated as a bad thing.

America has a long way to go to get over its Puritan ideals.

[BrianD]

It's not rocket science, France and Germany have had wine and beer as a big part of their culture for hundreds of years. We can get there too, if that's a goal, but it ain't gonna happen tomorrow even if you lower the drinking age.

Haven't we been hearing that France and Germany are starting to have more and more alcohol-related issues recently? They may have been the gold standard in the past, but it seems like they are catching up to the rest of us in this area.

[molson]

It should also be noted that drunk driving fatalities have plummeted since all States went to a drinking age of 21. 21,113 in 1982, to 12,998 in 2007. (And that's before you adjust for the fact that Americans drive far more miles now than they did in 1982)

[Fighter of Foo]

I don't mind lowering the drinking age as long as we increase the penalties for drunk driving.

I don't think there should be any specific penalties for drunk driving or driving under any influence. We already have laws that cover every imaginable driving violation and IMHO, they are very effective.

Yes, drink driving is exceptionally stupid.

That said, it doesn't make any difference WHY someone endangered others (fell asleep, under the influence, poor driving/judgment, etc.) only that they did. Leave the level of punishment to the judge. I'm all for varying the level of punishment the match the level of stupidity, like how there are higher fines for speeding in a work zone. But to explicitly outlaw any behavior before it affects anyone else is not only an insult to freedom, but nannying of the highest order.

[Hurst2112]

I think it should be lowered to 18.

Just like nudity and sex in this country, drinking is treated as a bad thing.



I would guess that alcoholism plays a big part of that public view.

[Fighter of Foo]

It should also be noted that drunk driving fatalities have plummeted since all States went to a drinking age of 21. 21,113 in 1982, to 12,998 in 2007. (And that's before you adjust for the fact that Americans drive far more miles now than they did in 1982)

Causation and correlation aren't the same thing. Other possible causes include significantly increased public awareness, societal/peer pressure and demographics.

[molson]

I don't think there should be any specific penalties for drunk driving or driving under any influence. We already have laws that cover every imaginable driving violation and IMHO, they are very effective.

Yes, drink driving is exceptionally stupid.

That said, it doesn't make any difference WHY someone endangered others (fell asleep, under the influence, poor driving/judgment, etc.) only that they did. Leave the level of punishment to the judge. I'm all for varying the level of punishment the match the level of stupidity, like how there are higher fines for speeding in a work zone. But to explicitly outlaw any behavior before it affects anyone else is not only an insult to freedom, but nannying of the highest order.

So if someone gets pulled over for a broken taillight, and the officer finds that the driver is completely trashed - you don't think that should be a crime as long as he was driving OK at the time the officer observed him?

[Fighter of Foo]

Just because there's not a 100% correlation, that doesn't mean there's not an extremely relevant one.

Any time you try to draw a line somewhere, there's going to be elements on both sides of it that just don't fit. Some people can drive fine at 0.08. Others are a huge hazard at .06. Still, you need a workable number, so you set it at an acceptable standard. Even beyond numbers - a "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminal trial standard guarantees that you'll have some innocent people in prison. Still, we decided that's an acceptable place for the line.

This is why the whole idea of having a line is stupid. Either you broke some other driving law or you didn't, and you should be punished accordingly.

[Logan]

I voted yes, but you're not going to change the culture overnight by lowering the drinking age.

There would definitely be a HUGE increase in drunk driving and death in college towns, as students are out and about with their boozing, instead of containing it to their dorm rooms, etc. There wouldn't be much support for the "let's wait it out for the culture to change" idea.

I don't think we would see that at all. For one, most students don't drive in "college towns" as everything is walkable. And I went to a school that was more spread out than the typically large state school, and no one drove to bars. Plus, at most schools, you can't have a car on campus until you're a junior/senior when you're approaching or at 21 already.

It was also far easier to get alcohol outside of the dorm when I wasn't 21 (frat parties, house parties) than it was to have some 21 year old buy me booze which I'd then need to sneak into the dorm.

[Fighter of Foo]

So if someone gets pulled over for a broken taillight, and the officer finds that the driver is completely trashed - you don't think that should be a crime as long as he was driving OK at the time the officer observed him?

As you asked your question, yes, though I highly doubt that could actually happen.

[molson]

Causation and correlation aren't the same thing. Other possible causes include significantly increased public awareness, societal/peer pressure and demographics.

Of course, but it's still worth noting when this discussion came up. Supporters of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act claimed that drunk driving deaths would go down. They did, by a ton. And that Act in itself probably did a ton to increase awareness of drunk driving deaths. So what's the argument to bring it back down right away? I haven't heard anything more compelling than those stats.

[Logan]

So if someone gets pulled over for a broken taillight, and the officer finds that the driver is completely trashed - you don't think that should be a crime as long as he was driving OK at the time the officer observed him?

We've been through this with Foo before (I believe re: Matt Jones and his blow). Save your effort.

[lungs]

I'd go 19 for everything. That way you can still have those wicked parties in college when you turn legal to drink. The ones where you wake up naked in some bushes in a pile of your own puke and/or piss but can justify it by saying it was the first night of legal drinking.

[Fighter of Foo]

Apologies for liking freedom Logan.

[Tekneek]

I don't get your point - I was actually arguing the opposite, that various age limits have nothing to do with each other.

Oh, well, that's good then. :)

I'm just saying that 21 isn't a "bad" drinking age just because there's some 19 year-olds that can drink responsibility, just like a 35-year age limit for president isn't necessarily "bad" just because there's a 34-year old that would make a good president. Thus, the correlation isn't 100%, but in the case of the United States, there is huge statistical support for a higher drinking age - young males are an absolute disaster behind the wheel.

I can't question why the writers of the Constitution felt like putting in those age requirements, but there has not been much noise made about it over the years, has there? I don't know of any myself. Why don't they just leave this to individual states to decide? The US government played games with "federal money" in order to have their way on this issue. So, they take taxpayer money and then say things like, "You must not let people under the age of 21 buy alcohol", and at one time they said, "You must not have a speed limit higher than 55 miles per hour", else we will not send you 'your share' of the taxpayer booty. If it is such a worthy cause, let's just take the federal government out of the game and let each state decide on their own what is best for them. I expect they would know better what their young adults can handle and what they cannot.

[DaddyTorgo]

The state government is allowed to place age-related restrictions on you as long as there's a rational basis, which there is here. That isn't contradicted by anything in the Constitution about adulthood. Even children maintain most Constitutional rights.

:+1:

Unfortunately, the damage is done in this society. We've turned drinking into some big rite of passage and benchmark in a person's life. We should have never had prohibition and not have turned drinking into something taboo and that is not something that is going to be undone overnight. I believe you need to ratchet back, but not 21 to 18, but rather 21 to 19 and allow college age students to drink.

And for the people that are using the 'Old enough to do X.. ', I hope you are arguing that an 18 year old should also be able to be president or in congress because as they can vote for those offices, but not hold those offices.

:+1: :+1:

[molson]

As you asked your question, yes, though I highly doubt that could actually happen.

You'd be surprised how functional alchoholics are when heavily intoxicated, at least on the surface. Some guys at .20 don't even slur their words, and they can certainly drive (though their relflexes, etc, are still compromised).

[Hurst2112]

I don't think there should be any specific penalties for drunk driving or driving under any influence. We already have laws that cover every imaginable driving violation and IMHO, they are very effective.

Yes, drink driving is exceptionally stupid.

That said, it doesn't make any difference WHY someone endangered others (fell asleep, under the influence, poor driving/judgment, etc.) only that they did. Leave the level of punishment to the judge. I'm all for varying the level of punishment the match the level of stupidity, like how there are higher fines for speeding in a work zone. But to explicitly outlaw any behavior before it affects anyone else is not only an insult to freedom, but nannying of the highest order.

WOW

[Tekneek]

It should also be noted that drunk driving fatalities have plummeted since all States went to a drinking age of 21. 21,113 in 1982, to 12,998 in 2007. (And that's before you adjust for the fact that Americans drive far more miles now than they did in 1982)

And if smoking has declined since they put the "Surgeon General Warning" on the packaging, that surely must be the cause?

[molson]

I can't question why the writers of the Constitution felt like putting in those age requirements, but there has not been much noise made about it over the years, has there? I don't know of any myself. Why don't they just leave this to individual states to decide? The US government played games with "federal money" in order to have their way on this issue. So, they take taxpayer money and then say things like, "You must not let people under the age of 21 buy alcohol", and at one time they said, "You must not have a speed limit higher than 55 miles per hour", else we will not send you 'your share' of the taxpayer booty. If it is such a worthy cause, let's just take the federal government out of the game and let each state decide on their own what is best for them. I expect they would know better what their young adults can handle and what they cannot.

I definitely agree it should be up to the states, but as a state, I'd be very, very reluctant to bring the drinking age down overnight.

[molson]

And if smoking has declined since they put the "Surgeon General Warning" on the packaging, that surely must be the cause?

It's worth considering as a cause.

I realize that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but that doesn't mean the opposite is true - that correlation rules out casuation, which people seem to argue sometimes.

But that's a fair place to have the discussion - would lowering the drinking age overnight increase the amount of drunk driving deaths, or not? I think it definitely would. If you don't, I can certainly understand why you'd be in favor of reducing the drinking age today. But nobody ever argues that there'd be no impact on drunk driving deaths (or that there'd be no negative impact generally). All you ever hear is the comparisons with the voting age, military service age, and how things are in Europe, which all miss the mark, IMO.

[Icy]

It's 18 in Spain, but the problem is not 18 years old drinking, but that drinking being under 18 or selling them the alcohol drinks is not enforced or prosecuted enough.

[Wolfpack]

I'm rather conflicted on the issue. The more libertarian side of me thinks the age should be lowered to 18, but with a zero BAC law for drivers until they turn 21 with heavy penalties for breaking it (lost license, lost car, something like that). Most college campuses are fairly compact so it's not as likely that drunk driving would increase if the age were lowered as most 18-20-year-olds probably would walk to the campus area watering holes, especially those who are 18 since many colleges have a rule against freshmen having cars on campus. It may also strengthen local businesses in the area as there is a larger number of students patronizing the various places since they won't be confined to their dorm rooms to drink illicitly.

However, the more conservative part of me thinks it would be a bad idea to let the age slide because it would merely mean that instead of 21-year-olds buying for under-age kids, it'd be the 18-year-olds buying for under-age kids. I've also seen the aftereffects of the ravages of alcoholism and how destructive it is on families. The question then becomes whether the illicitness of alcohol makes people alcoholic because they binged out on it in their youth or whether they'd have become alcoholic regardless of the age of legality.

After typing all that out, I still don't know how I'd vote on it.

[Tekneek]

I definitely agree it should be up to the states, but as a state, I'd be very, very reluctant to bring the drinking age down overnight.

How would you do it? Presumably a new law would go into effect at midnight whenever it did happen, so any reduction would happen "overnight."

I know I'm being pedantic. Some study might make some sense, but we will never really know if it can be handled better today if no one is willing to try. A "drinking age" does make more sense to me than a bunch of "blue laws" limiting the days and times that you can buy it.

[larrymcg421]

I don't think there should be any specific penalties for drunk driving or driving under any influence. We already have laws that cover every imaginable driving violation and IMHO, they are very effective.

Yes, drink driving is exceptionally stupid.

That said, it doesn't make any difference WHY someone endangered others (fell asleep, under the influence, poor driving/judgment, etc.) only that they did. Leave the level of punishment to the judge. I'm all for varying the level of punishment the match the level of stupidity, like how there are higher fines for speeding in a work zone. But to explicitly outlaw any behavior before it affects anyone else is not only an insult to freedom, but nannying of the highest order.

I think drunk driving is basically the same thing as firing a gun in public. Would you argue that person shouldn't be arrested if they didn't hit anyone? The person that drives drunk is endangering everyone around them the second they start that car.

[molson]

How would you do it? Presumably a new law would go into effect at midnight whenever it did happen, so any reduction would happen "overnight."

I know I'm being pedantic. Some study might make some sense, but we will never really know if it can be handled better today if no one is willing to try. A "drinking age" does make more sense to me than a bunch of "blue laws" limiting the days and times that you can buy it.

Like I said a few posts ago, you can do it gradually. 20 then 19, or maybe 19 to buy at liquor stores and 21 to buy at bars.

[Tekneek]

The question then becomes whether the illicitness of alcohol makes people alcoholic because they binged out on it in their youth or whether they'd have become alcoholic regardless of the age of legality.

Indeed. Do you become an alcoholic simply because it is there, or is there some other fault in your brain that allows that addiction to form? I did my share of underage drinking in high school. A buddy and I always arranged for a driver that wasn't drinking, or a safe place to stay for the night (or both). I probably average 1 beer every 2 weeks or so today. Being able to get alcohol at a young age did not turn me into an alcoholic, or a drunk driver. In fact, I have never even had a traffic citation for anything (no speeding tickets, no parking tickets even).

[ShaneTheMaster]

The drinking age should be lowered to 18, but the age that you are able to get a driver's license should be raised to 21.

[Fighter of Foo]

You'd be surprised how functional alchoholics are when heavily intoxicated, at least on the surface. Some guys at .20 don't even slur their words, and they can certainly drive (though their relflexes, etc, are still compromised).

Keeping with the hypothetical, if an officer trailed anyone for 5-10 minutes they're bound to do something illegal. Everyone does. At that point (which in that case would take 2 seconds), the cop pulls the guy over and instead of a $25 fine for going outside the lines it's however many times that for being shitfaced, plus a reckless driving charge, also for being shitfaced.

The key difference, and I'll agree it's a lot of semantics, is that you have to do something or endanger someone else first. It doesn't matter if your BAC is .08 or .09 or .1. The law should allow a)for people to make their own judgments and b) hold them accountable for their actions.

[Tekneek]

I think drunk driving is basically the same thing as firing a gun in public. Would you argue that person shouldn't be arrested if they didn't hit anyone? The person that drives drunk is endangering everyone around them the second they start that car.

That is exactly the way I feel about it. In this day, there is absolutely ZERO reason for anyone to drive when impaired. There are simply too many other options, assuming you had no control over where you got intoxicated in the first place.

[EagleFan]

Fuck those young punks!!! Keep it at 21, or raise it to 30!!!

[Tekneek]

The drinking age should be lowered to 18, but the age that you are able to get a driver's license should be raised to 21.

Solves the drunk driving problem, eh? Oh, but perhaps then we should fear hordes of drunk unlicensed drivers out on the road... :eek:

[molson]

It's also worth noting that in most states, you can drink if you're under-21, if it's done in private, and with your parents' consent.

[EagleFan]

I don't think there should be any specific penalties for drunk driving or driving under any influence. We already have laws that cover every imaginable driving violation and IMHO, they are very effective.

Yes, drink driving is exceptionally stupid.

That said, it doesn't make any difference WHY someone endangered others (fell asleep, under the influence, poor driving/judgment, etc.) only that they did. Leave the level of punishment to the judge. I'm all for varying the level of punishment the match the level of stupidity, like how there are higher fines for speeding in a work zone. But to explicitly outlaw any behavior before it affects anyone else is not only an insult to freedom, but nannying of the highest order.

Are you serious?

[Fighter of Foo]

I think drunk driving is basically the same thing as firing a gun in public. Would you argue that person shouldn't be arrested if they didn't hit anyone? The person that drives drunk is endangering everyone around them the second they start that car.

No that person shouldn't be arrested. And maybe the drunk person is endangering everyone and maybe they aren't. How are they any different from the person who drives without sleep, while talking on the phone, while not paying attention, while listening to music or while petting their dog?

[molson]

The question then becomes whether the illicitness of alcohol makes people alcoholic because they binged out on it in their youth or whether they'd have become alcoholic regardless of the age of legality.



The potential for greater/earlier onset of alcholism is just one of the concerns.

Drunk driving is a big one. If kids can go out to bar and drink, more of them are going to drive back. More of them are also going to drive to liquor store to get more after they've already been drinking. The 21 limit keeps teen boozing RELATIVELY private, and safer. Most teens can drink if they want, but they have to sneak around, etc. That's a good thing. Then by the time they're 21, liquor isn't such a big deal anymore.

[EagleFan]

Keeping with the hypothetical, if an officer trailed anyone for 5-10 minutes they're bound to do something illegal. Everyone does. At that point (which in that case would take 2 seconds), the cop pulls the guy over and instead of a $25 fine for going outside the lines it's however many times that for being shitfaced, plus a reckless driving charge, also for being shitfaced.

The key difference, and I'll agree it's a lot of semantics, is that you have to do something or endanger someone else first. It doesn't matter if your BAC is .08 or .09 or .1. The law should allow a)for people to make their own judgments and b) hold them accountable for their actions.

Please tell that to someone whol has lost a loved one due to another person and their "error in judgement" of driving drunk...

I really want you to tell that to them after that shitfaced driver gets a slap on the wrist ticket for going outside the lines and then sent on his way.

[EagleFan]

No that person shouldn't be arrested. And maybe the drunk person is endangering everyone and maybe they aren't. How are they any different from the person who drives without sleep, while talking on the phone, while not paying attention, while listening to music or while petting their dog?

petting their dog? talking? listening to music?

They are all causes of momentary lapses but there is a huge difference. They are temporary. Drunk is not something that you feel for a second and then it's gone.

[johnnyshaka]

I think drunk driving is basically the same thing as firing a gun in public. Would you argue that person shouldn't be arrested if they didn't hit anyone?

I think a rocket launcher would be a more suitable comparison.

[BrianD]

That is exactly the way I feel about it. In this day, there is absolutely ZERO reason for anyone to drive when impaired. There are simply too many other options, assuming you had no control over where you got intoxicated in the first place.

The problem with this is that people don't know they are impaired. One of the problems of impaired judgement is that you can't judge your impairment. We've probably all had times where we thought we were perfectly fine to drive until something happened that we reacted to badly and realized we shouldn't be driving. Setting an arbitrary BAC level may not treat everyone equally with their level of ability, but it serves as a nice starting point to define impairment.

Note: I'm replying to Tekneek, but not necessarily directing this at him...just a convenient place to jump in.

[molson]

The problem with this is that people don't know they are impaired. One of the problems of impaired judgement is that you can't judge your impairment. We've probably all had times where we thought we were perfectly fine to drive until something happened that we reacted to badly and realized we shouldn't be driving. Setting an arbitrary BAC level may not treat everyone equally with their level of ability, but it serves as a nice starting point to define impairment.

Note: I'm replying to Tekneek, but not necessarily directing this at him...just a convenient place to jump in.

I agree.

And I think this is the reason DUIs aren't punished more harshly in this country. It's a completley different class of criminal. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, with zero criminal record get a DUI. They come to court, have already enrolled in treatment, are extremely apologetic, take full responsibility for what they did, and need their vehicle, driver's license, and freedom to make a living for their family. I've seen why they get slaps on the wrists.

[Fighter of Foo]

Please tell that to someone whol has lost a loved one due to another person and their "error in judgement" of driving drunk...

I really want you to tell that to them after that shitfaced driver gets a slap on the wrist ticket for going outside the lines and then sent on his way.

It's horrible, but no more horrible than losing someone to an auto accident of some other kind. My mother was nearly killed when someone egregiously ran a red light. That's different, how?

I'm not advocating going light on people who drink-drive, only that the laws banning it explicitly are stupid.

[Fighter of Foo]

The problem with this is that people don't know they are impaired. One of the problems of impaired judgement is that you can't judge your impairment. We've probably all had times where we thought we were perfectly fine to drive until something happened that we reacted to badly and realized we shouldn't be driving. Setting an arbitrary BAC level may not treat everyone equally with their level of ability, but it serves as a nice starting point to define impairment.

Note: I'm replying to Tekneek, but not necessarily directing this at him...just a convenient place to jump in.

This is probably the best argument for this I've ever seen.

[Mustang]

It's horrible, but no more horrible than losing someone to an auto accident of some other kind. My mother was nearly killed when someone egregiously ran a red light. That's different, how?

I'm not advocating going light on people who drink-drive, only that the laws banning it explicitly are stupid.

I can see what Foo is arguing here.. Drunk Driving is a crime because it impairs your ability to drive. If you took 2 drivers that caused accidents, one a drunk driver and the other who decided to eat a bowl of cereal and wearing a pirate eye patch while driving, I'm sure the drunk driver would get the much stiffer penalty, but the cause was still the same, impaired ability to drive. Doesn't make much sense to me.

[DaddyTorgo]

how about car companies putting BAC-locks on the ignition systems. So you have to blow into the BAC sensor in order to get the car to start. If you are over the legal limit then the car won't start.

[Galaxy]

how about car companies putting BAC-locks on the ignition systems. So you have to blow into the BAC sensor in order to get the car to start. If you are over the legal limit then the car won't start.

It's a nice idea, but what about people who get other people to blow on it, who would pass?

[BrianD]

It's a nice idea, but what about people who get other people to blow on it, who would pass?

I saw something like this on a news program recently. They got around this situation by making the person blow every 10-15 minutes to keep the car going. They never did explain what happened if people stopped blowing while the car was doing 60. I'm not sure how you would disable a car safely while it is going freeway speeds.

[Tekneek]

The problem with this is that people don't know they are impaired. One of the problems of impaired judgement is that you can't judge your impairment. We've probably all had times where we thought we were perfectly fine to drive until something happened that we reacted to badly and realized we shouldn't be driving. Setting an arbitrary BAC level may not treat everyone equally with their level of ability, but it serves as a nice starting point to define impairment.

Come on. They didn't get out of their car, trip on the curb, get up drunk, and then back in and drive away. They knew they had been drinking. If you've been putting the drinks down during the game and think you can just hop in and drive, you're an idiot and a danger to society. These people should know when they are likely to be impaired and plan ahead. It isn't really that hard. They need to put their "I'm the invincible asshole cool guy" attitude away for a little while and think about somebody else for a change. I'm not ashamed to admit that it is the fear of causing harm to other people that has always made me responsible when it came to drinking. A healthy dose of that would help a lot of irresponsible drivers in general, whether they're drinking or just a big prick.

I've never been an impaired driver, because I always have a plan. I understand I may be an exception, but I never accidentally get drunk. I know my limits and I don't even get close to pushing it. I never have and I never will.

[DaddyTorgo]

It's a nice idea, but what about people who get other people to blow on it, who would pass?

well that's where you assume that the sober person would say "no - let me drive" because you make the penalties for faking it be astronomical. what sober person is going to willingly enable someone to drive drunk?

[Tekneek]

I'm sure the drunk driver would get the much stiffer penalty, but the cause was still the same, impaired ability to drive. Doesn't make much sense to me.

That is something that does irritate me. A man ran a red light, while talking on a cellphone, and just about killed my stepfather. The hospital spent a lot of time trying to talk my mom into pulling the plug, which she didn't do and he is getting his life back together slowly. Still, the guy was not even given a ticket. No charges at all. The possibility of any charges apparently hinged on alcohol in his system, which wasn't there. My opinion was that if he had been drunk it would have at least made some sense. I'm almost of the belief that having all your faculties and doing something like this deserves even more punishment because you don't have any excuses.

[BrianD]

Come on. They didn't get out of their car, trip on the curb, get up drunk, and then back in and drive away. They knew they had been drinking. If you've been putting the drinks down during the game and think you can just hop in and drive, you're an idiot and a danger to society. These people should know when they are likely to be impaired and plan ahead. It isn't really that hard. They need to put their "I'm the invincible asshole cool guy" attitude away for a little while and think about somebody else for a change. I'm not ashamed to admit that it is the fear of causing harm to other people that has always made me responsible when it came to drinking. A healthy dose of that would help a lot of irresponsible drivers in general, whether they're drinking or just a big prick.

I've never been an impaired driver, because I always have a plan. I understand I may be an exception, but I never accidentally get drunk. I know my limits and I don't even get close to pushing it. I never have and I never will.

The "I'm the invincible asshole cool guy" situation is easy to plan for. It is the in-between stuff that is hard. Say you are going out to see the game and you have one drink at the start of the game. You can probably drive at the end with a 0.0 BAC. What happens if you have 2 drinks? What about 3? Do you know exactly at what point you reach your limit? When you are on the bubble, you might not know that you didn't just walk to the bathroom on a straight line. Whatever little test you do might seem like it went well when it really didn't.

I personally try to be overly cautious in these situations. If I have the slightest hint that I might not be OK to drive, I give up the keys. Even that hasn't kept me from a situation where I decided later that I probably should have given up the keys. It isn't always being too macho that causes problems. Sometimes you think you are being smart and you still make a bad choice.

[Tekneek]

well that's where you assume that the sober person would say "no - let me drive" because you make the penalties for faking it be astronomical. what sober person is going to willingly enable someone to drive drunk?

No reasonable person would, but somebody will do it. In a nation where some mothers have offered up their young daughters to sexual predators, you know that almost anything is possible (no matter how outlandish it may seem).

[Tekneek]

Sometimes you think you are being smart and you still make a bad choice.

You can never be too careful when it comes to this. Don't push your limits. There is way too much at risk to take a chance. When 'having a good time' puts somebody's life in danger, it's no longer a good time. A lot of people are not willing to put the concerns of others ahead of their own, even a tiny bit of the time.

[larrymcg421]

That is something that does irritate me. A man ran a red light, while talking on a cellphone, and just about killed my stepfather. The hospital spent a lot of time trying to talk my mom into pulling the plug, which she didn't do and he is getting his life back together slowly. Still, the guy was not even given a ticket. No charges at all. The possibility of any charges apparently hinged on alcohol in his system, which wasn't there. My opinion was that if he had been drunk it would have at least made some sense. I'm almost of the belief that having all your faculties and doing something like this deserves even more punishment because you don't have any excuses.

Well, there could be more laws (and some places are trying to pass them) about driving while talking on a cell phone, and I'd certainly support it. But let's get real. The reason drunk driving penalties aren't more stiff is because of the restaurant/bar industry. When they pushed to get rid of the Sunday ban on beer sales in Georgia, Sonny Perdue opposed it, citing his Christian faith. However, I notice his Christian faith did not compel him to ban beer sales at bars or restaurants on Sunday. And that's because the restaurant/bar lobby would go apeshit. So I guess he finds the restaurant/bar lobby to be more important than Jesus.

It's the same reason why there is a problem in passing the cell phone laws. The telecom lobby would go nuts if people couldn't talk on the phone while driving.

[MikeVic]

I'd go nuts if I couldn't talk on the phone while driving.

[Tekneek]

The cellphone part of the story is not the most important part. The most important part is where the police will forgive terrible accidents just because somebody was sober. If I really think about it, I can't understand how an otherwise sober person should get away with something. If you can't make good decisions when sober, aren't you actually a greater risk to everyone else?

[BrianD]

You can never be too careful when it comes to this. Don't push your limits. There is way too much at risk to take a chance. When 'having a good time' puts somebody's life in danger, it's no longer a good time. A lot of people are not willing to put the concerns of others ahead of their own, even a tiny bit of the time.

That all sounds great in theory, but reality isn't quite so neat. You have to know you are approaching your limit before you can push it. 'Having a good time' isn't a classification that can help you make a choice. Having a good time out at the bars on a Friday night...easy decision. Having a good time with a single beer during a football game...easy decision. Somewhere in-between it gets harder. Somewhere in-between you have to make a judgement.

[ShaneTheMaster]

I suppose that most people that are saying there is NEVER an excuse to drink and drive are probably married and/or have a significant other that either does not drink or did not go drinking with them that they can just either hand the keys to or just give a phone call to go pick them up. Very convenient. If I was not single, I would do that - it would be easy to not drink and drive.

But, from time to time, I will go have a few drinks or play cards or whatever, and have a few beers - and I will drive home - and I am fine. Unless your body can't handle alcohol well, It should be fine to drive home without having to worry about going to jail, but of course, it is not.

Having said that, there are clearly people who can't handle driving sober, much less after a few beers, because they are texting and playing with their phone. That is the group of people that should be penalized.

Also, it is rediculous that DWI offenders are being punished more than people who are arrested for attempted robbery, etc. People are put behind bars because they are dangerous to the general public. Would you rather wait at a bus stop next to a DWI offender or a convicted robber? The difference is INTENT. Of course, there are exceptions - if someone drinks 11 beers and drives down the wrong side of the road, that is different. But most DWI cases are not that crazy.

I am afraid that while MADD has good intentions, and they have every reason to be mad, they will continually push to have the freedoms of decent people revoked. I really think that MADD will one day want to outlaw bars. I mean, closing all bars will reduce drinking and driving. If MADD would propose this, would any lawmakers have the nuts to dispute them? Probably not, because it is not politically correct. Therein lies the problem.

Most of the time, when someone blows a .08, unless they have a history of drunk driving, they are not a threat to the general public, and should not be thrown in jail. But of course, the "holier than thou" sentiment would rebuke any in-depth arguments.

[Sun Tzu]

yes

[larrymcg421]

Also, it is rediculous that DWI offenders are being punished more than people who are arrested for attempted robbery, etc. People are put behind bars because they are dangerous to the general public. Would you rather wait at a bus stop next to a DWI offender or a convicted robber?


Well, I'd certainly rather be in the passenger seat with a convicted robber driving than with a drunk person.

[RendeR]

Making it easier to get introduces just as many bad practices. Chronic drinking is more dangerous than binging.

As I said before, I know many people above age who binge. It's not a habit just for minors. Saying that 'kids' won't binge shows that these people aren't responsible enough to moderate themselves.

I don't smoke weed or anything anymore but when I did, I didn't binge. It wasn't legal and most people i did things with didn't blow though their stash all at once.


As a reformed alcoholic, or at least a surviving one, I have to correct you on this point. Chronic drinking is not in fact more dangerous than binging. Over time the body adjusts and learns to cope with a steady flow of any chemical introduced to the system.

Binging however is generally not as often an occurance and produces far stronger reactions in the body. A binge drinker is far more prone to blackouts, alcohol poisoning due to the sheer amount of intake in a short period and a far stronger debilitating affect on reaction time and motor skills in general.

If we could eliminate one or the other, we certainly should eliminate binging. A Chronic drinker can be handled through therapy and support. A Binge drinker is a bomb waiting to explode on any given day.

[ShaneTheMaster]

Well, I'd certainly rather be in the passenger seat with a convicted robber driving than with a drunk person.

I guess it depends on what is "drunk". If someone had 4 beers and you knew the person, would you really rather be in the car with a robber you didn't know? ;)

[molson]

The possibility of any charges apparently hinged on alcohol in his system, which wasn't there.

You got bad information. Running a red light is also illegal. It's at least an infraction, and could easily be charged as misdemeanor Careless Driving (or the equivalent) in any state. For officers not to charge someone like that at the scene means either they made a mistake, there was no evidence that the driver ran a red light, or it was clear that the driver wasn't really at fault.

[RendeR]

I'd go nuts if I couldn't talk on the phone while driving.


And as long as you're using a hands-free device to do so you go right on ahead and do it. its the morons who hold their phone to their face with one hand and try driving with the other and do neither activity with any shred of skill that are the problematic ones.

[ShaneTheMaster]

I'm not sure using a hands free device makes talking on the phone while driving any safer.

What about talking to someone in the car?

[RendeR]

I'm not sure using a hands free device makes talking on the phone while driving any safer.


It probably doesn't, however it relegates it to the same status as having a conversation with someone in the car with you and that can't be legislated away.

If you can keep both hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road, I figure you can talk to whomever you wish.

Its all about control and attention, the hands and eyes give you control, the attention can certainly be hurt by the conversation, but generally not to the point of endangering control.

[larrymcg421]

I guess it depends on what is "drunk". If someone had 4 beers and you knew the person, would you really rather be in the car with a robber you didn't know? ;)

The amount of beers wouldn't be the standard. If I thought he was impaired, then I wouldn't ride home with him no matter how well I knew him.

Also, switching it up between people you know and don't know isn't a fair way to make the point because it screws up the analogy. I mean, I'd rather stand at a bus stop next to a robber I knew than a random drunk person I didn't know.

[molson]

It probably doesn't, however it relegates it to the same status as having a conversation with someone in the car with you and that can't be legislated away.

If you can keep both hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road, I figure you can talk to whomever you wish.

Its all about control and attention, the hands and eyes give you control, the attention can certainly be hurt by the conversation, but generally not to the point of endangering control.

Like with drinking, everyone is different, and no law (or absence of law) is good or bad just because there's some people who are exceptions.

I've definitely been a passenger in a car where the driver feels the need to turn his head and look at me to talk. I have no idea why people do that, but some do.

Others can talk on the cell phone without compromising their ability to drive one bit. But if you ban cell phone driving, thousands of lives are saved, and everyone's insurance rates go down. At the inconvenience of people who could drive just fine with their phone. There's no easy answers.

[BrianD]

It probably doesn't, however it relegates it to the same status as having a conversation with someone in the car with you and that can't be legislated away.

If you can keep both hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road, I figure you can talk to whomever you wish.

Its all about control and attention, the hands and eyes give you control, the attention can certainly be hurt by the conversation, but generally not to the point of endangering control.

I have no data on this whatsoever, but I've always found talking on a hands-free phone to be way more distracting than talking to someone in the car. I'm not sure what the reasons are, but that little headset seems to make a world of difference...to me at least.

[ShaneTheMaster]

The amount of beers wouldn't be the standard. If I thought he was impaired, then I wouldn't ride home with him no matter how well I knew him.

Also, switching it up between people you know and don't know isn't a fair way to make the point because it screws up the analogy. I mean, I'd rather stand at a bus stop next to a robber I knew than a random drunk person I didn't know.

Yea, but the reason I say "someone you know" is because usually, if you are deciding to ride with someone who is drinking, you probably know them.

I know it's comparing apples and oranges, but my point was that I believe a random person who is a robber is more dangerous than a reasonably good driver who has 4 beers (and does not appear to be impaired).

[ShaneTheMaster]

At the risk of sounding holier than thou, I'd say this sums up why drunk drivers should be arrested quite nicely.

Way to respond to all the points in my post.

[larrymcg421]

Yea, but the reason I say "someone you know" is because usually, if you are deciding to ride with someone who is drinking, you probably know them.

I know it's comparing apples and oranges, but my point was that I believe a random person who is a robber is more dangerous than a reasonably good driver who has 4 beers (and does not appear to be impaired).

And again, I would not get in the car with a person who was impaired, no matter how well I knew them.

You keep bringing up four beers, but that's irrelevant. If they had one beer and looked tipsy, I would not get in the car with them.

[Mike D]

Lowering the drinking age is probably going to happen (and as an old guy, I am not totally opposed to it). As a result, however, I am in favor of raising the driving age to 19 or 20. The big problem with social drinking in America is that you have to drive to get there and back. Raising the driving age would probably require a massive overhaul of some sort to our public transportation system so there probably is no easy solution to this.

[st.cronin]

I don't think there should be a drinking age.

I also don't think there should be a voting age. If a 12 year old is sufficiently interested and motivated to go vote instead of goofing around on his playstation all day, I can't think of a reason why he shouldn't.

I also am looking forward to the day when cars don't require operators to do anything more than punch in the destination and make themselves comfortable.

[Tekneek]

You got bad information. Running a red light is also illegal. It's at least an infraction, and could easily be charged as misdemeanor Careless Driving (or the equivalent) in any state. For officers not to charge someone like that at the scene means either they made a mistake, there was no evidence that the driver ran a red light, or it was clear that the driver wasn't really at fault.

It came from the Georgia State Patrol officer handling the case, so take it for what you will. Either this guy who hit them was well-connected or the officer didn't want to really do anything about it. I'll see if there is any additional information they have been given since I personally spoke with the officer.

[MrDNA]

I think the drinking age should be 21 and the army/voting age should be 18. I don't want any drunken soldiers or drunken voters and this is sure to prevent that at least for three years. Thank you.

[Mustang]

Clearly the obvious choice to all of this is to send anyone on their 18th birthday to a country that has a good public transportation system and a legal drinking age and allow them to return on their 21st birthday. Kind of a Logan's Booze Run...

[Lathum]

Lowering the drinking age is probably going to happen (and as an old guy, I am not totally opposed to it). As a result, however, I am in favor of raising the driving age to 19 or 20. The big problem with social drinking in America is that you have to drive to get there and back. Raising the driving age would probably require a massive overhaul of some sort to our public transportation system so there probably is no easy solution to this.

So you think EVERYONE who is 16-18 shouldn't be allowed to get their liscense just so people who are 18 can drink?

Seems a little silly to me.

[Lathum]

I also don't think there should be a voting age. If a 12 year old is sufficiently interested and motivated to go vote instead of goofing around on his playstation all day, I can't think of a reason why he shouldn't.


or............

Parents with a severe political agenda and 5 kids ages 10-17 make their kids vote for the candidate the parents support or the kids lose their playstation privledges.

[Lathum]

I don't think there should be any specific penalties for drunk driving or driving under any influence. We already have laws that cover every imaginable driving violation and IMHO, they are very effective.

Yes, drink driving is exceptionally stupid.

That said, it doesn't make any difference WHY someone endangered others (fell asleep, under the influence, poor driving/judgment, etc.) only that they did. Leave the level of punishment to the judge. I'm all for varying the level of punishment the match the level of stupidity, like how there are higher fines for speeding in a work zone. But to explicitly outlaw any behavior before it affects anyone else is not only an insult to freedom, but nannying of the highest order.

this post is incredably immature.

Drunk driving laws are put in place to prevent other people from being "affected" as you put it ( I.E. killed), not to punish people after the fact.

[Mike D]

So you think EVERYONE who is 16-18 shouldn't be allowed to get their liscense just so people who are 18 can drink?

Seems a little silly to me.

Laws are made for the collective, not the individuals. So no solution that involves a federal mandate will satisfy everybody. If I had (or anybody had) the perfect solution, no doubt, it would have been implemented by now. I'm just throwing out ideas/support.

[st.cronin]

or............

Parents with a severe political agenda and 5 kids ages 10-17 make their kids vote for the candidate the parents support or the kids lose their playstation privledges.

Its not possible for anybody to know how anybody else has voted. They could make the kids vote, but they wouldn't know who the kids had voted for.

[JediKooter]

I would guess that alcoholism plays a big part of that public view.

I think the taboo comes more from the Puritanical society from Americas early days, the Temperance people and the prohibition lobby. Not saying alcoholism doesn't factor in at all, I just think there's a deeper rooting behind the taboo, much like there is for sex and nudity.

[Hurst2112]

I think the taboo comes more from the Puritanical society from Americas early days, the Temperance people and the prohibition lobby. Not saying alcoholism doesn't factor in at all, I just think there's a deeper rooting behind the taboo, much like there is for sex and nudity.

I would argue that. If that was the case, why do we get bombarded with beer and booze commercials in media. Same with sex.

[Groundhog]

Does the age-limit actually stop people from drinking at the ages of 18-20? In clubs, sure, but hell, the limit is 18 here and it's not like we had difficulty getting our hands on beer from about age 16 onwards if we really wanted to.

[Drake]

What's the legal age for buying cigarettes now? I'd be cool if we set both of these at the same point (since they go so well together).

It bugs me to get carded for smokes because I don't look 40, but not carded for booze. Seriously, wtf is up with that?

[molson]

Does the age-limit actually stop people from drinking at the ages of 18-20? In clubs, sure, but hell, the limit is 18 here and it's not like we had difficulty getting our hands on beer from about age 16 onwards if we really wanted to.

It certainly doesn't "stop" people, but it does limit how much teens drive around and openly "bar-hop", and it does provide some kind of cap, in that beer becomes a currency in its own right, and something that you're concerned about running out of because it can be a pain to get more.

[Drake]

The best reason for *not* lowering the drinking age to 18?

My kids will still be 18 and living at home. Like I need my drunk-assed kid mouthing off in my living room when I get home from work.

If he wants to get drunk and mouth off when he's 21, then he's his roomie/spouse's problem.

[RendeR]

So you think EVERYONE who is 16-18 shouldn't be allowed to get their liscense just so people who are 18 can drink?

Seems a little silly to me.

I would suggest its to keep people who aren't mature enough yet to drive responsibly from getting behind the wheel, drinking has nothing to o with it and I would support either raising the licensing age to 18 or requiring a minimum of 2 years with a very limited permit before being allowed to get your license and far more stringent testing processes for doing so.

The best reason for *not* lowering the drinking age to 18?

My kids will still be 18 and living at home. Like I need my drunk-assed kid mouthing off in my living room when I get home from work.

If he wants to get drunk and mouth off when he's 21, then he's his roomie/spouse's problem.



Man up and kick their butts to the curb, if they want to drink and raise hell they can do it on their own dime. Kids living at home off and on during college I can understand, but if they're giving you siht, then deal with it, be a parent and set it straight.

The only reason for what I bolded to actually happen is for you to let it happen. I'm not sure why 3 years seems to make a difference in your statement either, if they can get out and have a roomate/apartment at 21, why can't they at 18?

[Drake]

Man up and kick their butts to the curb, if they want to drink and raise hell they can do it on their own dime. Kids living at home off and on during college I can understand, but if they're giving you siht, then deal with it, be a parent and set it straight.

The only reason for what I bolded to actually happen is for you to let it happen. I'm not sure why 3 years seems to make a difference in your statement either, if they can get out and have a roomate/apartment at 21, why can't they at 18?

The whole point was that my kids are moving out after they graduate from high school. I'm a firm believer that going off to college = moving out for good. Coming home for the summer is just "extended visiting".

(You'd be surprised how controversial that is, though.)

But yeah, I don't expect to ever have a problem with my kids and drinking anyway. I don't really drink, so they don't have much behavior to model in that regard.

[Lathum]

I would suggest its to keep people who aren't mature enough yet to drive responsibly from getting behind the wheel, drinking has nothing to o with it and I would support either raising the licensing age to 18 or requiring a minimum of 2 years with a very limited permit before being allowed to get your license and far more stringent testing processes for doing so.



well the point I was making has noting to do with what you are saying.

If you dont think 16-17 year olds are responsible enough to drive is one thing. But the tone of the original post was raise the driving age and lower the drinking age and to me that is absurd.

[Sgran]

I support lowering the age to 18. I think it all comes down to culture.
When I am back in the states, or when I am in England, the pressure to drink and keep drinking is enormous. When i am in Italy, none of the locals are drinking heavily and noone is drunk and rowdy in public (though I've never been to a soccer match). The last time I was at a White Sox game with three friends, I actually tried to turn down my beer during the fourth round and order a coke. I might as well have put on a bra and lipstick. That never happens to me in continental Europe.