I think it should be Forty-two.
(that is, after all, the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question.)
So long, and thanks for all the fish. :2wave:
Can we please get a link to those statistics?
Even if true and disregarding Obvious Child's statements about Western Europe, the same argument that I use against the Drug War remains. They're adults, their choice. As long as they don't get behind the wheel or do somethings else illegal, it's not the government's problem.
So it's OK to you if drunk driving accidents increase dramatically just so that everything can line up neatly with the an arbitrary age? I'm not sure I understand your argument.
Ideally a parent should introduce a child to alcohol at a young age to teach them responsibility. You know the whole French attitude of having wine diluted with water at meal time. Removes the 'cool' factor
But i would say 16, if you can join the army. You can handle alcohol.
Thats one view that people can have. But trying to maxamize the welfare of the society is another goal.
I agree that there isn't a problem with teenagers drinking, but the problem is that since they are more likely to drive drunk when drinking is legal, that harms society.
I do just have to say that I support a 21 age drinking age less now because there is only around a 16% reduction in drunk driving because of the drinking age. So I am not sure if that is worth the loss of freedom in not being able to drink legally. Its a balance.
I can agree on right infringement reduction.
First and foremost, drinking is not legal for teenagers, therefore it is impossible to make such a long leap. Of course we can use statistics from previous era's, yet that is not an equal relationship so a rather large amount of controls would have to be made to control for the differences.
IMHO, MADD's various studies are flawed. Reason be, they seem to be supportive of studies that heavily weight the age variable, when a natural reduction of drunk driving might have more to do with increased enforcement, education, and plain common sense. Since i have no link to the actual studies cited, i am only speculating.
Teen drunk drivers also contribute to harm other individuals who aren't drunk on the road. (my source has information about that claim as well) So by keeping the drinking age at 18, we would be depriving some of those people their lives even though they did not consume alcohol themselves.
Wine and beer at 16, hard liquor at 18 or whenever the legal majority age happens to be.
We grew up with parents and grand parents spiking our lemonade with a splash of red wine at meal times. There's not a single heavy drinker among us to this day.
What do you think? What should the drinking age be? You can answer the poll from the perspective of a nationwide law or a state law, whichever you prefer.
I think it should be 18. IF you are old enough to die for you your country and old enough to vote then you should be old enough to drink.
What about for those who choose not to risk themselves in service to country?
My argument is that people who are legally adults should be treated as such. If an 18 year old gets drunk but doesn't hassle anyone or drive, why is it any of the government's business? Our legal system isn't based on the possiblity of someone commiting a crime in the future.
Let's assume that adding 3 years to the drinking age really did prevent many drunk driving accidents.
We're talking about a policy which saved lives then. You'd need a very good reason to say that we should change something like that. Your reason is that everything should fall in line with a legal age of adulthood, which is an arbitrary line to draw anyways. I do not think we should let more people die just to preserve an arbitrary line.
What about for those who choose not to risk themselves in service to country?
The statistics specifically get rid of other factors when they admit that even though teen drunk driving has decreased by 60% from the increased drinking age, only around 16% of it is due to the change in policy.
I sourced the link where the information from the study is, if that is what you mean.
The study did conclude that 44% of the reductions were from those other factors.
I have never heard that when sourcing a study, the information on how the study was carried out also needs to be shown
You can still disagree on the grounds of freedome to drink, but the statisitcs are at least solid for this discussion.
Absolutely. I agree. However, there is always going to be an "arbitrary" age. If you are considered for all intents and purposes of being an adult at 18, then there is really no reason to say "yeah..but...you are not adult enough to gamble or consume alcohol".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?