Now usually I'm all for exclusivity. When I was 16 and there was talk of raising the driving age to 18 (I imagine this is an urban legend that circulates constantly through the 15 and a half year-old demographic) I answered with a swager that I had no qualms, since I was already rocking my Cinderella permit. So maybe its a sign of my maturity that when folks talk about lowering the drinking age I think it makes a lot of sense.
Now, I know, for a while there will be teens going wild if they're allowed to buy beer a couple years earlier. But that's only a backlash to the culture of ageist prohibition that we've created. That forbidden fruit would suddenly be readily available, and it'll be bad for a while. I dunno maybe you just 'reverse grandfather' it in to reduce the binge backlash. But ultimately reducing or eliminating the drinking age would create reasonable, accustomed young adults, able to make responsible decisions.
I didn't drink until I was 21, but I'm a very good boy. Quite a few teens are sneaking around pinching a nip where they can anyway; it seems like a very defiant and adult thing to do. And there's nothing wrong with that except that their parents can't keep an eye on their behavior. Just like with video games, Interneting and sugar, young adults need to learn to balance their lives and avoid excess. Our current system throws them into the deep end when they leave home at 18, still 'illegal' but now away from their parents' watchful eye. This is especially salient on a college campus where half the population is of tenure, contrasted with the underage but independent underclassmen.
Much of the opposition I've noticed is from anti-drunk-driving organizations, which doesn't exactly make sense to me. Drunk driving is not okay, no matter the offender's age. There are generally statistics bandied about citing a reduction in fatalities corresponding with 21 drinking legislation. But if that correlation was valid, shouldn't these organizations be pushing to raise the drinking age to 50? Surely that would have marked effects on traffic fatalities. But they're not, probably because restricting the rights of legal adults in this matter is unreasonable and unjustifiable. The article below points out that federally raising the drinking age did not effect automobile fatalities; safer cars, education and medical technologies are all responsible. It argues very poignantly against confusing drinking legislation with driving legislation. These are not alcohol fatalities, they are automobile fatalities.
And in fact, just last week I saw an ad on the metro that showed a graph of highway fatalities and alcohol related fatalities over time. (I didn't have time to snap a picture so if anyone sees it I'd appreciate a shot) Basically it showed alcohol related fatalities dropping at a 45 degree angle and 'sober' fatalities rising at the opposite rate. The caption's jist was "do you know where your greatest threat lies?” leading the viewer to surmise that aggressive drivers are much more prevalent and dangerous than drunk drivers. Which I find completely believable in the DC area; drunk drivers slowly weaving down the highway would get run off the road by the impatient and angry.
This is an issue of trust. We don’t trust young adults to make good decisions and we don’t trust their parents to raise responsible young adults. And since we expect children to sneak around, violating the law with dangerous practices, that’s what they do; either out of rebellion or convenience or pressure. It is a parent’s responsibility to raise their offspring and equip them to be viable adults; and it should be their choice how and when to educate them on the dangers and pleasures of alcohol. If anything we need to do more to create responsible parents rather than legislating away their innate responsibility by treating the second hand symptoms.
Now, I know, for a while there will be teens going wild if they're allowed to buy beer a couple years earlier. But that's only a backlash to the culture of ageist prohibition that we've created. That forbidden fruit would suddenly be readily available, and it'll be bad for a while. I dunno maybe you just 'reverse grandfather' it in to reduce the binge backlash. But ultimately reducing or eliminating the drinking age would create reasonable, accustomed young adults, able to make responsible decisions.
I didn't drink until I was 21, but I'm a very good boy. Quite a few teens are sneaking around pinching a nip where they can anyway; it seems like a very defiant and adult thing to do. And there's nothing wrong with that except that their parents can't keep an eye on their behavior. Just like with video games, Interneting and sugar, young adults need to learn to balance their lives and avoid excess. Our current system throws them into the deep end when they leave home at 18, still 'illegal' but now away from their parents' watchful eye. This is especially salient on a college campus where half the population is of tenure, contrasted with the underage but independent underclassmen.
Much of the opposition I've noticed is from anti-drunk-driving organizations, which doesn't exactly make sense to me. Drunk driving is not okay, no matter the offender's age. There are generally statistics bandied about citing a reduction in fatalities corresponding with 21 drinking legislation. But if that correlation was valid, shouldn't these organizations be pushing to raise the drinking age to 50? Surely that would have marked effects on traffic fatalities. But they're not, probably because restricting the rights of legal adults in this matter is unreasonable and unjustifiable. The article below points out that federally raising the drinking age did not effect automobile fatalities; safer cars, education and medical technologies are all responsible. It argues very poignantly against confusing drinking legislation with driving legislation. These are not alcohol fatalities, they are automobile fatalities.
And in fact, just last week I saw an ad on the metro that showed a graph of highway fatalities and alcohol related fatalities over time. (I didn't have time to snap a picture so if anyone sees it I'd appreciate a shot) Basically it showed alcohol related fatalities dropping at a 45 degree angle and 'sober' fatalities rising at the opposite rate. The caption's jist was "do you know where your greatest threat lies?” leading the viewer to surmise that aggressive drivers are much more prevalent and dangerous than drunk drivers. Which I find completely believable in the DC area; drunk drivers slowly weaving down the highway would get run off the road by the impatient and angry.
This is an issue of trust. We don’t trust young adults to make good decisions and we don’t trust their parents to raise responsible young adults. And since we expect children to sneak around, violating the law with dangerous practices, that’s what they do; either out of rebellion or convenience or pressure. It is a parent’s responsibility to raise their offspring and equip them to be viable adults; and it should be their choice how and when to educate them on the dangers and pleasures of alcohol. If anything we need to do more to create responsible parents rather than legislating away their innate responsibility by treating the second hand symptoms.
- Bottoms Up! - Forbes.com via --> Dadsmacker
