Should the legal drinking age be lowered to 18?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

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]

Originally Posted by ShaneTheMaster

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]

Originally Posted by RendeR

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]

Originally Posted by RendeR

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]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

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]

Originally Posted by ShaneTheMaster

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.

[Dutch]

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by Hurst2112

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by RendeR

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]

Originally Posted by RendeR

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.