They either need to lower the drinking age or raise the age you need to be to die for your country. It is ridiculous that you can serve in the military and sign on the dotted line to defend your country, but can't grab a beer after you do!
Studies have shown over and over that raising the drinking age has lowered the number of fatal alcohol related accidents. That being said, I would fully support an effort to allow our fighting men and women to enjoy an adult drink even if they were not 21. I would guess that these young adults are far more responsible than the average minor.
I agree - if you can die for your country, get married, etc. you should be allowed to have a drink. Under age drinking, at any age, is going to happen. I don't condone excessive drinking, drinking n driving, etc., but it is a learning process. We've all gone through it, and it will continue. With education and appropriate parental and societal support, we can hope that lessons learned are diminished in frequency and severity - for any and all ages!
What I would like to see is the legal drinking age of 18 for 3.2 beer and wine and 21 for hard liquours like whiskey and vodka. I see young adults drink themselves silly on the hard stuff. Beer is self regulating; you will fill up before you go off the deep end.
Maybe our congresswoman will submit legislation allowing our troops (like at Fort Drum) to be allowed a drink at least on base, without being arrested?
I understand the argument of serving our country and having a drink. Maybe some ability to allow that for service men/women via ID card or military ID card???
At the same time, there are way too many parents who take the lesser evil approach of under age alcohol consumption vs. drugs. "It's OK if it keeps my kid out of drugs" mentality. C'mon!!! This doesn't make it right. Lower the drinking age to 18 and then letting your kid consume and act foolish at 15-16 becomes "OK" or again the "lesser of two evils". Parents need to say no and hold to some principles like the generation before us did generally. Look at the craziness that's happening at Darien almost every concert!!
Chad, I don't believe that raising the drinking age lowers the number of fatal accidents for underage drivers. People aged 12 to 20 years drink 11% of all alcohol consumed in the United States. They do that whether the drinking age is 18 or 21 so I think the only difference is that a lot more underage people are arrested for consuming/possessing alcohol.
Beer and booze was easy to get when I was 13, 14, 15...etc, and the legal age then was 18. I didn't drink any more when I turned 18 but I could belly up to the bar without getting into trouble. Actually, I think I drank less when I turned 18 because I could then get it myself and I didn't feel I had to appear "cool" to my peers.
There isn't much difference between 18- to 20-year-olds (who cannot drink legally) and 21- to 24-year-olds. Both groups have about 16 homicides per 100,000 and 30 vehicle deaths per 100,000.
People are going to drink so why not have the ability to teach younger people some self control. I've seen people allow their underage children have wine with their dinner (small glass, of course) and none of those kids became problem drinkers. I'm sure it removed the taboo aspect of alcohol consumption and they learned how to conduct their self in a responsible manner.
My mom always had a rule, from the time I was old enough to walk and talk ... I could go into the refrigerator and get myself a beer any time I wanted. But if I opened it, I had to finish it.
The last thing I wanted at that age was to drink a whole beer.
I enlisted in 1981 at the age of 17. After basic training I could walk into any establishment, on any base, after duty hours and buy anything that was available regardless of state law. Off base soldiers were subject to local laws. I haven’t heard of this changing. However, it’s all subject to the base commander’s directives.
Well I think the majority of you are missing the point of the legal drinking age being 21. It isn't to punish our youth, or to deny soldiers a drink even if they are fighting for our country. If you take a look at studies, the human brain does not stop devoping until age 25. That being said, excessive drinking, or any drinking for that matter kills brain cells. Why would we want to encourage, our young adults who someday are going to be running this country and probably taking care of us, killing brain cells before they have a fully developed brain? And as for the comment about the drinking age being raised not effecting DWI deaths I do not agree. I have sat with many law enforcement who have said the complete opposite.
I guess my point is, just because we say "oh we did it and we survived" does that make it ok to let it to continue? What is the big deal of waiting until you are 21 and drinking responsibly??
Annually, about 5,000 people under age 21 die from alcohol-related injuries involving underage drinking. Approximately:
1,900 (38 percent) of the 5,000 deaths involve motor vehicle crashes,
1,600 (32 percent) result from homicides, and
300 (6 percent) result from suicides2 (Call to Action, page 10).
Marie, are you saying alcohol kills brain cells in all users, regardless of the amount consumed?
You will get one hell of an argument on this site if that is what you are saying.
Some contributors on this site will say alcohol is good for you in moderation.
Based on your post, they should raise the age to 25.
•Brain development problems – Research shows that brain development continues well into a person’s twenties. Alcohol can affect this development, and contribute to a range of problems.
From:
NIAA website
So no I am not saying that you will kill brains cells at any age. But if your brain isn't fully developed and you are drinking, or taking drugs for that matter, I would say that would have an effect on any part of your body that isn't fully developed.
The funny thing about scientific research/studies, one of the first steps is to state your expected results. So right from the start, the study maybe biased. I would be willing to bet the NIAAA, and other similar groups, would abandon any research where the results were tending contrary to their beliefs.
I always love this debate. If you're old enough to die, you're old enough to drink! Well here's the rub, most of these kids that are drinking aren't doing jack for their country, so this argument is lame.
Now if you want to say, if you're an active duty soldier who has served in a combat mission, whether in the field or in support, and you should be exempt...then that's a decent dialogue, but using what a small percentage of 18-20 year old youth do to justify anyone is a baseless stance.
Thats nice Marie but.... 5 min of searching I found several medical sites that elaborate on what kills brain cells even more assuredly than alcohol consumption. Things like head shaking, stress, dehydration. eating junk food and even drinking too much water in a short period of time. Alcohol was 7 out of 50 things that kill brian cells however directly CONTRADICTING your delcaration that drinking kills brain cells. You were correct on excessive drinking killing brain cells, but the part about any drinking was not correct and an overreach on your part. Heres what the experts say...
7) Drinking too much alcohol — How many brain cells does one beer kill? Chances are good that drinking just one beer won’t kill any. Getting drunk probably won’t even kill any brain cells. Alcohol can cause a temporary chemical imbalance and structural changes. If you are an alcoholic or you frequently “drink too much alcohol,” you will most likely kill brain cells. MRI’s of alcoholic patients show a decreased brain volume.
So drinking itelf doesnt kill cells, abusive drinking does.
Marie, it's a fact that the brain is not fully developed until a person is well into their 20's and in the perfect world, nobody would drink or do drugs to the point of damaging the brain. The fact remains, we don't live in a perfect world. We have contradictions in the law and everyone is negatively affected by it. Also, abuse kills brain cells, not a glass of wine with dinner or a beer or a couple of yummy shots of Jameson's on the rocks.
I'm of the thought that if we're going to say that people are legally an adult at 18, then everything should be legal at that point. You should either be an adult or not. What's the point of people being a quasi-adult at 18? You can sign a contract, join the military and kill people for the government, buy property, get married and have babies. If a person is not old enough to regulate their alcohol consumption at 18, then how can anyone at 18 be responsible enough to make decision about all the other things I mentioned?
I'd rather an 18 year old be able to belly up to the bar than to attend an "under-age" party where irresponsibility is the whole point of the party. I'd also rather not see an 18 year old drink to the point of puking because I'd rather see them becoming a better person and being constructive with their time. So, where should the line be drawn? I say, put the responsibility right back onto the 18 year old that we expect to BE an adult. Hold them accountable when they're actually irresponsible, not just because they're having a beer or possessing alcohol.
There's a thought, Phil. Why don't we join the rest of the world and expect all "adults" to serve their country in some capacity for 2 years when they turn 18. If they don't plan on going to college, their service starts when they turn 18. If they do plan on furthering their education, they can choose to serve either before of after finishing college. I think everyone would benefit from it and people might just regain some sense of patriotism, honor and duty.
We really don't expect too much from young people from what I see. There was a time when if you didn't go right to work, you were in deep trouble, actually jeopardizing your life by not having any food or shelter. Churches were in charge of charity and they made you work for it if you <strike>wanted</strike> needed it. If a person wasn't responsible, they were held accountable in an ultimate fashion. People these days can be bums and still have it pretty good, comparatively.
Phil, " if you're an active duty soldier who has served in a combat mission, whether in the field or in support,"?????
Just a point of order, Everyone on active duty is in support of combat, whether it be training, logistics, floor sweeping etc. I can buy the on active duty part, but not the disticntion between different active duty billets, active duty is active duty which means that you are serving your country PERIOD! Reservist and National Guardsmen on call up active duty are on active duty PERIOD!
Mark Janofsky stated that under aged could drink on base subject to the base commander, actually, enlisted members of the armed forces can drink in enlisted clubs on base regardless of state law, but they can not set foot outside of that club with alcohol. There are a few exceptions to this such as company and BN level parties on base subject to base commanders permission. There are also exceptions when alcohol consumption becomes a problem and affects the units primary mission, training etc. subject to base commander's assesment.
And for all of those who have drinking memories of their time in service or have heard such stories, while the military accepts that enlisted men drink and maintains service clubs where alcohol is served, the military strongly frowns upon the abuse of alcohol, many a career has been stiffled and/or ended prematurely as a result of alcohol abuse.
I say leave the legal age right where it is, allow for the exception for active duty personel on base. The data on the reduced death and injury in the 18-21 age group after the drinking age was imposed is overwhelming.
That's my bad Mark. Pretty much anyone on active duty is in support, so I guess I should have just said active duty, but yes on post. I agree with that as well.
Another way to look at the military vs. drinking issue is ...
If you're in the military at age 18, you're part of a highly regimented environment, especially while on duty. Your every action is proscribed by training and command with a high degree of supervision. Even your most deadly duties are not in a wide degree a matter of subjective judgment.
At 18 in the military you've replaced one authority (parents) with another, even harsher authority (the military).
That has a good deal with the "why" of being old enough to fight in war at 18.
To what degree can we trust the average 18 year old to drink responsibly?
I'm not answering the question per se, just raising what I think is a logical fallacy that one is like the other. You're old enough to serve in the military but not old enough to drink. It's not comparable circumstances.
BTW: At 18, you can drink, even at Darien Lake. Just be accompanied by a parent. With parental permission, you can drink at home, so long as you don't serve friends.
Perhaps the law as fashioned already does allow for teaching "a healthy respect for alcohol."
It seems most of the trouble associated with under-21 drinking comes with under-21 types doing it in groups or when unsupervised.
Would that change if the legal drinking age was lowered?
And regardless how libertarian you are, I think a legitimate community question is do we want a bunch of unsupervised under-21 types having a drinking free-for-all during concerts at Darien Lake? Do we say, sure, and just live with the consequences, or do we say we want to control it as best we can in an effort to reduce the number of people who suffer loss and injury as a result?
Mark, I can't agree about the lowered death rate due to raising the legal age from 18 to 21. Nobody has cited a definitive, specific study stating that raising the drinking age lowered automobile/alcohol related deaths for persons between the ages of 18 and 21. If the drinking age should be 21, then an individual should not be an adult (legally) until they're 21.
The 18 year old still made the decision to enlist, first. After that, their ability to use deadly force in a combat zone is regulated by a commanding officer. The age of the soldier is irrelevant because they all have to obey the same orders.
Sorry Frank, there's no proof of that anywhere. People aged 12 to 20 years drink 11% of all alcohol consumed in the United States. They do that whether the drinking age is 18 or 21.
Doug, if irresponsible 18 year olds are allowed to purchase alcohol, it is almost certain they will provide a younger crowd alcohol, it lowers the bar.It makes it that much easier for 15,16,and 17 year olds to get alcohol.
I should have said ,in my opinion, it creates a higher risk, and I firmly beleive that.
Frank, when I was 14, 15, 16, 17, It was easy to get beer. All we had to do is ask someone old enough to buy it for us. Quite often, asking a stranger to buy it for us also worked.
"Hi, we want a case of beer. Could you buy that for us?" Often, the age of the people buying it for us were in their mid 20's or older. I would imagine that not a lot has changed in the way younger people get any kind of alcohol. Booze was even easier to get. Just go into any adults liquor cabinet and choose vodka, rum or whiskey.
Doug, not disagreeing with any of your posts, I just think those stats would increase if the law changed.
I bribed many 18 yr. olds into buying beer for me when I was 16, and raided my share of liquor cabinets.
They either need to lower the
They either need to lower the drinking age or raise the age you need to be to die for your country. It is ridiculous that you can serve in the military and sign on the dotted line to defend your country, but can't grab a beer after you do!
Studies have shown over and
Studies have shown over and over that raising the drinking age has lowered the number of fatal alcohol related accidents. That being said, I would fully support an effort to allow our fighting men and women to enjoy an adult drink even if they were not 21. I would guess that these young adults are far more responsible than the average minor.
I agree - if you can die for
I agree - if you can die for your country, get married, etc. you should be allowed to have a drink. Under age drinking, at any age, is going to happen. I don't condone excessive drinking, drinking n driving, etc., but it is a learning process. We've all gone through it, and it will continue. With education and appropriate parental and societal support, we can hope that lessons learned are diminished in frequency and severity - for any and all ages!
A service member can die for
A service member can die for his country, but can not have a beer, even on base, without being punished. Just how stupid is that?
What I would like to see is
What I would like to see is the legal drinking age of 18 for 3.2 beer and wine and 21 for hard liquours like whiskey and vodka. I see young adults drink themselves silly on the hard stuff. Beer is self regulating; you will fill up before you go off the deep end.
Maybe our congresswoman will
Maybe our congresswoman will submit legislation allowing our troops (like at Fort Drum) to be allowed a drink at least on base, without being arrested?
I understand the argument of
I understand the argument of serving our country and having a drink. Maybe some ability to allow that for service men/women via ID card or military ID card???
At the same time, there are way too many parents who take the lesser evil approach of under age alcohol consumption vs. drugs. "It's OK if it keeps my kid out of drugs" mentality. C'mon!!! This doesn't make it right. Lower the drinking age to 18 and then letting your kid consume and act foolish at 15-16 becomes "OK" or again the "lesser of two evils". Parents need to say no and hold to some principles like the generation before us did generally. Look at the craziness that's happening at Darien almost every concert!!
Chad, I don't believe that
Chad, I don't believe that raising the drinking age lowers the number of fatal accidents for underage drivers. People aged 12 to 20 years drink 11% of all alcohol consumed in the United States. They do that whether the drinking age is 18 or 21 so I think the only difference is that a lot more underage people are arrested for consuming/possessing alcohol.
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm
Beer and booze was easy to get when I was 13, 14, 15...etc, and the legal age then was 18. I didn't drink any more when I turned 18 but I could belly up to the bar without getting into trouble. Actually, I think I drank less when I turned 18 because I could then get it myself and I didn't feel I had to appear "cool" to my peers.
There isn't much difference between 18- to 20-year-olds (who cannot drink legally) and 21- to 24-year-olds. Both groups have about 16 homicides per 100,000 and 30 vehicle deaths per 100,000.
http://research.duke.edu/blog/2010/05/pros-and-cons-legal-drinking-age
People are going to drink so why not have the ability to teach younger people some self control. I've seen people allow their underage children have wine with their dinner (small glass, of course) and none of those kids became problem drinkers. I'm sure it removed the taboo aspect of alcohol consumption and they learned how to conduct their self in a responsible manner.
My mom always had a rule,
My mom always had a rule, from the time I was old enough to walk and talk ... I could go into the refrigerator and get myself a beer any time I wanted. But if I opened it, I had to finish it.
The last thing I wanted at that age was to drink a whole beer.
Yes....but at the very least
Yes....but at the very least current and former military personnel should be able to drink while under 21.
I enlisted in 1981 at the age
I enlisted in 1981 at the age of 17. After basic training I could walk into any establishment, on any base, after duty hours and buy anything that was available regardless of state law. Off base soldiers were subject to local laws. I haven’t heard of this changing. However, it’s all subject to the base commander’s directives.
Well I think the majority of
Well I think the majority of you are missing the point of the legal drinking age being 21. It isn't to punish our youth, or to deny soldiers a drink even if they are fighting for our country. If you take a look at studies, the human brain does not stop devoping until age 25. That being said, excessive drinking, or any drinking for that matter kills brain cells. Why would we want to encourage, our young adults who someday are going to be running this country and probably taking care of us, killing brain cells before they have a fully developed brain? And as for the comment about the drinking age being raised not effecting DWI deaths I do not agree. I have sat with many law enforcement who have said the complete opposite.
I guess my point is, just because we say "oh we did it and we survived" does that make it ok to let it to continue? What is the big deal of waiting until you are 21 and drinking responsibly??
Annually, about 5,000 people under age 21 die from alcohol-related injuries involving underage drinking. Approximately:
1,900 (38 percent) of the 5,000 deaths involve motor vehicle crashes,
1,600 (32 percent) result from homicides, and
300 (6 percent) result from suicides2 (Call to Action, page 10).
from:
http://www.camy.org/factsheets/sheets/Consequences_of_Underage_Drinking…
Marie, are you saying alcohol
Marie, are you saying alcohol kills brain cells in all users, regardless of the amount consumed?
You will get one hell of an argument on this site if that is what you are saying.
Some contributors on this site will say alcohol is good for you in moderation.
Based on your post, they should raise the age to 25.
•Brain development problems –
•Brain development problems – Research shows that brain development continues well into a person’s twenties. Alcohol can affect this development, and contribute to a range of problems.
From:
NIAA website
So no I am not saying that you will kill brains cells at any age. But if your brain isn't fully developed and you are drinking, or taking drugs for that matter, I would say that would have an effect on any part of your body that isn't fully developed.
The funny thing about
The funny thing about scientific research/studies, one of the first steps is to state your expected results. So right from the start, the study maybe biased. I would be willing to bet the NIAAA, and other similar groups, would abandon any research where the results were tending contrary to their beliefs.
I always love this debate. If
I always love this debate. If you're old enough to die, you're old enough to drink! Well here's the rub, most of these kids that are drinking aren't doing jack for their country, so this argument is lame.
Now if you want to say, if you're an active duty soldier who has served in a combat mission, whether in the field or in support, and you should be exempt...then that's a decent dialogue, but using what a small percentage of 18-20 year old youth do to justify anyone is a baseless stance.
Thats nice Marie but.... 5
Thats nice Marie but.... 5 min of searching I found several medical sites that elaborate on what kills brain cells even more assuredly than alcohol consumption. Things like head shaking, stress, dehydration. eating junk food and even drinking too much water in a short period of time. Alcohol was 7 out of 50 things that kill brian cells however directly CONTRADICTING your delcaration that drinking kills brain cells. You were correct on excessive drinking killing brain cells, but the part about any drinking was not correct and an overreach on your part. Heres what the experts say...
7) Drinking too much alcohol — How many brain cells does one beer kill? Chances are good that drinking just one beer won’t kill any. Getting drunk probably won’t even kill any brain cells. Alcohol can cause a temporary chemical imbalance and structural changes. If you are an alcoholic or you frequently “drink too much alcohol,” you will most likely kill brain cells. MRI’s of alcoholic patients show a decreased brain volume.
So drinking itelf doesnt kill cells, abusive drinking does.
Site ref: http://4mind4life.com/blog/2008/02/22/50-things-that-kill-brain-cells/
Marie, it's a fact that the
Marie, it's a fact that the brain is not fully developed until a person is well into their 20's and in the perfect world, nobody would drink or do drugs to the point of damaging the brain. The fact remains, we don't live in a perfect world. We have contradictions in the law and everyone is negatively affected by it. Also, abuse kills brain cells, not a glass of wine with dinner or a beer or a couple of yummy shots of Jameson's on the rocks.
I'm of the thought that if we're going to say that people are legally an adult at 18, then everything should be legal at that point. You should either be an adult or not. What's the point of people being a quasi-adult at 18? You can sign a contract, join the military and kill people for the government, buy property, get married and have babies. If a person is not old enough to regulate their alcohol consumption at 18, then how can anyone at 18 be responsible enough to make decision about all the other things I mentioned?
I'd rather an 18 year old be able to belly up to the bar than to attend an "under-age" party where irresponsibility is the whole point of the party. I'd also rather not see an 18 year old drink to the point of puking because I'd rather see them becoming a better person and being constructive with their time. So, where should the line be drawn? I say, put the responsibility right back onto the 18 year old that we expect to BE an adult. Hold them accountable when they're actually irresponsible, not just because they're having a beer or possessing alcohol.
There's a thought, Phil. Why
There's a thought, Phil. Why don't we join the rest of the world and expect all "adults" to serve their country in some capacity for 2 years when they turn 18. If they don't plan on going to college, their service starts when they turn 18. If they do plan on furthering their education, they can choose to serve either before of after finishing college. I think everyone would benefit from it and people might just regain some sense of patriotism, honor and duty.
We really don't expect too much from young people from what I see. There was a time when if you didn't go right to work, you were in deep trouble, actually jeopardizing your life by not having any food or shelter. Churches were in charge of charity and they made you work for it if you <strike>wanted</strike> needed it. If a person wasn't responsible, they were held accountable in an ultimate fashion. People these days can be bums and still have it pretty good, comparatively.
Phil, " if you're an active
Phil, " if you're an active duty soldier who has served in a combat mission, whether in the field or in support,"?????
Just a point of order, Everyone on active duty is in support of combat, whether it be training, logistics, floor sweeping etc. I can buy the on active duty part, but not the disticntion between different active duty billets, active duty is active duty which means that you are serving your country PERIOD! Reservist and National Guardsmen on call up active duty are on active duty PERIOD!
Mark Janofsky stated that under aged could drink on base subject to the base commander, actually, enlisted members of the armed forces can drink in enlisted clubs on base regardless of state law, but they can not set foot outside of that club with alcohol. There are a few exceptions to this such as company and BN level parties on base subject to base commanders permission. There are also exceptions when alcohol consumption becomes a problem and affects the units primary mission, training etc. subject to base commander's assesment.
And for all of those who have drinking memories of their time in service or have heard such stories, while the military accepts that enlisted men drink and maintains service clubs where alcohol is served, the military strongly frowns upon the abuse of alcohol, many a career has been stiffled and/or ended prematurely as a result of alcohol abuse.
I say leave the legal age right where it is, allow for the exception for active duty personel on base. The data on the reduced death and injury in the 18-21 age group after the drinking age was imposed is overwhelming.
That's my bad Mark. Pretty
That's my bad Mark. Pretty much anyone on active duty is in support, so I guess I should have just said active duty, but yes on post. I agree with that as well.
Mark, Service members may not
Mark,
Service members may not drink if they are under 21. Drinking age on base is based on the drinking age of the state the base is in.
There should be no age to
There should be no age to possession or ingestion. The age should be 18 for purchase only.
Children should be brought with a healthy respect for alcohol from a very young age.
My bad John, They did in the
My bad John, They did in the 70's and 80's and they should now
Another way to look at the
Another way to look at the military vs. drinking issue is ...
If you're in the military at age 18, you're part of a highly regimented environment, especially while on duty. Your every action is proscribed by training and command with a high degree of supervision. Even your most deadly duties are not in a wide degree a matter of subjective judgment.
At 18 in the military you've replaced one authority (parents) with another, even harsher authority (the military).
That has a good deal with the "why" of being old enough to fight in war at 18.
To what degree can we trust the average 18 year old to drink responsibly?
I'm not answering the question per se, just raising what I think is a logical fallacy that one is like the other. You're old enough to serve in the military but not old enough to drink. It's not comparable circumstances.
BTW: At 18, you can drink, even at Darien Lake. Just be accompanied by a parent. With parental permission, you can drink at home, so long as you don't serve friends.
Perhaps the law as fashioned already does allow for teaching "a healthy respect for alcohol."
It seems most of the trouble associated with under-21 drinking comes with under-21 types doing it in groups or when unsupervised.
Would that change if the legal drinking age was lowered?
And regardless how libertarian you are, I think a legitimate community question is do we want a bunch of unsupervised under-21 types having a drinking free-for-all during concerts at Darien Lake? Do we say, sure, and just live with the consequences, or do we say we want to control it as best we can in an effort to reduce the number of people who suffer loss and injury as a result?
Mark, I can't agree about the
Mark, I can't agree about the lowered death rate due to raising the legal age from 18 to 21. Nobody has cited a definitive, specific study stating that raising the drinking age lowered automobile/alcohol related deaths for persons between the ages of 18 and 21. If the drinking age should be 21, then an individual should not be an adult (legally) until they're 21.
The 18 year old still made
The 18 year old still made the decision to enlist, first. After that, their ability to use deadly force in a combat zone is regulated by a commanding officer. The age of the soldier is irrelevant because they all have to obey the same orders.
Lowering the drinking age to
Lowering the drinking age to 18 puts even younger teens at risk to alcohol use.
Sorry Frank, there's no proof
Sorry Frank, there's no proof of that anywhere. People aged 12 to 20 years drink 11% of all alcohol consumed in the United States. They do that whether the drinking age is 18 or 21.
Doug, if irresponsible 18
Doug, if irresponsible 18 year olds are allowed to purchase alcohol, it is almost certain they will provide a younger crowd alcohol, it lowers the bar.It makes it that much easier for 15,16,and 17 year olds to get alcohol.
I should have said ,in my opinion, it creates a higher risk, and I firmly beleive that.
Irresponsible 21 year olds do
Irresponsible 21 year olds do it already. The youths aged 12 to 20 still have the same end result.
Frank, when I was 14, 15, 16,
Frank, when I was 14, 15, 16, 17, It was easy to get beer. All we had to do is ask someone old enough to buy it for us. Quite often, asking a stranger to buy it for us also worked.
"Hi, we want a case of beer. Could you buy that for us?" Often, the age of the people buying it for us were in their mid 20's or older. I would imagine that not a lot has changed in the way younger people get any kind of alcohol. Booze was even easier to get. Just go into any adults liquor cabinet and choose vodka, rum or whiskey.
Doug, not disagreeing with
Doug, not disagreeing with any of your posts, I just think those stats would increase if the law changed.
I bribed many 18 yr. olds into buying beer for me when I was 16, and raided my share of liquor cabinets.