ImprobableJoe
New Member
Why? I think the drinking age should be higher, based on long experience. Why do you think that people with unformed brains should ingest mind-altering intoxicants?richi1173 said:
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
age limits
- Thread starter COMMUNIST FLISK
- Start date
ImprobableJoe said:
I find the idea that of not being able to buy and consume wine until the age of 21 aptly distasteful.
Its a botched regulation really. People under-age will drink anyways regardless of the law. Why should we waste resources trying to prevent it if it happens anyways?
Furthermore, why should we prevent parents trying to educate their kids at a young age? Even at 18, when people become legal adults, being able to marry, the government finds the idea of even letting them drink 1 beer an unacceptable action.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
People will steal and murder. Let's get rid of those laws too. Maybe it would be OK is the parents helped their children steal and murder?richi1173 said:
You haven't actually explained anything, other than you dislike the idea of children being forced into sobriety.
Your comparing apples and oranges. Stealing and murdering individuals is bad no matter in what quantity you do it or how regularly you do it.ImprobableJoe said:
On the other hand, alcohol in small quantities and not regularly taken has very little societal and health drawbacks.
Yes, I dislike the idea of people being sober until the age of 21 because then they will lack experience with the substance in the real world and will be subject to the effects of alcohol more harshly. Imagine if you were never taught by your parents or anybody that drinking in an empty stomach is far worse than drinking while eating. In the real world there is going to be a lot of pressure to drink and it will eventually happen. Not having any resistance or education on ingesting alcohol will lead to disaster.
The problem is, from my perspective, that you associate alcohol immediately with hard liquors such as vodka, rum, and whiskey. However, its not just that, its wine coolers, wine and beer also.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Right... because no one has ever gotten alcohol poisoning from wine coolers.richi1173 said:
The truth is, from watching myself and other people drink, and seeing the outcome, the drinking age should be higher. Even 21 year olds generally fuck it up, and they are supposed to be much more mature than 16 year olds... so it is madness to suggest lowering the drinking age.
JacobEvans
New Member
Should the Gov't even have the authority to tell people what they are and aren't allowed to put into their bodies?
Why not make it a family choice, but still prosecute those who allow their children to abuse products for child neglect and other charges? We allow parents to let their children hunt with them, even though allowing kids to run around with guns would be much worse than getting drunk, because the parents are held responsible for keeping their kids safe, and are prosecuted if they don't.
And last time I checked.... Statistics show time and time again that when something is banned (Guns, liquor, drugs) the bad things associated with them go up. For instance countries with relatively relaxed gun laws have far less violent crimes involving guns than those with strict gun laws. And Alcoholism rates in countries with lower drinking ages are much lower than those with really high age limits.
Aren't these arguments for drinking age limits very similar to the ridiculous arguments religious folks use to ban things they view 'unhealthy' for society? For instance, we are all familiar with the attempt to replace comprehensive sex education with abstinence only programs... While rampant underage sex is bad (much like rampant underage drinking), we know that kids are going to have sex, and kids are still going to drink, and attempting to stop them from doing so almost always proves futile, shouldn't we teach kids to at least do it responsibly?
I mean, if teens drank responsibly in the first place, we wouldn't have a big problem. Being a teen myself, I see that kids my age have no idea how to safely drink, and they only have a few opportunities to drink, so they try to get the most out of it by binging.
just food for thought
Why not make it a family choice, but still prosecute those who allow their children to abuse products for child neglect and other charges? We allow parents to let their children hunt with them, even though allowing kids to run around with guns would be much worse than getting drunk, because the parents are held responsible for keeping their kids safe, and are prosecuted if they don't.
And last time I checked.... Statistics show time and time again that when something is banned (Guns, liquor, drugs) the bad things associated with them go up. For instance countries with relatively relaxed gun laws have far less violent crimes involving guns than those with strict gun laws. And Alcoholism rates in countries with lower drinking ages are much lower than those with really high age limits.
Aren't these arguments for drinking age limits very similar to the ridiculous arguments religious folks use to ban things they view 'unhealthy' for society? For instance, we are all familiar with the attempt to replace comprehensive sex education with abstinence only programs... While rampant underage sex is bad (much like rampant underage drinking), we know that kids are going to have sex, and kids are still going to drink, and attempting to stop them from doing so almost always proves futile, shouldn't we teach kids to at least do it responsibly?
I mean, if teens drank responsibly in the first place, we wouldn't have a big problem. Being a teen myself, I see that kids my age have no idea how to safely drink, and they only have a few opportunities to drink, so they try to get the most out of it by binging.
just food for thought
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Yes. I'm sick of these immature and unrealistic whines about how more "freedom" is always a good thing. I'm sure you mean well...JacobEvans said:
Teens CAN'T be responsible for their behavior, pretty much by definition. Hell, lots of adults can't even pull it off. Why stack the deck against your peers by throwing too much on them before they are ready?
digitalbuddha48
New Member
Personally I think the age limit should be reduced to 18 or all other substances should be increased to 21.
TBH, I don't like alcohol. I only drink socially. But I feel it's a little weird that we allow smoking at 18 as well as the right to vote, but not drink. I don't know I just feel like if you're gonna impose restrictions...keep em consistent.
TBH, I don't like alcohol. I only drink socially. But I feel it's a little weird that we allow smoking at 18 as well as the right to vote, but not drink. I don't know I just feel like if you're gonna impose restrictions...keep em consistent.
JacobEvans
New Member
Did you even read the rest of my post?
digitalbuddha48
New Member
JacobEvans said:
Yes I did, what I wrote is my personal opinion ( I like your argument).
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Yeah... I rejected it out of hand.JacobEvans said:
Re Improbable Joe: I disagree with age limit of 25 (partly because I am under 25), but also there really isn't much justification for that age limit, most physical changes end around 19-20 and most major psychological changes around 21. The only possible argument for raising it to 25 is that by then people have ended their 'teenage rebellion' phase, which if you keep raising the drinking age, you will quite likely lead to prolonging that phase... the more you starve people of the chance to experience independance and responsibility, the longer it takes for them to learn it.
Also its about balancing the desire to protect the public with the realisation that if your rules are ultra strict people will just say 'fuck that' and ignore it, going on to create effective groups for binge drinking. And as has been raised before, police trying to enforce underage drinking laws costs quite a bit of resources (man hours and money).
Also the problem with alcohol is actually deceptive, as you may cite 'teens drink then do stupid shit' as proof of its evil, but most teens will drink when they INTEND to do stupid shit. Making adressing issues of maturity a better tactic.
Also I think it would be nice if parents can accompany their children in things like bars and acknowledge themselves as buying it for them and the law factors that in (ie if the parent is seen as responsible... if they regularly misuse it they may lose that ability), ie if the legal age for marijuana is 21, then a parent can buy an experimental hit for them at 17-18 etc.
The reason why is simply because going from 'its illegal to use any' to 'buy as much as you want' is completely stupid, and does little to help these people prepare for the responsibility of using these substances responsibly... it may also expose addictive behaviours in a more controlled environment.
Keeping in mind there's no shortage of harmful chemicals and behaviours... turning this into a fascist 'nanny-state' and protecting people from themselves is a self destructive approach because these laws are largely unenforceable and means that these people when left alone cannot be trusted (ie a parent ruling with an iron fist goes away for the weekend, the kid will cause chaos).
Also its about balancing the desire to protect the public with the realisation that if your rules are ultra strict people will just say 'fuck that' and ignore it, going on to create effective groups for binge drinking. And as has been raised before, police trying to enforce underage drinking laws costs quite a bit of resources (man hours and money).
Also the problem with alcohol is actually deceptive, as you may cite 'teens drink then do stupid shit' as proof of its evil, but most teens will drink when they INTEND to do stupid shit. Making adressing issues of maturity a better tactic.
Also I think it would be nice if parents can accompany their children in things like bars and acknowledge themselves as buying it for them and the law factors that in (ie if the parent is seen as responsible... if they regularly misuse it they may lose that ability), ie if the legal age for marijuana is 21, then a parent can buy an experimental hit for them at 17-18 etc.
The reason why is simply because going from 'its illegal to use any' to 'buy as much as you want' is completely stupid, and does little to help these people prepare for the responsibility of using these substances responsibly... it may also expose addictive behaviours in a more controlled environment.
Keeping in mind there's no shortage of harmful chemicals and behaviours... turning this into a fascist 'nanny-state' and protecting people from themselves is a self destructive approach because these laws are largely unenforceable and means that these people when left alone cannot be trusted (ie a parent ruling with an iron fist goes away for the weekend, the kid will cause chaos).
RestrictedAccess
Member
I think 16 is a good age to start driving, and everything else should be allowed by the age of majority. It seems rather pointless to have all these stepping stones for adult hood. Once your legally an adult, that should be it.
At the same time, though, that 21 age limit does give you something to look forward to. After that, birthdays would be rather depressing.
At the same time, though, that 21 age limit does give you something to look forward to. After that, birthdays would be rather depressing.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Really? I've never met anyone who was 25, happy, and the same person they were at 21.WolfAU said:
As for the rest... it seems like everyone's attitude is: "well, kids are rebellious, so just give them what they want and in a cloud of magic smoke the problems will go away." Here's a better idea: treat children like children, and don't treat them like adults until they can handle it: 25 years old.
Also: YOU KIDS GET OFF MY DAMN LAWN!
Of course people change after 4 years, especially when around an age of relative inexperience at being an adult.
People don't magically wake up one day and learn how to behave in a mature manner, it requires experience in the form of trial and error. I believe the best service parents can be to their kids is to facilitate such things. Example: My dad on my 14th birthday let me smoke a cigarette if I wanted to (he himself does not smoke), I tried it, didn't like it and as such the intrege and curiousity was destroyed.
Rebellionism is merely a byproduct of the change of going from a child to an adult, and having to radically define yourself in the process... it is inevitable and if teenagers were unable to use alcohol in this rebellion they'd simply use other methods. It is a necessary process.
Since coming to college I have had to go through a gradual process of learning financial independance and personal maturity and responsibility, these things are hard and take years to learn. Starving children of opportunities to learn these during their teen years simply leaves them ill prepared for later life (not to mention the resentment for feeling patronised and unvalued).
What basis do you have for stating that 25 years old is an ideal 'coming of age'?
People don't magically wake up one day and learn how to behave in a mature manner, it requires experience in the form of trial and error. I believe the best service parents can be to their kids is to facilitate such things. Example: My dad on my 14th birthday let me smoke a cigarette if I wanted to (he himself does not smoke), I tried it, didn't like it and as such the intrege and curiousity was destroyed.
Rebellionism is merely a byproduct of the change of going from a child to an adult, and having to radically define yourself in the process... it is inevitable and if teenagers were unable to use alcohol in this rebellion they'd simply use other methods. It is a necessary process.
Since coming to college I have had to go through a gradual process of learning financial independance and personal maturity and responsibility, these things are hard and take years to learn. Starving children of opportunities to learn these during their teen years simply leaves them ill prepared for later life (not to mention the resentment for feeling patronised and unvalued).
What basis do you have for stating that 25 years old is an ideal 'coming of age'?
A lot of French folk have a glass of red wine every single day from around the age of 12, and they don't have the levels of alcoholism in countries with stricter controls. Plus, let's not forget that a glass of red wine has been found to decrease the chances of heart attacks in the future.
In the UK, you used to have to 16 to buy cigarettes, which is now 18 (I agree with the change), yet you can drive a road vehicle at the age of 17, and 14 or 15 if it's a tractor. Driving should be 18+, because of the real dangers involved in having young drivers with no real concept of the actual deaths per year on the roads, or any real concern for their own or anyone elses safety (at least, as far as I can tell).
In the UK, you used to have to 16 to buy cigarettes, which is now 18 (I agree with the change), yet you can drive a road vehicle at the age of 17, and 14 or 15 if it's a tractor. Driving should be 18+, because of the real dangers involved in having young drivers with no real concept of the actual deaths per year on the roads, or any real concern for their own or anyone elses safety (at least, as far as I can tell).
ImprobableJoe
New Member
That's my reasoning for raising the drinking age... because drinking automatically makes you less safe, and less able to make good decisions.ahdkaw said:
Those numbers can be somewhat deceptive...
Lets say for arguments sake that everyone starts learning to drive at 16, and if 10% of drives die between the age of 16-18, but that number drops down to 1% for 18+, that doesn't mean that those people are necessarily less responsible that 18+ year olds, but could just as easily be that they have gained valuable driving experience that is now helping them prevent accidents. This would be revealed if the age was then raised to 18 and a high fatality rate was maintained around 18-20.
I also question how effective drilling into them fatality rates would be in making them responsible, I think a greater worry is passengers pushing for them to behave recklessly. I also question how much is achieved by pushing the smoking age to 18, but at least it seems consistant with alcohol (ie letting you smoke at 16 but not drink seems stupid).
Lets say for arguments sake that everyone starts learning to drive at 16, and if 10% of drives die between the age of 16-18, but that number drops down to 1% for 18+, that doesn't mean that those people are necessarily less responsible that 18+ year olds, but could just as easily be that they have gained valuable driving experience that is now helping them prevent accidents. This would be revealed if the age was then raised to 18 and a high fatality rate was maintained around 18-20.
I also question how effective drilling into them fatality rates would be in making them responsible, I think a greater worry is passengers pushing for them to behave recklessly. I also question how much is achieved by pushing the smoking age to 18, but at least it seems consistant with alcohol (ie letting you smoke at 16 but not drink seems stupid).
JacobEvans
New Member
Yeah... I rejected it out of hand.
sneaky bastard! :lol:
But you must admit it has valid points!