Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
Lower drinking age?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HereWeGoAgain" data-source="post: 186827" data-attributes="member: 3485"><p>Well I confess that I am surprised at the responses; I had thought that most parents on this board would agree with the premise that lowering the drinking age would lead to more drinking among 18-to-21 year olds, not less, and consequently, fewer alcohol related pathologies in that age group. </p><p></p><p>In particular I thought that the contention that HS underclassmen would have much easier access to alcohol if seniors can buy it legally made sense. Of course they can still get it, today, if they want it; it's just harder.</p><p></p><p>I would note that some of the counterarguments here (for example, "raising the drinking age doesn't prevent underage drinking") are against arguments that never were made in Mr. Chapman's piece at all or that were already addressed in the piece; I'd encourage you all to read the whole thing, not just the excerpts I posted (click on the link). In particular: <em>of course</em> raising the drinking age to 21 did not make underage drinking go away; hopefully no one is so naive as to think so. Nor do drunk-driving laws prevent drunk driving. But as Mr. Chapman points out, it's not all-or-nothing: the law does not have to be 100% effective in order to have a positive impact.</p><p></p><p>I recognize that all age limits are more or less arbitrary. Some 16 year olds are way more mature than some people twice their age (just look at my difficult child!). But <em>in general</em>, 21-year-olds are much more capable of making good choices than 18-year-olds. Then again, someone will point out, 25-year-olds are much more capable than either, so why not raise the age to 25? Or 50? Well, it's a balancing act -- I could take the opposite tack and say, why not 16? Or 12? </p><p></p><p>I just think that Mr. Chapman's statistics that he quotes (and I have no reason to think they are cherry-picked, since I've seen reports on the correlation for years now) do strongly indicate that lowering the drinking age will have a negative net impact.</p><p></p><p>As for the libertarian argument (the one which goes, "It's the parent's business, not the government's") -- well, I have some sympathy with that. I am curious, though, would you then advocate legalization of all drugs? Again, I think, it is a balancing act between reasonable limits and individual liberty/parental autonomy.</p><p></p><p>Oh, and I have no problem with parents allowing their older children to have a glass of wine at the dinner table, actually I think that is probably healthy as it eliminates the mystery/rebellion factor (but then again, would not the same be true of, say, marijuana?).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HereWeGoAgain, post: 186827, member: 3485"] Well I confess that I am surprised at the responses; I had thought that most parents on this board would agree with the premise that lowering the drinking age would lead to more drinking among 18-to-21 year olds, not less, and consequently, fewer alcohol related pathologies in that age group. In particular I thought that the contention that HS underclassmen would have much easier access to alcohol if seniors can buy it legally made sense. Of course they can still get it, today, if they want it; it's just harder. I would note that some of the counterarguments here (for example, "raising the drinking age doesn't prevent underage drinking") are against arguments that never were made in Mr. Chapman's piece at all or that were already addressed in the piece; I'd encourage you all to read the whole thing, not just the excerpts I posted (click on the link). In particular: [I]of course[/I] raising the drinking age to 21 did not make underage drinking go away; hopefully no one is so naive as to think so. Nor do drunk-driving laws prevent drunk driving. But as Mr. Chapman points out, it's not all-or-nothing: the law does not have to be 100% effective in order to have a positive impact. I recognize that all age limits are more or less arbitrary. Some 16 year olds are way more mature than some people twice their age (just look at my difficult child!). But [I]in general[/I], 21-year-olds are much more capable of making good choices than 18-year-olds. Then again, someone will point out, 25-year-olds are much more capable than either, so why not raise the age to 25? Or 50? Well, it's a balancing act -- I could take the opposite tack and say, why not 16? Or 12? I just think that Mr. Chapman's statistics that he quotes (and I have no reason to think they are cherry-picked, since I've seen reports on the correlation for years now) do strongly indicate that lowering the drinking age will have a negative net impact. As for the libertarian argument (the one which goes, "It's the parent's business, not the government's") -- well, I have some sympathy with that. I am curious, though, would you then advocate legalization of all drugs? Again, I think, it is a balancing act between reasonable limits and individual liberty/parental autonomy. Oh, and I have no problem with parents allowing their older children to have a glass of wine at the dinner table, actually I think that is probably healthy as it eliminates the mystery/rebellion factor (but then again, would not the same be true of, say, marijuana?). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
Lower drinking age?
Top