Drinking Age

[Phantom]

So, what should the legal drinking age be? Or rather, who has it right? Should it be 18 or 21? Or should it be later? Earlier?

*sits crosslegged in front of thread* Tell me your thoughts.

 

[Autumn]

21 is ridiculous and just invites all the problems.

 

[kyeugh]

Eighteen.

Okay, let's flesh it out a bit. To my knowledge, the good old USA is the only place where the limit is twenty-one (correct me if I'm wrong, please). But no one actually does that; it would solve a lot of conflict and generally make people happier if the universal drinking age was eighteen. If you're an alcoholic, you're an alcoholic, and prolonging it doesn't really help at all.

 

[sovram]

I'd rather it be banned entirely, but since that won't happen, I think 18 might be better.

 

[Ether's Bane]

Eighteen.

Okay, let's flesh it out a bit. To my knowledge, the good old USA is the only place where the limit is twenty-one (correct me if I'm wrong, please). But no one actually does that; it would solve a lot of conflict and generally make people happier if the universal drinking age was eighteen. If you're an alcoholic, you're an alcoholic, and prolonging it doesn't really help at all.

This. Exactly this.

In my country, the required age is 18, and I think that's about right.

 

[Vholvek]

Originally posted by sovram
I'd rather it be banned entirely, but since that won't happen, I think 18 might be better.

Exactly like this.

 

[surskitty]

banning drugs is not exactly helpful for keeping people from using drugs, especially when it's something like alcohol that's really easy to produce

a drinking age of 21 is absurd. tbh i much prefer the idea of 18 as purchasing age and have the *drinking* age be low; then drinking underage isn't particularly subversive and binge-drinking loses some of the appeal.

pretty sure most people who abuse alcohol and cigarettes started in their teens, legal ages be damned. it's not like it's actually difficult to acquire alcohol underage, either.

 

[Vipera Magnifica]

18, definitely, but I'm of the opinion that everyone should have to present a standard ID or "drinking license" to purchase alcohol. That way, if someone was convicted of alcohol-related crimes, their license could be revoked.

 

[opaltiger]

I'd rather it be banned entirely, but since that won't happen, I think 18 might be better.

Banning drugs never, ever works. I agree with surskitty: demystifying the concept of alcohol can only be a good thing.

 

[Karousever]

I'd rather it be banned entirely, but since that won't happen, I think 18 might be better.

I agree with this statement from start to finish. I understand it won't be banned, and even if it were the ban would be ineffective.

 

[Vipera Magnifica]

I never understand the mentality of "X is bad but if we ban it, people will still find other ways to get it, so we shouldn't ban it."

Sure, the more resourceful people will find ways to get their hands on almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it would be a lot more difficult for the majority of people to get X, thus reducing the amount of X being used. When I see this logic being ignored by opposers of stricter gun control laws, I get quite a bit pissed off.

Not to digress from the topic, though, I am in favor of banning guns but not banning alcohol. Using alcohol in moderation can have many positive effects while using guns in moderation can still kill you.

 

[surskitty]

I never understand the mentality of "X is bad but if we ban it, people will still find other ways to get it, so we shouldn't ban it."

Sure, the more resourceful people will find ways to get their hands on almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it would be a lot more difficult for the majority of people to get X, thus reducing the amount of X being used. When I see this logic being ignored by opposers of stricter gun control laws, I get quite a bit pissed off.

Not to digress from the topic, though, I am in favor of banning guns but not banning alcohol. Using alcohol in moderation can have many positive effects while using guns in moderation can still kill you.

see, the thing with guns is you actually can manage the supply to a decent extent with gun control. you cannot easily make guns in your backyard with limited resources. this is not really comparable.

i'm pretty sure the US tried banning alcohol before and what it ended up actually doing is funding a lot of organised crime because making alcohol is pretty easy. (making good alcohol is much less so, buuuuut ....) banning alcohol also would affect most people, while a lot of people do not actually, you know, own guns.

 

[Music Dragon]

I never understand the mentality of "X is bad but if we ban it, people will still find other ways to get it, so we shouldn't ban it."

Sure, the more resourceful people will find ways to get their hands on almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it would be a lot more difficult for the majority of people to get X, thus reducing the amount of X being used.

What's relevant is not the number of people that obtain X, but rather the actual harm caused by X. Compare Swedish drug policy to that of, say, the Netherlands. In Sweden, fewer people end up actually trying drugs; but if they do, it's much more likely to kill them here, statistically speaking. (Not counting alcohol/tobacco here.)

Personally, I'm fine with more people using drugs if fewer people suffer from drugs.

 

[opaltiger]

I'm a bit distressed that people think alcohol should be banned outright. Would anyone care to defend this point of view?

 

[hopeandjoy]

Prohibition 2.0 would just bring Deadly Bathtub Gin 2.0.

As of now, I don't really like alcohol or see the fun in being drunk, so I don't really care about the drinking age. Not that anyone follows it anyway.

 

[Superbird]

I'm a bit distressed that people think alcohol should be banned outright. Would anyone care to defend this point of view?

Alcohol can be considered a drug the same way as cannabis, cocaine or methamphetamine. It can cause serious liver damage, and it is very good at causing tears in family bonds, even without mentioning its acute effects. Also, it's addictive.

The problem is that it's so ingrained into most cultures that doing anything to it would likely invoke the same sort of thing as the 18th amendment did in the United States -- that is, it's repealed thirteen years later because of increased crime and public unrest.

 

[sovram]

I'm a bit distressed that people think alcohol should be banned outright. Would anyone care to defend this point of view?

Sorry, I think I may have given you the wrong idea. What I rather wish is that it didn't exist at all. Then there would be no potential for abuse.

I am, of course, with you in thinking that banning drugs is ineffective, at best.

 

[opaltiger]

Alcohol can be considered a drug the same way as cannabis, cocaine or methamphetamine. It can cause serious liver damage, and it is very good at causing tears in family bonds, even without mentioning its acute effects. Also, it's addictive.

This is an argument against alcohol abuse, not against alcohol. In moderation alcohol is largely harmless and might even be beneficial. The vast majority of people who drink alcohol don't abuse it, so why should it be banned?

Of course I also think that the other drugs you listed should be decriminalised.

 

[Tailsy]

well, it should be 18, obviously. binge-drinking culture (particularly among teenagers) is a really big problem where i live, but heightening the legal drinking age/banning alcohol entirely wouldn't do anything to prevent it. especially since there's literally nothing else to do here for young people OTHER than drink until you're sick. using mysterious made-in-a-bathtub illegal moonshine would make things so much worse.

but i mean, the scottish solution to the problem seems to be "just make it kind of a pain to get alcohol"; recently the government has made it illegal for stores to sell alcohol between 10pm and 10am, they're setting a minimum price per unit of alcohol so you can't buy disturbingly cheap wine in a carton from tesco and get pissed on that, etc. but it's too early to really know if it's going to work or not. but i get the feeling it's not.

but then i live in a country where alcohol abuse costs us £3.6bn a year and 1/5 of the population are 'harmful/hazardous drinkers' so i mean we might just be an outlying troublemaker lmao

 

[I liek Squirtles]

Thing is, even if it's kind of a pain to get alcohol, you still have kids whose parents keep it in their homes, and they drink from that stash. Is there any way to alleviate this? Obviously it can't be making the parents monitoring them more; most of the people who do that are in high school, so by that point their parents expect them to take care of themselves and such.