Do we need a legal drinking age?

[Grockel]

Most nations have a legal drinking age, this varies from 16 in Switzerland, 18 in the UK and 21 in some US states. The purpose of this drinking age is to prevent individuals below this arbitrary age from obtaining alcohol or entering a premises in which alcohol is served. This is intended to protect individuals below this age from the negative effects of alcohol. Unfortunately these drinking age laws are not only unenforceable but counter productive.

 

Teenagers under the arbitrary drinking age will still obtain and drink alcohol, via older friends/parents/siblings and so on. Because these underage drinkers are not allowed to drink legally they do so on street corners, at house parties and at other unsupervised locations where they vandalize things and are vulnerable. Therefore it would be safer to lower the drinking age and let teenagers into pubs/clubs where they can drink in a safe environment.

 

What do you think?

[swansont]

The laws are not unenforceable — it's ludicrous to claim this. People are punished by the legal system for violating this law. It can be enforced, and it is.

 

I don't see any support for the implied claim that a lower drinking age would reduce vandalism. It seems to me that such behavior by drunk people is because they are drunk, not because the action is illegal. Opening up bars to lower ages does not mean all that much. You still have to leave the bar and get home afterward, so there are still problems, one of which is people who are just learning to drive now possibly doing so drunk. Another is that you don't need to drink in a bar. You can buy alcohol and drink it wherever you please. I grew up when the drinking age in my state was 18. A fair amount of the drinking my friends and I did was not in a bar — that was too expensive.

[Phi for All]

I'd rather see some kind of education about the effects of alcohol offered in schools, because the real problem isn't drinking, it's getting drunk. I see no reason to change the laws just so the irresponsible ones can overindulge.

 

Edit to add: I find it odd that you want to paint underage drinkers as vulnerable vandals.

 

First, I don't think it's right to conflate underage drinking with black market drug trade, where people who just want a buzz have to deal with an organized criminal element. As you mention, the black market suppliers of alcohol are friends and family, the very people who should be supervising these young drinkers.

 

Second, I have very little sympathy for anyone who would drink to the point where they felt it necessary or entertaining to destroy someone else's property. Alcohol and impaired judgement aside, the vandal mentality doesn't just spring to life when you've had a few too many.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Phi for All
additional comment

[John Cuthber]

The laws are not unenforceable — it's ludicrous to claim this. People are punished by the legal system for violating this law. It can be enforced, and it is.

When I was 17 it was not legal for me to drink.

I did.

the law was not enforced.

Has anything changed?

 

"As you mention, the black market suppliers of alcohol are friends and family, the very people who should be supervising these young drinkers."

Not in my case it wasn't. The suppliers were bars a liquor stores happy to take money and not ask. They were selling a drug illegally.

To me, that is illegal drug dealing.

 

The disparity between how those barkeepers and a cannabis dealer would be treated is part of the very strange attitude to alcohol.

Edited April 29, 2013 by John Cuthber

[swansont]

When I was 17 it was not legal for me to drink.

I did.

the law was not enforced.

Has anything changed?

Not getting caught is not the same as saying you have an unenforceable law. We might as well say that robbery and murder are unenforceable, because people get away with those crimes, too. Which is why I say it's ludicrous to make that claim.

[John Cuthber]

It's unenforceable because nobody cares very much about it.

If I saw a burglary, I'd report it to the police.

If I see a teenager in a bar, as long as they seemed to be coping, I'd not report it.

[Phi for All]

It's unenforceable because nobody cares very much about it.

If I saw a burglary, I'd report it to the police.

If I see a teenager in a bar, as long as they seemed to be coping, I'd not report it.

 

You're moving the goalpost. The OP was clear about underage people getting drunk, not coping with it.

 

If a bar in the US serves a minor who gets drunk and vandalizes property and gets caught, the bar loses it's liquor license. In most cases, that legal threat is enough to keep the bar owners from serving underage patrons.

[swansont]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Arete]

It's unenforceable because nobody cares very much about it.

If I saw a burglary, I'd report it to the police.

If I see a teenager in a bar, as long as they seemed to be coping, I'd not report it.

 

The countries I've lived in (NZ, Australia and the USA) all care a fair bit about the enforcement of alcohol age restrictions. Enforcement comes in at the level of policing retailers and licensed venues who violate age restrictions - with pretty hefty penalties for establishments caught selling booze to people underage. In addition, all of those places had public drinking laws which are policed - i.e. if you are caught with alcohol in the park, you get in trouble, or at least told to stop. Ergo, at least in my experience, laws to restrict underage drinking are enforced.

 

As a mechanistic explanation of why age restrictions on alcohol consumption are a good idea, research has shown that teenagers are vulnerable to brain damage related to alcohol in ways that adults are not. I.e. both the short and long term effects of drinking are not the same for adults as they are younger people:

 

"Clinical and experimental studies demonstrate that alcohol affects adolescent and adult brain functions and behaviors differently and that adolescents are more vulnerable to the deleterious effects that alcohol has on brain functions and behavior." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0741832909001712

 

Therefore consumption by both groups should not be treated identically.

[Klaynos]

It is not illegal for those under 18 in the UK to drink. In most licensed premises it is (food can allow it) and it is illegal to sell it to them. Breaking this can result in hefty punishments.

 

My opinion is that learning to drink responsibly is the only solution, that requires adequate parenting, education and probably isn't helped by a yesterday you cannot touch alcohol, today you can drink until you collapse situation. From what I know France seems to have a more relaxed drinking culture than the UK and less alcohol related crime and hospital admissions, this is anecdotal though.

[John Cuthber]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

And yet the law was not enforced: I drank and so did most of those I knew.

[imatfaal]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I would argue that in this case it means that the authorities, the courts, and police (broadly as they are now) can compel a reasonable level of compliance on society (as it is now) - in this case in the UK the law is unenforceable. Society does not care in the main, the police do not have the will nor the resources, and the authorities don't want extra costs and rely on the large duty (which would fall to a very small extent); I would say that is an unenforceable law. Sure, theoretically the law could be enforced - but only at great change to society and our methods of law-enforcement.

 

That said - it seems that the law might be enforceable in the US from comments here and elsewhere due to a differing societal acceptance of the act, and different levels of control by police and the authorities.

[swansont]

Not enforced is a choice. Unenforceable is not. There are contracts that are unenforceable — e.g. a contract to buy cocaine at a set price is simply not a binding document. A law that is unconstitutional (in the US) is unenforceable.

 

First hit for me in Google news this morning (search: underage drinking)

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Dozens-of-Teens-Face-Underage-Alcohol-Charges-After-Party-in-Arlington-205313401.html

Arlington County police charged 43 teenagers with underage possession and consumption of alcohol Saturday night after they breaking up a large party.

Teens arrested for drinking? Inconceivable!

[Arete]

I would argue that in this case it means that the authorities, the courts, and police (broadly as they are now) can compel a reasonable level of compliance on society (as it is now) - in this case in the UK the law is unenforceable.

 

Not having the practical ability to investigate, prosecute and punish every breach of a law is not the same as it being unenforceable.

 

The police and courts have limited resources, and have to choose which crimes to investigate/prosecute - on many levels. For example, the police can't investigate every single case of petty theft - that's not the same as "theft laws are unenforceable." The authorities just use discretion and put more effort into armed bank robbery than they do for, say, someone stealing hubcaps from parked cars.

 

Along the same lines, the police in my experience usually tell teenagers drinking in public to tip it out and go home rather than arresting them and burdening the court system with petty offenses, but they'd probably take a large establishment knowingly selling beer to underage patrons pretty seriously.

 

The use of discretion in when to apply the law to its full extent and when not to certainly doesn't equate to it being unenforceable, and as the OP puts it counter-productive.

[Esrevinu]

I see the OP's point when he/she says it is unenforceable, although I do not agree. Taking examples of when people have been arrested for underage drinking is not proof that it is widely enforceable (although I believe this law is certainly enforceable). For example: internet "piracy." People have been fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for internet piracy, but the law as a whole, is largely unenforceable without a huge invasion of everyone's personal privacy. However, underage drinking is definitely a law that is enforceable, IMO.

 

I don't feel strongly about moving the age limit for the reasons to OP mentioned earlier.... a bar is not really a "safe place" just as an ally is not. It all depends on the location. Same with how it is enforced. Some places are more strict than other places. I was drinking at a bar when I was 16 (in the US after the drinking age was already 21) and I by no means look old for my age. The bar was owned by a cop. It was no coincidence that was the only bar around that didn't get busted for underage drinking.... until a few years ago (I'm in my mid 20's now) when the FBI came down on the PD.

 

What is much more important is proper drug education. Its terrible here in the US. They try to teach "drug abstinence," which just like sexual abstinence is an ineffective method.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Esrevinu

[John Cuthber]

Not enforced is a choice. Unenforceable is not. There are contracts that are unenforceable — e.g. a contract to buy cocaine at a set price is simply not a binding document. A law that is unconstitutional (in the US) is unenforceable.

 

First hit for me in Google news this morning (search: underage drinking)

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Dozens-of-Teens-Face-Underage-Alcohol-Charges-After-Party-in-Arlington-205313401.html

 

Teens arrested for drinking? Inconceivable!

A colleague of mine buys cocaine on a fairly regular basis. It's part of a contract for supply.

It's perfectly enforceable in principle.

 

On a less polite note, I suspect that if you agree to buy cocaine on the black market (unlike my colleague who works for a lab that tests for drugs of abuse and buys standards) you will find that failure to honour the contract is dealt with by some pretty serious "enforcers".

 

The lack of anyone who has the time to enforce the law makes it, at least practically, unenforceable: in any event, it was not enforced.

 

By the way, This is England. We do not carry ID cards.

Edited April 30, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Phi for All]

By the way, This is England. We do not carry ID cards.

 

The OP is also from the UK, so I propose you do away with your legal drinking age, let anyone with money drink at the pubs, and let us know how that works out for all those vulnerable teen vandals. If it works out for you, maybe we'll start our own tots-for-tots program.

[John Cuthber]

The OP is also from the UK, so I propose you do away with your legal drinking age, let anyone with money drink at the pubs, and let us know how that works out for all those vulnerable teen vandals. If it works out for you, maybe we'll start our own tots-for-tots program.

LOL

You already have, but you don't know about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_consumption_by_youth_in_the_United_States#Alcohol_access_by_minors

[CaptainPanic]

First, a compliment on Arete's post which explains why there are age limits to alcohol consumption, and as far as I'm concerned is a strong argument to attempt to reduce or completely prevent any alcohol consumption by teenagers.

 

This allows us to move on, and talk about the "how". How can we prevent it? People refrain from using certain substances because (1) the chance of getting caught is large or (2) because it is part of their morals or habits or (3) because it is just really unhealthy. I would hope that in a modern society, points 2 and 3 are important reasons why we act like we do.

 

So, for example, I don't use heroin. Not because the chance of getting caught is so big. No, I don't use heroin because it would turn me into a zombie in a short time, and I would stop functioning properly in my society. And my thoughts weren't any different at the age of 14.

 

So, why doesn't this same argument work for alcohol? I think a large part is due to a total lack of information. Kids at the age of 14 just don't know the damage they're doing. Also, it is morally acceptable or even encouraged. These are two large problems that are not dealt with in this thread yet. You're all going on about chances of getting caught. I think that alcohol is something that should be dealt with within a family. Parents should raise their kids in such a way that they just don't want to touch alcohol at a younger age. And if parents choose to do that by "enforcing" some rules, then so be it.

 

Kids who drink are just one of the symptoms of a larger problem: some families don't function. And this is something that society just has to deal with itself. Governments have been trying to be a nanny state for too long. I think one of the core-problems is that people just aren't responsible for their own well-being anymore. The fact that quite a few of you suggest that if you do away with the age limit for alcohol, alchol consumption would rise just shows that kids these days aren't brought up right anymore. I mean, age limit or not, if I would have drunk alcohol while I was under 18, I would have been in big trouble with my parents. (And those are the people who should be responsible here).

 

Btw, I don't like the word "unenforceable". Every law is enforceable, but I really do not wish to live in such a Big Brother society where the chance of being caught is 100% if you break any law. I am able to behave also without the cops looking over my shoulder at everything I do.

[John Cuthber]

"I don't use heroin because it would turn me into a zombie in a short time, and I would stop functioning properly in my society."

Actually, it's perfectly possible to be a heroin addict and a functioning member of society.

which makes this a bit ironic "I think a large part is due to a total lack of information. Kids at the age of 14 just don't know the damage they're doing."

 

Society makes laws, but society is always changing so, the laws made some time ago might not reflect the current opinions of society.

In those cases the laws that are no longer considered important (or at least considered less important that they used to be) are not enforced.

 

In the limit, I might be caught and prosecuted for some offence and I might be legally guilty but, if the jury thought that I hadn't done anything wrong I could be acquitted even though I was technically guilty.

 

With an arbitrary point like a "drinking age" there is a logical problem.

Some people at 25 are still not as good at making decisions as other people could when they were 15.

Society can account for this by having laws in place which serve to prevent exploitation of the more vulnerable (we will prosecute the barman who lets teenagers get seriously drunk) , but not always enforcing those laws "to the letter" because society also values freedom of choice (we don't prosecute the barman who lets a group of people celebrate someone's 18th birthday even though there's a fair chance that not everyone in the group is 18 yet.)

 

Amusingly, this is the same type of issue as gun control: in the UK alcohol is tolerated while guns are closely controlled while in the US it's the other way round.

[CaptainPanic]

John, let me first address the "Why" again (you seem to suggest that to define a "drinking age" is a problem). Arete already wrote that down, so I will just quote:

 

[...] research has shown that teenagers are vulnerable to brain damage related to alcohol in ways that adults are not. I.e. both the short and long term effects of drinking are not the same for adults as they are younger people:

 

"Clinical and experimental studies demonstrate that alcohol affects adolescent and adult brain functions and behaviors differently and that adolescents are more vulnerable to the deleterious effects that alcohol has on brain functions and behavior." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0741832909001712

 

Therefore consumption by both groups should not be treated identically.

 

So, while the 25-year-old may not be able to drink responsibly, at least the damage caused by such irresponsible behavior is different than in the 15-year-old, and therefore I would argue that a legal drinking age makes sense. And based on research such as I quoted, I think that we could perhaps derive a legal drinking age that makes sense from a biological point of view.

 

I am not sure what your point is regarding laws. You seem to claim that sometimes laws should not be enforced, and I agree. Sometimes laws cannot be enforced but they should, and sometimes they can be enforced but shouldn't. It was my point that maybe it would be better to achieve the same behavior in kids through other ways than strict laws and law enforcement.

 

Finally, regarding the heroin example, you actually seem to claim that I am not informed well, and that heroin is a much safer substance than I claim (or do I misunderstand you?)? Although this is taking the discussion off topic, I would like to ask you to back that up with any links or references.

My actual point was that fear of a substance (any substance) based on good objective information, and the consequences that the use of it has, may prevent kids from trying it out. Since there is evidence that damage on kids prior to a specific age is larger than at a later age, this information itself may prevent kids from trying alcohol.

[John Cuthber]

"So, while the 25-year-old may not be able to drink responsibly, at least the damage caused by such irresponsible behavior is different than in the 15-year-old,"

Yes, for example, the 25 year old may have children to look after and, perhaps a responsible job (OK the odds are thin) and a driving license.

It's clearly a much bigger problem if we have a 25 year old who can't deal with drink so, there should be a maximum drinking age.

Hang on?

That doesn't seem to make sense.

 

"I think that we could perhaps derive a legal drinking age that makes sense from a biological point of view."

Nope, biology is very variable so you would need some way of testing people before you allocated a "safe" drinking age for each of them. That'snot going to work in anything like a free society.

 

Is this sort of thing

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1277955/Special-Investigation-Why-ARE-doctors-addicted-drink-drugs.html

really news to you?

The fact remains that alcohol is one of the most harmful drugs, yet it is permitted.

[CaptainPanic]

John, you give me the impression that you disagree with my post, but then it seems as if you attack points that I never said.

 

I actually agree that a 25-year-old can have a drinking problem, and I do not understand why you attack me on that - I never claimed the opposite.

 

Regarding the biological issues, I agree that brain development between individuals will vary, and therefore a legal drinking age is at best a compromise, not a perfect solution to all individuals. However, in many countries, the legal voting age is also largely based on a human's development, as are the legal age to be employed, to marry, to buy tobacco, to leave school, to drive a car, etc. I'm curious where you stand on those? But I see that we just disagree. This biological reason is discarded by you, so therefore we will ultimately disagree on the whole discussion. We should just agree to disagree.

 

Finally, regarding the drugs, the link you posted does not contain the word "heroin", and merely mentions less dangerous drugs. Also, you never addressed the actual point I am trying to make: that education and objective knowledge about substances can cause people to think twice about using them? I still fail to see the irony that you mentioned earlier.

[John Cuthber]

It is ironic that we bust a gut teaching children about the dangers of opiates, but gloss over the harm done by alcohol. We also often ignore the laws about it.

A person with an alcohol or drugs problem is a person with a problem. Their age doesn't matter.

 

It's true that all the various legal ages of permission are compromises. in some cases we pay them more heed than others.

Underage voting is easy to prevent and so we do, though, since so many people vote the same way as their fathers did, I suspect it wouldn't make a huge difference.

Underage sex is frowned upon, but tolerated as long as both parties are near the same age.

Underage drinking is even more tolerated.

 

What we do depends on how difficult it is and what the perceived harm is.

Since society has a blind spot for the harm done by alcohol, we don't make as big a deal of drunk teenagers as we should do.

[Phi for All]

LOL

You already have, but you don't know about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_consumption_by_youth_in_the_United_States#Alcohol_access_by_minors

 

Come on, as has been pointed out several times, there's a difference between not being enforced and being unenforceable. There's also a difference between abolishing the drinking age to set up a tots-for-tots situation and having laws in place that just don't get enforced when they don't cause a problem. Trust me, the laws do get enforced when suddenly one of these vulnerable vandals doesn't "seem to be coping" and ends up harming people or property. Promoting laws that lend flexibility to law enforcement is quite different from removing such laws in all cases.

 

You're all going on about chances of getting caught. I think that alcohol is something that should be dealt with within a family. Parents should raise their kids in such a way that they just don't want to touch alcohol at a younger age. And if parents choose to do that by "enforcing" some rules, then so be it.

 

My first comment in this thread was a call for better education, and that's not always going to come from the home environment. I believe kids in the US who take drivers education courses are informed about the dangers of drink driving, and most kids get the drug talks in school as well, but I'm not sure they ever get the information about how alcohol affects them differently than an adult, and they really should.

 

In addition to enforcement and support from home, of course. That's where it should have a firm grounding. But in case there is alcohol abuse in the home, and knowing misery loves company, another source of education seems appropriate.

 

Society makes laws, but society is always changing so, the laws made some time ago might not reflect the current opinions of society.

In those cases the laws that are no longer considered important (or at least considered less important that they used to be) are not enforced.

 

Except in this case the medical reasons for not allowing adolescents to drink alcohol are still as relevant as they've always been. And with modern technology, I think societal reasons for enforcing existing laws are making it more imperative to keep abuse to a minimum.

 

With an arbitrary point like a "drinking age" there is a logical problem.

Some people at 25 are still not as good at making decisions as other people could when they were 15.

Society can account for this by having laws in place which serve to prevent exploitation of the more vulnerable (we will prosecute the barman who lets teenagers get seriously drunk) , but not always enforcing those laws "to the letter" because society also values freedom of choice (we don't prosecute the barman who lets a group of people celebrate someone's 18th birthday even though there's a fair chance that not everyone in the group is 18 yet.)

 

I think you're distorting the position by pointing to normal, acceptable behavior while drinking and at the same time arguing against laws that try to prevent uncorrectable and often fatal mistakes by an inexperienced sector of the populace that are now eligible to drive vehicles that multiply their destructive capabilities by at least an order of magnitude.

 

If you're not arguing for removing the laws as the OP suggests, then I apologize, but it seems like you're leaning that way. Or perhaps you've had a few and that's what's making you lean.