Do we need a legal drinking age?

[swansont]

Enforceability issues don't go away if you lower the drinking age, so that semantic argument is pretty much moot for this discussion. If you can't enforce a drinking age of N, lowering it to N-2 doesn't suddenly make the resources appear to enforce it.

 

I'd still like to know the OP's reasoning that the newly-legal teens will be drinking in a pub, and how this won't cause other problems, like vandalism. The OP who has yet to be bothered to participate in the subsequent discussion.

[john5746]

With our love of guns and violence and our need to drive everywhere, America really shouldn't be allowed alcohol. But, can't do that, so minimum age is a good thing. Even Japan has 20 I think. It might have changed, but when I was there, you could get beer, up to mini-kegs from a vending machine. If you did that here, people would wrap a logging chain around it and pull it home.

[jp255]

"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.

I'm a little shocked about your argument here. So what if we can't perfectly determine the "safe drinking age" for each and every individual in a population? Yes, we cannot fully explain what is going on biologically, but that does not mean the risk to adolescent health is not there, does it? It seems to me that a reasonable course of action would to be to increase the drinking age limit to avoid the risk of damage entirely, if anything.

 

You also mention this "blind spot" with regards to the bad effects of alcohol. Please could you provide some evidence that the general public are not aware of the dangers of alcohol. What if people consume alcohol, with knowledge of the dangers, but do so because they enjoy it? Maybe, in the UK, the law is not so strictly enforced because it is socially acceptable to drink underage? Perhaps we are aware of the harm, but pyschology plays apart "everyone else does it so I will too" kind of thing?

Edited May 3, 2013 by jp255

[John Cuthber]

Did you know that alcohol is a group 1 proven human carcinogen?

I was rather shocked to find that most of my friends (who are both scientists and drinkers) did not.

[Dekan]

Suppose you could live forever, provided you didn't drink alcohol.

Then obviously you shouldn't drink it. Because then you'd never die.

 

But in the real world, we all die eventually anyway - even if we don't drink.

So we might as well drink and enjoy ourselves.

 

This seems the way to look at it.

 

[John Cuthber]

The winos I see on the street don't seem to be enjoying it particularly, but that's not really the point.

[Dekan]

So what really is the point? That by not drinking, we can prolong life by 20 years?

 

Heck, in 100 years we'll all be dead. Drinkers and non-Drinkers alike. So just enjoy, and drink what you fancy.

[John Cuthber]

So what really is the point? That by not drinking, we can prolong life by 20 years? Heck, in 100 years we'll all be dead. Drinkers and non-Drinkers alike. So just enjoy, and drink what you fancy.

Is there a minimum age for that philosophy?

[jp255]

Did you know that alcohol is a group 1 proven human carcinogen?

I was rather shocked to find that most of my friends (who are both scientists and drinkers) did not.

So is this the criteria you use to determine whether someone knows about the dangers of alcohol? I have no idea what the group 1 refers to, so even though I know alcohol can cause various cancers, I am unaware of the dangers according to you? I don't drink alcohol at all, so the harm done by it isn't of any great concern to me.

 

Since you consider this population of friends to be representative of the general population, how many of them stopped or cut down on drinking after they became aware?

 

and John, you you didn't really respond to the biological argument either. Are you denying the possibility that alcohol consumption can interfere with brain development (or whatever it was) to adolescents? or do you really require us to know everything about the damage alcohol can cause to each individual adolescent before using that knowledge to prevent harm to adolescents?

 

You havn't really given much support for this blind spot you speak.

 

If you were in control. What would you do?

[John Cuthber]

What are you on about?

"Since you consider this population of friends to be representative of the general population,"

Nope, if anything I consider them rather better informed than most of the population. That's why, for example, they do know what a group carcinogen is*.

The point is that, even among this relatively well informed group there are still serious gaps in their knowledge; "blind spot" as it were.

 

"Are you denying the possibility that alcohol consumption can interfere with brain development (or whatever it was) to adolescents?"

No; of course not, and there's nothing I have written which implies that I do.

What I have said is that society does enforce a more or less reasonable level of control which permits young people to find out about alcohol (though probably not as much as they should) rather than, for example, an absolute ban up to some age (say 18) then a total free for all.

 

In answer to the question what would I do, for a start is impose a minimum price per unit of alcohol. This would have two effects- it would cut down the supply to most teens (who don't have a lot of money) and it would also reduce the price differential between supermarkets and pubs/bars. That would tend to get the kids into bars where people could keep an eye on them (not a great idea but better than the street).

 

 

*

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/

[jp255]

What are you on about?

"Since you consider this population of friends to be representative of the general population,"

Nope, if anything I consider them rather better informed than most of the population. That's why, for example, they do know what a group carcinogen is*.

The point is that, even among this relatively well informed group there are still serious gaps in their knowledge; "blind spot" as it were.

 

"Are you denying the possibility that alcohol consumption can interfere with brain development (or whatever it was) to adolescents?"

No; of course not, and there's nothing I have written which implies that I do.

What I have said is that society does enforce a more or less reasonable level of control which permits young people to find out about alcohol (though probably not as much as they should) rather than, for example, an absolute ban up to some age (say 18) then a total free for all.

 

In answer to the question what would I do, for a start is impose a minimum price per unit of alcohol. This would have two effects- it would cut down the supply to most teens (who don't have a lot of money) and it would also reduce the price differential between supermarkets and pubs/bars. That would tend to get the kids into bars where people could keep an eye on them (not a great idea but better than the street).

 

 

*

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/

I did not know what a group carcinogen is, but I knew that alcohol is carcinogenic. Am I unaware of the harm alcohol can cause? I guess I am anomaly then, I am less informed than your group of friends because I did not know what a group carcinogen was, but I did know alcohol was carcinogenic. Perhaps knowledge of group carcinogen is not needed to know alcohol is harmful after all. You didn't answer my question about their reaction to your information, did they all quit drinking on the spot, did they cut back? or did they place more value in their enjoyment of alcohol over their health? We can find out how serious the blind spot is by observing the behavioral change in your group of friends and we can see if education would work.

 

If I was to use a similar approach, then I would agree with the blind spot as many of my friends at secondary/high school did not know that alcohol was harmful. I am not sure how much of the general population (including adults) are unaware of the harmful effects of alcohol. I would go further and suggest that telling people alcohol is a carcinogen is not enough, I had heard arguments (at school) such as "My granfather died of colon cancer, red meat consumption causes colon cancer, he was a vegan, therefore red meat doesn't cause cancer", and "everything causes cancer", I would want the information in the education program to tackle this misconception (though I don't know if the misconception is common, and if correcting would be effective).

 

I agree with the legal age limit of 21 as in USA, based on the biological argument. I do agree with somewhat with John that some of the laws are not enforced that often (in the UK). I would however, want to see an education program, and perhaps even TV advertising highlighting the negative effects, which would ask the watcher "Is the enjoyment worth the increased risk?" or something like that. I also feel as though peer pressure and psychology might play a role in the promotion of alcoholic consumption, maybe there are many people which slip into the mentality "Many people drink, therefore it's safe".

[Delbert]

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned they can drink at any age.

 

The only concern I would have about drinking, any drinking and in particular very regular or excessive drinking, is my safety. Ignoring perhaps the obvious one of the drunk driver, I'm not at ease with all the other activities we undertake. Like if you're unfortunate enough to be confined in hospital; the surgeon doing your operation. The nuclear submarine with a drunk captain and first officer and all the other activities that could have serious consequences to you and me if they go wrong. And from what I can understand such would be unaffected by the suggested age restriction.

[doG]

I see no particular societal problems with someone of any age getting into a drunken stupor at home. Beyond the home a certain amount of responsible maturity is necessary in those that drink to minimize the consequences they cause to others. This comes with age and it should limit what activities any particular age group may participate in. That said, I can see no benefit to lowering the drinking age unless it can be shown that the vast majority of people at that age have the responsible maturity necessary to minimize the consequences that adjustment would cause to others in society.

[Delbert]

That said, I can see no benefit to lowering the drinking age...

I suppose it depends what one means by a benefit!

 

Still, if I were in repose somewhere following a swift half and consequently doing not a lot, rather than (say) driving a car whilst sober with the possibility, even if it's a very remote possibility, of an accident! Now that's a benefit to the public at large.

 

Anyway, back to lowering the age, I understand in days gone by that the amber nectar was the normal accepted drink on account of the water being a bit dodgy. So in those days they probably would've been weaned on the stuff!

 

But to return to todays world, I still have no reservations for them to start drinking at whatever age they want to. Deferring decisions to others is the thin end of the wedge - what do we ban next? We or our parental guardians are cognitive enough to decide what's best for us as sentient beings.

 

What did I do when I was young, for example? Drinking like smoking I thought was a complete waste of time, I didn't even have the time because I was doing so many other things. Although I do relax at the local hostelry for the occasional drink nowadays.

[Unity+]

Lowering the drinking age would be like giving candy to a kid who is crying. Simply giving the child candy will simply make he or she want more candy and will just keep crying until they get all the candy in the world.

 

If they lower the drinking age, people would just get the idea that if they cause more trouble they will get something legalized. I don't see any benefit to lowering the drinking age.

[Delbert]

Lowering the drinking age would be like giving candy to a kid who is crying. Simply giving the child candy will simply make he or she want more candy and will just keep crying until they get all the candy in the world.

No, it's not the same. Lowering the drinking age is not giving them alcohol.

 

If they lower the drinking age, people would just get the idea that if they cause more trouble they will get something legalized.

I agree, that is a perception. If one shouts long enough and loud enough about something it will be believed and possibly not made illegal - a common modus operandi it seems these days. And I understand that not being illegal doesn't mean legalised.

[Unity+]

No, it's not the same. Lowering the drinking age is not giving them alcohol.

 

I agree, that is a perception. If one shouts long enough and loud enough about something it will be believed and possibly not made illegal - a common modus operandi it seems these days. And I understand that not being illegal doesn't mean legalised.

I find the two being the same. It isn't the literal sense of giving them alcohol. It was an analogy.

[zapatos]

Lowering the drinking age would be like giving candy to a kid who is crying. Simply giving the child candy will simply make he or she want more candy and will just keep crying until they get all the candy in the world.

You don't seem to think much of people like me. It is unfair to characterize us as immature simply because we disagree with you.

 

If they lower the drinking age, people would just get the idea that if they cause more trouble they will get something legalized.

Sort of like Civil Rights legislation, or the right to vote for women.

 

Again, some people, like me, don't see lowering the drinking age as simply a mechanism to generate additional kegger parties.

[Delbert]

I find the two being the same. It isn't the literal sense of giving them alcohol. It was an analogy.

I think an analogy is relating a particular process to different ingredients.

 

And giving and not giving I'm convinced are two different processes.