Full Version: Age, Adulthood.....
Recently Candidate Obama was speaking to veterans about the many problems they face when returning from combat for an MTV forum. One young vet asked if he supported lowering the drinking age for service members, falling back on the age old military opinion of "old enough to fight and die......old enough to quaff a pint".
Obama responded that he sympathized, but that setting the legal drinking age at 21 had helped reduce drunken driving incidents and should remain.
link
I have always been firmly in the camp of the young veteran above, but what about you?
Do you support the notion that someone old enough to face the horrors of war should be allowed the respite of a beer or two?
If not, would you support raising the fighting age to 21?
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
Obama responded that he sympathized, but that setting the legal drinking age at 21 had helped reduce drunken driving incidents and should remain.
link
I have always been firmly in the camp of the young veteran above, but what about you?
Do you support the notion that someone old enough to face the horrors of war should be allowed the respite of a beer or two?
If not, would you support raising the fighting age to 21?
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
Do you support the notion that someone old enough to face the horrors of war should be allowed the respite of a beer or two?
If not, would you support raising the fighting age to 21?
That actually sounds like a good idea to me. The fact that we allow teenagers to make the decision to be placed in a situation where they may be required to die or to kill . . .
I'd rather an 18-year-old have a beer than a military uniform.
But this probably isn't practical, for a variety of reasons. (The military wants young people; young people want the benefits of military service.) So decreasing the drinking age to 18 would be OK with me.
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
Probably not a big issue either way.
Do you support the notion that someone old enough to face the horrors of war should be allowed the respite of a beer or two?
Certainly. I think its strange, that a country can recognize an individual as a legal adult, yet restrict them from drinking alcohol. Seems like some kind of age-based discrimination - like there are two kinds of adults, not equal before the law.
I also strong disagree with the notion the age limit reduces drunk driving. Denmark has probably one of the most liberal laws regarding drinking in the world, it's legal to buy alcohol when you are 16 (though not in bars), and it to a large degree socially acceptable. It's essentially legal to consume alcohol at any age, so parents serving their 14 year olds a beer won't get prosecuted. My point is, that we proportionately have a lot less drunk driving than in the US, yet in virtually every study about teenagers beer, wine an alcohol consumption, Denmark are usually in the top 5 in the world. I honestly believe the earlier you start to drink, the earlier you get it out of your system (unless of course you are one of the few that ends up an alcoholic). The first beer I every had, was at a dinner party with my family when I was 14 - I honestly believe that in a way helped me drink responsibly (and there was never any chance I wouldn't drink - if you as parents think that your child will stay away from liquor, you are a naive).
If not, would you support raising the fighting age to 21?
Well, that would certainly seem fair I would think. If your country don't trust you to drink, it shouldn't trust you fighting its wars.
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
Since this is in America I have no idea. Common sense (at least the kind I have) would suggest they would gain support from all but the religious, holier than-thou types.
Certainly. I think its strange, that a country can recognize an individual as a legal adult, yet restrict them from drinking alcohol. Seems like some kind of age-based discrimination - like there are two kinds of adults, not equal before the law.
I also strong disagree with the notion the age limit reduces drunk driving. Denmark has probably one of the most liberal laws regarding drinking in the world, it's legal to buy alcohol when you are 16 (though not in bars), and it to a large degree socially acceptable. It's essentially legal to consume alcohol at any age, so parents serving their 14 year olds a beer won't get prosecuted. My point is, that we proportionately have a lot less drunk driving than in the US, yet in virtually every study about teenagers beer, wine an alcohol consumption, Denmark are usually in the top 5 in the world. I honestly believe the earlier you start to drink, the earlier you get it out of your system (unless of course you are one of the few that ends up an alcoholic). The first beer I every had, was at a dinner party with my family when I was 14 - I honestly believe that in a way helped me drink responsibly (and there was never any chance I wouldn't drink - if you as parents think that your child will stay away from liquor, you are a naive).
If not, would you support raising the fighting age to 21?
Well, that would certainly seem fair I would think. If your country don't trust you to drink, it shouldn't trust you fighting its wars.
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
Since this is in America I have no idea. Common sense (at least the kind I have) would suggest they would gain support from all but the religious, holier than-thou types.
Do you support the notion that someone old enough to face the horrors of war should be allowed the respite of a beer or two?
Absolutely.
If not, would you support raising the fighting age to 21?
Frankly, I think most "majority" laws are contradictory in the extreme. We have different ages for military service, voting, drinking, consensual sex, possession of firearms, driving cars, driving tractors, owning property, dropping out of school, eligibility for professional sports, flying planes, purchasing tobacco products, being tried and sentenced as an adult, seeking full-time employment, appearing in pornographic films - it's absurd. We should decide on an age of majority and stick with it. Raise them all to twenty-one, lower them all to sixteen, throw darts at board to make the decision - whatever. We just need to make up our collective mind about which arbitrary age constitutes "adulthood" and apply it across the board.
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
It probably wouldn't have a major impact, but, if anything, I suspect it would gain them a bit of support - certainly among members of the military, aged 18-21.
Absolutely.
If not, would you support raising the fighting age to 21?
Frankly, I think most "majority" laws are contradictory in the extreme. We have different ages for military service, voting, drinking, consensual sex, possession of firearms, driving cars, driving tractors, owning property, dropping out of school, eligibility for professional sports, flying planes, purchasing tobacco products, being tried and sentenced as an adult, seeking full-time employment, appearing in pornographic films - it's absurd. We should decide on an age of majority and stick with it. Raise them all to twenty-one, lower them all to sixteen, throw darts at board to make the decision - whatever. We just need to make up our collective mind about which arbitrary age constitutes "adulthood" and apply it across the board.
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
It probably wouldn't have a major impact, but, if anything, I suspect it would gain them a bit of support - certainly among members of the military, aged 18-21.
As one fo the few Danes who doesn't drink alcohol, I have to interject that I find Danes to be terrible when it comes to drinking. I'm like a drunk magnet or something. I always have some alky attached to me when ever I go out and it wears you down to be around so many people bombed out of their senses so often.
Do you support the notion that someone old enough to face the horrors of war should be allowed the respite of a beer or two?
Yes. If you are old enough to kill then you are old enough to drink alcohol.
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
I predict he would lose support. Americans are particularly hypocritical when it comes to vice.
Do you support the notion that someone old enough to face the horrors of war should be allowed the respite of a beer or two?
Yes. If you are old enough to kill then you are old enough to drink alcohol.
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
I predict he would lose support. Americans are particularly hypocritical when it comes to vice.
QUOTE(moif @ Mar 18 2008, 09:02 AM) 
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
I predict he would lose support. Americans are particularly hypocritical when it comes to vice.
I predict he would lose support. Americans are particularly hypocritical when it comes to vice.
I got a kick out of your last one. Anyone who has high moral standards is going to be called a hypocrite. It is difficult to live up to high moral standards. They are aspirational and at least provide a guidepost as you wander through dark waters.
If you abandon moral standards, as many in your land have done, then you may cut down on the hypocrisy, but you also reduce your aspirational level to the level of your actual behavior, i.e. in the gutter next to the drunks you mentioned above....Is that really where you wish to fix your eyes?
Let me preface this by saying I'm typically British on matters of alcohol, which would make me (wrongly) be viewed as a alcoholic by the standards of most lay Americans. (But not by the standards of Alcoholics Anonymous, so I won't worry what a nation of shandy-drinkers thinks *hic* 
).
Do you support the notion that someone old enough to face the horrors of war should be allowed the respite of a beer or two?
Absolutely. And someone old enough to vote ought to be able to drown their sorrows when their preferred candidate turns out to be just as much of an empty suit as the other guy.
If not, would you support raising the fighting age to 21?
No, it would make more sense to me to lower the drinking age to 18. And raise the driving age to 17 or 18 while you're at it.
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
I dare say they'd gain support from 18, 19, and 20 year-old military personnel. So why not just extend it to everyone by making the drinking age 18 and not 21?
). Do you support the notion that someone old enough to face the horrors of war should be allowed the respite of a beer or two?
Absolutely. And someone old enough to vote ought to be able to drown their sorrows when their preferred candidate turns out to be just as much of an empty suit as the other guy.
If not, would you support raising the fighting age to 21?
No, it would make more sense to me to lower the drinking age to 18. And raise the driving age to 17 or 18 while you're at it.
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
I dare say they'd gain support from 18, 19, and 20 year-old military personnel. So why not just extend it to everyone by making the drinking age 18 and not 21?
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Mar 18 2008, 06:34 AM)
Do you support the notion that someone old enough to face the horrors of war should be allowed the respite of a beer or two?
If not, would you support raising the fighting age to 21?
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
If not, would you support raising the fighting age to 21?
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
I agree with the idea that a person who is old enough to offer their life for their country should be trusted to be old enough to drink alcohol. In those terms I doubt that anyone can really justify the inconsistency. Supporters of the higher drinking age , e.g. Barack Obama, tend to cite statistics showing that the number of drunk driving deaths decreases with a higher drinking age. My question then is why 21? Would a reduction in drunk driving deaths justify raising the drinking age further, say to 25, or 30?
It's interesting to note that the The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 is a misnomer and didn't actually outlaw underage drinking. It outawed underage purchasing and public possession of alchohol. Most states extended it to include underage drinking as well.
One final question, if the posts so far in this thread are at all representative of how most voters feel on the issue, then why is the alcohol age still 21, where's the inertia coming from?
QUOTE
I got a kick out of your last one. Anyone who has high moral standards is going to be called a hypocrite. It is difficult to live up to high moral standards. They are aspirational and at least provide a guidepost as you wander through dark waters.
This statement is pretty bewildering. If abstaining from alcohol is a moral standard... and that justifies it's prohibition for 18 year olds, then it is either hypocritical to allow anyone to drink, or to allow them to fight and die for their country.
Either they're adults and should be treated as other adults, or they're not adults and shouldn't be used as soldiers.
1) Old enough to fight old enough to drink. We can trust you to take a life, vote, and get a credit card; but we don't trust you with a beer?
3) I don't think a candidate would lose points by trying to lower the drinking age for military members. I think the issue is sort of moot becuase ,if I'm not mistaken, military members 18-20 are allowed to buy and consume alcohol legally as long as its on a military base. Maybe even in USO's around the country; but I'm not so sure about that one.
3) I don't think a candidate would lose points by trying to lower the drinking age for military members. I think the issue is sort of moot becuase ,if I'm not mistaken, military members 18-20 are allowed to buy and consume alcohol legally as long as its on a military base. Maybe even in USO's around the country; but I'm not so sure about that one.
TinFoilLiberal:
&
Ultimatejoe:
There is a difference here. 18 year olds are physically great soldiers, certainly better than 45 year olds on average. However, on average, 45 year olds don't make near as many stupid decisions when it comes to drinking and driving. The physical excellence of 18 year olds doesn't negate their mental deficiency compared to older folks in this regard.
We can compare our drinking laws to foreign nations, some of whom I'm sure give children pints at daycare, but that doesn't negate the fact of American statistics. Since raising the drinking age, drinking and driving mortality fell noticeably. Going in the opposite direction guarantees more business for the county coroner.
Source.
QUOTE
1) Old enough to fight old enough to drink. We can trust you to take a life, vote, and get a credit card; but we don't trust you with a beer?
&
Ultimatejoe:
QUOTE
Either they're adults and should be treated as other adults, or they're not adults and shouldn't be used as soldiers.
There is a difference here. 18 year olds are physically great soldiers, certainly better than 45 year olds on average. However, on average, 45 year olds don't make near as many stupid decisions when it comes to drinking and driving. The physical excellence of 18 year olds doesn't negate their mental deficiency compared to older folks in this regard.
We can compare our drinking laws to foreign nations, some of whom I'm sure give children pints at daycare, but that doesn't negate the fact of American statistics. Since raising the drinking age, drinking and driving mortality fell noticeably. Going in the opposite direction guarantees more business for the county coroner.
QUOTE
2003, the Centers for Disease Control looked at 49 high-quality peer-reviewed studies of the effects of changing the minimum drinking age law. Almost every study found that increasing the minimum drinking age to 21 saved lives (an average decrease of 16 percent) and that lowering the minimum drinking age to 18 or 19 caused an average increase in crashes of eight to ten percent.
The US General Accounting Office looked at similar data in 1987 of the states that passed 21 MDA laws and found “raising the drinking age has a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths affected by the laws, on average, across the states" and that "raising the drinking age also results in a decline in alcohol consumption and in driving after drinking for the age group affected by the law." (GAO, 1987( These studies use different measures of crashes, fatalities, and alcohol (some lo
ok at single-vehicle nighttime crashes as a strong proxy for drunk driving crashes), but all came up with the same conclusion – the 21 MDA law saves lives.
The US General Accounting Office looked at similar data in 1987 of the states that passed 21 MDA laws and found “raising the drinking age has a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths affected by the laws, on average, across the states" and that "raising the drinking age also results in a decline in alcohol consumption and in driving after drinking for the age group affected by the law." (GAO, 1987( These studies use different measures of crashes, fatalities, and alcohol (some lo
ok at single-vehicle nighttime crashes as a strong proxy for drunk driving crashes), but all came up with the same conclusion – the 21 MDA law saves lives.
Source.
QUOTE(TinFoilLiberal @ Mar 26 2008, 11:33 PM)
1) Old enough to fight old enough to drink. We can trust you to take a life, vote, and get a credit card; but we don't trust you with a beer?
3) I don't think a candidate would lose points by trying to lower the drinking age for military members. I think the issue is sort of moot becuase ,if I'm not mistaken, military members 18-20 are allowed to buy and consume alcohol legally as long as its on a military base. Maybe even in USO's around the country; but I'm not so sure about that one.
3) I don't think a candidate would lose points by trying to lower the drinking age for military members. I think the issue is sort of moot becuase ,if I'm not mistaken, military members 18-20 are allowed to buy and consume alcohol legally as long as its on a military base. Maybe even in USO's around the country; but I'm not so sure about that one.
On item three drinking and the military are somewhat hand in hand. Heck I think the idea for the marines originally came about between some folks in a bar. I also think another reason for the military to support lowering the drinking age in some situations can come about from the reality that say in California its either that or have troops breaking the law or even going to Mexico just to get drunk. It may provide a safer reality overall in the giving environment the staying along with the law as it stands.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 24 2008, 08:24 PM)
QUOTE
2003, the Centers for Disease Control looked at 49 high-quality peer-reviewed studies of the effects of changing the minimum drinking age law. Almost every study found that increasing the minimum drinking age to 21 saved lives (an average decrease of 16 percent) and that lowering the minimum drinking age to 18 or 19 caused an average increase in crashes of eight to ten percent.
The US General Accounting Office looked at similar data in 1987 of the states that passed 21 MDA laws and found “raising the drinking age has a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths affected by the laws, on average, across the states" and that "raising the drinking age also results in a decline in alcohol consumption and in driving after drinking for the age group affected by the law." (GAO, 1987( These studies use different measures of crashes, fatalities, and alcohol (some look at single-vehicle nighttime crashes as a strong proxy for drunk driving crashes), but all came up with the same conclusion – the 21 MDA law saves lives.
The US General Accounting Office looked at similar data in 1987 of the states that passed 21 MDA laws and found “raising the drinking age has a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths affected by the laws, on average, across the states" and that "raising the drinking age also results in a decline in alcohol consumption and in driving after drinking for the age group affected by the law." (GAO, 1987( These studies use different measures of crashes, fatalities, and alcohol (some look at single-vehicle nighttime crashes as a strong proxy for drunk driving crashes), but all came up with the same conclusion – the 21 MDA law saves lives.
Source.
I always cringe when I see studies like this. It is tautologically true that if you proscribe drinking for a given group of people, then you will see a reduction in alcohol-related traffic accidents/fatalities. If drinking were proscribed for people between the ages of 40-42, then you will, of course, see a drop in alcohol-related traffic accidents for that age group. As far as I'm concerned this study proves nothing other than what we already know. Guess what? Alcohol consumption increases the risk of traffic accidents.
What *would* be interesting is to proscribe alcohol for another age bracket (say 40-42) and then compare the percent drop in accidents for that age group to the percent drop in accidents for 18-21. Only then would we know that proscribing alcohol for 18-21 year olds has a net beneficial effect compared to any other age group. My bet is that it will be the same percent drop for both age groups.
Thus, I conclude that this law is inherently ageist. It is logically inconsistent. And it should be repealed.
QUOTE(logophage @ Apr 24 2008, 11:51 PM)
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 24 2008, 08:24 PM)
QUOTE
2003, the Centers for Disease Control looked at 49 high-quality peer-reviewed studies of the effects of changing the minimum drinking age law. Almost every study found that increasing the minimum drinking age to 21 saved lives (an average decrease of 16 percent) and that lowering the minimum drinking age to 18 or 19 caused an average increase in crashes of eight to ten percent.
The US General Accounting Office looked at similar data in 1987 of the states that passed 21 MDA laws and found “raising the drinking age has a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths affected by the laws, on average, across the states" and that "raising the drinking age also results in a decline in alcohol consumption and in driving after drinking for the age group affected by the law." (GAO, 1987( These studies use different measures of crashes, fatalities, and alcohol (some look at single-vehicle nighttime crashes as a strong proxy for drunk driving crashes), but all came up with the same conclusion – the 21 MDA law saves lives.
The US General Accounting Office looked at similar data in 1987 of the states that passed 21 MDA laws and found “raising the drinking age has a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths affected by the laws, on average, across the states" and that "raising the drinking age also results in a decline in alcohol consumption and in driving after drinking for the age group affected by the law." (GAO, 1987( These studies use different measures of crashes, fatalities, and alcohol (some look at single-vehicle nighttime crashes as a strong proxy for drunk driving crashes), but all came up with the same conclusion – the 21 MDA law saves lives.
Source.
I always cringe when I see studies like this. It is tautologically true that if you proscribe drinking for a given group of people, then you will see a reduction in alcohol-related traffic accidents/fatalities. If drinking were proscribed for people between the ages of 40-42, then you will, of course, see a drop in alcohol-related traffic accidents for that age group. As far as I'm concerned this study proves nothing other than what we already know. Guess what? Alcohol consumption increases the risk of traffic accidents.
What *would* be interesting is to proscribe alcohol for another age bracket (say 40-42) and then compare the percent drop in accidents for that age group to the percent drop in accidents for 18-21. Only then would we know that proscribing alcohol for 18-21 year olds has a net beneficial effect compared to any other age group. My bet is that it will be the same percent drop for both age groups.
Thus, I conclude that this law is inherently ageist. It is logically inconsistent. And it should be repealed.
Maybe my mind is fuzzy this morning, but I don't understand the above reasoning. The first paragraph would indicate that the number of accidents (in their entirety, not only for teens, not only alcohol related) increased eight to ten percent when the alcohol age limit was lower. That's pretty definitive (and a rather large increase) isn't it?
Edited to add: When I was a senior in highschool, my boyfriend was 18 and in the military. He had a special card that permitted him to buy alcohol due to his enlistment. Is that no longer the case for enlisted under-aged drinkers?
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Apr 25 2008, 05:11 AM)
QUOTE(logophage @ Apr 24 2008, 11:51 PM)
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 24 2008, 08:24 PM)
QUOTE
2003, the Centers for Disease Control looked at 49 high-quality peer-reviewed studies of the effects of changing the minimum drinking age law. Almost every study found that increasing the minimum drinking age to 21 saved lives (an average decrease of 16 percent) and that lowering the minimum drinking age to 18 or 19 caused an average increase in crashes of eight to ten percent.
The US General Accounting Office looked at similar data in 1987 of the states that passed 21 MDA laws and found “raising the drinking age has a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths affected by the laws, on average, across the states" and that "raising the drinking age also results in a decline in alcohol consumption and in driving after drinking for the age group affected by the law." (GAO, 1987( These studies use different measures of crashes, fatalities, and alcohol (some look at single-vehicle nighttime crashes as a strong proxy for drunk driving crashes), but all came up with the same conclusion – the 21 MDA law saves lives.
The US General Accounting Office looked at similar data in 1987 of the states that passed 21 MDA laws and found “raising the drinking age has a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths affected by the laws, on average, across the states" and that "raising the drinking age also results in a decline in alcohol consumption and in driving after drinking for the age group affected by the law." (GAO, 1987( These studies use different measures of crashes, fatalities, and alcohol (some look at single-vehicle nighttime crashes as a strong proxy for drunk driving crashes), but all came up with the same conclusion – the 21 MDA law saves lives.
Source.
I always cringe when I see studies like this. It is tautologically true that if you proscribe drinking for a given group of people, then you will see a reduction in alcohol-related traffic accidents/fatalities. If drinking were proscribed for people between the ages of 40-42, then you will, of course, see a drop in alcohol-related traffic accidents for that age group. As far as I'm concerned this study proves nothing other than what we already know. Guess what? Alcohol consumption increases the risk of traffic accidents.
What *would* be interesting is to proscribe alcohol for another age bracket (say 40-42) and then compare the percent drop in accidents for that age group to the percent drop in accidents for 18-21. Only then would we know that proscribing alcohol for 18-21 year olds has a net beneficial effect compared to any other age group. My bet is that it will be the same percent drop for both age groups.
Thus, I conclude that this law is inherently ageist. It is logically inconsistent. And it should be repealed.
Maybe my mind is fuzzy this morning, but I don't understand the above reasoning. The first paragraph would indicate that the number of accidents (in their entirety, not only for teens, not only alcohol related) increased eight to ten percent when the alcohol age limit was lower. That's pretty definitive (and a rather large increase) isn't it?
I don't read the first paragraph like that but, even if it that *is* what it's saying, it only shows that reducing the number of potential drunk drivers on the road decreases the likelihood of accidents. Just mentally remove the age bracket from argument.
If I pass a law proscribing alcohol for a certain number (or class) of people, then I will by definition have fewer number of alcohol-related accidents (and fewer accidents in total). Imagine if a law were passed proscribing alcohol for *all* men. Not only would you see fewer traffic accidents for men but you would also see fewer accidents overall.
These studies don't isolate all their variables (which, if you've noticed in other debate threads, bothers me). They haven't proven that proscribing alcohol for 18-21 year olds has an effect over and above what proscribing alcohol for any other category/classification of people would. These studies only demonstrate that fewer alcohol drinkers means fewer alcohol-influenced drivers means fewer alcohol-related traffic accidents. Um... duh?
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Apr 25 2008, 08:11 AM)
When I was a senior in high school, my boyfriend was 18 and in the military. He had a special card that permitted him to buy alcohol due to his enlistment. Is that no longer the case for enlisted under-aged drinkers?
There was no exception when I was in.
Do you support the notion that someone old enough to face the horrors of war should be allowed the respite of a beer or two?
Did then, do now.
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
Gain. I think service members would be thrilled to see a candidate treat them like adults on this subject. It's not as if you can't face NJP/court martial if you allow alcoholism to affect your job performance. And if people really want an excuse avoid duty and/or get kicked out there is always a way. One guy in NAS Willow Grove ate himself out of the Marine Corps, even with his superiors running him and berating him whenever they saw him eating. What is the military gonna do in cases like this, freeze his pay, ration his food, and follow him around?
Overseas may be a different story depending on customs and how much the locals like having U.S. military stations in their country. I'm glad I didn't have a problem getting drunk when I wanted in Japan at least.
While we're on the subject, let's continue treating them like adults and lift the porn ban once and for all.
QUOTE(Colonel Kurtz)
We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "f---" on their airplanes because it's obscene.
QUOTE
Do you support the notion that someone old enough to face the horrors of war should be allowed the respite of a beer or two?
No. Beer is bad for body health. Beer causes brain damage.
QUOTE
If not, would you support raising the fighting age to 21?
No. War is not addictive.
QUOTE
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
A candidate would lose support because beer hinders judgement. Good judgement is necessary for combat.
QUOTE
I always cringe when I see studies like this. It is tautologically true that if you proscribe drinking for a given group of people, then you will see a reduction in alcohol-related traffic accidents/fatalities.
QUOTE
If drinking were proscribed for people between the ages of 40-42, then you will, of course, see a drop in alcohol-related traffic accidents for that age group. As far as I'm concerned this study proves nothing other than what we already know. Guess what? Alcohol consumption increases the risk of traffic accidents.
For every group, it would reduce deaths, no doubt about it. Deaths of say 40-50 year olds would decline. However, as a whole, people under 21 make up the majority of drunk driving mortality rates compared to older groups. They are more impaired and in instances like in Vermont, continue to overrepresent compared to other age groups.
QUOTE(logophage @ Apr 25 2008, 12:39 PM)
I don't read the first paragraph like that but, even if it that *is* what it's saying, it only shows that reducing the number of potential drunk drivers on the road decreases the likelihood of accidents. Just mentally remove the age bracket from argument.
If I pass a law proscribing alcohol for a certain number (or class) of people, then I will by definition have fewer number of alcohol-related accidents (and fewer accidents in total). Imagine if a law were passed proscribing alcohol for *all* men. Not only would you see fewer traffic accidents for men but you would also see fewer accidents overall.
These studies don't isolate all their variables (which, if you've noticed in other debate threads, bothers me). They haven't proven that proscribing alcohol for 18-21 year olds has an effect over and above what proscribing alcohol for any other category/classification of people would. These studies only demonstrate that fewer alcohol drinkers means fewer alcohol-influenced drivers means fewer alcohol-related traffic accidents. Um... duh?
If I pass a law proscribing alcohol for a certain number (or class) of people, then I will by definition have fewer number of alcohol-related accidents (and fewer accidents in total). Imagine if a law were passed proscribing alcohol for *all* men. Not only would you see fewer traffic accidents for men but you would also see fewer accidents overall.
These studies don't isolate all their variables (which, if you've noticed in other debate threads, bothers me). They haven't proven that proscribing alcohol for 18-21 year olds has an effect over and above what proscribing alcohol for any other category/classification of people would. These studies only demonstrate that fewer alcohol drinkers means fewer alcohol-influenced drivers means fewer alcohol-related traffic accidents. Um... duh?
Not to be argumentative....okay, I guess I am being argumentative...
But the linked article would seem to isolate the variables well enough to form some conclusion. And yes, I'm familiar with your posts, and that's why I feel very tentative arguing this point with you (your math and logical reasoning skills are formidable). But, to continue...there was about a tenth drop in accidents overall, and a 25 to thirty percent drop in teen driving accidents when the drinking age is raised. .10x = (approximately).275y
where x= the number of total accidents
y= the number of teen accidents
The number of teen accidents is nearly a third of the number of accidents total by that measure. Rather disproportionately large. Actuaries have done the (much more substantial) arithmetic and that's why teen drivers' insurance rates are higher. So, lowering the drinking age significantly raises the rate of teen accidents, which are disproportionately very large considering that those individuals make up a small percentage of the total driving force.
This isn't necessarily compelling enough reason not to lower the drinking age (as you mentioned, accidents would probably fall drastically if men couldn't legally drink but then we get into a cost-to-gains equation that is significantly more complicated), but I do think there's proof of a disproportionate level of adverse influence regarding teens access to alcohol and driving accidents. Perhaps we should lower the drinking age to 18 and raise the driving age to 18? In theory, a sixteen year old could not buy alcohol, but I know from experience that when 18 year old highschool seniors can buy alcohol, everyone in highschool and even late middle school can very very easily obtain alcohol.
I do think that there should be a military exemption for those who serve. It might help recruitment actually, and while teens in the military are not necessarily less likely to be stupid, they are at least under pretty strict surveillance and training, and they are forced to endure regular safety briefings nearly every week.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 25 2008, 04:24 AM)
We can compare our drinking laws to foreign nations, some of whom I'm sure give children pints at daycare, but that doesn't negate the fact of American statistics. Since raising the drinking age, drinking and driving mortality fell noticeably. Going in the opposite direction guarantees more business for the county coroner.
That's one way to interpret those statistics. Another would be to do as I suggested and raise the age at which young people can get a driver's licence. They're all under 18 anyway so there wouldn't be many votes lost by doing so...
QUOTE(handsomeguy @ Apr 25 2008, 06:53 PM)
Do you support the notion that someone old enough to face the horrors of war should be allowed the respite of a beer or two?
No. Beer is bad for body health. Beer causes brain damage.
No. Beer is bad for body health. Beer causes brain damage.
*Cough* Exsqueeze me? "Beer causes brain damage". Got any figures to suggest that moderate drinking (you know, the kind most responsible drinkers indulge in) is solidly linked to any health damage. At all?
QUOTE
If not, would you support raising the fighting age to 21?
No. War is not addictive.
No. War is not addictive.
Given the many many millions of drinkers around the world who have precisely zero problems with alcohol addiction (far fewer than the number of people who use tobacco but are addicted to nicotine), and the many of ex-service personnel who find it very difficult to make a normal life in "civvie street" and so go on to work in security, law enforcement, or some other line of work that involves some kind of more-than-usual level of discipline and the occasional need for the application of violence, I'd say that your assertions are not quite as clear-cut as you pretend.
Some people find alcohol addictive, no matter what their level of consumption. Others find war and violence addictive, no matter what their level of exposure. Neither war nor alcohol (unlike, say, nicotine or crack cocaine) are instrinsically addictive; it's more that some people have a greater propensity to addiction than others.
QUOTE
Would a candidate gain or lose any support during this election for advocating lowering the drinking age for military members?
A candidate would lose support because beer hinders judgement. Good judgement is necessary for combat.
A candidate would lose support because beer hinders judgement. Good judgement is necessary for combat.
I'm going to take a very wild guess and say that your attitude hints that you are either a recovering alcoholic or a puritan. In the first case, I can understand your concern, but you have to come to terms with the fact that other people have no problems whatsoever with a substance that causes you great pain.
In the second, your ideological opposition to a substance you probably have no great experience of makes you rather less qualilfied than the average person to pontificate upon it, in much the same way that membership of the Catholic clergy - with its concomitant celibacy - makes the Pope's opinions on sex, marriage and relationships about the last on Earth that anyone sane should pay any attention to.
Of course, I could be wrong and you could fall into neither group. Which makes me wonder why beer seems to be such a terrible thing in your worldview.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Apr 26 2008, 04:02 AM)
QUOTE(logophage @ Apr 25 2008, 12:39 PM)
I don't read the first paragraph like that but, even if it that *is* what it's saying, it only shows that reducing the number of potential drunk drivers on the road decreases the likelihood of accidents. Just mentally remove the age bracket from argument.
If I pass a law proscribing alcohol for a certain number (or class) of people, then I will by definition have fewer number of alcohol-related accidents (and fewer accidents in total). Imagine if a law were passed proscribing alcohol for *all* men. Not only would you see fewer traffic accidents for men but you would also see fewer accidents overall.
These studies don't isolate all their variables (which, if you've noticed in other debate threads, bothers me). They haven't proven that proscribing alcohol for 18-21 year olds has an effect over and above what proscribing alcohol for any other category/classification of people would. These studies only demonstrate that fewer alcohol drinkers means fewer alcohol-influenced drivers means fewer alcohol-related traffic accidents. Um... duh?
If I pass a law proscribing alcohol for a certain number (or class) of people, then I will by definition have fewer number of alcohol-related accidents (and fewer accidents in total). Imagine if a law were passed proscribing alcohol for *all* men. Not only would you see fewer traffic accidents for men but you would also see fewer accidents overall.
These studies don't isolate all their variables (which, if you've noticed in other debate threads, bothers me). They haven't proven that proscribing alcohol for 18-21 year olds has an effect over and above what proscribing alcohol for any other category/classification of people would. These studies only demonstrate that fewer alcohol drinkers means fewer alcohol-influenced drivers means fewer alcohol-related traffic accidents. Um... duh?
Not to be argumentative....okay, I guess I am being argumentative...
But the linked article would seem to isolate the variables well enough to form some conclusion. And yes, I'm familiar with your posts, and that's why I feel very tentative arguing this point with you (your math and logical reasoning skills are formidable). But, to continue...there was about a tenth drop in accidents overall, and a 25 to thirty percent drop in teen driving accidents when the drinking age is raised. .10x = (approximately).275y
where x= the number of total accidents
y= the number of teen accidents
The number of teen accidents is nearly a third of the number of accidents total by that measure. Rather disproportionately large. Actuaries have done the (much more substantial) arithmetic and that's why teen drivers' insurance rates are higher. So, lowering the drinking age significantly raises the rate of teen accidents, which are disproportionately very large considering that those individuals make up a small percentage of the total driving force.
Your equation is incorrect. Here are the correct equations you should look at:
1. all = teen + other
2. allbefore / allafter = M
3. teenbefore / teenafter = N
4. 0.10 = 1 - 1/M and 0.275 = 1 - 1/N
If we expand equation 2, then we get:
M = (teenbefore + otherbefore) / (teenafter + otherafter)
and after substitution we get:
N = (M(otherafter + teenafter) - otherbefore) / teenafter
But we know that (1 - 1/N) = 0.275. So, if calculated N > constant N, then we know your assertion is true. Unfortunately, we don't know this because we don't have numbers on "other"/
Let's state a few facts:
1. Teens *will* have a disproportionate number of accidents compared to any other age group.
2. Alcohol consumption increases the risk of accidents no matter the age group.
I accept that proscribing alcohol from teens does reduce traffic accidents. I also accept that, by picking the teen age bracket for alcohol proscription, we likely see that largest drop in overall numbers for traffic accidents. This isn't what I've been arguing.
I have been arguing that the percent drop in traffic accidents for one age bracket is likely the same as the percent drop in another age bracket (after alcohol is proscribed). In other words, the following:
Abefore = # of accidents for group G / total # of accidents for everyone
Aafter = # of accidents for group G / total # of accidents for everyone
delta A = Aafter - Abefore
will be the same number no matter what group G is defined to be. In other words, it isn't the group that matters but the fact that alcohol is proscribed that matters. This what I mean when I write this law is inherently "ageist".
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.