A citizen is allowed to vote, die for his or her country, is put on trial as an adult and is generally considered an adult at the age of 18 but is not allowed to have a beer until 21?

What do you think? Should the drinking age be lowered?

Nah, the drinking age should stay right where it is....

I have no problem with 18 year olds drinking, but
a percentage of them might get themselves into
trouble with drinking and driving, OR not knowing
their own limits, etc...

Granted, 21 isn't much older than 18, but it gives
a person 3 more years to mature, and hopefully
develop some skills in making correct judgment
calls....

I think we should drop the age to 18. you are legally an adult at that age. many european countries have 18 (except ireland where it's 18 weeks )as the legal limit, from what I understand. mexico also has 18yr drinking age, I've seen american adults from san diego on the "Insomniac" show W/ Dave Attell in tijuana


of course in 6 months (when I turn 21) I could care less, except my youngest brother David (who is about 1 1/2 years after me) is getting out of ridgeview tomorrow and I like drinking with him and my other brother Tommy.

the legal drinking age should be lowered to that of a legal adult, 18.

I tend to think that many, many young people are drinking anyway, at an age below 18. (Not me; I didn't touch alcohol until I was well into my 20's.) I tend to think that there should be some limit on the sale of alcohol, like any other dangerous substance, but I don't pretend to know where to draw the line. I suspect that changing the drinking age one way or the other won't have a huge effect on drinking behavior. This might be a non-issue if there could somehow be a change in the drinking culture of young people, so that getting drunk was not considered cool. A sixteen-year-old having a beer? Not a big deal. A twenty-one-year-old chugging Jack Daniels to the point of passing out? A serious problem.

Only a fool would think the current standard keeps people under 21 from drinking; it clearly does not. To be honest I'm not sure how necessary a legal drinking age is anyways. People learn moderation through experience, not simply reaching a certain age. I've gotten drunk (to the point where I was no longer enjoying myself) once, and only once.

At the same time this has to be moderated by the consideration that alcohol affects the brain differently during puberty.

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what I think the legal age (if any) should be; but I can't see any reason to try and keep people sober until they're done post-secondary. That's foolish.

Lowering the legal drinking age was done once before from the late 60s to about 1984, with disasterous results:

State motor vehicle fatality data from the 48 continental states found that lowering the drinking age for beer from 21 to 18 resulted in an 11% increase in fatalities among that age group.

In Arizona, lowering the drinking age increased the incidence of fatal accidents by more than 25% and traffic fatalities by more than 35%.

Lowering the drinking age in Massachusetts caused an increase in total fatal crashes, alcohol-related fatal crashes, and alcohol-related property damage crashes among 18 - 20 year-old drivers.

From 1979 - 1984, the suicide rate was 9.7% greater among young people who could legally drink alcohol than among their peers who could not.

Additionally, the vehicle and homeowner/rental insurance for teenagers skyrocketed, making purchasing insurance prohibitive, which increased insurance rates for everyone, as uninsured teens in drunk-driving accidents soared.


True, it doesn't stop everyone. But like with any law, it does inhibit a majority of people who would otherwise drink. After all, there are laws against stealing and running red lights too. Should we do away with those, simply because they don't stop people from stealing or breaking traffic laws? Of course not.

The point that Doomed Planet made was valid. Three years is not a big difference in terms of time, but it can be a huge difference in the maturation of a person. I know for a fact that there were things I did as a 16-18 year old I would never have considered as a 21-22 year old, because in retrospect, they were foolishly dangerous. Not that I didn't still do foolishly dangerous stuff at 21, but the common sense gained in those three years kept me from doing nearly as much of it as when I was 18.

I would rather see the drinking age eradicated, because when we make it a right of passage, we contribute to the drinking culture. It is a symbol of adulthood, and teenagers think it's cool, but I don't know if that would be the case to such an extreme degree if they were allowed to have it from the very beginning.

Niteguy mentioned a rise in alcohol/automobile related deaths when the drinking age was lowered previously, and any state that opts to lower the drinking age now can probably expect the same results, because the drinking culture is already established, but I don't think those results would be permanent.

Additionally, if the U.S. followed the example of countries like Austria, drinking and driving would hold much higher penalties, and it wouldn't happen nearly as often. First offense...lose your license for ten years. Second offense...lose it forever.

That should read, "Only a fool would think the current standard keeps everyone under 21 from drinking; it clearly does not"

It most certainly does keep some from drinking under the age of 21. Not everyone has friends or family that will risk their own necks to buy underage drinkers alcohol. Where I grew up, even at parties they'd make sure no one uder age is drinking in their house because they could get busted. Most of the time, they weren't even allowed in the house/apartment/dorm.

Being from a family that has both a long history of alcoholism and drug/alcohol counselors(not both...well at the same time anyway), my opinion is biased because I've seen how much worse alcohol is than nearly any drug out there. I really hate to see people compare voting to drinking alcohol, or going to war to drinking alcohol. Go ahead and ask anyone who's been to war and who's a recovering alcoholic, they'll take war anyday.

The debate is moot anyways. MADD and SADD have the issue politicized that any good points in favor of loosening restrictions are immediately vilified. You see its not about drinking, or even personal responsibility, its about 13 year olds being run down by drunk drivers. A vote for the lowered drinking age is a vote for MURDER!

Or at least that's where the debate is nationally. For goodness' sake they just lowered the legal limit to .08% from .1% even though there is NO scientific proof of any significance that there is any difference in how well an individual can drive at .08 than he can at .1.

It's stealth temperance. 100,000 grieving mothers are impossible to resist apparently.

But there is alot more to this data to think about then just alcohol. Like these were the years that we started making cars faster, like the Corvette, Camaro, Mustangs and so forth. These cars were built to go faster then crashes the could withstand. Safety features like seatbelt did come to widespread use until later, and airbags, crumble zones and other features were not used until atleast the 80's. You still hear today about deaths that could be avoided if they only had been wearing their seat belts.

I think it would be appropriate to lower it to 18 for beer and wine. Why? Well I can tell you from experience that because alcohol must be sneaked around before 21 underagers have a tendency to buy hard liquor because its easier to hide which IMO and probably in reality too leads to worse consequences (ie: its easier to land in the hospital drinking hard liquor than beer or wine). I think that if 18 year olds could legally aquire beer and wine they wouldn't go to the trouble to find 21 year olds and over to buy them harder drinks. They might even be more inclined to drink with their elders because it would be legal. I think a change like that would change the drinking culture in the country for the better.

erratic_energy you have a good point

What works in Europe/Mexico/Canada/etc does not necessarily work in America and that is because, as previous posters have touched on, because of the drinking culture.
I'm 20 and I still agree that 21 is just what works in America.
If this was a perfect world there would be no drinking age and parents would monitor their children and the adults (18+) would monitor themselves. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and alcohol is a much bigger deal here than it is in the 18+ countries.

However, I can't help but feel somewhat hypocritical about this since I am all for less "parenting" by my government but I do think you learn a lot about responsibility in those 3 years. Heck, I'm only two years older than when I turned 18 and I am frankly *boggled* by how irresponsible and reckless I was.

I don't know anyone who hasn't matured a great deal even a few years after turning 18.

However, a lowering of the age could possibly occur in the future, in my opinion, if we had tougher drunk driving laws. I generally equate drunk driving with waving around a pistol, it's reckless to those who are around you.

If someone kills themselves while driving drunk it's a tragedy but it is also self-inflicted and avoidable; it is those injured and/or killed by drunk drivers that I'm concerned with and frankly I think the laws in place now are laughable.

My neighbor at my old apartment complex was caught not only driving drunk (and WHILE drinking) but doing such with his 3 year old son. His license was suspended for 6 months (which he, of course, did not adhere to) and he had to take a class. He was drinking and driving again soon after.

So, I suppose until drunk driving laws are changed I'll be sitting comfortably in the 21+ camp.

First Post

I think you guys are coming at it from the wrong perspective. First we must look at the issue/law for why it is even there. So, we ask the question, "Why is the legal drinking age 21?" Well, it is there in an attempt to save american lives. Period. As you know, when the drinking age had been lowered, injury and death rates increase, and when the drinking age had been increased, death and injury rates declined. (Note: Death and Injury is usually caused by car related accidents.)So, the obvious choice is increase the drinking age. You can bring up the debate saying "well, the rest of the world is not as strict as america and the drinking age is ~18 and they're doing fine concerning alcahol related death and injury rates." Here, we have to bring up an opportunity cost. If we compare our situation with the rest of the world, the rest of the world has a higher restriction on owning a license and driving car. Japan for example, people must be older and pay a lot more money than people in the USA to obtain their drivers' licenses and in return are less likely to have a car, thus are more inclined to use public transportation, decreasing the rate of death by motor vehicle accidents (the number one leading killer in alcohol related deaths). You can also say the same thing about Europe. So, if we lower the drinking age, we would need to give up something (the opportunity cost), and that something would most likely be driving. So, the questions changes. Should we give up our current driving privileges so we can legally drink at a younger age? I dont think so. Personally, I'd rather drive at the age of 16 and receive a drivers license for next to nothing and obtain alcohol illegally than waiting until im 21 to drive a car and pay $3,000 to have a license.

Also, I like the idea about lowering the drinking age regarding beer and wine only, but you can get just as messed up off of beer and wine than with hard liquor. So it defeats the purpose of the high drinking age.

Comments?

Sorry.. its 2am.. I hope this made sense

Yet, we allow men and women at the age of 18 sign up for the military and die for this country. Or, as in Vietnam, we force them too. The logic here is what? You cannot drink at the age of 18 at the off chance you may kill yourself or others but we can sign you up to send you to a foreign country and die for a cause you may or not believe in. Saving lives has nothing to do with it, saving face does. (By the way, I do find drinking and driving despicable, this post should in no way defend that action by anyone 18 or older.)

When I was 18 it was legal to drink beer and wine.
It got changed back to 21 when I turned I think 21 or 22.
Do I think they should change it back for wine and beer? NO.
One of the reasons they changed it back to 21 was it was so hard to keep track of who was 21 and able to drink harder liquor.
My youngest is 20 and does he drink yes occasionally but at home or at a friend's home and stays the night.
Do kids have fake ID'S Hell yes. I worked with a lot of 18 -20 yr olds that do.
I just think it makes it harder for most and it really does cut down on the drinking and driving and accidents.

I think it should should stay where it is because it is bad enough that 21 year olds are not mature enough to handle the drinking limits the body can take, 18 year olds (who would be in High School or beginning college) would be worse.

If it was up to me, i would RAISE it

There are some Dennis supporters that believe the drinking age should be lowered. I don't know where Dennis stands on this issue. My personal belief is that the drinking age should be raised to 27. I don't think college students should be drinking.

I'd say that was the closest anyone's come to a justification for keeping the US drinking age at 21.

Here in the UK we have for many years been legally allowed to drink in public under parental supervision from 14 (or is it 16?), and become freely able to purchase alcohol from 18. We also have some of the safest roads in the world, but of the accidents we do have, a somehwat higher proportion are alcohol related than in the USA, particularly in terms of pedestrians that have been drinking being hit by drivers who haven't. (Drink driving campaigns have been pretty successful.)

However, the culture of almost all European nations is far more entwined with drinking than in the USA (picture a meal in France with no wine; imagine a non-uniformed German and one of the most likely pictures is of an overwieght man in lederhosen swilling steins of beer; imagine a British social event not involving the royals and the chances are you think of a pub).

The image I have of American drinkers tends to be of either street drunks swigging from brown paper bags (why is that law there - what's wrong with drinking in public? Don't you have beer gardens?) or of AA meetings. Characters in US drama (film, TV or theatre) don't just drink for fun - certainly not beer or spirits, anyway.

They only seem to be allowed to be shown drinking in public, for example at a bar, for the purpose of comedy (all the bar regulars in Cheers were shown as sad cases of one type or anthoer, even if they were likeable), or to get across some kind of message about the character (spirit drinkers as either hard men on the edge, for good or ill, or as pitiful alcoholics, and so on.)

All these are just stereotypes, of course, but they do reveal something about the place of alcohol in US culture. Certainly there seems to be a very strong taboo in the US about being, or being seen to be, drunk.

Europeans don't seem to be nearly so averse to the idea of inebriation. It is certainly seen as a separate issue from alcoholism. Indeed, here, alcoholics are usually seen as dependent on booze to function normally, and are rarely thought of as actually drunk, except in the context of homeless "winos". In my experienced, albeit limited, Americans seem more willing to believe that someone who is merely drunk has an alcohol problem that requires treatment. (I don't mean to imply that there is any material difference between European and American alcoholism, merly that the public or layman's idea of what constitutes alcoholism appears to be different. I don't know enough about it to know who has the more accurate idea - it may well be Americans).

While this does cause health and social problems, it is as inconceivable that Europeans would introduce stricter laws to regulate or ban alcohol consumption as it is that Americans would seriously restrict gun ownership, if not more so.

And long may it remain so. *hic*

It should be lowered to 18. If you're old enough to move out of your parents home, be tried as an adult, die for your country, buy a fire arm, vote and drive a vehicle without adult supervision, then you're old enough to drink. It's plain hypocrisy on the part of our nation to think otherwise.

I don't necessarily buy the argument that the three years of time is some great maturation period for those considering alcoholic beverages. I would argue that we mature on the basis of our experience rather than time, that early experience with alcohol would lead to better alcohol responsibility at 21 than a first encounter at the current legal age.

Will some people still abuse alcohol as dependent drunks or drive under the influence? Yes, but they do regardless of their age. Age alone does not signify maturity, responsibility or intelligence.

With D.A.R.E. programs and traditional curriculum dealing with health it seems to me every 18 year-old should already be properly educated about the use of alcohol. There isn't that much to teach about alcohol that they might learn some additional secrets in the following three years... except faster ways to make their favorite drinks perhaps.

Some of us are able to learn and trust our knowledge without incurring bad experiences. Others learn and mature more from past mistakes. Either way I see nothing in the three years separating legal adults from the legal drinking age to warrant prohibiting the practice from adults. I support lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18.

Well the reason it gets raised is that the 18 year olds convince everyone by way of death and destruction that it was a mistake to lower the age.

We will lose over 40,000 people this year to traffic deaths alone and about half that is due to drunk driving. Granted the under 21 group is not resopnsible for all that but young people in general have the highest rates of accidents etc. And since drunk drivers kill lots of innocent prople we need not extend the right to drink if we think it will be a danger to all of us.

There is another thing that people can do at 18: if they decide to join the military, depending on their job, they can get a TOP SECRET security clearance. At 18. So let's see, are we saying here? That someone is not responsible enough to drink a beer, but is responsable enough to handle information vital to the security of our nation? How is that not preposterous? How is it right punishing a whole group of individuals, legal adults, by what somebody in that group might or might not do? Pretty much, people between the ages of 18-20 are expected to have the responsibilites of adults, but the rights of children.

This is yet another example of the idiot-proof society: Idiots continue being idiots, and the normal suffer.

I don't believe it is hypocritical to prevent 18 year olds from having certain rights. If I remember correctly, 18 year olds during the late 70s and early 80s had a horrible rate of death and injury due to alcohol impaired driving. I'd be interested in seeing the statistical comparison between 18 year olds on one hand, and 21 year olds on the other. Think there's a difference? I'll wager that the latter group has a lower rate of death and injury.

Your completely right, If 18 yr olds are allowed to join the army and even vote, i believe that the drinking age should be lowered back to 18.

You have to understand, as some of you have already pointed out, that it's not always the young teenagers that get themselves into trouble, but 21 and over also.

We made the same arguments when I was 18. The reality is that when it was made 18 the death rate went up. As said above it is not hypocritical to have the drinking age set above the voting age.

You will have a tough time getting killed or killing others in a car crash voting. And no one can stop you from drinking at home.

i think that drinking age should remain as it is now. while it can be argued that if one has the right to vote, be tried in court etc, why not drink. i think the reason is that buying arms and voting do not alter the state of a person's mind and make them act in ways they would not do in full consciousness. those activities dont cause car crashes and deaths. its true that the maturity of a person cannot be determined by age, but setting a higher limit does ensure a little more maturity when the society is taken as a whole.

This would be the best choice.

If you've experienced alcohol since age 5...then its not a big deal as you get older...

you have learned it and learned the complications....you know its affects, you are mature with it...

Its not a good idea to bring out the legality of drinking at an age when drivers are still amateur to novice....and not only make it legal, but make it hyped...

If alcohol was legal from birth...there would not be nearly as many alcohol related problems....etc. etc. etc.

agreed :
would be a little difficult to make parents introdice alcohol form preschool though

You make a really good point here. I remember in college, that a lot of 21 year olds didn't have that much more common sense than some 18 year olds. There are high school seniors who have more of a level head than college sophomores. I believe this to be the case when parents are overindulgent, or continue to let their college age "kids" have an extended childhood.

With that being said, I do believe that 18 year olds were statistically more likely to cause car accidents than 21 year olds by and large. At least with the latter group, you can somewhat watch them at bars and on the way home as the police do. With the former group, they might be buying for their friends, or consuming at house parties. Now don't get me wrong, 21 year olds do this as well, but I would wager that 18 year olds are more of a road hazard than 21 year olds statistically.


Great Britain is having this debate that we had some twenty odd years ago, they will probably be raising their drinking age from 18 as well. Must be some kind of universal phenomen.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3101132.stm

There is no need to introduce it.

As a kid...you saw your parents drink in a restaraunt and always asked them if you could try it...well...

when that request came, your parents let you taste. It probably tasted pretty damn good...but then they said...yeah, wait 15 more years hunny.

Instead...if they could just order you one...and you left stumbling...would it matter? You would still be in the care of your parents...and learning the affects of alcohol. You would learn it, and it wouldn't become something that is mystic...that you would want to delve into and obliterate yourself with when you become a teenager, or 21 and are already out partying, driving yourself, and living by yourself.

Can everyone see the blatant simplicity of this concept?

While I don't have a specific link, I do remember hearing that moderate drinking by parents provides a good model for kids. It's when the parents overindulge or try and ignore the issue completely, that you have kids(besides the obvious knot-heads) go out and get blitzed. The value of moderation is one that would do our biggie-super sized, overindulged culture well. Perhaps if we had people who drank responsibly, as opposed to getting drunk and acting the fool in front of the children, the drinking age would've remained at 18.

What gets me are the parents who "rescue" their kid from trouble. I live in a small town, and this occurs more often than you think. Rather than let their kid face consequences for their actions, the little rascal is saved by mommy and daddy--now what does that teach the kid? While I agree that raising the drinking age was perhaps the most responsible thing to do, such a change would not be needed if moderation and responsibility was carried out to a greater extent by parents.

Strange to say that its always kids drinking and driving that cause all the accidents, when teenagers cause just a good amount of accidents whether or not they are drinking, but I hardly see the same rallying to raise the age of driving.

I think that there shouldnt be a drinking age, as its not up to the state what I drink and eat.

I have never known a single person under the age of 21 that had repeated problems trying to get wasted.

PARENTS: i challenge you to read my post, so maybe you can reminisce on what its like to be 17 in high school.. and also its best to know the strategy of your enemy (your child).. because thats what its all about... And also, the more you are realistic about your child most likely growing up to drink in high-school and college, the more they will respect you and less likely they will get in trouble... acknowledge that they drink, you don't have to encourage it, just don't give stupid rules like "NO ALCOHOL EVER".. doesnt work, besides if they follow rules like that they'll never grow up earning an ounce of respect from most kids.. not because they don't drink, but because they are just... well.. pansies.

well, on for the info.

I am currently 20 years old, a member of a fraternity and, like my friends, get wasted on an average of 3 to 4 times a week.



Oh also, I like the drinking age at 21, if you could believe it... It gives under age kids a chance to use their brain, think critically, develop strategy, and learn business skills... because you know were not doing that in school.

I went to High School in Germany (then West Germany), and of course if you can reach the bar you are served there. And yet, I saw far less stupid alcohol usage (getting sick, drunken driving, drunken fights, etc) among youth there than I saw when returning to the U.S.

Back in the U.S. going to college, I was shocked to see how little self-control college age American kids had, even compared to Jr. High School aged kids in Europe!

It seems to me that because its forbidden fruit, its much more tempting. And since it has to be hidden from sight for kids, everybody is afraid to call and ask for a ride home if they are too drunk to safely drive, ask for help if they are really sick, and etc.

I suspect that many of our problems with drunken driving, violence, rape and etc in the U.S.A. have to do with this prohabition.

On the other hand, Britain has a drinking age of 18 and we have an awful lot of stupid alcohol usage. Certainly in the UK it is considered more acceptable to get very very drunk than it is in Germany, so to a certain extent the difference may be cultural.

Personally I feel that there isn't much difference between an 18 yr old and a 21 yr old - so not much point in having a drinking age of 21.

Good point Abs. I’m certain there are those between the ages of 18-21 who could handle the responsibility of drinking, but to NiteGuys point, it’s statistically proven that there are far too many that don’t. Legislating social/culture activities like this are generally geared to the lowest denominator or to the majority.

I’ve always felt it would be ‘fair’ to have a drinking test to determine each individuals limit to where they are too impaired to drive. Certainly a lot of us have seen a person drink 3 beers and suddenly they’re singing old navy songs and showing tattoo’s. Then there’s the person who can put away a 12 pack and you couldn’t tell. Since it’s really not practical to institute a ‘drinking license’ we must legislate to the lowest denominator (the teetotaler in this case). There will always be exceptions.

Same applies here: keep the drinking age at 21.

I teach part time at a local University and without question there’s a huge difference between incoming freshman and those who are ready to graduate (the majority are over 21). And in the capstone course I teach for seniors I’m constantly intrigued with the noticeable increase in maturity levels during the course of the semester (15 weeks).

The maturation process really starts to accelerate in these critical years. Let’s make sure we give everyone in this age group a chance to “grow up” and reach their potential.

I say no, and the higher the age the better. The reality is that drinking and driving is a blight on our country. Well over 300,000 people have died in the USA as a result of drunk driving in just the last 20 years. The number of fatalities per year has dropped significantly (but not enough) since the drinking age was increased from 18 to 21 in the 1980s. This in spite of the fact that there are more cars on the road today.
Here is some info by MADD about the 21 age restriction.
Here is a graph on drunk driving fatalities in the last 20 years in the USA.

Lowering the drinking age would accomplish nothing. On one hand, our culture is to blame for problems with alcoholism and drunk driving in this country. As long as it is socially acceptable to go out, get drunk and be stupid, people will do exactly that.

On the other, it is a matter of responsibility and while some 18 year olds may be more mature than other 21 year olds, as a whole age does correlate with experience, and until teenagers start learning to be more responsible about substances in general, the drinking age should stay where it is.

yes, the drinking age needs to be lower. It is entirely unfair that at 18 people are allowed to go to away to college, but get in serious legal trouble for walking, not driving, a block away from their dorm to a party.

Hm, this is a a completely different thread, but I find it rather idiotic that one is legally allowed to get a gun at age 18, while the legal drinking age is three years above that.

That being said, I do think that the drinking age should be lowered and fully agree with Billy Jean. Not to mention that if anyone wants to experiment enough, he will find a way to do so regardless of the law. In the teen years, 18 and 21 seem to have a huge difference...

There should be no drinking age. The parents should regulate their children's behavior. Of course, I can just imagine the outrage that would ensue if parents were actually told that their children are their problem, not the government's.
As far as 18-20 years olds, will anyone here seriously tell me that 18-20 year olds are mature enough to die for their country, get a security clearance, be given the death penalty, but not mature enough to drink a few beers? Makes perfect sense.

And the drunk driving stats don't mean a thing here. There already is a law against drunk driving, is there not? An 15 year old driving drunk and a 50 year old driving drunk, both do not belong on the road. We need to enforce laws that do make sense, not create more laws designed to idiot-proof society.

*Grins* Fair enough. . Interesting how that turns out, really.

Though I'm not really sure that having parents regulate drinking age would be all that wise, either.

Consider the amount of disfunctional households--those that really don't give a [expletive] about what happens to their kids, or those with have family members who are alchoholics themselves. Hardly good, and pretty dangerous to have a bunch of inebriated kids parading around holding an idiot-fest; who knows what could happen?

Even for the slightly more normal households, as I said before, if people want to experiment, they will. Parents don't always have as much control over their children as they think.

Let's see, the argument is, "If I'm old enough to enlist, and to vote, I'm old enough to drink."

When I was 18, I could be drafted; but I would have needed my parents signature to enlist, as I could not legally sign a contract until I was 21. I could not vote until I was 21. I also could not purchase car insurance until I was 21, so I didn't get my driver's license until I was 21. I had my first taste of beer that night after work, about 4 ounces was enough to put me under the table!

I never tolerated alcohol well, and rarely kept any in the house. When my oldest turned 21, I offered to buy her a first drink. She proceeded to tell me how much she had consumed during high school with her friends. I'm 58 now, and I've yet to drink as much as she'd had before she was 21. I wasn't able to "regulate her drinking," as I had been completely unaware of it!

I would personally like to see the age at which cigarette smoking is allowed raised to 21.

Some privileges of adulthood, such as voting, have been extended to 18 year olds. I recall that it was felt that it would encourage them to get involved in politics at an earlier age, and it was hoped it would help to erase voter apathy. Somehow, I suspect that if 18 year olds were given a choice between downing a six pack and standing in line for an hour to vote, voter apathy among those under 21 would rise. (Personal prejudice I admit.)

Old enough to fight for your country? Perhaps you do have a point there. How about lobbying for a national law that would allow any American Military Personnel with ID showing that they have graduated from boot camp, to legally purchase alcohol for personal consumption. At that point you have demonstrated a certain amount of discipline, you're likely away from home on a permanent basis, and if your personal behavior while drinking disgraces the uniform you're wearing, the military can deal with it.

Very interesting story curmudgeon! I never drank in high school, though I had plenty of opportunities. Not sure why I didn't, I guess I was just too scared to try it. I'd like to see a portion of the proceeds from alcohol profits be required to fund treatment clinics and counseling centers for those who suffer from what the liquor companies offer. Same kind of thing is in place in certain states with gambling establishments. Say 1 or 2%. Getting back to topic-I don't believe it's a contradiction that 18 year olds can't drink-we just need to make more modifications now(counseling etc,) that help others.

The way it works now, if you get caught drinking underage off base, you get in trouble twice, with civilian authorities, and with the military. So military personnel (hopefully more responsible, otherwise drinking is the least of our problems) actually get it WORSE than anyone else, should they get caught.

But that's not even the point. The point is, at the age of 18 people have all the responsibilities of adulthood. Why should they not have all the rights? In itself, drinking underage will not hurt anyone (except the person doing it, if done excessively).. All the arguments I hear are "DWI, fighting, etc." Well, don't we already have laws against all that? Why should people have a right taken away BEFORE they do something wrong? That's like taking away everybody's driving privileges to make sure they never drive recklessly.

I would say why it should be lowered (if not eradicated--Cyan had a good point about rite of passage way back), but that same argument has been given a million times by now. It just seems lacking in not following the spirit of the constitution; you should not have more responsibilities than rights.