Friday, August 22, 2008

Lower the Drinking Age

In an article on www.msn.com, those who support lowering the drinking age to 18--among these supporters are many college presidents--were criticized by "a wave of criticism from health experts, transportation officials, government leaders and opponents of drunken driving."

So an 18 year old cannot decide for him or herself whether or not to have a beer/shot/glass, etc. because an 18 year old is not responsible/educated/temperate/mature enough to know when he or she has had enough.

Is that it?

How absurd, then.

At age 18, a person is responsible/educated/temperate/mature enough to vote in any public election--playing an important role in who controls the largest nuclear arsenal on the Earth.

But an 18 year old cannot be trusted with fermented beverages!

At age 18, a person can enlist in the military, be trained and equipped to kill (or die--though the training tries to minimize the latter and maximize the former)
, deployed in a foreign land--let's say Iraq or Afghanistan (just for shits and giggles)--but he or she is not old enough to order a glass of chianti (with faver beans) at the freaking Olive Garden?

Either raise the voting age and the minimum age for enlistment in the military, or drop the drinking age. I don't care how many mom's with too much time on their hands (and lonely and desperate for some kind of attention) stand in the way.

6 comments:

  1. Good points, Aristos. And since I never go to the bar anymore anyways, I won't be annoyed by the immature 18-20 year olds. I started going to the bar and legally buying alcohol at 19, although across the river in Canada. I wonder how much business the Windsor clubs would lose if Michigan lowered its drinking age?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Golf Guy9:37 AM

    The drinking age, voting age, driving age, and military enlistment age are all mutually exclusive. All those if..then arguments are invalid. The driving age should be raised to 18, the voting age to 21, the drinking age should be left at 21 and enlistment in the military should be mandatory for both males and females at the age of 18.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mandatory military service, are you kidding? The draft was evil enough, and now you're going to say, "Hey, you can't vote or drink, but I'm going to deploy you into a hot zone because the politicians that you never had the chance to vote for have placed you in harm's way."

    The problem with using age as a factor for anything is that what people really want is maturity. There is no real difference in a man the day before he turns forty and the day that he turns forty. All we know is that at age forty, he is really, really, really, really old. Before long he'll be at that age when he considers all kids to be "punks" and thinks that they shouldn't drive, vote, or drink--and that they should have to be in the military regardless of their desires.

    A better idea would be for there to be no standing army whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fats Domino Theory5:29 PM

    No standing army? But how will we stop the communists from invading Canada?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Surrealist.6:59 PM

    I for one would like to not be sent to a very hot place when I turn 18, as I burn and dry out easily, and it's no use trying to intimidate an enemy when your soldiers look like Nordic raisins.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The age limitations on drinking are intrinsically arbitrary. As such, if they exist at all, they should serve some purpose. Currently, a drinking age of 21 fails at achieving any useful end. Most youths are not reasonably exposed to alcohol before college, at which point there exists a lovely new combination of available boos and freedom (read: no parents). This only encourages binging. And since persons are not of legal age, it is still taboo to encourage safe drinking habits like designated drivers.

    Even ignoring the government's (esp the fed's) lack of standing in this matter, such an age promotes no good consequences, unless black markets for alcohol and binging in new environments with a new found lack of supervision are good results.

    The drinking age should be somewhere around 16, and the consequences of bad behavior should be higher. Higher rates of enforcement, combined with high probability of punishment results in lower rates of incidence. For more empirical analysis, look at the crime research of Gary Becker and Steven Levitt.

    ReplyDelete

Bill of Rights