College presidents and legislators discussing alcohol like grown-ups

[rebeccafrog]

I have always opposed a drinking age of 21. It's stupid that at 18, one can own property, vote, serve in the military, and enter into binding contracts, but one cannot have a glass of wine in one's own home. It is absolutely a good idea for the drinking age to be the same across all states: kids driving across state lines to get alcohol is a Bad

Comments

[avinsen]

I could be wrong, but I believe the active duty military are able to get drinks even if they are under 21.

I agree that a uniform drinking age is best. And I remember that as I turned 21 that drinking became a big deal because of the prohibition. But then, wouldn't the drinking age of 18 be the same? You turn 18, and all of your friends make a big deal out of drinking at 18. Like prohibition in the 20's, the drinking age elevates the act of drinking and makes the act of drinking the defacto coming of age ritual.

I don't think that kids should drink, since most don't have enough self control and sense to know what's best for them. But I don't think the current method of dealing with it works.

[rebeccafrog]

The difference between a drinking age of 21 and a drinking age of 18 is that for all other purposes, one is an adult at 18. Prior to the age of 18, it's up to your parents to keep you in line. If people were still considered children until age 21, I would have no problem with the drinking age being 21.

[avinsen]

That leads right to my point about the drinking age becoming the defacto right of passage. Honestly, I was drinking long before I was 21. I personally missed being grandfathered in by 26 days. But I did drink and my friends did as well. The big problem is in how we as a society elevate the act of drinking in a badge of adulthood. I think that's what the college presidents were talking about. Prohibition leads to clandestine behaviour. The 20's proved that. It would actually be more effective to marginalize the state of becoming of drinking age.

Not that I know how to do that mind you.

[qt_giant]

My personal preference is to abolish all drinking age laws, with the opinion that driving drunk is less likely to happen if the closet is already full of booze.
But to compensate they should make the penalty for any offense about 10 times higher if the offender is even slightly intoxicated. And if the offender is young enough to have (responsible?) parent/guardian, they should also get a similar penalty.
I would also classify giving alcohol to a child as child abuse, or something like that.

[rebeccafrog]

If giving alcohol to a child is child abuse, then there has to be a lower age limit for selling alcohol to a child. It is already classified as abuse to give alcohol to a child. The laws vary widely by state regarding parents allowing their minor children to drink alcohol in the safety of their own home, but if a child is in any way harmed because of alcohol furnished by their parents, Child Protective Services is very quick to swoop in and remove the child from the home.

[qt_giant]

If people could agree that "give alcohol to a child" already covers "selling alcohol to a child" then we wouldn't need a separate law with an age limit. Just let CPS define any age limits necessary to protect children.

[kastinkerbell]

The difference is that a parent providing alcohol to only their child in their home is a matter of parental responsibility of a minor, which is very different from a stranger selling them a product (a transaction that can turn exploitive).

I live in Minnesota, where it is legal for a parent to provide alcohol to their children in the confines of their home. You'd better bet that they will be allowed sips of wine/beer/whatnot and if they like it, they will be allowed an occasional small glass for dinner. I would be 100% against them procuring their own booze until they are of legal majority age. I sure as hell want to be the one in control of the consumption until they carry the full legal responsibilities of their actions.