Drinking Age in the USA

[Raza]

Here's the code for Wyoming DUI arrest:

"A person younger than twenty-one (21) years of age shall not operate or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state with an alcohol concentration of two one-hundredths of one percent (0.02%) or more."

Pennsylvania is the same way. 

[ifcar]

Why does the federal government regulate this anyway? Shouldn't this be a state issue - or is it like the 55 mph speed limit and federal minimum wage laws?

Hey, we don't have a 55 mph limit anymore.

[2o6]

Maybe we shouldn't have dumb kids that have to stay in high school after they're 18.

I'll be 18 when I graduate, and I started on time.

[3.0L V6]

Hey, we don't have a 55 mph limit anymore.

I know - I was just drawing a blank on some other analogies for the situation. I remember it being phased out in the 1990s.

[TurboDan]

I'm in daily contact with underage drinkers. The illegality doesn't seem to be the appeal to them.

People like to drink because, well, it feels good and it promotes a fun atmosphere. That has nothing to do with it's legality. However, what does have to do with legality is the concept of binge drinking. When there is access to alcohol, the 18-20 group drinks incredibly excessively because it is not normally available "on demand" and you party when you can. That is when people start getting into the most trouble.

[Rupert]

I can't imagine that would fly politically. It's a prime number, for crying out loud!

Also, college freshmen seem to be among the biggest idiot partiers, according to my sources in the freshman community. 19 wouldn't help them.

College freshman are idiot partiers because, OMG, suddenly they have all this freedom to do stuff they couldn't do in high school, or because, OMG, all these other people are suddenly there to drink with. A lower drinking age certainly wouldn't harm them, because there is nothing in their way, anyway. It's not like MIPs stop anyone.

In fact, a lower drinking age might promote more responsible drinking, because kids might be more exposed to responsible drinking by their older peers (or not, probably depends on the person and their friends), and parents might be more likely to pass on more responsible behavior.

[ifcar]

People like to drink because, well, it feels good and it promotes a fun atmosphere. That has nothing to do with it's legality. However, what does have to do with legality is the concept of binge drinking. When there is access to alcohol, the 18-20 group drinks incredibly excessively because it is not normally available "on demand" and you party when you can. That is when people start getting into the most trouble.

Among the people I know, I've seen no behavior difference people who are 21 vs. 20.

[dazzleman]

You talk as if your experience is definitive, but you lead a very sheltered life.

[ifcar]

You talk as if your experience is definitive, but you lead a very sheltered life.

I think I know more college students than, say, you.

All I've been saying in this thread is that my experience isn't at all lining up with the statements people who are not in college have been making about college students. Take that as you will.

[Tave]

I know a lot of college kids too. From what I can tell the drinking habits of the seniors are vastly different from those of the freshmen.

[bing_oh]

This is a very iffy discussion for me. On one hand, I can see some of the arguments for lowering the drinking age. On the other, as an experienced LEO, I can say that the single most problem-causing drug (in my personal experience) is by and far alcohol. I can also say that, besides the "regular customers" who have serious alcohol problems, the people who usually cause the most problems while intoxicated are people between the ages of 21-25. I've also delt with more than a few intoxicated people under the age of 21 and the differences in maturity level and decision-making are usually quite evident the younger you go...most of us absolutely despise high school underage parties because the kids are a huge pain in the ass (runners, hiders, whiney kids and parents, etc), while older college-age parties are usually populated with relatively easy to get along with folks.

I really don't think I could deal with an 18 year old drinking age. Too many immature HS kids still at that point. 19? 20? Possibly, but I'd still be leery.

[Raza]

I know a lot of college kids too. From what I can tell the drinking habits of the seniors are vastly different from those of the freshmen.

I can't speak for many others (oddly enough, as much of an alcoholic as I am, most of my friends in college didn't drink heavily), but my drinking habits absolutely changed as I got older.  I drank less, but more often. 

[Raza]

This is a very iffy discussion for me. On one hand, I can see some of the arguments for lowering the drinking age. On the other, as an experienced LEO, I can say that the single most problem-causing drug (in my personal experience) is by and far alcohol. I can also say that, besides the "regular customers" who have serious alcohol problems, the people who usually cause the most problems while intoxicated are people between the ages of 21-25. I've also delt with more than a few intoxicated people under the age of 21 and the differences in maturity level and decision-making are usually quite evident the younger you go...most of us absolutely despise high school underage parties because the kids are a huge pain in the ass (runners, hiders, whiney kids and parents, etc), while older college-age parties are usually populated with relatively easy to get along with folks.

I really don't think I could deal with an 18 year old drinking age. Too many immature HS kids still at that point. 19? 20? Possibly, but I'd still be leery.

But why does any of that matter?  How does an 18 year old, or 16, or 14, or 12 year old drinking affect anything you do until some other law is broken?  I am in favor of strict DUI laws because that puts other people in danger.  I'm not in favor of restricting personal rights for no reason other than to restrict them.  Get rid of the minimum drinking age, and those "underage" parties you go to break will be simple noise violations and what not; no more runners, no more hiders, no more parents. 

Maturity coming with age is a funny thing, because it doesn't really come with age.  I was much less mature five or six years ago, and my attitude towards alcohol was very different, but then again, over the last five or six years, I've been through quite a bit and had quite a lot to drink.  Age and experience go hand and hand, but I think time of exposure matters more than age.  If you start the move to independence at a younger age, people will be more mature at a younger age.  That's my theory, anyway.

[TBR]

I know a lot of college kids too. From what I can tell the drinking habits of the seniors are vastly different from those of the freshmen.

Definitely.

[the Teuton]

The real problem here isn't age; it's the ability to use alcohol responsibly. That's a cultural thing.

Personally, I think anyone who is actively serving in the military or defending our country's freedoms should be able to purchase alcohol legally regardless of age. As it is, an 18-year-old can purchase Everclear on a military base without much of a problem here. I know people who have, and Everclear is illegal in PA.

But responsibility -- how do you instill that in people so that it's not abused as frequently and so that people don't act as recklessly under the influence of alcohol?

[Colonel Cadillac]

My school's number 5 on the "Lots of Hard Liquor" list and number 19 on the party schools list on Princeton Review, and I'd say there's not much of a difference in drinking attitudes between a 20 year old and a 21 year old. However, New Orleans is notoriously lax when it comes to underage drinking, so we tend to grow out of alcohol being essentially "legal" by the time we're 21 anyways. I can say that it was considerably more exciting to go buy alcohol in Connecticut when I turned 21 than it was here. I got the opportunity to pass down my fake ID here, that was the big allure of turning 21 here.

[Raza]

But responsibility -- how do you instill that in people so that it's not abused as frequently and so that people don't act as recklessly under the influence of alcohol?

It doesn't matter. 

[the Teuton]

It doesn't matter. 

There's a social responsibility with personal liberties to keep the general public safe. Laws are designed to protect people from one another.

[Raza]

There's a social responsibility with personal liberties to keep the general public safe. Laws are designed to protect people from one another.

If you assault someone, sober or not, it's still a crime. 
Driving under the influence is a crime, however, you can be charged with negligent homicide or vehicular manslaughter sober or not.


Laws aren't designed to protect people from one another, that's just a lie we tell ourselves; they are designed to punish those who break them.  Laws absolutely should not be in place to protect people from themselves.  Anything that does not violate the rights of anyone else should be legal.  If I want to shoot heroin into my eyeballs and play video games all day, then I should be allowed to do so.  If I want to shoot heroin into my eyeballs and go out for a ride, that shouldn't be allowed because it endangers other people.

If a 16 year old has a drink, he violates the rights of no one else.  He endangers no one.  The use of any intoxicant should be absolutely legal, as it violates the rights of nor endangers the life of anyone.  Specific activities under the influence, however are illegal, and should remain that way if they indeed endanger other people.

[the Teuton]

But in opening the gateway for access to such substances, you're inviting irrational behavior. That irrational behavior will kill someone.

[Raza]

But in opening the gateway for access to such substances, you're inviting irrational behavior. That irrational behavior will kill someone.

And the person who kills someone will be punished. 

A wise man once said that freedom is dangerous.  Deal with the danger or embrace totalitarianism. 

[the Teuton]

And the person who kills someone will be punished. 

A wise man once said that freedom is dangerous.  Deal with the danger or embrace totalitarianism. 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there has to be some kind of minimal regulation, lest we have a State of Nature filled with chaos.

[FoMoJo]

But why does any of that matter?  How does an 18 year old, or 16, or 14, or 12 year old drinking affect anything you do until some other law is broken?  I am in favor of strict DUI laws because that puts other people in danger.  I'm not in favor of restricting personal rights for no reason other than to restrict them.  Get rid of the minimum drinking age, and those "underage" parties you go to break will be simple noise violations and what not; no more runners, no more hiders, no more parents. 

Maturity coming with age is a funny thing, because it doesn't really come with age.  I was much less mature five or six years ago, and my attitude towards alcohol was very different, but then again, over the last five or six years, I've been through quite a bit and had quite a lot to drink.  Age and experience go hand and hand, but I think time of exposure matters more than age.  If you start the move to independence at a younger age, people will be more mature at a younger age.  That's my theory, anyway.

I think it's pretty obvious that laws regulating drinking age are pretty useless.  However, when this type of discussion comes up, I think it's important to consider the physiology.  It should be obvious to most by now, through all the research that has been published, that the brain is not fully developed until a person is about 25.  More importantly, the part of the brain that is still under development, through adolescent until about 25, is the Frontal lobe?self-control, judgment, emotional regulation; restructured in teen years; essentially, the part responsible for making responsible decisions...Adolescent Brain Development.

The entire aspect of telling young people not to do anything stupid is kind of useless - especially when they see their parents doing it - because their ability to judge rationally has not been fully formed.  The best that can be done is to make them aware of the consequences, as clearly as can be explained, and hope for the best.  This, of course, is up to the parents.  As for the notion that "if their old enough to join the military and die for their country they should be old enough to drink" is absurd, imo, as someone 18 years old should never be put in the position of having to die for their country.  Leave that part to the adults.

This type of information...Research on humans by Brown, et al. (2000) has shown the first concrete evidence that heavy, on-going alcohol use by adolescents can impair brain functioning. Brown?s research on 15 and 16 year olds showed cognitive impairments in teen alcohol abusers, compared with non-abusing peers, even weeks after they stop drinking. This suggests that abuse of alcohol by teens may have long-term negative effects in the make up of their brains. should be made available to all teenagers and let them make of it what they will.  If they have enough sense to recognize that excessive drinking will cause long-term brain damage it may sober them enough to avoid drinking too much.  If, at that stage, they do not have sense enough to take heed, they are a lost cause anyways.

[Raza]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there has to be some kind of minimal regulation, lest we have a State of Nature filled with chaos.

There is regulation.  There is the justice system. 

What you're suggesting, and yes, what we have in place, is akin to making penises illegal in people above puberty age because they could be used to rape someone.  Or guns illegal because they could be used to shoot someone. 

Another wise man (though far less wise than the first one) once said something along the lines of "those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."  I do not believe he was talking only of unwarranted wire taps, but of much, much more than that.

At some point, you have to draw a line in the sand.

[Raza]

I think it's pretty obvious that laws regulating drinking age are pretty useless.  However, when this type of discussion comes up, I think it's important to consider the physiology.  It should be obvious to most by now, through all the research that has been published, that the brain is not fully developed until a person is about 25.  More importantly, the part of the brain that is still under development, through adolescent until about 25, is the Frontal lobe?self-control, judgment, emotional regulation; restructured in teen years; essentially, the part responsible for making responsible decisions...Adolescent Brain Development.

The entire aspect of telling young people not to do anything stupid is kind of useless - especially when they see their parents doing it - because their ability to judge rationally has not been fully formed.  The best that can be done is to make them aware of the consequences, as clearly as can be explained, and hope for the best.  This, of course, is up to the parents.  As for the notion that "if their old enough to join the military and die for their country they should be old enough to drink" is absurd, imo, as someone 18 years old should never be put in the position of having to die for their country.  Leave that part to the adults.

This type of information...Research on humans by Brown, et al. (2000) has shown the first concrete evidence that heavy, on-going alcohol use by adolescents can impair brain functioning. Brown?s research on 15 and 16 year olds showed cognitive impairments in teen alcohol abusers, compared with non-abusing peers, even weeks after they stop drinking. This suggests that abuse of alcohol by teens may have long-term negative effects in the make up of their brains. should be made available to all teenagers and let them make of it what they will.  If they have enough sense to recognize that excessive drinking will cause long-term brain damage it may sober them enough to avoid drinking too much.  If, at that stage, they do not have sense enough to take heed, they are a lost cause anyways.

And I believe people should be informed of the possible ill effects.  But it should be left up to them, and until they are legal adults, their parents, to decide what to do with their own bodies and lives.  Not me.  Not you.  Not the government.

Let's use me as an example.  I smoke.  I am well educated on the negative effects of smoking.  Yet, I chose to start and continuing smoking at a somewhat regular interval.  I am an intelligent and educated young man who made the conscious decision to shorten my own life by engaging in a vice.  I was not "deceived" by the tobacco companies.  I was not tricked into smoking.  I made a decision of my own free will with all the information available to me.  Do I smoke around people who do not wish to smoke?  No, I do not.  They have a right to not breathe smoke, as much as I have the right to breathe it.  Laws that prohibit smoking in certain places make sense (though I disagree with smoking bans in bars; if a smoking ban is indeed better for businesses, then they should be allowed to adopt or deny that rule in their own establishments without government regulation).  Were I a father, I wouldn't want people blowing smoke on my children, for example.  But no one has any right to tell me what I can and cannot put into my own body. 

[FoMoJo]

And I believe people should be informed of the possible ill effects.  But it should be left up to them, and until they are legal adults, their parents, to decide what to do with their own bodies and lives.  Not me.  Not you.  Not the government.

So, we agree. 

However, I believe that there should be a better effort to make, especially, young people aware of the consequences of their actions.  In too many cases, the parents are too ignorant or disinterested to do that.  In the past, cultural taboos would be in place in order to protect youth from themselves.  That has mostly been diassembled in contemporary Western societies.

Let's use me as an example.  I smoke.  I am well educated on the negative effects of smoking.  Yet, I chose to start and continuing smoking at a somewhat regular interval.  I am an intelligent and educated young man who made the conscious decision to shorten my own life by engaging in a vice.  I was not "deceived" by the tobacco companies.  I was not tricked into smoking.  I made a decision of my own free will with all the information available to me.  Do I smoke around people who do not wish to smoke?  No, I do not.  They have a right to not breathe smoke, as much as I have the right to breathe it.  Laws that prohibit smoking in certain places make sense (though I disagree with smoking bans in bars; if a smoking ban is indeed better for businesses, then they should be allowed to adopt or deny that rule in their own establishments without government regulation).  Were I a father, I wouldn't want people blowing smoke on my children, for example.  But no one has any right to tell me what I can and cannot put into my own body. 

[Raza]

So, we agree. 

However, I believe that there should be a better effort to make, especially, young people aware of the consequences of their actions.  In too many cases, the parents are too ignorant or disinterested to do that.  In the past, cultural taboos would be in place in order to protect youth from themselves.  That has mostly been diassembled in contemporary Western societies.

Then, yes, we do agree. 

[MaxPower]

Here's the code for Wyoming DUI arrest:

"A person younger than twenty-one (21) years of age shall not operate or be in actual physical control of a vehicle in this state with an alcohol concentration of two one-hundredths of one percent (0.02%) or more."

Yeah, actually (I'm assuming not intentionally) you reinforced my point by quoting not the Wyoming DUI statute but Wyoming's  "Unlawful operation of vehicle by youthful driver with detectable alcohol concentration."  That's not the same thing as DUI.  The statute you quoted is a strict ban on minors driving with .02+, which is different from whether or not a person is DUI (and the BAC presumptions that appertain to that).

[nickdrinkwater]

Well, the age here is 18.  We still have many teenagers below 18 getting their hands on alcohol.

[Tave]

Yeah, actually (I'm assuming not intentionally) you reinforced my point by quoting not the Wyoming DUI statute but Wyoming's  "Unlawful operation of vehicle by youthful driver with detectable alcohol concentration."  That's not the same thing as DUI.  The statute you quoted is a strict ban on minors driving with .02+, which is different from whether or not a person is DUI (and the BAC presumptions that appertain to that).

You're over thinking it man. It's a law that imposes DUI sanctions on minor operators regardless of BAC. It is grouped with DUI in the code (W.S. 31-5-233 and W.S. 31-5-234), and it repeatedly references the DUI statute and cites back to it.

Besides, your argument to me was:

That may be in some places, but I know here it's a violation of license restriction, not DUI.  DUI is reserved for .08+.  The penalties are much more lenient for VLR and its an entirely different crime.

Clearly, it is not a VLR in Wyoming, and it is an entirely similar crime to DUI.




And more practically, I can tell you that my friend's insurance company and employer treated it as a DUI.