Colleges Ask, "Should We Lower Drinking Age?"

[curious_george_43545]

Well, being 18 almost 19, I can say it's fairly easy for just about everyone my age to access alcohol if they want. I could drink right now if I wanted.

It doesn't matter what the age limit is, I'd drink the same amount probably. I just wouldn't have to be sneaky about it if I do decide to drink.

[Dan Lambskin]

The legal age now is 21 and I'm positive that lot of people drink from the age 18-20. So does anyone think that lowering the legal age to 18 would cause more people the age of 15-17 to drink?

i think it would be negligible...between a group of kids i'm sure one of them has an older sibling, cousin, whatever that will buy for them...or you can always try standing outside a party store and offer some drunk $10 to buy you a case

[great gretzky]

The legal age now is 21 and I'm positive that lot of people drink from the age 18-20. So does anyone think that lowering the legal age to 18 would cause more people the age of 15-17 to drink?

i think it would be negligible...between a group of kids i'm sure one of them has an older sibling, cousin, whatever that will buy for them...or you can always try standing outside a party store and offer some drunk $10 to buy you a case

people are kidding themselves if they think kids that age don't already drink.

Of course during all of this it kind of makes me laugh sometimes. People are so worried about weed becoming legal, of course a drug dealer has no impetus to card kids.

There are tons of things that by eliminating them we would be safer. I mean even free speech, we would be better of sans KKK and Aryan this and that. But they are allowed. That is why I think the MADD and SADD groups need to understand and stand down a bit.

I mean its absurd that you can vote, go to war, get an abortion, sit on a jury, move out of your parents house, smoke cigarettes, but you can't drink? It's just illogical. Considering that driving isn't a right, perhaps moving that to 21 is the move. I mean I didn't get my license until 17 (Jersey). But if they made it 18, for all practical purposes, I probably wouldn't have NEEDED one until 21. Breaks would have stunk, but I certainly didn't need one on campus.

I think we would be a lot better off if the age was lowered, the booze taxed more, and MADD and SADD had to do more fund raising. Use the taxes, funds and awareness to supply more mass transit where appropriate, or at least ride share programs in less dense areas. It's kind of weird, living in DC, there are definitely "areas" that are zoned for concentrations for bars and stuff (adam's morgan)-- which raises its own issues of fights, debauchery, tomfoolery, etc. On the other hand, you can get there fairly easily (could be better) by subway or bus, you know to station more cops there, you know not to live there for noise etc. I think in some ways keeping it cordoned is good too.

[markj11]

Man growing up 30 minutes was Louisianna when it was still 18 was great. As soon as we got our liscense, 15, we would fake them to be 18.

[Art Vandelay]

The day they outlaw tomfoolery, I'm out of here.

[great gretzky]

The day they outlaw tomfoolery, I'm out of here.

baldersdash.

[bigh0rt]

The legal age now is 21 and I'm positive that lot of people drink from the age 18-20. So does anyone think that lowering the legal age to 18 would cause more people the age of 15-17 to drink?

i think it would be negligible...between a group of kids i'm sure one of them has an older sibling, cousin, whatever that will buy for them...or you can always try standing outside a party store and offer some drunk $10 to buy you a case

people are kidding themselves if they think kids that age don't already drink.

Of course during all of this it kind of makes me laugh sometimes. People are so worried about weed becoming legal, of course a drug dealer has no impetus to card kids.

There are tons of things that by eliminating them we would be safer. I mean even free speech, we would be better of sans KKK and Aryan this and that. But they are allowed. That is why I think the MADD and SADD groups need to understand and stand down a bit.

I mean its absurd that you can vote, go to war, get an abortion, sit on a jury, move out of your parents house, smoke cigarettes, but you can't drink? It's just illogical. Considering that driving isn't a right, perhaps moving that to 21 is the move. I mean I didn't get my license until 17 (Jersey). But if they made it 18, for all practical purposes, I probably wouldn't have NEEDED one until 21. Breaks would have stunk, but I certainly didn't need one on campus.

I think we would be a lot better off if the age was lowered, the booze taxed more, and MADD and SADD had to do more fund raising. Use the taxes, funds and awareness to supply more mass transit where appropriate, or at least ride share programs in less dense areas. It's kind of weird, living in DC, there are definitely "areas" that are zoned for concentrations for bars and stuff (adam's morgan)-- which raises its own issues of fights, debauchery, tomfoolery, etc. On the other hand, you can get there fairly easily (could be better) by subway or bus, you know to station more cops there, you know not to live there for noise etc. I think in some ways keeping it cordoned is good too.

Not everyone has that luxury. Going to college, living on a campus, not necessitating a car. There are people out there who need their own transportation to get them to and from work every day at 18, hell, at 16. I, myself, was in a similar situation to you, and I was fortunate to live in a city during college, so I could get a bus or cab to wherever I needed to go, but after my Freshman year I always had my car anyway.

The only thing that would really get me uproarious was if they outlawed debauchery.

[Mugrila]

I see nothing wrong with lowering the drinking age. If you put the booze on a pedestal instead of just treating it like a part of a meal, then you run into problems. Another issue is parents educating and setting a good example, but we all know that's an even bigger problem.

[great gretzky]

well there is no perfect answer, I grant that. I guess my overall point is driving is technically not a right. And they need to do something to make public transportation more viable -- something you rarely hear from the drunk driving organizations -- because I think more of them prefer the teetotalism lifestyle and think others should as well.

Public transit is so key for so many reasons. Not to mention that i loved living in New York and DC for that reason. No designated driver, etc.

[Amazinz]

A significant portion of our population lives in areas where public transportation is not feasible.

I wouldn't champion a reduction in the drinking age but I wouldn't vote against it either. If you're an adult at 18 in every other facet of our society than you should probably be an adult in this instance too even if it has a dark side.

I can't blame drunk driving orgs for fighting it though. I doubt it has anything to do with "teetotalism lifestyle". These people are from all walks of life.