Ideas on the legal drinking age.

[Littaly]

Over here we have 18 to drink and 20 to buy. It's kind of messed up, but nobody obeys it anyway so what's the use in changing?

 

[Inverse Skies]

It's 18 in Australia, and that seems to work out alright. Of course that is also the age that the majority of states let you get your full (if probationary) license which can cause a lot of problems. But I don't think the drinking age needs to be changed by any great degree.

 

[Sven und EIN HUND]

Whenever you're mature enough to know the consequences and drink responsibly in accordance with your knowledge of what could happen. I'm 16 and live in Australia and still get shitfaced at parties, not because I'm an ignorant fuck, but because it's fun... Yes, that may sound juvenile, but I'm responsible enough to not do anything seriously stupid

 

[Dys]

I've said it before and I've said it again, if you're an adult you should be treated as such. I don't care if that's at 18 or 21, but if you cannot drink alcohol, drive a car or motorbike (without bullshit restrictions), gamble or legally sign a contract then you also should not be able to be drafted into the army, charged as an adult in criminal prosecution or be excluded from child concession rates (child movie tickets and the like). On a similar note, I think that anyone who pays tax (so basicially anyone with a job) should have the right to vote, regardless of age. The level of blatant discrimination against young adults in western society is nothing short of disguisting...

 

[Seldon2639]

Your dollar sank the deepest of both mentioned currencies, you idiots even started this whole economic mess with your idiotic free-market and taking loans you can't pay back. Of course you've got an economy almost equal to Europe's, you're almost the size of Europe and with it massive amounts of resources and workers. But then again with the economic "dip" you're unemployment is 9.8% and that's about 30 million people without a job... France's 7% is +- 4.550.000 people, it's high but not as dramatic as the US rate.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but the French unemployment rate is 9.4% and the average of the EU unemployment rate is 8.9%. You also don't really seem to understand what actually went into the subprime loan crisis. Which is fine, I guess, but it might be helpful if you did some research into it. And, incidentally, most of the ginormous banks involved were multinational, and had huge branches in Europe.

Medically and technologically Europe is also doing fine and compared to you're massive amount of space, workers and resources, even better. I think you're forgetting that a huge part of Europe's industry is based on technology development and production of it, just mentioning Belgium, Ireland, Sweden and Germany. You know we actually helped with your stemcell research? And that a Flemish prof actually discovered a great deal about it? Just google: Catherine Verfaillie.

Um... Actually, both American and Europe are focused on service industries right now. But, you pointed out yourself that the EU is about the same size as America (though, about one third bigger in terms of population), and has roughly the same distribution of resources. I don't deny (nor should you infer that I deny) that Europe provides good research, and even innovation. My point, which you appear to have missed, is that neither side of the pond is being "owned" by the other. Some things we do better, some things you chaps do better. Don't take my argument to an illogical extreme.

Have no idea what you mean with the 2 months of vacation, you mean for schools or what do you mean? The south's doing fine and there are crazy people everywhere ... yeah you guys are the leading country in producing retards, Hillbillies in the south, republicans, your god damn ego of we're the best country in the world, no universal healthcare), you can buy weapons and ammo like it's normal in the US, enormous amount of corruption and criminality, most people there are homophobes, highest percentage of religious fanatics and idiots, a whole country based on a "supreme being" your presidents can fuck up everything and say :"God bless America" every freaking speech and you idiots would still cheer and your schools are very, very pathetic, you tards spend enormous amounts of money in the big sport stadiums and training halls but not enough in your education system, result: your basic education is below the average of Europe's and especially that of Belgium. Did you know Belgium has actually 1 of the best education systems of the world? But I'm not being ignorant and I'm willing to admit that there are good universities in the US, but basic education is lacking.

*whistles appreciatively* that is a mouthful. I'm not from the south, so I'm not sure why "you guys" is appropriate, but I digress. You seem to have an awful lot of hatred for America in general, and I'm kind of curious why. Yes, we have highly religious people, but so does any other country you can name. We have less gun control (which I disagree with, personally), and we do like our sporting events (though, Cricket is fairly popular across the Atlantic, from what I understand, as is Soccer). Also, not for nothing, but I do wonder if your fantastic Belgian education taught you to avoid run-on sentences. From the looks of it, no. Interestingly, our education system rates lower than Europe's because it's not a fair comparison. If you look at the data (and I encourage you to), America actually does better until about the fourth grade, after that there's a precipitous drop. Have you ever wondered why? Well, the comparison only takes into account those students in standard schools. In America, all students go to "standard" schools until 16 at minimum. In France (and much of Europe, and Japan) the "retards" are shunted off into "alternate" tracks. You're trying to compare all of American students to a much more select population of Europe. That's not fair. The reverse, incidentally, happens in healthcare comparisons. America gets whomped on those because they look at healthcare outcomes for the total population, not just those covered by insurance.

How hypocrite of you, just like the rest of your country btw but ok, you spend millions on the UN and now you're the big good American? You invade numerous countries to help the "government" and say they are a threat to national security. You bomb the hell out of innocent people and you're saviours? You invade Vietnam and bomb every piece of jungle with napalm and agent orange, killing thousands of innocents and you're the god damn saviours???
You invade Korea, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan (With this one I have to admit we're also there, Afghanistan has a chance to change but still, I'm not proud of nor would I want any of use there...), Cuba, ... the list keeps on going. And in most cases it's just to annoy and taunt Russia indirectly or any communist faction. You're a warmongering nation and you should feel ashamed of yourself. But no ! Let's glorify the whole the thing, it's good that we kill innocent men, women and children! So don't come here and say you're the big defenders of freedom you lousy hypocrite bastards...

Um... I can only name two we actually invaded in my lifetime (Iraq and Afganistan), and I agree that they were not good ideas. Welcome to the "Historian's Fallacy", also called "hindsight is 20/20". Reaching into my grand-parents generation, you only bring the total of actual invasions (excluding limited peacekeeping, as in Yemen or Somalia, or times we simply supported native rebels, as in Cuba) up to: Vietnam, Korea, Iraq (twice, though once because the UN told us to), and Afghanistan. Let's go one at a time. Vietnam began as a French problem following World War II (for you history buffs, the French held Vietnam as a colony, and the natives were restless), until they screwed the pooch and called in America to help. Korea was us defending our allies in South Korea from an invading North Korean force. I doubt you'd find many people who would say that stopping Kim Jong Il was a bad thing. Iraq was a fuck-up, I'll admit that. Afghanistan was legitimate, we messed it up, but we did have good reason to be there in the first place. Also, American forces specifically aim to avoid harming "innocent men, women, and children" (unlike, say, Belgian forces in the Congo). It's harder when your enemies use innocents as body shields.

But, if you want to open up the history file, let's go back to when Belgium had some power in the world community, and when France and England were fucking up whole swaths of Africa and the near east. Your king Leopold II basically bum-fucked the Congo until it bled. I'm surprised your fantastic education wouldn't have taught you about Congo Free State, and the wholesale slaughter of rubber harvesters. My point is this: compare American actions at the height of its power to European actions at the height of theirs. Don't compare America now to Europe now, since when you guys had the power, you did stuff far more awful than America has. But, you don't seem all that interested in fair comparisons to begin with.

The NATO HQ was built in Brussels and we play an active role, but then again we're a small country with a small army that we only use for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations
(Blue Helmets, mine sweeping, protection, sending food/water, helping to build infrastructure, schools, hospitals, etc...). So we're not doing anything in the UN and NATO according to you? Well my dear boy, you're information is truly terrible.
So if we don't go killing people with guns blazing like the Americans we're not helping?
This just proved another aspect of your sickening country.

My point, in case you missed it, was that America is the one who invests the infrastructure and manpower to do most of UN peacekeeping, and most NATO actions. Period. Full stop. I agree that humanitarian interests are very good (though America does that too, look up the Red Horse Squadron out of Bagram Airforce Base). I never said you're "not doing anything", merely that Americans fight and die for European interests, and at Europe's behest. We could all do better, but I doubt that any of your leaders would support America becoming isolationist again, and leaving all of Europe to fend for itself. Also, ask yourself where Europe would be without the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan.

And again at the end of your little post you say that you give millions to the UN. You're repeating yourself, is it the only good thing you actually did? And it's just another way of trying to keep up your image of being friendly lads who want to help the world.
So yeah, you donate a lot of money, woohoo, so does every other country in Europe and outside of it, oh and by the way we started like most of the biggest humanitarian organisations on the planet : Médecins Sans Frontières, Amnesty International, 11 11 11, Emergency Nutrition Network, Damien Fund, Red Cross, Oxfam, etc... it's a little more than what you mentioned don't you think? And this is just European operations which we finance, didn't even mention non-European.

Again, dear boy, you seem to be misinterpreting my words, or willfully misrepresenting them. Either you're really bad at reading English, or you're interest is less in a real discussion than in simply writing a diatribe. If the latter interests you, we can cease the illusion that you're mature enough (even with your supposedly superior education) to discuss the merits and flaws of America and Europe, and I can leave you to your jingoism and chauvinism. I never disputed that Europe has done good things in the world, and I didn't bring up the humanitarianism = goodness argument, you did.

It strikes me as odd that when you chaps do it, it's "humanitarianism", while when America does it, it's "just another way of trying to keep up [our] image". That's a rather hypocritical take, don't you think? Also, don't confuse place of "founding" and "operations which we finance". A large amount of the operational funding and actual staff of Doctors without Borders, the Red Cross, and Amnesty International come from America. Not to mention or own Peace Corps and similar organizations.

But, yeah, including all of that, you're getting owned, and being more like Europe would help the world a lot.

See, from my count, we're up to "not much better or worse", not "getting owned". But, you also keep changing the argument when it's not a slam-dunk that America is "getting owned" in an area. Like I offered, if you simply want a soapbox upon which to stand, I can get out of the way. If, however, you want a real discussion of the goods and evils of both sides of the pond, I'm happy to oblige.

 

[Zaksav91]

I think there should be a graduated drinking age...

18 for beer, wine, etc.
21 for hard alcohol

For the record, I'm from the US where the drinking age is 21. I know some countries use the graduated system, so I'd be curious how well people think it works.

Like this idea, but I don't really care because I don't drink so either way it's fine with me.

 

[incognito_me]

I myself personally believe if you are below 21 and in the military it should be legal for you to drink. If your old enough to kill and die for your country you are old enough to drink.

I agree 100%. The nation is willing to entrust you with potentially billions of dollars worth of equipment, the lives of your company, and the fate of the free world to you, but they can't entrust you with Guinness? What's up with that?

That's a funny way of looking at a realistic scenario. If they're giving you the ability to kill, or die trying, then why can't you drink? It's not like it's any worse than realizing you've got the potential to die. It's pretty much the same thing, actually. If you're mature enough to enroll, and realize you could die...then you're mature enough to drink, and realize you could die. It's as simple as that.

Also, on another note alcohol can cure Dementia. Scientifically proven fact. If it makes you stupid, then why does it cure stupid?

 

[Seanchaidh]

I don't think alcohol should be allowed at all. It causes so many problems.

I'm sure someone in the next few pages has already informed you of how many problems outlawing it can cause, but if not, it boils down to this: the rise of gangs in the 1920s happened because of alcohol prohibition and generally continues because of drug prohibition.

 

[axia777]

I say as long as you are old enough to die for your nation in war then you are old enough to drink. So I say lower it to 18 in all States. Of course we would need a whole shit load of new bars. That and getting laid at bars for everyone would suddenly get a whole lot easier. I always thought the 21 and over law was idiotic and Puritanical. I like the European way of looking a drinking way better.

 

[QuirkyTambourine]

I think 18's perfectly logical. I think of it in a realistic sense, and I may or may not get flamed to hell for this one.

So the drinking age is 21 right? I know that I had my first beer at 18 (I was a good high school student in that respect) but we'll say that the average high schooler goes to their first party at 16 just for the sake of simplicity and by what I saw at my high school. That's 5 years of underage, uncontrolled drinking. 5 years of only being able to get alcohol for one night typically, a party, so you might as well drink it all.

On the other hand, say the drinking age though is 18. Kids still have those parties at high school, and sure alcohol is a bit more accessible since half the senior class is of age, so those first two years don't really change. However, it's only two years before they're 18. Typically, kids turn 18 during/right after their senior year so they have the summer to party. This is a good time for them to learn their limits, before college.

Kids under today's drinking age have to hide their drinking if they're in college, and that's part of what makes it so much fun. The dangerous side of it comes from the fact that they don't really know how to party enough to get drunk, but not sick and/or die from it. We had 4 kids on campus die last year from consuming too much alcohol. I'm not saying that a drinking age at 18 would have saved them, but it probably wouldn't have hurt. I'm 19 for the record, but I do know my limits because I've experimented a bit. Never at parties, usually with my roommate while playing video games, see how many beers I needed to get pretty happily drunk, I once went one over and know now right where my limit is.

My other roommate came home absolutely trashed the other night, which may have been his intention and if it is, more power to him, but it was definitely dangerous for him. Let's just put it this way, he was drunk enough to manage to make my girlfriend feel uncomfortable by being a bit to handsy, but too drunk for me to actually get mad at him. I just kept pulling him off of her, slugging him in the arm and telling him to knock it off. He ended up passing out so badly on the couch that he wasn't even woken up by his friends yanking out small bits of his facial hair. Ugly, ugly night.

Maybe I'm just weird like that though.

 

[poohpiglet]

We need everyone's help to keep our children and young adults safe. Research makes it clear that the 'I drank when I was a kid and I'm okay' argument isn't good enough anymore. Underage drinkers, those who host underage drinking parties, and those who distribute alcohol to minors need to know they are being watched and reported.

RSA Course [http://www.rsacourseonline.com.au]

 

[Irriduccibilli]

Where I am from there are no drinking age, you can drink alchohol as a five year old if you want to, but you have to be 16 to purchase alchoholic drinks, and kids who's under 16 and drinks are often looked down upon. I find it kind of disturbing that you can screw another person mindless, but you can't offer them a drink afterwards (Its legal to have sex when you become 15)

 

[farscythe]

meh its 16 for beer n wine in holland 18 for the harder stuff n as ive moved to england its 18 here and id say the age where people start in both countrys is probably about 13 on the whole..sooner for some i guess..

so other than having more kids drinking outside in parks n alleys n causing trouble i dont think raising the age will make any difference (there will always be people of age willing to get alcohol for people who arent especially if the minors in question are girls.....)

 

[FamoFunk]

It's 18 here and I think that's the perfect age to start legally drinking (ok, probaly becaue I'm used to it)

I honestly think 21 is too long to wait, in my eyes you're an adult at 18 where you can make your own deciions and choices. One of them should be on drinking alcohol.

 

[SilentCom]

I myself personally believe if you are below 21 and in the military it should be legal for you to drink. If your old enough to kill and die for your country you are old enough to drink. That is just my opinion though.

I would like to hear other peoples ideas as well. Perhaps get a nice discussion going about different ideas.

Heh, I knew some people at my school who said "if you're old enough to take a bullet, you're old enough to take a shot [shot of alcohol]". The thing is, alcohol requires responsibility and the problem is that people don't auotmatically become responsible when they reach a certain age. Some people are responsible enough to consume alcohol even as a teenager while other people who are much older are much less responsible and will likely do something incredibly stupid while under the influence.

Yes, age has an influence in maturity and no, age isn't the only factor.

 

[ChaoticKraus]

I think there should be a graduated drinking age...

18 for beer, wine, etc.
21 for hard alcohol

For the record, I'm from the US where the drinking age is 21. I know some countries use the graduated system, so I'd be curious how well people think it works.

Here in Sweden we have 18 for beverages under 5% and 20 for everything else. The stronger stuff can only be bought from a special store owned by a state monopoly. Except at the bar/club/pub where it's 18 for everything.

It doesn't work very well, me (i'm 18) and most others of my age just see the rule as arbitrary and annoying. If we can buy those drinks in some places there's really no reason for us to not be able to do it anywhere else.

Thus we either buy our alcohol from older friends/relatives who get it for us or from the immense black market that exists. If the goverment would be able to properly regulate and tax that lost revenue it would create a win-win situation. We get safe and proper liquor and they get tax money.

Then again i hate the alcohol monopoly since it makes all kinds of alcohol very expensive compared to other countries. Oh, and i think that the drinking age should be 18. It's very reasonable IMO. I hate the fact that it's 21 in the states since it wrecked my plans of going there.

 

[almostgold]

I myself personally believe if you are below 21 and in the military it should be legal for you to drink. If your old enough to kill and die for your country you are old enough to drink.

I agree 100%. The nation is willing to entrust you with potentially billions of dollars worth of equipment, the lives of your company, and the fate of the free world to you, but they can't entrust you with Guinness? What's up with that?

With these guys. Show a military ID, you should be able to buy a drink anywhere in the country.

 

[Justice Shades]

As a non-American, I think the US drinking age of 21 is pretty silly. I mean, not to be able to buy alcohol is one thing, but the idea that I, as a 20-year-old, wouldn't be allowed to drink even the weakest beer if I lived in the US, seems ludicrous. I mean, for God's sake, five-year-olds can drink in private here in the UK.

In conclusion, some people just need to chill out and have a beer.

EDIT: Just realized I already posted on this thread. Damn, this is old.