Should There Be a Minimum Drinking Age?

[Qara-Tumen Khanate]

A significant percentage of the population has alcohol or marijuana before the legal age. I wouldn't support abolishing a minimum age for either, but within a safe home environment, teens should be able to enjoy some alcohol under their parents supervision. It wouldn't work out in all cases, but I think it would reduce harm. Otherwise, I am for an 18 years old drinking age.

[Pacomia]

Just because there's a law doesn't mean it can be enforced. It's like driving without a seat belt- technically illegal, but hard to enforce. Either way, it's your loss if you drink too early and have problems later on, just as it's your loss if you die in a car crash without your seat belt on. Keep the law, don't try any harder to enforce it.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I would support lowering the age to 18, mostly for the sake of consistancy. If I am old enough to take out a mortgage loan, or enlist in the army, or buy a car, I ought to be old enough to buy a bottle of beer.

IMO an adult is an adult if they're an adult, and disparate age limits for various adult activities is absurd.

Our ape ancestors didn't have automobiles or mortgage loans. But throwing poop at their enemies might've been the closest thing to their equivalent of "the army."

Our notions of adulthood are outdated relics of our evolutionary past. The appropriate age for ANY activity can ONLY be decided on a case-by-case basis.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

How about "children aren't allowed to buy it, or drink in bars without being supervised by adults, but parents should be allowed to give kids wine with supper"?

....because we don't allow kids to harm themselves just because their parents consent. That's ridiculous. That's like "let's allow kids to participate in child pornography, but only if a parent consents". What? That's not the point. If a kid is not mentally-competent to consent to something permanent being done to his body, then he can't consent, period. Parental consent doesn't change that.

Who says it's harmful? It's drinking to excess that's harmful, and that's what these laws are aimed at. Parental supervision might be more effective at teaching kids moderation than our current approach has been.

Child pornography is harmful regardless of parental supervision.

[Telconi]

I would support lowering the age to 18, mostly for the sake of consistancy. If I am old enough to take out a mortgage loan, or enlist in the army, or buy a car, I ought to be old enough to buy a bottle of beer.

IMO an adult is an adult if they're an adult, and disparate age limits for various adult activities is absurd.

Our ape ancestors didn't have automobiles or mortgage loans. But throwing poop at their enemies might've been the closest thing to their equivalent of "the army."

Our notions of adulthood are outdated relics of our evolutionary past. The appropriate age for ANY activity can ONLY be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Which is prohibitively complex, so we ballpark an average.

[Purgatio]

....because we don't allow kids to harm themselves just because their parents consent. That's ridiculous. That's like "let's allow kids to participate in child pornography, but only if a parent consents". What? That's not the point. If a kid is not mentally-competent to consent to something permanent being done to his body, then he can't consent, period. Parental consent doesn't change that.

Who says it's harmful? It's drinking to excess that's harmful, and that's what these laws are aimed at. Parental supervision might be more effective at teaching kids moderation than our current approach has been.

Child pornography is harmful regardless of parental supervision.

Yeah no the whole 'drinking in moderation' claim has been debunked:

http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/alcohol-use/news/news/2018/09/there-is-no-safe-level-of-alcohol,-new-study-confirms

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Our ape ancestors didn't have automobiles or mortgage loans. But throwing poop at their enemies might've been the closest thing to their equivalent of "the army."

Our notions of adulthood are outdated relics of our evolutionary past. The appropriate age for ANY activity can ONLY be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Which is prohibitively complex, so we ballpark an average.

Nonsense. Different activities have different reasons for an against allowing certain age groups to partake. There is no reason whatsoever to assign the same age to all of them.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Who says it's harmful? It's drinking to excess that's harmful, and that's what these laws are aimed at. Parental supervision might be more effective at teaching kids moderation than our current approach has been.

Child pornography is harmful regardless of parental supervision.

Yeah no the whole 'drinking in moderation' claim has been debunked:

http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/alcohol-use/news/news/2018/09/there-is-no-safe-level-of-alcohol,-new-study-confirms

No safe level of alcohol?

More like, no 100% safe level of alcohol. There's risks in everything we do.

But the question becomes, what's more harmful, parents allowing kids some wine so they learn moderation, or society fighting the uphill battle against underage drinking so that teens do this in the woods, unsupervised, away from law enforcement who could break up any resulting fights, and getting their alcohol second-hand from some sketchy figure who might've mixed it with date rape drugs?

[Telconi]

Which is prohibitively complex, so we ballpark an average.

Nonsense. Different activities have different reasons for an against allowing certain age groups to partake. There is no reason whatsoever to assign the same age to all of them.

Why? Why is someone old enough to make a potentially catastrophic permanent life decision, but not another?

[Purgatio]

Yeah no the whole 'drinking in moderation' claim has been debunked:

http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/alcohol-use/news/news/2018/09/there-is-no-safe-level-of-alcohol,-new-study-confirms

No safe level of alcohol?

More like, no 100% safe level of alcohol. There's risks in everything we do.

But the question becomes, what's more harmful, parents allowing kids some wine so they learn moderation, or society fighting the uphill battle against underage drinking so that teens do this in the woods, unsupervised, away from law enforcement who could break up any resulting fights, and getting their alcohol second-hand from some sketchy figure who might've mixed it with date rape drugs?

There's no issue with an adult making a choice over his own body, if an adult wants to wreck his own body he's allowed to under the law, as long as he doesn't harm anyone else. It's not the same with children. Children can't consent to the destruction of their own body and the impairment of their physical health and well-being. When they are mentally-competent to do so (I don't even think the drinking age needs to be that high, around 16 most people are mentally-capable of weighing the pros and cons of drinking and making an informed choice) then yes adults should be allowed to drink themselves to death even if they are willing to assume the risk. Not for children.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Nonsense. Different activities have different reasons for an against allowing certain age groups to partake. There is no reason whatsoever to assign the same age to all of them.

Why? Why is someone old enough to make a potentially catastrophic permanent life decision, but not another?

Firstly, they aren't all equally "potentially catastrophic."

Secondly, it's not just a difference of degree but of kind. They have different reasons to be potentially catastrophic, some of which experience and/or knowledge are more effective against than others.

Thirdly, adulthood has no monopoly on "potentially catastrophic" decisions. There are kids who choke on hot dogs, yet we don't age-restrict hot dogs. (Probably because of the inconvenience of having to go without food where only hot dogs are available... but not being allowed to drive because of one's age can also be inconvenient.)

Hell, we're on a webforum, a medium generally known to be considered inappropriate for those under 13. Should we have to either raise our age limit to fit everything else, lower everything else to fit ours, or dispense with our age limits altogether?

I think not.

No safe level of alcohol?

More like, no 100% safe level of alcohol. There's risks in everything we do.

But the question becomes, what's more harmful, parents allowing kids some wine so they learn moderation, or society fighting the uphill battle against underage drinking so that teens do this in the woods, unsupervised, away from law enforcement who could break up any resulting fights, and getting their alcohol second-hand from some sketchy figure who might've mixed it with date rape drugs?

There's no issue with an adult making a choice over his own body, if an adult wants to wreck his own body he's allowed to under the law, as long as he doesn't harm anyone else. It's not the same with children. Children can't consent to the destruction of their own body and the impairment of their physical health and well-being. When they are mentally-competent to do so (I don't even think the drinking age needs to be that high, around 16 most people are mentally-capable of weighing the pros and cons of drinking and making an informed choice) then yes adults should be allowed to drink themselves to death even if they are willing to assume the risk. Not for children.

Answer the question.

[Purgatio]

Why? Why is someone old enough to make a potentially catastrophic permanent life decision, but not another?

Firstly, they aren't all equally "potentially catastrophic."

Secondly, it's not just a difference of degree but of kind. They have different reasons to be potentially catastrophic, some of which experience and/or knowledge are more effective against than others.

Thirdly, adulthood has no monopoly on "potentially catastrophic" decisions. There are kids who choke on hot dogs, yet we don't age-restrict hot dogs. (Probably because of the inconvenience of having to go without food where only hot dogs are available... but not being allowed to drive because of one's age can also be inconvenient.)

Hell, we're on a webforum, a medium generally known to be considered inappropriate for those under 13. Should we have to either raise our age limit to fit everything else, lower everything else to fit ours, or dispense with our age limits altogether?

I think not.

There's no issue with an adult making a choice over his own body, if an adult wants to wreck his own body he's allowed to under the law, as long as he doesn't harm anyone else. It's not the same with children. Children can't consent to the destruction of their own body and the impairment of their physical health and well-being. When they are mentally-competent to do so (I don't even think the drinking age needs to be that high, around 16 most people are mentally-capable of weighing the pros and cons of drinking and making an informed choice) then yes adults should be allowed to drink themselves to death even if they are willing to assume the risk. Not for children.

Answer the question.

Dude, if you can teach children safe sex without having sex with them, pretty sure you can teach them safe drinking without getting them to physically-destroy their health and bodies.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Firstly, they aren't all equally "potentially catastrophic."

Secondly, it's not just a difference of degree but of kind. They have different reasons to be potentially catastrophic, some of which experience and/or knowledge are more effective against than others.

Thirdly, adulthood has no monopoly on "potentially catastrophic" decisions. There are kids who choke on hot dogs, yet we don't age-restrict hot dogs. (Probably because of the inconvenience of having to go without food where only hot dogs are available... but not being allowed to drive because of one's age can also be inconvenient.)

Hell, we're on a webforum, a medium generally known to be considered inappropriate for those under 13. Should we have to either raise our age limit to fit everything else, lower everything else to fit ours, or dispense with our age limits altogether?

I think not.



Answer the question.

Dude, if you can teach children safe sex without having sex with them, pretty sure you can teach them safe drinking without getting them to physically-destroy their health and bodies.

And yet, for whatever reason, that wasn't your first response to my question. If you actually thought that was a good answer, why did you dodge the question?

Anyway, it's a false equivalence. The biology of sexual activity is pretty obvious. Teenagers masturbate, so they know the sensations involved. Then sex ed goes over the risks involved, which is basically filling the gaps left by our evolutionary-intuitive understanding of sex.

The biology of drug use not only has less evolutionarily precedent, but the education system has tarnished its own credibility on the matter with its lies about cannabis. Kids hear crap like "weed's addictive" and smoke weed and find out it isn't. They know they can trust personal experience more than that lobbyist-influenced health curriculum.

Of course, all this is still putting aside the harm that unsupervised drinking does that supervised drinking might not.

[Telconi]

Dude, if you can teach children safe sex without having sex with them, pretty sure you can teach them safe drinking without getting them to physically-destroy their health and bodies.

And yet, for whatever reason, that wasn't your first response to my question. If you actually thought that was a good answer, why did you dodge the question?

Anyway, it's a false equivalence. The biology of sexual activity is pretty obvious. Teenagers masturbate, so they know the sensations involved. Then sex ed goes over the risks involved, which is basically filling the gaps left by our evolutionary-intuitive understanding of sex.

The biology of drug use not only has less evolutionarily precedent, but the education system has tarnished its own credibility on the matter with its lies about cannabis. Kids hear crap like "weed's addictive" and smoke weed and find out it isn't. They know they can trust personal experience more than that lobbyist-influenced health curriculum.

Of course, all this is still putting aside the harm that unsupervised drinking does that supervised drinking might not.

But weed is addictive...

[Purgatio]

Dude, if you can teach children safe sex without having sex with them, pretty sure you can teach them safe drinking without getting them to physically-destroy their health and bodies.

And yet, for whatever reason, that wasn't your first response to my question. If you actually thought that was a good answer, why did you dodge the question?

Anyway, it's a false equivalence. The biology of sexual activity is pretty obvious. Teenagers masturbate, so they know the sensations involved. Then sex ed goes over the risks involved, which is basically filling the gaps left by our evolutionary-intuitive understanding of sex.

The biology of drug use not only has less evolutionarily precedent, but the education system has tarnished its own credibility on the matter with its lies about cannabis. Kids hear crap like "weed's addictive" and smoke weed and find out it isn't. They know they can trust personal experience more than that lobbyist-influenced health curriculum.

Of course, all this is still putting aside the harm that unsupervised drinking does that supervised drinking might not.

Because consent is a dealbreaker for me whatever the supposed 'educational' benefits, hence why that was my first response. A kid destroying his body without the mental competence to consent is bad regardless of whatever 'incidental side-benefits' or 'good consequence' you can point to. But clearly your response showed me you, amazingly, shockingly, you don't regard it as a moral deal-breaker for someone's body to be physically-injured without their consent, so I decided to shift to my even-if argument (ie even-if you think it's okay for kids to destroy their bodies without consent, here's why your argument's still wrong), why even then I don't agree with your alleged beneficial consequence.

Secondly, the fact that current information about weed is wrong doesn't get away from my argument that you don't need to give a kid poison to teach him how to handle that poison in a less-dangerous fashion in future. Teach your kid about the importance of drinking slowly (although obviously if you're a responsible parent you should discourage your kid from drinking in future, but naturally add that if he's gonna drink he should not it in a way that minimises harm to himself), testing his limits, not going too fast, keeping track of the impact one shot has on his mental faculties, does he feel nauseous, don't drink on an empty stomach, none of this requires giving an underage kid who can't consent to the physical injury of his own body the poison in question. In the same way as you don't need to physically have sex with a kid to explain how to have safe sex or how consent works. You just teach him all the important facts.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

And yet, for whatever reason, that wasn't your first response to my question. If you actually thought that was a good answer, why did you dodge the question?

Anyway, it's a false equivalence. The biology of sexual activity is pretty obvious. Teenagers masturbate, so they know the sensations involved. Then sex ed goes over the risks involved, which is basically filling the gaps left by our evolutionary-intuitive understanding of sex.

The biology of drug use not only has less evolutionarily precedent, but the education system has tarnished its own credibility on the matter with its lies about cannabis. Kids hear crap like "weed's addictive" and smoke weed and find out it isn't. They know they can trust personal experience more than that lobbyist-influenced health curriculum.

Of course, all this is still putting aside the harm that unsupervised drinking does that supervised drinking might not.

Because consent is a dealbreaker for me whatever the supposed 'educational' benefits, hence why that was my first response. A kid destroying his body without the mental competence to consent is bad regardless of whatever 'incidental side-benefits' or 'good consequence' you can point to. But clearly your response showed me you, amazingly, shockingly, you don't regard it as a moral deal-breaker for someone's body to be physically-injured without their consent, so I decided to shift to my even-if argument (ie even-if you think it's okay for kids to destroy their bodies without consent, here's why your argument's still wrong), why even then I don't agree with your alleged beneficial consequence.

Secondly, the fact that current information about weed is wrong doesn't get away from my argument that you don't need to give a kid poison to teach him how to handle that poison in a less-dangerous fashion in future. Teach your kid about the importance of drinking slowly (although obviously if you're a responsible parent you should discourage your kid from drinking in future, but naturally add that if he's gonna drink he should not it in a way that minimises harm to himself), testing his limits, not going too fast, keeping track of the impact one shot has on his mental faculties, does he feel nauseous, don't drink on an empty stomach, none of this requires giving an underage kid who can't consent to the physical injury of his own body the poison in question. In the same way as you don't need to physically have sex with a kid to explain how to have safe sex or how consent works. You just teach him all the important facts.

Does giving them junk food without vitamins constitute "physically injuring" them? No?

Then who gets to say what things that are still slightly-harmful at slight-amounts constitute "poisoning" them or not?

We tried enforcing minimum drinking age laws. We already saw the results. Let's try something different.

That you feel the need to make empty comparisons to incest to defend your position speaks to how little of a case you have.

[Ors Might]

Alcohol is literally poison, and with the number of adults irresponsibly making themselves sick and die, I don't think children should be even given the chance to play and outdrink their other fellow toddlers.

I mean, so is nutmeg. A lot of things we use as seasonings and to enhance flavor are, strictly speaking, poison.

That being said, alcohol is a bit stronger than your average seasoning cabinet so wanting to discourage people from overindulging in it isn’t a bad thing. I can certainly see the logic in a minimum age limit for drinking but if it isn’t proving effective, efforts and resources might be better spent on a different approach.

[Durzan]

Alcohol is literally poison, and with the number of adults irresponsibly making themselves sick and die, I don't think children should be even given the chance to play and outdrink their other fellow toddlers.

Who in the f**k gives booze to a toddler, legal or otherwise? No matter how negligent or irresponsible one is a parent, I don't think I've ever heard of that

I have. I got a friend in the UK who’s birth mother gave her alcohol when very young. Though I don’t know if she was a toddler when it started.

[Skyhooked]

But weed is addictive...

But c'mon dude! It's awesome! Like all pleasures of our world! (I admit, I never tried smoking weed. I guess, I never will.) Still...

[Australian rePublic]

Alcohol- The Cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems

So alcohol. Some countries allow everyone to drink it, irrespective of age, some only allow those above a certain age to drink, and other countries don't let anyone to drink at all

So, my question is- which is the best approach?

I believe that eliminating the drinking age all together is the best approach. And before you ask, no, it's because I am underage and want to drink. I am in mid-twenties, l above the world's highest drinking age of 21, and well above my country's drinking age of 18

In countries where there is no drinking age, or where the drinking age is unenforced, children learn to drink responsibly from a young. If 12 year olds have a glass of wine with dinner, they are accustomed to booze, and learn to drink in moderation.

However, if children are prohibited from drinking until they reach age x, then in many cases, they'll drink themselves stupid when they reach x birthday, (as people tend to over-indulge in things that they consume for the first time, legally or otherwise) and carry that habit with them throughout their lives. Further, if underaged children manage to get their hands on booze, they will also drink themselves stupid because they don't know how long it will be till they can get their hands on booze again. And the thing is, if you have a habit of drinking yourself stupid, you won't just magically start drinking responsibly when you turn 18, or whatever the minimum drinking age is.

To an underage person, there is no difference between full on prohibition and a minimum drinking age, and we all know how prohibition turned out for... every country that's tried it. If we teach responsible drinking from a young age, kids will carry that habit with them through life. In fact, countries with no or unenforced drinking ages have lower incidents of alcoholism than nations with enforced drinking ages, for the very reason that 12 y/os are taught to drink responsibly from a young age.

Well, that's my 2 cents, or should I say, that's my 18 cents (crickets chip). What's your 2 cents?

Side Note: I'm not an alcoholic, I rarely drink more than a glass of wine or so in an average month or so, (unless I attend an event, like a wedding, Christening, etc)

As a side note. At least in the US while you can't purchase or legally consume alcohol given to you by strangers. You CAN consume alcohol given to you by your parents before 21. It's less 'Kids shouldn't have alcohol at all' and more 'Kids should only be given Alcohol if their parents want them to have alcohol because Alcohol is dangerous.'

This actually varies by state. Whilst some states will allow booze for under 21s in some circumstances, other states won't let booze for under 21s at all. Hawaii, for example, bans all underage drinking, except for religious reason. Some other states don't even have that clause

[Australian rePublic]

Yes, there should. I mean, we can't have 15 year olds getting drunk. I say either 21 years old or 19.

We can't have 15 year olds getting drunk? Have you been living under a rock?

[Australian rePublic]

Who in the f**k gives booze to a toddler, legal or otherwise? No matter how negligent or irresponsible one is a parent, I don't think I've ever heard of that

It used to be pretty common to give teething babies a little whiskey.

Yes, that's true

[Scomagia]

Sure. It should be whatever the age of majority is.

[Australian rePublic]

It used to be pretty common to give teething babies a little whiskey.

And nursing mothers used to be advised to drink plenty of beer to increase their milk supply.

Yes, and people were advised that drawing a pint of blood would cure they're runny nose. Now we know better

[Scomagia]

Yes, there should. I mean, we can't have 15 year olds getting drunk. I say either 21 years old or 19.

We can't have 15 year olds getting drunk? Have you been living under a rock?

It's actually a bad thing for 15 year olds to get drunk. While a lot of them do, a lot don't because it's a shit thing to do with zero payoff.