So as to not violate the integrity of the Pilarz thread, I bring the drinking age topic to the Superbar.
In 2008 this was proposed by some rather prominent university leaders:
http://www.theamethystinitiative.org/
In my opinion, it still makes sense five years later.
I agree wholeheartedly. Making something taboo yet attainable only makes it more desirable. There will always be those that abuse alcohol, but I'd rather see kids learn to handle it responsibly. I'm especially not a fan of the driving age being lower than the drinking age.
Agree in general. 19 seems right. 18 puts it in the hands of HS sophomores with an older sibling. It was way to accessible to HS students whe the age was 18.
Quote from: real chili 83 on September 24, 2013, 08:12:01 PM
Agree in general. 19 seems right. 18 puts it in the hands of HS sophomores with an older sibling. It was way to accessible to HS students whe the age was 18.
The legal age when I was in HS was 21. We never had problems getting our hands on alcohol. I'm probably more radical than most, but I'd go down to 16 on drinking age and up to 18 on driving age.
Quote from: brewcity77 on September 24, 2013, 08:21:59 PM
The legal age when I was in HS was 21. We never had problems getting our hands on alcohol. I'm probably more radical than most, but I'd go down to 16 on drinking age and up to 18 on driving age.
I would agree with this. It works great in Germany. They end up learning to drink responsibly at home with their parents early in life. Later, the nostalgia is gone and they are generally more responsible.
Also, the driving age cuts down on a lot of related issues.
I think 18 for wine and beer 21 for vodka whiskey rum etc that way people can build up a tolerance and be exposed but not be downing shots all their life. I'm sure it wouldn't work as bars would throw a fit (as an ex bouncer I know I'd hate it) but that's just what I think it should be.
Bring back prohibition.
I've always thought 19 was the right number.
Quote from: real chili 83 on September 24, 2013, 08:12:01 PM
Agree in general. 19 seems right. 18 puts it in the hands of HS sophomores with an older sibling. It was way to accessible to HS students whe the age was 18.
This is what I always thought also. 19 keeps it legally out of high schools for the most part.
My wife grew up in Poland and there is no drinking age, but you have to be 18 to purchase alcohol and it doesn't seem to be an issue.
As a side note, she visited family this summer and her dad said countrywide they've recently been cracking down hard on drunk driving.
Quote from: brewcity77 on September 24, 2013, 08:21:59 PM
The legal age when I was in HS was 21. We never had problems getting our hands on alcohol. I'm probably more radical than most, but I'd go down to 16 on drinking age and up to 18 on driving age.
Ugh. Have high school kids that need to be shuttled all over and you'll know that having them drive is worth every penny of extra insurance you pay.
And I think the drinking age should be 18. Old enough to vote...old enough to join the military...old enough to drink.
I actually like 21.
If you are 19 right now, and you are caught with a beer, a lot of people shrug that off.
If you make the drinking age 19, are we ok with 17yr olds drinking? It's a sliding scale.
Now, a lower drinking age will encourage kids to get out of the basement and into a bar/controlled environment (so that's a positive), but overall, I think 21 is good.
three months to go for me
article today on when kids are deemed adults...18 or is it now 25
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2430573/An-adult-18-Not-Adolescence-ends-25-prevent-young-people-getting-inferiority-complex.html
18
If you are "deemed" responsible enough to sign for a car loan that lasts 36-72 months and have a credit card but not responsible enough to buy a 6 pack. Seems absolutely ridiculous.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on September 24, 2013, 11:00:07 PM
I think 18 for wine and beer 21 for vodka whiskey rum etc that way people can build up a tolerance and be exposed but not be downing shots all their life. I'm sure it wouldn't work as bars would throw a fit (as an ex bouncer I know I'd hate it) but that's just what I think it should be.
Under this, you'd still be dealing with the allure of something you can't have. After six months of drinking beer, a 19 year-old will want liquor. Plus, your tolerance isn't necessarily built across all platforms so the idea of "starting" with beers or wines and graduating to liquors as a form of cautious exposure wouldn't work for most teenagers.
You have to take the mystique out of it all for it to be handled appropriately. American society isn't built to handle this issue intelligently.
BTW, I would also argue that changing the drinking age to 21 has actually worsened the drinking culture on campus. As I mentioned in the other thread, I would rather have my kids drinking in a bar or at a campus sponsored event where there is control. When you see problems such as binge drinking, drinking that leads to sexual assault etc, they almost always come from private parties in an uncontrolled environment.
Quote from: Terror Skink on September 25, 2013, 09:13:01 AM
BTW, I would also argue that changing the drinking age to 21 has actually worsened the drinking culture on campus. As I mentioned in the other thread, I would rather have my kids drinking in a bar or at a campus sponsored event where there is control. When you see problems such as binge drinking, drinking that leads to sexual assault etc, they almost always come from private parties in an uncontrolled environment.
what about when you just drink alone
Quote from: PBRme on September 25, 2013, 09:05:33 AM
18
If you are "deemed" responsible enough to sign for a car loan that lasts 36-72 months and have a credit card but not responsible enough to buy a 6 pack. Seems absolutely ridiculous.
I fail to see the logic in this. You can start working long before you're 18 and able to sign for a car loan. You can continue to work to pay the car loan and any responsible credit card purchases.
How does this relate to mind altering chemicals of the devil?
Really. If A & B are OK, why isn't C? Well, because C is completely different from A & B.
I think 21 is fine. I had zero problem stocking my dorm room with beer and liquor (years ago, but... the same methods can be employed today). If you want to drink in the community areas / hallways, put it in the red solo cup.
Quote from: Terror Skink on September 25, 2013, 09:13:01 AM
BTW, I would also argue that changing the drinking age to 21 has actually worsened the drinking culture on campus. As I mentioned in the other thread, I would rather have my kids drinking in a bar or at a campus sponsored event where there is control. When you see problems such as binge drinking, drinking that leads to sexual assault etc, they almost always come from private parties in an uncontrolled environment.
You know, I follow the logic, but is there anything statistical to support that?
I believe rape and sexual assaults are REPORTED more now than ever, but does that mean that they weren't happening way back when (when everybody was drinking at 17,18,19?)
Quote from: Golden Avalanche on September 25, 2013, 09:12:33 AM
You have to take the mystique out of it all for it to be handled appropriately. American society isn't built to handle this issue intelligently.
This is the key for me. People that compare it to Europe, or how it used to be, are looking at it too black and white. We may see a change a generation from now (similar to how things changed a generation ago going from 18 to 21) but it wouldn't have a profound impact in the near term. Kids will still drink underage, kids wont think "oh awesome, I can drink this Bud Light, why would I do shots?". Its very much systematic and should be considered as such.
Quote from: Guns n Ammo on September 25, 2013, 09:24:38 AM
You know, I follow the logic, but is there anything statistical to support that?
I believe rape and sexual assaults are REPORTED more now than ever, but does that mean that they weren't happening way back when (when everybody was drinking at 17,18,19?)
No I have nothing statistical to support it. I just think we have demonized something that didn't need to be demonized.
Quote from: Terror Skink on September 25, 2013, 09:13:01 AM
BTW, I would also argue that changing the drinking age to 21 has actually worsened the drinking culture on campus. As I mentioned in the other thread, I would rather have my kids drinking in a bar or at a campus sponsored event where there is control. When you see problems such as binge drinking, drinking that leads to sexual assault etc, they almost always come from private parties in an uncontrolled environment.
This is the point that the college presidents in that amethyst project are making. Treat the use of alcohol as a social experience in a controlled environment.
Quote from: Terror Skink on September 25, 2013, 09:13:01 AM
BTW, I would also argue that changing the drinking age to 21 has actually worsened the drinking culture on campus. As I mentioned in the other thread, I would rather have my kids drinking in a bar or at a campus sponsored event where there is control. When you see problems such as binge drinking, drinking that leads to sexual assault etc, they almost always come from private parties in an uncontrolled environment.
I think it's done it further down as well, which is why I support a lower drinking age than driving age. When I was in high school, I was frequently at parties where kids as young as 14 or 15 were binge drinking. It's a problem for everyone from high school age through 21, and honestly, I think it remaind a problem until probably 24 or 25 as it seems quite a few kids simply get accustomed to the binge drinking and suddenly beginning to do it legally doesn't change their tendencies.
I get your point about shuttling kids around, but from a responsibility standpoint, I think a younger age to drink than drive would simply be better. I do like the idea of allowing beer at a younger age than hard liquor.
The counter-argument is that there is still alcoholism in Europe where the laws are more lax. Another possible solution to my personal issue regarding the relative drinking and driving ages is simply more stringent drinking and driving laws. First time offense is a felony and 5 years in prison along with a permanent loss of license. Second offense is life in prison. I imagine that will give people more pause when they get behind the wheel, certainly more than the slap on the wrist system we have now.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on September 25, 2013, 07:29:14 AM
My wife grew up in Poland and there is no drinking age, but you have to be 18 to purchase alcohol and it doesn't seem to be an issue.
As a side note, she visited family this summer and her dad said countrywide they've recently been cracking down hard on drunk driving.
these two seem to contradict each other
Quote from: Terror Skink on September 25, 2013, 09:13:01 AM
BTW, I would also argue that changing the drinking age to 21 has actually worsened the drinking culture on campus. As I mentioned in the other thread, I would rather have my kids drinking in a bar or at a campus sponsored event where there is control. When you see problems such as binge drinking, drinking that leads to sexual assault etc, they almost always come from private parties in an uncontrolled environment.
Ask yourselves a question... "Why haven't the folks at Miller-Coors and A-B signed on to the Amethyst Initiative?" Well, the answer is that a drinking age of 21 makes the beer companies a LOT more money.
It's well-established that underage college students have virtually unfettered access to alcohol. It's also well-established that most college students have a limited budget when it comes to what they can spend on alcohol. So let's say that Skink Jr. is 21 and he has $20 to spend on alcohol this weekend... his $20 buys him perhaps six or seven bottles of Miller Lite at a bar, maybe less? Or he can use that same $20 to procure an entire case of Miller Lite from Pick N Save. But if Skink Jr is 19, he doesn't really have much of a choice... he's going to be waiting in the car at Pick N Save for his libations.
Now here's a little known fact... off-premise licensees (grocery stores, gas stations, liquor stores, etc.) pay the same prices to the distributor as do the on-premises licensees (bars, clubs, restaurants, etc.). So regardless of where Skink Jr. gets his beer, the beer companies get the same "profit" per bottle/can.
Therefore, where does Miller-Coors want Skink Jr. buying his beer? The grocery store, of course.
And what's the best way to keep him out of the bars? A 21 drinking age.
So back to Skink Sr.'s point... now Jr. is back in his dorm room, at a house party, whatever; he's not just in an "uncontrolled" environment, but
now he has 3-5x as many beers to consume than if he simply went to the bar with his buddies. No bouncers, no bartenders, no cameras to keep these kids, who are now probably twice as drunk as they would have been at a bar, and therefore twice as likely to get into (or cause) trouble. Statistics aren't necessary... just do a Google News search of "sexual assault battery injury alcohol college" and read about where these incidents take place (hint: Skink is right, the majority don't happen at a bar or club... not to mention when they do happen, they are exponentially less likely to go unreported if they happen in a bar or club). I'm not saying than anything bad can't happen at a bar, but considering that on-premise establishments are under constant pressure by insurance companies, lawyers, and city councils to prevent these things from happening, that's the place I want my kids drinking.... not someone's roommate's friend's lab partner's co-worker's babysitter's cousin's third-floor apartment six blocks off campus.
Moral of the story -- You see all those "21 = Responsibility" campaigns from the beer companies... that's the biggest crock of lies the alcohol industry spews. What the beer companies call "responsibility," wall street calls "profit." In any event, it's happening at the expense of our children's health and well-being.
"The United States General Accounting Office (1987) reviewed and synthesized results from all 49 studies that had adopted MLDA 21 by 1986. They concluded that "raising the drinking age has a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths affected by the laws, on average, across the states" and that "raising the drinking age also results in a decline in alcohol consumption and in driving after drinking for the age group affected by the law." Additional studies since 1986 have reached the same basic conclusions (Toomey, Rosenfeld, and Wagenaar, 1996)."
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/feweryoungdrivers/iv__what_caused.htm
"After accounting for differences among the 50 states in various background factors, changes in economic and demographic factors within states over time, and the effects of other related laws, results indicated substantial reductions in alcohol-positive involvement in fatal crashes were associated with the two youth-specific laws. The policy of limiting youth access to alcohol through MLDA laws and reinforcing this action by making it illegal for underage drivers to have any alcohol in their system appears to have been effective in reducing the proportion of fatal crashes involving drinking drivers."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12729821
"One of the most comprehensive studies on the minimum drinking age shows that laws aimed at preventing consumption of alcohol by those under 21 have significantly reduced drinking-related fatal car crashes. Specifically, the study published in the July 2008 issue of the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention found that laws making it illegal to possess or purchase alcohol by anyone under the age of 21 had led to an eleven percent drop in alcohol-related traffic deaths among youth; secondly, they found that states with strong laws against fake IDs reported seven percent fewer alcohol-related fatalities among drivers under the age of 21."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701083542.htm
Quote from: melissasmooth on September 25, 2013, 07:57:53 AM
three months to go for me
Start hydrating now I wasn't able to move for a few days after turning 21
Quote from: Golden Avalanche on September 25, 2013, 09:12:33 AM
Under this, you'd still be dealing with the allure of something you can't have. After six months of drinking beer, a 19 year-old will want liquor. Plus, your tolerance isn't necessarily built across all platforms so the idea of "starting" with beers or wines and graduating to liquors as a form of cautious exposure wouldn't work for most teenagers.
You have to take the mystique out of it all for it to be handled appropriately. American society isn't built to handle this issue intelligently.
Oh I know that's why I said I know it wouldn't work. But I just figure on college campuses and the like it sets a difference between those wanting to have a few beers while watching the game or having a glass of wine while on dates vs those downing 10 shots before they go out and end up throwing up in my bathtub. In theory if the kids get a ticket in the dorms for alcohol but would be ok with beer or wine and the main objective is to get drunk then why take the chance? Admittedly I'm a beer guy so maybe I'm thinking of this too one dimensionally.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on September 25, 2013, 11:59:24 AM
Start hydrating now I wasn't able to move for a few days after turning 21
:)
This guy thinks it's all about too much free time on campus:
http://nypost.com/2013/09/24/the-answer-to-college-binge-drinking/
Quote from: PBRme on September 25, 2013, 09:05:33 AM
18
If you are "deemed" responsible enough to sign for a car loan that lasts 36-72 months and have a credit card but not responsible enough to buy a 6 pack. Seems absolutely ridiculous.
Maybe, but then again I know a lot of 18-22 year olds that do really stupid stuff. Statistically that is proven out. Just look at car insurance rates for people that age, especially males. Those aren't made up out of thin are, but because of real data. Not the end all be all, but a lot of really dumb moves made at that age.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on September 25, 2013, 05:13:16 PM
Maybe, but then again I know a lot of 18-22 year olds that do really stupid stuff. Statistically that is proven out. Just look at car insurance rates for people that age, especially males. Those aren't made up out of thin are, but because of real data. Not the end all be all, but a lot of really dumb moves made at that age.
I'm fine with 21. Lowering it to 18 means more 18-20 year olds at bars; hence more of them on the road after drinking. Don't have a problem with drinking at 18, per se, but don't want more drunks on the road.
Quote from: brandx on September 25, 2013, 05:23:56 PM
I'm fine with 21. Lowering it to 18 means more 18-20 year olds at bars; hence more of them on the road after drinking. Don't have a problem with drinking at 18, per se, but don't want more drunks on the road.
Could be a purchase at 18 bars can set their own age restrictions
Quote from: brandx on September 25, 2013, 05:23:56 PM
I'm fine with 21. Lowering it to 18 means more 18-20 year olds at bars; hence more of them on the road after drinking. Don't have a problem with drinking at 18, per se, but don't want more drunks on the road.
At this point, I think drinking and driving is behind texting and driving, talking and driving, pill popping and driving, and 38 year-old mom in a minivan of kids on her phone driving on my list of fears.
Quote from: brandx on September 25, 2013, 05:23:56 PM
I'm fine with 21. Lowering it to 18 means more 18-20 year olds at bars; hence more of them on the road after drinking. Don't have a problem with drinking at 18, per se, but don't want more drunks on the road.
I think young people these days are way more careful about drinking and driving, at least more than I was as a youngster.
Quote from: warriorchick on September 25, 2013, 05:49:04 PM
I think young people these days are way more careful about drinking and driving, at least more than I was as a youngster.
I think that's probably true, but it reflects the trend that DUIs overall have fallen thanks to increased enforcement, harsher penalties and more awareness campaigns.
That said, stats among the 21+ set show that the younger you are, the more likely you are to drink and drive. A third of all drivers involved in fatal DUIs are 24 or younger, according to the CDC. I wouldn't expect 18-20 years olds to exercise better judgement than 21-24 year olds.
It seems the stats are pretty indisputable ... raising the drinking age has lowered alcohol-related crashes and deaths among people under 21. If you're OK with more drunk drivers on the road, by all means lower the drinking age.
Quote from: Golden Avalanche on September 25, 2013, 05:46:07 PM
38 year-old mom in a minivan of kids on her phone driving on my list of fears.
+1 - A driving epidemic if there ever was one.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 25, 2013, 05:54:28 PM
I think that's probably true, but it reflects the trend that DUIs overall have fallen thanks to increased enforcement, harsher penalties and more awareness campaigns.
That said, stats among the 21+ set show that the younger you are, the more likely you are to drink and drive. A third of all drivers involved in fatal DUIs are 24 or younger, according to the CDC. I wouldn't expect 18-20 years olds to exercise better judgement than 21-24 year olds.
It seems the stats are pretty indisputable ... raising the drinking age has lowered alcohol-related crashes and deaths among people under 21. If you're OK with more drunk drivers on the road, by all means lower the drinking age.
Correlation versus causation. You keep pointing out that the two are correlated, but then you admit that the real causation is probably greater societal pressure against drunk driving, more law enforcement.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 25, 2013, 05:54:28 PM
I think that's probably true, but it reflects the trend that DUIs overall have fallen thanks to increased enforcement, harsher penalties and more awareness campaigns.
That said, stats among the 21+ set show that the younger you are, the more likely you are to drink and drive. A third of all drivers involved in fatal DUIs are 24 or younger, according to the CDC. I wouldn't expect 18-20 years olds to exercise better judgement than 21-24 year olds.
It seems the stats are pretty indisputable ... raising the drinking age has lowered alcohol-related crashes and deaths among people under 21. If you're OK with more drunk drivers on the road, by all means lower the drinking age.
The primary objective of MLDA 21 was to reduce fatalities caused by youth drinking and driving; that is also what the studies examined. There's nothing in the studies that would suggest MLDA 21 has reduced the number of drunk drivers on the roads, nor does it imply that lowering the drinking age would increase the number of drunk drivers.
As to what you claim is indisputable... alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths has decreased
since MLDA 21. That is true. What is not true is your implication that alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths has decreased
because of MLDA 21... at best, it's a half-truth (or a half-lie).
You should pay closer attention to the first study you cited:
Quote
But MLDA 21 laws probably had other effects beyond the straightforward prohibition and attempted punishment of alcohol use by youth. As listed in Chapter IIIB, 11 states have had MLDA 21 laws since the repeal of prohibition. These states also saw substantial reductions in youth drinking and driving after drinking in the 1980s. Furthermore, youth driving after drinking decreased more than youth drinking.
This suggests that MLDA laws may have helped influence youth attitudes about drinking and driving. The principal reason for raising the drinking age to 21 was to reduce traffic crashes. Some youth and some parents may have consciously or unconsciously absorbed some of these beliefs: that youth drinking is not a problem unless it results in dangerous actions, of which by far the most dangerous is drinking and driving. Underage drinking is generally accepted, but underage drinking and driving is not. The widespread debate over the legal drinking age also may have had some "spillover" effect in states where MLDA 21 was already in place.
However, the observations that youth drinking and driving decreased substantially more than youth drinking, and that youth drinking and driving after drinking both decreased in states which had MLDA 21 laws throughout the 1980s, suggest that MLDA 21 laws were not the only influence on youth drinking and driving during this period.
[\quote]
I haven't made up my mind about the drinking age question, but it makes sense that a 19-year-old would be much more likely to call home and say, "Mom, can you come get me? I'm too drunk to drive home" if the drinking age were 18 than if it was 21.
Quote from: Sir Lawrence on September 25, 2013, 04:51:35 PM
This guy thinks it's all about too much free time on campus:
http://nypost.com/2013/09/24/the-answer-to-college-binge-drinking/
While I am not sure that's necessarily the cause, I do agree that we are asking much less of a lot of our students than a generation ago.
A related article:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/26/many-high-schoolstudentsunpreparedforcollegeassatscoresremainfla.html
I personally think we need to ask more of our students academically in high school. Sometimes I just think it might be a perception on my part, but my kids in high school don't seem to have nearly the amount of homework as I did when I was that age.
Quote from: Benny B on September 26, 2013, 10:35:19 AM
The primary objective of MLDA 21 was to reduce fatalities caused by youth drinking and driving; that is also what the studies examined. There's nothing in the studies that would suggest MLDA 21 has reduced the number of drunk drivers on the roads, nor does it imply that lowering the drinking age would increase the number of drunk drivers.
Well, I suppose you're correct. Short of underage drinkers admitting en masse to all the occasions they drove under the influence, there is no empirical way to measure the frequency with which people drink and drive without consequence.
That said, I think it's safe to assume that young drunk drivers in 1975 probably crashed with similar frequency as young drunk drivers in 1995 and 2013. Unless your argument is that 18-20 year olds are driving drunk as often as ever, they've just gotten much better at it.
Quote
As to what you claim is indisputable... alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths has decreased since MLDA 21. That is true. What is not true is your implication that alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths has decreased because of MLDA 21... at best, it's a half-truth (or a half-lie).
Did you read the studies?
From the report on Fell's study:
Fell's research controlled for more variables than any other previous study on the topic, accounting for regional and economic differences, improvements in roadways and vehicles, and changes that lowered the illegal blood alcohol content for driving to .08.In other words, he accounted for other variables that may have had an impact on the number of fatalities,
and still found that the 21 age in itself was responsible for a significant (11 percent) decline.
QuoteYou should pay closer attention to the first study you cited:
But MLDA 21 laws probably had other effects beyond the straightforward prohibition and attempted punishment of alcohol use by youth. As listed in Chapter IIIB, 11 states have had MLDA 21 laws since the repeal of prohibition. These states also saw substantial reductions in youth drinking and driving after drinking in the 1980s. Furthermore, youth driving after drinking decreased more than youth drinking.
This suggests that MLDA laws may have helped influence youth attitudes about drinking and driving. The principal reason for raising the drinking age to 21 was to reduce traffic crashes. Some youth and some parents may have consciously or unconsciously absorbed some of these beliefs: that youth drinking is not a problem unless it results in dangerous actions, of which by far the most dangerous is drinking and driving. Underage drinking is generally accepted, but underage drinking and driving is not. The widespread debate over the legal drinking age also may have had some "spillover" effect in states where MLDA 21 was already in place.
However, the observations that youth drinking and driving decreased substantially more than youth drinking, and that youth drinking and driving after drinking both decreased in states which had MLDA 21 laws throughout the 1980s, suggest that MLDA 21 laws were not the only influence on youth drinking and driving during this period.
[\quote]
Nothing there disputes that MDLA has reduced drunk driving among the 21 and under crowd. It merely states it isn't the
only factor. I don't think I or anyone else has claimed otherwise.
Ok, if 18 is the age of majority so be it and lower the drinking age to 18. However I suggest raising the age one can get a drivers license to 21.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 26, 2013, 11:20:15 AM
Well, I suppose you're correct. Short of underage drinkers admitting en masse to all the occasions they drove under the influence, there is no empirical way to measure the frequency with which people drink and drive without consequence.
That said, I think it's safe to assume that young drunk drivers in 1975 probably crashed with similar frequency as young drunk drivers in 1995 and 2013. Unless your argument is that 18-20 year olds are driving drunk as often as ever, they've just gotten much better at it.
Did you read the studies?
From the report on Fell's study:
Fell's research controlled for more variables than any other previous study on the topic, accounting for regional and economic differences, improvements in roadways and vehicles, and changes that lowered the illegal blood alcohol content for driving to .08.
In other words, he accounted for other variables that may have had an impact on the number of fatalities, and still found that the 21 age in itself was responsible for a significant (11 percent) decline.
Nothing there disputes that MDLA has reduced drunk driving among the 21 and under crowd. It merely states it isn't the only factor. I don't think I or anyone else has claimed otherwise.
Putting aside the fact that the Fell study was funded by the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program (which makes it just as reliable as one of those "smoking isn't bad for your health" studies funded by Phillip Morris), the study came to a similar conclusion as all of the others... there was a decline in fatalities/accidents following MLDA 21 but failed to ascertain the magnitude of the decline
directly attributable to MLDA 21.
In other words, yes, MLDA 21 (directly and indirectly) reduced drunk driving & associated fatalities amongst youth. However, if you reversed MLDA 21 today, there is nothing in those studies that suggest the same would increase by the same percentage. Everyone agrees that there are (were) other factors - beyond age - that played into the 11% decline, so take it one step further... if the goal is further declines, why not expand upon those factors instead of relying upon an inconsistent and arbitrary age?
I firmly believe if you lowered the drinking age to 18 and introduced a "DUI under 21" law that carried a
minimum sentence of nine months in jail you'd see a decline that would dwarf the mere 11% decline they got from MLDA 21. But if it ever was, MLDA 21 is no longer about the health and safety of our kids... it's about corporate profits. And that's why the drinking age will stay 21 in the US.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on September 26, 2013, 12:51:36 PM
Ok, if 18 is the age of majority so be it and lower the drinking age to 18. However I suggest raising the age one can get a drivers license to 21.
So how are adults supposed to get to work?
Quote from: muwarrior69 on September 26, 2013, 12:51:36 PM
Ok, if 18 is the age of majority so be it and lower the drinking age to 18. However I suggest raising the age one can get a drivers license to 21.
Driving my kids around until they're 21? Pass.
Quote from: Benny B on September 26, 2013, 03:05:05 PM
Putting aside the fact that the Fell study was funded by the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program (which makes it just as reliable as one of those "smoking isn't bad for your health" studies funded by Phillip Morris),
Nice ad hominem, but no. Unlike, say, your Philip Morris example, SAPRP would have no financial stake in the results of a study that says the raising of the drinking age reduces fatal crashes.
Quotethe study came to a similar conclusion as all of the others... there was a decline in fatalities/accidents following MLDA 21 but failed to ascertain the magnitude of the decline directly attributable to MLDA 21.
In other words, yes, MLDA 21 (directly and indirectly) reduced drunk driving & associated fatalities amongst youth. However, if you reversed MLDA 21 today, there is nothing in those studies that suggest the same would increase by the same percentage. Everyone agrees that there are (were) other factors - beyond age - that played into the 11% decline, so take it one step further... if the goal is further declines, why not expand upon those factors instead of relying upon an inconsistent and arbitrary age?
I think you need to take a second look at the Fell report. It clearly states that the 11 percent drop exists
after other facts are taken into account, thus attributing that percent of the decline to the age increase alone.
"There has been evidence since the 1980s that an increase in the drinking age to 21 was having an impact on traffic deaths," Fell said. "But this is the first time we've been able to tease out the real effect, free of the variables that had been used to question the validity of the evidence." "Some have argued that the declining numbers are due to a general decrease in drunk driving, or because of the lowering of the BAC limit, or better cars and better roads. But we controlled for all of these to the extent possible in this study." http://www.saprp.org/m_press_fell070108.cfm
Quote
I firmly believe if you lowered the drinking age to 18 and introduced a "DUI under 21" law that carried a minimum sentence of nine months in jail you'd see a decline that would dwarf the mere 11% decline they got from MLDA 21. But if it ever was, MLDA 21 is no longer about the health and safety of our kids... it's about corporate profits. And that's why the drinking age will stay 21 in the US.
First, you probably couldn't create a "DUI under 21 law," but I doubt it would have much effect anyways. Most people drink and drive because they a) don't think they're drunk, b) think they're drunk but also think they can get away with it or c) are alcoholics. Nobody says "Boy, I'm going to drink and drive today because if I get caught it'll only cost me my license for six months and about $7,000-$10,000 in fines, court costs and legal fees."
Quote from: Pakuni on September 26, 2013, 03:32:49 PM
Driving my kids around until they're 21? Pass.
Hell, I don't even want to drive them around after they turn 16.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on September 26, 2013, 03:55:21 PM
Hell, I don't even want to drive them around after they turn 16.
I think they should be able to drive themselves to middle school.
I know places in Montana where 10 year olds drive to the road to wait for the school bus. Kids sit in the warm truck 'til it arrives and Mom doesn't have to drive the 20 miles or so to the county hwy. But they probably have been driving tractors for a while by then.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 26, 2013, 03:50:12 PM
First, you probably couldn't create a "DUI under 21 law," but I doubt it would have much effect anyways. Most people drink and drive because they a) don't think they're drunk, b) think they're drunk but also think they can get away with it or c) are alcoholics. Nobody says "Boy, I'm going to drink and drive today because if I get caught it'll only cost me my license for six months and about $7,000-$10,000 in fines, court costs and legal fees."
We're not talking about "most people." We're talking specifically about not just the 18-20 year-old cohort, but the subset of 18-20 year-olds who would (or already) give consideration to driving after drinking.
This is a subset of kids who generally a) drink specifically to get drunk, b) already think they can get away with everything and c) are more apt to become alcoholics if their behavior is left unchecked. Face it... a first time DUI hurts about as much as a slap on the wrist to these kids. Sure, they will get stung as soon as they sober up and see their legal bills, fines, insurance bills, seminar costs, etc., but none of that is any material consideration to this subset because many of them haven't had to pay a bill in their life. Heck, some of these kids aren't even swayed by community service because they do that already. And even if they were, who cares about money and community service when "yer out partyin' with the bros....... woooooooooooooooooooooo."
Sorry, but the whole 11% decline argument is crap-based sack of crap... not so much the validity of the statistic, but the fact that people smile and trumpet it as rationale to keep the status quo. How anyone can be happy when 89% of these fatalities are still occurring is beyond me. If you want to curb drunk driving in this subset, you need to stop these kids before they even approach the thought of driving drunk, and the only deterrent that they will still comprehend after their fifth shot of Jaeger is the thought of doing a nickel with Bubba.
Because guess what.... despite MLDA 21,
they are still drinking, and because they have to do it somewhere they won't get caught, they're making the most of it, which means drinking more and drinking faster. So in the process of piddly reducing one risk associated with alcohol, MLDA has brought binge drinking in our country to new levels. Thanks, Candy Lightner... I hope you feel avenged.
Quote from: Benny B on September 26, 2013, 05:08:09 PM
Sorry, but the whole 11% decline argument is crap-based sack of crap... not so much the validity of the statistic, but the fact that people smile and trumpet it as rationale to keep the status quo. How anyone can be happy when 89% of these fatalities are still occurring is beyond me. If you want to curb drunk driving in this subset, you need to stop these kids before they even approach the thought of driving drunk, and the only deterrent that they will still comprehend after their fifth shot of Jaeger is the thought of doing a nickel with Bubba.
So ... what does this have to do with lowering the drinking age again? Is the best way to end drunk driving among the 18-20 crowd making it easier and more acceptable for them to be out drinking in social situations?
QuoteBecause guess what.... despite MLDA 21, they are still drinking, and because they have to do it somewhere they won't get caught, they're making the most of it, which means drinking more and drinking faster.
Citation needed.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 25, 2013, 11:45:57 AM
"The United States General Accounting Office (1987) reviewed and synthesized results from all 49 studies that had adopted MLDA 21 by 1986. They concluded that "raising the drinking age has a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths affected by the laws, on average, across the states" and that "raising the drinking age also results in a decline in alcohol consumption and in driving after drinking for the age group affected by the law." Additional studies since 1986 have reached the same basic conclusions (Toomey, Rosenfeld, and Wagenaar, 1996)."
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/feweryoungdrivers/iv__what_caused.htm
"After accounting for differences among the 50 states in various background factors, changes in economic and demographic factors within states over time, and the effects of other related laws, results indicated substantial reductions in alcohol-positive involvement in fatal crashes were associated with the two youth-specific laws. The policy of limiting youth access to alcohol through MLDA laws and reinforcing this action by making it illegal for underage drivers to have any alcohol in their system appears to have been effective in reducing the proportion of fatal crashes involving drinking drivers."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12729821
"One of the most comprehensive studies on the minimum drinking age shows that laws aimed at preventing consumption of alcohol by those under 21 have significantly reduced drinking-related fatal car crashes. Specifically, the study published in the July 2008 issue of the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention found that laws making it illegal to possess or purchase alcohol by anyone under the age of 21 had led to an eleven percent drop in alcohol-related traffic deaths among youth; secondly, they found that states with strong laws against fake IDs reported seven percent fewer alcohol-related fatalities among drivers under the age of 21."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701083542.htm
Maybe we should give up on democracy and equality just follow the statistics.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on September 26, 2013, 03:55:21 PM
Hell, I don't even want to drive them around after they turn 16.
It's just nice to see the Sultan is back.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 26, 2013, 03:32:49 PM
Driving my kids around until they're 21? Pass.
I lost my 17 year-old son in a car accident, not alcohol related. I just have a different perspective on this debate and hope no parent has to suffer the pain my wife and I endure some 13 years later. We moved on but you never get over something like that.
Quote from: PBRme on September 27, 2013, 06:42:54 AM
Maybe we should give up on democracy and equality just follow the statistics.
Yes, because the raising of the drinking age was imposed by a totalitarian dictatorship, and not through a constitutionally mandated process by a representative legislature elected democratically.
Benedictine University just banned alcohol in all student residences, including in apartments where the students are of legal drinking age:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/naperville_lisle/chi-benedictine-university-alcohol-ban-20130926,0,7172422.story
Students have until 10 p.m. on Friday to get rid of their booze. Road trip to Lisle this afternoon?
Quote from: muwarrior69 on September 27, 2013, 07:40:58 AM
I lost my 17 year-old son in a car accident, not alcohol related. I just have a different perspective on this debate and hope no parent has to suffer the pain my wife and I endure some 13 years later. We moved on but you never get over something like that.
I hear where you are coming from and I am sorry for your loss. You have mentioned that here before.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 27, 2013, 08:01:17 AM
Yes, because the raising of the drinking age was imposed by a totalitarian dictatorship, and not through a constitutionally mandated process by a representative legislature elected democratically.
Raising the drinking imposed a separate status on a group of individuals that was not related to any specific individual behavior but a group behavior (perceived, statistical, or otherwise). This group retained all of the responsibilities or the rest of society but now has a privilege restricted. If we were to do the EXACT same thing at the end of life say restrict driving privileges of individuals over a certain age because reflexes slow down and eyesight starts failing (in aggregate statistical terms) regardless of individual capability there would be an uproar. You are guilty because a higher percentage of people like you are guilty than in the general population. SCARY
Quote from: PBRme on September 27, 2013, 09:42:24 AM
Raising the drinking imposed a separate status on a group of individuals that was not related to any specific individual behavior but a group behavior (perceived, statistical, or otherwise). This group retained all of the responsibilities or the rest of society but now has a privilege restricted. If we were to do the EXACT same thing at the end of life say restrict driving privileges of individuals over a certain age because reflexes slow down and eyesight starts failing (in aggregate statistical terms) regardless of individual capability there would be an uproar. You are guilty because a higher percentage of people like you are guilty than in the general population. SCARY
They do exactly that for airline pilots, but to your point all I can say is that young people and in particular teenagers think they are going to live forever, which doesn't show up in statistics; whereas an old fart like me knows that I am mortal.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 26, 2013, 05:14:38 PM
So ... what does this have to do with lowering the drinking age again? Is the best way to end drunk driving among the 18-20 crowd making it easier and more acceptable for them to be out drinking in social situations?
You're halfway there... make it easier and acceptable to drink in social situations
AND make the penalties for drinking & driving painful enough to keep their attention while they drink.
Quote from: Pakuni on September 26, 2013, 05:14:38 PM
Citation needed.
Citation? Seriously?!? Do you really want to take the butcher's word for it, because I'll happily direct you to the t-bone. Jump in a LIMO around 9:00p tonight (alumni ride free), and just follow your instincts. It shouldn't take you long to see with your own eyes what most of us already know is true.
Why should it stop at 21. I bet the "statistics" for 18-25 is worse than the general population as well, or 18-30 year olds.