Change the drinking age

[WellsstreetWanderer]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[Pakuni]

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?

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. 

Citation needed.

[PBRme]

"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.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Hell, I don't even want to drive them around after they turn 16.

It's just nice to see the Sultan is back.

[muwarrior69]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[warriorchick]

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?

[GGGG]

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.

[PBRme]

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   

[muwarrior69]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

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.

[PBRme]

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.