[Eug]

They have that for basic motorcycle licences where I live, but it's independent of age. EtOH must be zero on a motorcycle. It's 0.08 when you graduate to the next level of licence. That's the ONLY real difference.

I've always kinda thought that was odd, because it basically says when-you-get-your-upgraded-licence-you-are-given-permission-to-drink-and-drive.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

crazy idea: 18-21 drinking permit.

And that's supposed to work with college students?

[Shaddim]

taking Helmling's idea and running with it...

Here's a thought, test each person according to maturity and evaluate if they're fit to handle drinking, driving, voting, marriage, etc.. None of this blanket law BS for everyone, let people extend to their true potential or sink like a stone. Some will test well at 16, others at 21, and some may never pass certain tests.

or

Remove restrictions from everything and let nature sort it out.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

taking Helmling's idea and running with it...

Here's a thought, test each person according to maturity and evaluate if they're fit to handle drinking, driving, voting, marriage, etc.. None of this blanket law BS for everyone, let people extend to their true potential or sink like a stone. Some will test well at 16, others at 21, and some may never pass certain tests.

Nice idea. I'm not sure it's possible, though. How would you test for maturity and fitness to handle drinking, driving, voting, marriage, etc?

Driving seems easy. Drinking? Take the person out to a bar and evaluate how they handle themselves? Voting? "I'm sorry, you voted 'Democrat', you're obviously not mature enough for this yet"?.

The problem with assessing maturing is that it's going to be very subjective, and most people will be able to fake maturity for the purpose of the test. You'd almost need to conduct peer interviews; poll randomly selected students in the person's classes as well as their teachers. Of course, that could get costly.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Nice idea. I'm not sure it's possible, though. How would you test for maturity and fitness to handle drinking, driving, voting, marriage, etc?

Driving seems easy. Drinking? Take the person out to a bar and evaluate how they handle themselves? Voting? "I'm sorry, you voted 'Democrat', you're obviously not mature enough for this yet"?.

The problem with assessing maturing is that it's going to be very subjective, and most people will be able to fake maturity for the purpose of the test. You'd almost need to conduct peer interviews; poll randomly selected students in the person's classes as well as their teachers. Of course, that could get costly.

I completely agree. In sheer laws of numbers and the incredibly knee-jerk desire to be offended, some group of people would no doubt be disenfranchised by this testing. Whether they truly were or not of course would be just as subjective.

There is another piece to Shaddim's proposal and that is absolute lawlessness. I'm not sure this'd work either. Though, I can't offhand give any reasons why.

[OreoCookie]

Anarchy ≠ freedom, I agree.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The draft age was 21 until FDR lowered it during WWII

Here you go:
Lower the drinking age to 20
Raise the draft/minimum military age to 20
Add 2 years of mandatory college/tech
If you don't want to go to 2 extra years of college/tech, sign a waiver and start drinking at 20.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Here you go:
Lower the drinking age to 20
Raise the draft/minimum military age to 20
Add 2 years of mandatory college/tech
If you don't want to go to 2 extra years of college/tech, sign a waiver and start drinking at 20.

... and another round for me and my friend Railroader please.

[Railroader]

Eh, I stopped drinking. Thanks for the offer! I just do coffee or coke-a-cola. Oh, and fruit smoothies. I love my fruit smoothies. Like little margaritas.

[amazing]

Here's the type of education effort it's going to need:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080822/...tudent_conduct

IMO, this should start in high school. Mandatory life-style classes with follow-up in the community. The longer you wait, the more deeply set the pattern.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by amazing 

Here's the type of education effort it's going to need:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080822/...tudent_conduct

What if a student lives 20 miles away and breaks a minor law? Not according to that article.

The universities are only doing these kinds of things to protect the universities images, they are not doing it out of altruistic reasons

Originally Posted by amazing 

IMO, this should start in high school. Mandatory life-style classes with follow-up in the community. The longer you wait, the more deeply set the pattern.

IMO, no. Adults need to start acting responsible and acting like adults.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Add 2 years of mandatory college/tech
If you don't want to go to 2 extra years of college/tech, sign a waiver and start drinking at 20.

I'm not understanding what this part has to do with drinking.

[amazing]

I believe the world's been around around long enough that "adults need to start acting responsible and acting like adults" has demonstably not worked out. That's what education is for.

Attitudes towards alcohol are taught by cultures and families at a very early age. I was in French schools from age 9 to 12. At one school (demi-pension) we got a half-glass of wine, topped off with water, with lunch, and we learned that we still had to function in class, still had to think and take tests, all of that. The attitude was "in vino veritas", and you were expected be able to handle yourself, stay rational, not surrender to the basest behavior. Wine was expected to enhance your enjoyment of life, to enhance the life of the mind.

In German schools from age 12 to 16, the attitude towards alcohol was somewhat the same, with some additions, namely being expected to sing drinking songs and be somewhat rowdy, in a teutonic way (heavily serious.)

In the US, kids are "educated" by society to believe that alcohol causes you to lose all rational control and that it's OK to fight and behave badly. Alcohol is a society-given excuse to behave like animals (which is slur upon the animal kingdom, since animals always behave better than that.) So, that's what kids do--because they haven't been taught any better, because they're going to fulfill your expectations.

If you're taught that you have to "handle your liquor" then that's what you do. If you're taught that alcohol causes the lowest common denominator behavior, then that's what you do.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I'm not understanding what this part has to do with drinking.

Needed to fill the gap between HS and military. Don't you judge me.

[Dakar the Fourth]

So the waiver is to... go into the military early?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

So the waiver is to... go into the military early?

Oh, good idea! But not in a combat role, that way people can't say "you can die for your country at 18, but you can't drink, how screwed up is that?"

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Nice idea. I'm not sure it's possible, though. How would you test for maturity and fitness to handle drinking, driving, voting, marriage, etc?

Driving seems easy. Drinking? Take the person out to a bar and evaluate how they handle themselves? Voting? "I'm sorry, you voted 'Democrat', you're obviously not mature enough for this yet"?.

The problem with assessing maturing is that it's going to be very subjective, and most people will be able to fake maturity for the purpose of the test. You'd almost need to conduct peer interviews; poll randomly selected students in the person's classes as well as their teachers. Of course, that could get costly.

We can just create a general "maturity test":

60+, you can vote
70+, you can drive
80+, you can drink
90+, you can be a parent
99+, you can do any damned thing you want, but will be too disgusted with the rest of humanity to bother.

Personally, I like the idea of removing all the safeguards and just let people govern their own lives.

Choose one extreme or the other, this moderate stuff doesn't work.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

We can just create a general "maturity test"

It's a really nice idea. But, really, have you given any thought as to *how* you would test maturity?

[Shaddim]

I can't be bothered with such details, I've just saved all of humanity!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I can't be bothered with such details, I've just saved all of humanity!

Of course.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

crazy idea: 18-21 drinking permit.

Clear record and limitations put on the amount you can drink legally from age 18-21. Maybe even set a BAC that you must be below at all times.....say .15 or something like that. Kind of like a provisional license.

You must present it along with your license at a bar or liquor store. And still must remain below .02 when driving. .07 or .08 is the usual limit for adults driving now....set a strict no tolerance for kids and set harsh penalties for violating this. Basically send the message that its ok to drink responsibly, but if you're driving u'd better not touch the booze.

I agree with the permit idea, except it should apply to all ages.

If you have a certain nubmer of criminal offences/infractions, you should not be allowed to drink. As a criminal you forfeit your right to "enjoy" yourself, whether the criminal act was committed because of alcohol or not, but especially if it was committed due to alcohol. I don't know how long the ban/lack of permit should last on such people though, that's the toughie.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Oh, good idea! But not in a combat role, that way people can't say "you can die for your country at 18, but you can't drink, how screwed up is that?"

Ok, I'm totally confused then. What was the waiver for?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

If you have a certain nubmer of criminal offences/infractions, you should not be allowed to drink. As a criminal you forfeit your right to "enjoy" yourself, whether the criminal act was committed because of alcohol or not, but especially if it was committed due to alcohol. I don't know how long the ban/lack of permit should last on such people though, that's the toughie.

Non-sensical idea, except possibly if the criminal offense was specifically related to alcohol. In prison, afaik, there is no alcohol (officially, at least), but why do criminals who have served their time forfeited the right to drink? Or enjoy themselves? Especially if the two are not related (e. g. fraud, tax evasion, whatnot).

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Non-sensical idea, except possibly if the criminal offense was specifically related to alcohol. In prison, afaik, there is no alcohol (officially, at least), but why do criminals who have served their time forfeited the right to drink? Or enjoy themselves? Especially if the two are not related (e. g. fraud, tax evasion, whatnot).

Do we really want ANYONE with a criminal nature/tendancies - no matter the charge - ever getting drunk?



I sure as hell don't.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

Do we really want ANYONE with a criminal nature/tendancies - no matter the charge - ever getting drunk?



I sure as hell don't.

Are you really saying that anyone who is ever convicted of any crime should be forever denied alcohol?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

Ok, I'm totally confused then. What was the waiver for?

To avoid the two extra years of school. Work full-time or just chill. But you still can''t drink until 20. Or enter the military and be placed in a combat zone.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

To avoid the two extra years of school. Work full-time or just chill. But you still can''t drink until 20. Or enter the military and be placed in a combat zone.

...ok, by why make two more years of school mandatory?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

Do we really want ANYONE with a criminal nature/tendancies - no matter the charge - ever getting drunk?



I sure as hell don't.

What kind of totalitarian state do you have in mind here, wow!

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Are you really saying that anyone who is ever convicted of any crime should be forever denied alcohol?

No. Read what I said above, I'm not sure how you would go about deciding at what point in time they could gain a permit.

What I am saying is that I don't care if the crime was embezzlement or rape, I don't want these people drinking as soon as they get back on the streets.

In Canada I know judges can restrict a persons use of alcohol while on probation.

I guess what I'm saying is that, make every person convicted of a charge be on a probation with this no-alcohol restriction for at least a couple years - depending on the severity of the crime and their mental stability of course.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What kind of totalitarian state do you have in mind here, wow!

A perfect world Maybe saying "ever" was a bit harsh, I agree. I certainly don't want a criminal having alcohol the day they are released.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

No. Read what I said above, I'm not sure how you would go about deciding at what point in time they could gain a permit.

I think we understand just fine, because you say yourself:

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

What I am saying is that I don't care if the crime was embezzlement or rape, I don't want these people drinking as soon as they get back on the streets.

I don't know what embezzlement has to do with alcohol or that drunks are more likely to embezzle again.
Seems to me that your suggestion is supposed to be an additional punishment, even after the person has served its time in jail or accepted the rest of the sentence (e. g. by paying a fine/damages). Your suggested punishment is heinous and doesn't do anything to reduce crime.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

No. Read what I said above, I'm not sure how you would go about deciding at what point in time they could gain a permit.

What I am saying is that I don't care if the crime was embezzlement or rape, I don't want these people drinking as soon as they get back on the streets.

In Canada I know judges can restrict a persons use of alcohol while on probation.

I guess what I'm saying is that, make every person convicted of a charge be on a probation with this no-alcohol restriction for at least a couple years - depending on the severity of the crime and their mental stability of course.

I still fail to see how that would be useful or even desirable. Or do you really think that an embezzler, upon getting out of jail, is going to go right back to embezzling upon having a pint with lunch?

[kmkkid]

They might.

I know of a couple people who were charged with theft.

Coincidently after having a few beer the day they got out, committed theft again.

You show your true colours when drunk, and act upon them.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

They might.

I know of a couple people who were charged with theft.

Coincidently after having a few beer the day they got out, committed theft again.

You show your true colours when drunk, and act upon them.

Load of crap.

Just because they had a few beers and then committed theft again, doesn't mean that they wouldn't have committed that theft if they hadn't had those beers.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Load of crap.

Just because they had a few beers and then committed theft again, doesn't mean that they wouldn't have committed that theft if they hadn't had those beers.

Do you work for Budweiser?

It's been proven alcohol lowers your inhibitions to stay on the straight and narrow.

Some people doing much worse things than others.

And yes, I doubt had they not been drunk at the time, they probably wouldn't have committed the crime.


It's futile to argue this. This is my perspective and thoughts towards the subject. If I seem like some sort of crazy loon dictator - so be it.

I'd just rather not have criminals getting drunk anytime soon after they are released.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

Do you work for Budweiser?

It's been proven alcohol lowers your inhibitions to stay on the straight and narrow.

Some people doing much worse things than others.

And yes, I doubt had they not been drunk at the time, they probably wouldn't have committed the crime.


It's futile to argue this. This is my perspective and thoughts towards the subject. If I seem like some sort of crazy loon dictator - so be it.

Yes, alcohol does lower inhibitions. However it does not cause you to do things that you wouldn't otherwise be inclined to do. If upon being released from jail a criminal is still inclined towards criminal acts, then the problem is that either they weren't in jail for long enough, or jail is simply ineffective and persuading people away from crime.

[Chuckit]

Being inclined to do something is completely different from actually doing it — this is the entire basis for morality. I might be biologically inclined to boink my neighbor's wife or to kill people who piss me off, but I don't do it because I know it's wrong. It's incredibly difficult to get rid of deep-seated inclinations — it can take years if we manage it at all — and that's why we need to have self-control.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

We can just create a general "maturity test":

60+, you can vote
70+, you can drive
80+, you can drink
90+, you can be a parent
99+, you can do any damned thing you want, but will be too disgusted with the rest of humanity to bother.

Personally, I like the idea of removing all the safeguards and just let people govern their own lives.

Choose one extreme or the other, this moderate stuff doesn't work.

Good start. But how about guns ?

And listening to Britney Spears ?

We need MORE rules and MORE tests.

-t

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

They might.

I know of a couple people who were charged with theft.

Coincidently after having a few beer the day they got out, committed theft again.

You show your true colours when drunk, and act upon them.

"Coincidentally" is the correct word.

That is to say, this was a coincidence, not a cause.

It's very much the same thing as saying, "when they committed theft, they had worn a blue shirt. We should forbid criminals from wearing blue shirts in order to prevent crime."

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

...ok, by why make two more years of school mandatory?

To keep those young punks off my lawn(s)!

just covering my bases for those who want to enter the military, but have nothing to do between HS and 20 years old. Also, alternatively, we could make those two years mandatory to enter the military and eliminate the 2 years off/waiver.

Just throwing ideas into the mix. Fortunately, I am not a legislator.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

To keep those young punks off my lawn(s)!

just covering my bases for those who want to enter the military, but have nothing to do between HS and 20 years old. Also, alternatively, we could make those two years mandatory to enter the military and eliminate the 2 years off/waiver.

Just throwing ideas into the mix. Fortunately, I am not a legislator.

I kinda get it, but it doesn't seem necessary (or prudent) given many people go neither to school nor the military upon graduating high school.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Good start. But how about guns ?

And listening to Britney Spears ?

We need MORE rules and MORE tests.

-t

Britney? Ban her, period.

Guns? Same test as drinking. In fact, part of the test is being able to handle a firearm properly when you're drunk.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

To keep those young punks off my lawn(s)!

just covering my bases for those who want to enter the military, but have nothing to do between HS and 20 years old. Also, alternatively, we could make those two years mandatory to enter the military and eliminate the 2 years off/waiver.

Just throwing ideas into the mix. Fortunately, I am not a legislator.

A couple of countries have a mandatory two year military enlistment I think. Switzerland comes to mind, but I could be wrong.

[olePigeon]

I think the drinking age should be lowered to 14 in accompany of a parent for drinks with less than 7% alcohol (that'd cover most beers.)

Then I think it should be lowered to 18 overall.

I think the problem with drinking in America is that alcohol is seen as this magical taboo up until you're 21. If it wasn't restricted until such a late age, I think people would drink more responsibly because it wouldn't be such a big issue. People wouldn't think it's "cool" to drink.

No matter what, you're going to have the frat party with beer bongs. It's not going to change no matter what age limit is set.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

A couple of countries have a mandatory two year military enlistment I think. Switzerland comes to mind, but I could be wrong.

Oh no, I meant two years of mandatory schooling.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I kinda get it, but it doesn't seem necessary (or prudent) given many people go neither to school nor the military upon graduating high school.

That's what the two year "waiver" was for. Don't want to spend those extra two years in school, sign a waiver and work for a couple years before military enlistment.

This is getting too complicated for me. Might drive me to drink. Good thing I am over 21.

[ghporter]

I remember when the drinking age was, almost nationwide, 18 years. Some of us actually paid attention and were safe about it. Only a few, though. The majority of 18 year old drinkers were both insufficiently safe/cautious and arrogant about it. And then came the calls for raising the drinking age, and the majority of 18 year olds just plain didn't vote, let alone let their legislators know what they wanted.

Since the insurance companies turn out to be right about how they charge young men much higher rates than others (the prefrontal lobe of the brain, which is responsible for reason and decision making, doesn't mature in most people, especially males, until around 25), I can hardly see how the current crop of youth is likely to actually do anything practical about this issue.

Finally, because it is illegal and carries some rather unpleasant penalties, a law about drinking age IS EFFECTIVE. Sure, underage drinking happens, but it is, by its nature, circumscribed and kept hidden, which means fewer underage drunks doing stupid things in cars and in public. Take away that externally imposed limit, and we'd see a return of excessive rates of 18-20 year olds driving drunk and killing themselves and others, like we had in the early 1980s. This one has been tried, folks. The result of the experiment was "fail."

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I remember when the drinking age was, almost nationwide, 18 years.

Not that I disagree with your overall thrust, I seem to recall that at the time drunk driving in general wasn't stigmatized nearly to the degree it is now.

IOW, it probably wouldn't be quite the war zone it was last time.

[zombie punk]

Freedom isn't free.

[nonhuman]

Nor are platitudes. That will be a 5¢ usage fee, please.