The Drinking Age
September 17th, 2008 by jacob
Currently when you are 18 you can get married, sign a contract, enlist in the military, have an abortion, go sky diving, and donate your body to science. But you can’t have a beer? These are all important decisions. The above list of decisions are certainly life changing and possibly life ending decisions. Still, you are not capable of handling the impact of having an a drink and still be trusted?
There is a logical disconnect here that any 18 year old, or 12 year old for that matter can see. One can argue that a human being is either an adult or they are not an adult. So either they are an adult at 18 or they are an adult at 21. Which is it? Or, is it possible that some decisions while adult in nature are easier, and therefore can be granted to minors. The founding fathers set the voting age at 21. Thy also set the age of participation in the militia at 16.
My respect for the founding fathers is such that if we as a society want to set the age of majority for everything to 21, and no one under 21 could legally participate in any adult activity that would be fine. Intellectually lazy, but fine, it would make things simple.
Grandfather those engaged in adult activities such as the military in, but in the future no joining the military until your seniority at 21. Furthermore, no marriage till 21. Sound good? To be consistent no signing contracts, drivers licenses, getting abortions, joining political parties, engaging in political activism or getting a job. At least none of the above without a signed note from mommy and/or daddy. Go to school, go play X-box that is all we trust you to do, till 21.
The founding fathers did put in a slidding scale for adult behavior. One had the maturity to join the military and fight, but one could not vote. The ‘drinking age‘ as we understand it, probably did not exist. Certainly minors could purchase liquor.
There are questions regarding maturity with respect to age. Some mature faster than others. Is maturity a function of circumstance? If so how big is the impact? Will delaying the age of majority allow those who lag behind the rest to finally get the chance to grow up? Or will this policy simply delay the inevitable and instead lead to an extended period of infantile and immature behavior?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 17th, 2008 at 8:49 pm and is filed under Culture, Philosophy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
interesting post. certainly raise the driving age to at least 18!
“The fatality rate for drivers 16 - 19 is about 4 times as high as the rate for drivers age 25 - 69.”
In my opinion, 18 is a good age for almost anything, except drinking, cigarettes and probably credit cards, these things do not need to be easier to get, but cut soilders some slack.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Damn, jefe…we’re actually going to agree here.
As our society grows, it regresses in some ways. When I was 18, I was put out the door…and told to get a life. Looking back, I love the fact that the ‘ol man did exactly that. It was sink or swim. It was live with the mistakes you make.
I enlisted, and there was a WHOLE PLETHORA of issues revolving around THAT as well.
Gen “X” does not have that drive, and frankly, they’ve been coddled all their lives…to the point that they never had to mature. I’m speaking about the majority of them, of course…and in a sweeping and generically stereotypical fashion, I might add. We can all find stellar examples of individuals who shatter that perception…but they(on a larger study) are far and few between.
So, maturity is a case by case. The most specific argument here is that if a boy picks up a weapon and defends his country in a branch of service…he becomes a man and has manly responsibilities. One of his rewards should be the ability to buy himself a drink at the end of those busy days.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
bullet, good we can agree. i tried to ignore the other posts and not explain how misguided you obama haters are. but age cutoffs are really interesting and i’m passionate about the driving cutoff. i do disagree about ‘gen x’ though. fitting into that range myself, i will say that some people my age and younger do quite a bit of service, though admittedly less military service. i was in nola a while ago and was impressed by the number of college kids giving up there summers to help rebuild homes as part of a christian organization (and in conditions that my military father agreed were similar to bootcamp). it’s not military service of course, but i also think in many cases kids now have more respect for soilders than their parent’s did. but overall, yeah, i think soilders deserve special consideration. though there are problems, they don’t seem to be the group dying of alcohol poisoning.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
change of topic - just got a txt on a triple shooting in sterling.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
This could be used as a recruitment tool. Join and have a beer.
As for Gen X being even less responsible than the ME generation, hardly. The ME generation still has members who have not grown up. Go look at the losers who wanted to bring back 1968 at the conventions. Most of those characters had gray hair and were longing the ‘good ol days’.
Each generation looks at those who follow it as a pack of idiots. The trouble is that each generation is right. The issue is people don’t realize that 20 years ago many of them were those very same young people who look so distressingly incompetent.
The real sad part is that after 20 years some STILL are idiots. So no Monk, our generation is not any more competent than the X-ers. They look soft, pitiful, unskilled and spoiled. That was how my father described the Me generation.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
jacob, “soft, pitiful, unskilled and spoiled” is how everyone views the ‘me generation’, younger and older.
as for join and have a beer, they could combine commericals during college football, all kinds of possiblities.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
el jefe,
After the ‘greatest generation’, its hard to look good. I wrote about this a while ago, tongue in cheek …
http://www.novatownhall.com/blog/2007/02/generations.php
enjoy it, I did.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
“college kids giving up there summers to help rebuild homes as part of a christian organization”
There, along with the ones working with “Habitiat for Humanity” are your “exceptions to the rule”. I definitely do not apply my logic above to ANYONE who gives of themselves for others.I rejoice when I see it in the youngsters today.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Funny, I’ve heard of the Baby Boomers and the Gen X’ers… Where did you pull the “Me” (Microsoft Millinium Edition??)Generation from? Your arse?
September 17th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
i’m never sure if i’m a y or a x, what is the cutoff? the ‘me generation’ so quickly sold out everything they believed in by the ’80s, (voting for reagan which came along with all the exaggerated and supposed successes of his presidency, but lets focus on agreeement), which why they compare unfavorably. the greatest generation is pretty interesting. forgetting the racism, homophobia, intertolerance etc., many that i’ve met have a mix of ideals, action, and humility; like my grandparents (who are voting for obama by the way, first dem for president i believe)
September 18th, 2008 at 6:32 am
Gen Xers were born between 1965-1981. Like you, jefe, I just make the cutoff (er, in the other direction…).
September 18th, 2008 at 8:40 am
The boomer generation runs from 44 to 64. X-ers from 65-85
el jefe,
racism and intorerence is all you can remeber about the guys who braved the great depression, won WWII, went to the moon and generated the wealth in which you soft and pampered butt grew. How despicably uncharitable. The knew hunger. They knew cold and want, yet they built the wealth upon you are a beneficiary. What do you know?
- They are the generation that broke with 10000 years of tradition to renounce tribalism (racism).
- They are the generation that allowed the gay to come out of the shadows.
Had they not been tolerant, we would not be discussing gay marriage, we would still have the blue laws. If they had not been tolerant Obama would be a janitor working in Chicago and not Senator from the state of Illinois.
You say in one sentence ‘ets focus on agreeement’ and then you kick people. Stuff your agreement.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Jacob,
Age of consent is different in many states. Insurance companies give you the best rates after age 25. There are many age variables depending on the topic. Are you looking for a standard “federal” age or state or both?
Unfortunately, that “dead” time between finishing high school and age 21 (unless the 3rd grade was really bad on you and the two co-incide) causes problems. Some kids don’t want to work or won’t/can’t go to college. It leads to a boring day with idleness-and you know what idleness can do. I believe to make a standard age on anything has drastic changes on other issues-a domino effect. I would not be againest a limited mandatory community service here in the U.S. Since there are too many kids that just can’t find maturity anymore, building a foundation in esteem while helping others is kinda like fast-tracking. I know, it’s a socialistic idea but you see what I’m getting at. Extend school so that you graduate from the 14th grade which is equivelent to an associates degree. More money for the taxpayer? Sure. Keep them out of trouble? I think so and be that much closer to a final degree. Oh, what do I know. Darn these drugs!
September 18th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
wow jacob, guess that hit nerve! i’m not sure if it’s what i said about the me generation or the ‘greatest generation’ that got you fired up. and that’s not all i focused on at all, but you seem a bit romantic about the greatest generation, if anything later ages deserve credit for is making progress with equal rights. there were some problems during there time and pointing them out isn’t kicking them. it’s amazing how you can’t even acknowledge or even be civil when someone points out a possible flaw in something you like. be it greatest generation, palin, etc. it’s like it’s elevated to worship status. chill dude.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
El Jefe, Maybe Jacob’s response stems from the fact that the reason you are sitting on your butt, typing in your comfy chair, is because of the greatest generation. What’s next, the old “our founding fathers were slave owners!”
September 18th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
c-mac, um, some were slave owners. doesn’t mean they were not great men, every person is flawed. it’s the truth and something to keep in mind when understanding them. there is only one flawless individual that ever walked the earth.
September 19th, 2008 at 1:11 am
We don’t allow people to be president until 35, raise all the levels to 35!
The idea that just because someone is able to join the military they should be able to drink or vote is more than a little crazy. One of the reasons we allow 18-year-olds to join the military is they (the males at least) are most fit, and capable of being brain washed at that age. The military doesn’t want someone at 25, when they already know better! Pragmatism!
Voting takes more sense — look at the number of people that would vote for a presidential candidate that gets the number of states wrong. The idea is to raise the ages for activities to a level where the vast majority are mature enough to make rational, informed decisions about the issue. My eldest daughter at 16 stated she didn’t *want* to get a driver’s license for very rational reasons — which probably meant that she was mature enough to have one if she wanted. The 15-year-olds that can’t wait to drive are the ones that ought not drive.
As to drinking, I’d rather see the age restriction completely eliminated. Children that don’t see drinking as “cool” would probably be less likely to abuse it than those that do “21″ parties now.
While I understand the reasons for having limits on consumption of drugs (which drinking falls into) I know the reasons are pushed most by those that have had someone abuse those drugs. If people abuse something, there is no end of those that want to eliminate the thing abused by force. That is so naive and narrow minded. Darwin had one part of his ideas right, natural selection will select out those that do not adapt (we see an ever decreasing number of species). Those that make truly bad decisions could help mankind by selecting themselves out of the gene pool.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:19 am
El Jefe - Bingo, you got my point. The problem is when the left uses the founding father’s discriminations or generational issues to prevent advancement.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:26 am
el jefe,
when anyone speaks of those who came before us in terms that are what I call ‘leftist chic’:
1. the founders are dead white male slave owners,
2. those who fought WWII are racist homophobes
3. etc, etc
I use it as cause for a repost. Such oversimplification is slanderous and offensive. You indulged in it, so I ‘got fired up’. Though it appears from the following it is not you world-view.
I agree with your there are no flawless individuals. But I also think judging people from 60+ and 200+ years ago with todays sensibilities is not just either. At the same time I do believe in absolute truth. How to square that circle?
September 19th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
jacob, i was just pointing some bad about that time, not trashing everyone. i like to take a mixed view on history (wish i could have majored in it). you can’t go either all good or all bad our past. i do think you should hold people to the same standard, because i think we are judged by one standard. there were people that opposed slavery during the 1770’s, that took guts and it was wrong for the founding father not to. we might seem like barbarians in the future for allowing extreme poverty in such a large portion of the world why the us is pretty wealthy, denying folks healthcare (or abortion on demand, for a conservative issue).
in any event, back to your main post, what exactly are you saying about the drinking age?
September 20th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
The question is not the drinking age,for we all know that minors will get their hands on booze any way they can.
So currently we have the following:
The driving age in VA is 16 1/2.
At age of 18 is supposed to be adulthood without the booze.
We have the drinking age at 21
What the real issue is the driving age and how the laws can be changed to deter minor drivers from drinking.
I believe the rules for age 18 and 21 should remain however the driving age should be changed to 18.
At 18, the driver faces adult laws and not be given special minor privileges for causing accidents that kill or injure others due to the minors BEING irresponsible driving while under the influence.
If the laws remain 16 ½: than the driver shall face all adult driving laws.
No exception to minor’s age, dui, reckless driving etc. All charges brought up as an adult would face.
It may sound harsh but the Commonwealth Attorney is defending minors who have killed or injured people while driving intoxicated. By doing this it leaves a wide open door for minors to interrupt the laws based on the choices the commonwealth’s office has made. Such as a possible thought below:
“I can drink and drive ha-ha , the CW will do nothing except maybe 60 days in JDC. No big deal, it’s cool”