News:

Long overdue maintenance happening. See post in the top forum.

Main Menu

Lower Drinking Age

Started by Wilbur, August 21, 2008, 04:38:58 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by tshane250

Yeah, but an 18 year old and join the military and go off and fight and die for his/her country, but he/she can't drink a beer.  Give me a break!



18 year-olds who sign up to fight and die can drink a beer legally overseas.

Many 18 year-olds who stay here and slack cause trouble at night clubs, parties, and other public places, as many lack the maturity to handle alcohol or use it responsibly.  Of course, there are 55 year-olds who lack that maturity as well, but not in the same numbers.
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first" -Ronald Reagan

Wilbur

The drinking age for much of Europe, for much of the world, for that matter, is 18.  Some start lower, such as 15 or 16 for beer and wine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age

OUGrad05

Only reason colleges want this to take place is so they can NOT be held responsible when accidents or even death's occur.  They're not doing this for the good of the students its solely to limit their liability.
 

Hoss

quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05

Only reason colleges want this to take place is so they can NOT be held responsible when accidents or even death's occur.  They're not doing this for the good of the students its solely to limit their liability.



I've always thought it should have remained eighteen.

If not, then don't require our sons/daughters the eligibility to join the service until they are 21.  I just don't see the logic in saying 'you're 18 and can die for this country, but we'll cite and/or arrest you if we catch you drinking a beer'.  Where's the logic in that?  Honestly?

OUGrad05

quote:
Originally posted by Hoss

quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05

Only reason colleges want this to take place is so they can NOT be held responsible when accidents or even death's occur.  They're not doing this for the good of the students its solely to limit their liability.



I've always thought it should have remained eighteen.

If not, then don't require our sons/daughters the eligibility to join the service until they are 21.  I just don't see the logic in saying 'you're 18 and can die for this country, but we'll cite and/or arrest you if we catch you drinking a beer'.  Where's the logic in that?  Honestly?



I'm not disputing what the drinking age can/should be.  Quite frankly I don't really care.  But lets be honest here, the PRIMARY reason colleges want it lowered is to protect their financial interests.  Thats it.
 

Hoss

quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05

quote:
Originally posted by Hoss

quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05

Only reason colleges want this to take place is so they can NOT be held responsible when accidents or even death's occur.  They're not doing this for the good of the students its solely to limit their liability.



I've always thought it should have remained eighteen.

If not, then don't require our sons/daughters the eligibility to join the service until they are 21.  I just don't see the logic in saying 'you're 18 and can die for this country, but we'll cite and/or arrest you if we catch you drinking a beer'.  Where's the logic in that?  Honestly?



I'm not disputing what the drinking age can/should be.  Quite frankly I don't really care.  But lets be honest here, the PRIMARY reason colleges want it lowered is to protect their financial interests.  Thats it.



Right.  wouldn't you?  Quite frankly, an 18 year old is going to find a way to drink.  I did.  Many others did.

What maddens me is when the parents blame it on the education institution.  For the most part, these kids are adults.  They should take responsibility for their actions or inactions.  The incredibly litigious society we live in breeds the hunger for quick money.

Does that lessen the loss to a family when, God forbid, something tragic happens to their child while in the act of underage drinking?  Of course not.  But the underage drinker should be taking responsibility for their actions.  We ask them to do same as soldiers at that age.  Why not when they are at our higher learning institutions?

sgrizzle

quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc

I say eliminate the drinking age altogether.  That way, kids can learn about alcohol when they're young, and there's no "forbidden fruit" to entice them into goofy behavior when they're older.  (How often do you hear teenagers bragging about how many Twinkies they ate the night before?  B/c Twinkies are not off limits, there's no glamor.)  See other nations throughout the world to discover how this works.



Don't Snack Cake and Drive!