Smoking and Drinking Ages - Pointless?

[slipstrike0159]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Bull****. Eighteen year olds are on the tail end of puberty, whereas most fourteen year olds have just started it. The destruction that smoking wreaks on an adult's body is multiplied several times over on a growing body.



HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Assuming fourteen year olds know ANYTHING is fallacious at best.

Now, lowering the drinking age to eighteen is fine with me, because the artificial maturity ascribed to eighteen year olds isn't completely unfounded, but to unleash something so destructive to young kids is just idiotic if you want them to be at all healthy.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Dangit! I was totally forming my response exactly like yours.

Although, i do want to add that not only would lowering the age to 14 extremely damage the growing adolescent body, it would take off many restrictions and make kids start having the idea that they can do whatever.

Sure, ill give you that some kids will think the thrill is gone (assuming that its only maybe 2% OF ALL TEENAGERS!). There are many kids who wait until they are the proper age to start smoking for many reasons, parents being a big one of them. As i said, once you give young kids the idea that they can choose to smoke purely on the assumption that they know it "makes them cough lots" only gives them justification to make other huge personal choices with little knowledge or the lack thereof.
Even the whole thing of, "well i can smoke at 18 so why cant i drink at 18" plays to my whole theory. The next step to that (putting your scenario into play) is, "well at 14 i can smoke so i should be able to make more decisions at that age". Now of course it is an extreme, but you still get people out there who say that we should let 14 year olds drive, have sex, and many other things similar.

Also on the alcohol subject, i think it was (ORIGINALLY) primarily structured like this to keep the newly recruited military personel from getting drunk and becoming useless come combat time. Completely assuming this was back when we had the draft and when a very good percentage of teens joined the army, it was very logical to place the age at 21 to keep the "grab life by the balls" kids from becoming alcoholics within the first 2 years of service just because it seemed fun at the time. However now, when it is apparant that not such a high percentage joins the army right at 18 it might be good to think about lowering the age.

Face it, a majority of the reason why people start drinking and smoking is because it seems physically appealing to try new experiences. Even when you are the proper age its a rush to do something like that because it IS a new experience and you are very much excited to see how it turns out. So lowering the age more and more only give more justification to letting emotion driven kids make decisions that will affect the rest of their life in a negative way.

[Rubin0]

Until parents in the United States start teaching their "children" how to act like "adults" I think the drinking age is fine. This country is full of teenage drifters that have no sense of responsibility at all. Most kids I know just end up drinking in their basements or in some other local place that does not require them to drive home afterwards. The drinking age does not stop me from drinking, but it puts limitations (to a degree) on my drinking habits and most other underagers. I've seen too many people die over the past couple of years because they couldn't be responsible. That number would just go up if 18 year olds felt as if they could pass a breathalizer test instead of just automatically failing due to our no tolerance laws.

As far as smoking goes, I think 18 is reasonable. Kids shouldn't be smoking. I started at 16, but that doesn't make it right.

[sk8mastr]

It is pointless to make a thread debating because regardless the law will not change. Although it is very entertaining to read what some post on different subjects and their views on how the law should be different. 1.Become president. 2.Change laws. 3.Enjoy, because by the time they chance you will most likely be old enough to drink or smoke so it really does not matter ;P

[Squeek]

The age limit, to me, is a timeline for parents. It's not just a "maturity" line.

"You're responsible for making sure your child doesn't drink or smoke until this age." That's what it says to me. "They can legally do them at these ages, but it's still your call from then on and we no longer have a say."

It's just like the video game rating age. M for Mature means 17+ only. Well, do you see 12-year olds on M-rated games? Of course. Bad parenting or really 'mature' child. Most of the time, it's the former rather than the latter.

My parents weren't even that strict with smoking / drinking. I'm just not stupid enough to pay money to kill myself. I've been 21 for months now and I still haven't had any alcoholic beverages.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by sk8mastr

It is pointless to make a thread debating because regardless the law will not change.

So we should never debate anything ever, since none of us is a Congressman? That's a stupid argument.

because by the time they chance you will most likely be old enough to drink or smoke so it really does not matter ;P

Most of us in here ARE old enough to smoke, many to drink.

Does that mean we can't care about other people?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[ShastaTwist]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Most of us in here ARE old enough to smoke, many to drink.

Does that mean we can't care about other people?

--Guido

I'm not. >:]

[EnR]

Haha, here in Canada drinking age is 18 XD

[three17s]

Being 18, you can vote, such as most of you should have gone out today and done. Allowing the people who can vote this "special privilege", the government can pollute the American population more.

[MrRubix]

I am not fully educated on the subject but I think a lot of it has to do with statistical evidence behind external damages (as to why the age is not being lowered at the moment for drinking). I think it was during the 1970's when a lot of US states had an 18-year age requirement, and a lot of death/traffic accident rates started climbing, inevitably leading to the 21-age limit.

However, in general, people generally regard 18 as "the start of adulthood," where you can marry, serve in the military, vote, etc, so why not drink? Many claim that by pushing the drinking limit to 21, you are giving alcohol a mystique that makes it a more alluring forbidden fruit. It's like when prohibition was attempted in the US and didn't really curb the mass consumption going on under the radar -- same thing applies here, really.

Plenty of other countries with lower limits don't have nearly as many alcohol-related issues because of the way their respective societies treat alcohol. Being drunk is seen as very pathetic/weak. People learn to drink responsibly and there isn't nearly so much allure to alcohol like it has in the US.

The limit, in my opinion, should just be put down to 18 in the US. In the long run, I think it would be better to foster a smarter and more responsible societal view of alcohol instead of just brute-forcing a limit that doesn't seem to do much other than providing incentive for people to bypass it.


sk8mastr: Out of all the most ridiculous things I've read on this site, your previous statement takes the cake. Congratulations on saying the most retarded thing I've heard in a while.

[korny]

Haha i can only imagine what would happen if the drinking age was lowered to 18.

[All_That_Chaz]

The drinking age is where it is because having high school students legally buying alcohol is a bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad idea. I can only imagine what the drive home from school would have been like knowing that more than likely some quarter of the students had a drink or two before they left and maybe a tenth were drunk.

It is of course the job of the conglomerate of the parents, the schools, and the media to teach children about drinking, but there just isn't a good enough reason to put it in their hands at such a dangerous time.

On the smoking age, it definitely shouldn't be available to developing children for the reasons stated above. It doesn't matter if a kid knows the dangers and still wants to smoke. This is why so many statutes are in place to keep kids in school at this age. In this stage of life even the most independant of children are more than likely better off being taken care of. I certainly don't think I was capable of making great decisions back then and still don't in some cases. This sounds like saying, "the government knows what's good for you," which sounds stupid, but protecting children from themselves is important enough that america would elect people to do it.

[MrRubix]

This much is indeed true -- I never saw alcohol much in high school, but in college it's everywhere. Having drunkards in high school would not be fun.

[All_That_Chaz]

it was kind of eery how omnipresent alcohol became the second i got to college. maybe i was just sheltered in high school. =/

[devonin]

Originally Posted by EnR

Haha, here in Canada drinking age is 18 XD

Actually, in Canada the drinking age is 18 in Manitoba, Quebec and Alberta only. It is 19 everywhere else.

Originally Posted by Three17s

Being 18, you can vote, such as most of you should have gone out today and done. Allowing the people who can vote this "special privilege", the government can pollute the American population more.

I'm not really seeing how allowing someone the free choice to consume alcohol or not (Especially since they can consume it anyway if they've a mind to) "pollutes" the american population. If someone is so prone to alcoholism that the mere permission to do so will ruin them forever, then they are already an alcoholic, they just can't buy it themselves.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I am not fully educated on the subject but I think a lot of it has to do with statistical evidence behind external damages (as to why the age is not being lowered at the moment for drinking). I think it was during the 1970's when a lot of US states had an 18-year age requirement, and a lot of death/traffic accident rates started climbing, inevitably leading to the 21-age limit.

Not only did the instance of death via traffic accident drop, the instance of all alcohol related crimes lowered, well, except incidence of underage drinking, that skyrocketed.

I think the raising of the limit made almost no difference to the number of people drinking, it just made police more inclined than they used to be, to pull over younger looking drivers who were driving in a way that could look like they were drinking too much. And it made more drinkers under 21 move their drinking to friend's basements, and field parties in the country where they would sleep it off instead of drive home as from a bar.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

sk8mastr: Out of all the most ridiculous things I've read on this site, your previous statement takes the cake. Congratulations on saying the most retarded thing I've heard in a while.

I feel bad for deleting it if it brought you such entertainment.

Originally Posted by korny

Haha I can only imagine what would happen if the drinking age was lowered to 18.

Well...seeing as this is a discussion and debate forum, perhaps you should either let us see what some of your imaginings are, that we can respond to them, or else consider holding off on posting until you have some actual claims to make. All posts must be -about- something.

Originally Posted by All_That_Chaz

I can only imagine what the drive home from school would have been like knowing that more than likely some quarter of the students had a drink or two before they left and maybe a tenth were drunk.

But schools make their own rules that, on school property, can supercede existing laws (That is, They can add additional limits to existing laws) and I can't imagine any highschool, even if some of the people were of drinking age, allowing drinking at school, on school property, or allowing students visibly drunk onto the grounds. Further, how many highschool students are 18? In Ontario, we're graduating a reasonable number of 17 year olds from highschool. This suggests that at best, a portion of your senior year will be of age. I would hardly assume that a full quarter of the students "had a drink or to"

This sounds like saying, "the government knows what's good for you," which sounds stupid, but protecting children from themselves is important enough that america would elect people to do it.

People to protect children from themselves, sounds an awful lot like some people I know, I call them Mom and Dad.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

This much is indeed true -- I never saw alcohol much in high school, but in college it's everywhere. Having drunkards in high school would not be fun.

In Ontario, with the 19 drinking age, highschool would have maybe 5% of all students of age, and university would have about 95% of all students of age. That should more than account for the increase in drinking all on its own, though I will admit that "Freedom to do what I damn well want to" in college almost certainly contributes to the increase in the visible presence of alcohol.

[peckerxcore]

i think its pointless
when u take something away from kids they only want it more
i started drinking at 13 or 14
and smoking then too
(since then i have quit smoking)
but drinking in moderation is going to happen
maybe not so much in middle school but def high school

[devonin]

Please format your posts into complete sentences with proper spelling, grammar and punctuation from now on.

Also, this is absolutely not the first time you've been told this: Make that avatar smaller.

[All_That_Chaz]

Originally Posted by devonin

But schools make their own rules that, on school property, can supercede existing laws (That is, They can add additional limits to existing laws) and I can't imagine any highschool, even if some of the people were of drinking age, allowing drinking at school, on school property, or allowing students visibly drunk onto the grounds. Further, how many highschool students are 18? In Ontario, we're graduating a reasonable number of 17 year olds from highschool. This suggests that at best, a portion of your senior year will be of age. I would hardly assume that a full quarter of the students "had a drink or to"

It's against school policy to smoke on the grounds too, but that didn't stop every single smoking student, which made up a healthy minority of the student body, from either cutting class briefly or stepping outside between classes to catch a quick smoke. Luckily enough, the cigarettes don't hinder driving ability, but alcohol does. Bringing the drinking age down to 18 not only makes it more likely for those 18-year-olds to find it ok to drink on school grounds, it makes it infinitely easier to get their hands on it. Because even if the majority of the senior class was 17, everyone would at least know someone who was 18 and willing to buy. I find any reason to put more of a dangerous variable in the driving equation like alcohol in the hands of these teenage drivers to be absolutely unacceptable.

People to protect children from themselves, sounds an awful lot like some people I know, I call them Mom and Dad.

The laws are there because those parents elected people that would put those statutes in place. Kind of indirect parenting.

[peckerxcore]

I tried before and it didn't work, but I have only been told once before. As for the punctuation and grammar I will work on it. I am not used to typing like this. By the way avatar fixed.


Guido edit: Fixed as I was searching for your name to change it for you. Good timing.

[Wow GG]

Personally I don't drink or smoke. I have drunk beer but, it was only a sip when I was younger. I think its pretty stupid to lower the drinking age to 18. I just recently read something I didn't know about the age-21 law. In 21 states there is a law that states that no one under the age of 21 is allowed to buy alcohol, but in these 21 states there is no law stating that you have to be at least 21 years of age to consume the drink. So therefore in those 21 states if the drinking age was lower to 18, seniors in high school would be allowed to purchase alcohol and therefore distributing it to their underclassmen friends. Technically nobody would be breaking the law either.

Lets just say 19 year olds drink without hesitation. Thats two years under the legal drinking age. Now if we lowered the drinking age to 18, what would stop the "without hesitation" age to drop to 16?

Well that's my two cents.

[devonin]

All drinking laws in the United States are state-created and state-enforced. The federal government doesn't have the ability to legislate with regards to drinking ages.

However, the US Federal government has a law which says that any state that does not enforce an age-21 drinking limit loses all federal funding with regards to roads and transporation.