|
Post by marjar on Mar 16, 2011 9:19:21 GMT -5
I would like to hear more about what is done in other countries such as Europe, etc and how they handle it. It seems like when you are legally an "adult", then you should be allowed to drink. And, criminalizing every behavior in this country is really going to just result in everyone being a criminal at some point. And, then these young adults can wind up with criminal records, etc which could haunt them, etc when they should be able to do so legally. The real issue isn't so much drinking but DUI. Separating the 2 is what is really more important. In many parts of Europe there is far less driving done by both teens and adults. In Belgium, bikes are a common means of transportation, for example. Fewer drivers equals fewer accidents by drunk drivers.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Mar 16, 2011 11:45:21 GMT -5
What's the difference between an 18 yr old drunk driver hitting you and your family and a 21 yr old drunk driver hitting you and your family? Or a 25 yr old drunk driver...or a 31 yr old drunk driver...or a 57 yr old drunk driver? Eh, you see where I'm going with this I think the reasoning is that 21 year olds are more likely to have developed the judgment necessary to drink responsibly. I'm not saying I agree, but that's the argument behind it. There is no evidence to that. In fact all the evidence has been showing that it doesn't matter what age you set it at people will be more prone to do things they shouldn't. I don't see the point of moving heaven and Earth so that someone will die at 21 instead of 18 as helping anything.
|
|
burnsattornincan
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 23:05:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,398
|
Post by burnsattornincan on Mar 16, 2011 12:01:09 GMT -5
the drinking age is 19 in Ontario, 19 in Quebec.
Make that 18 in Quebec. In addition, the bars are open 1 hour later until 3:00 am in Quebec so there can be some serious influx of young Ontarians at bars close to the border. Lots of good tilts too.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Mar 16, 2011 12:17:56 GMT -5
the drinking age is 19 in Ontario, 19 in Quebec.Make that 18 in Quebec. In addition, the bars are open 1 hour later until 3:00 am in Quebec so there can be some serious influx of young Ontarians at bars close to the border. Lots of good tilts too. Whoops, typo. It is 18 in QC. My bad.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 16, 2011 12:42:30 GMT -5
Also, I believe the punishment for driving drunk is far harsher in other countries & many have a much lower BAC cutoff.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,433
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 16, 2011 12:47:03 GMT -5
I think the reasoning is that 21 year olds are more likely to have developed the judgment necessary to drink responsibly. I'm not saying I agree, but that's the argument behind it. There is no evidence to that. In fact all the evidence has been showing that it doesn't matter what age you set it at people will be more prone to do things they shouldn't. I don't see the point of moving heaven and Earth so that someone will die at 21 instead of 18 as helping anything. The parents of the deceased, teenage drunk driver might get an accidental grandchild between their child's 18th and 21st birthdays. At least they will have something to remember their child by.
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on Mar 16, 2011 13:31:13 GMT -5
I don't want to bother looking it up, but can anybody find some hard statistics about DUI rates/accidents/fatalities from before and after the legal age was raised?
I for one favor keeping it at 21.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Mar 16, 2011 14:09:25 GMT -5
"Tragically, the 13,470 fatalities in 2006 caused by DUI drivers were slightly higher than the 13,451 fatalities caused by DUI drivers in 1996. One would hope that a decade of Public Service Announcements, education in high schools and defensive driving schools, as well as work by community groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) would have lessened the fatal impact of drunk driving. In 2006, one-third of all automobile fatalities were caused by DUI drivers with a BAC at or above 0.08 percent. If one looks at all automobile fatalities in which alcohol was a factor (drivers with a BAC at or above just 0.01 percent), the death toll rises to 16,005 people killed. These are called alcohol-related deaths, as opposed to DUI deaths or drunk driving deaths. Of the 1,794 minors (age 14 and below) who were killed in motor vehicle crashes, 306 (or almost one in five) occurred in alcohol-related accidents. Of those 306 fatalities, the minors riding with drivers who had a BAC at or above 0.08 percent made up one-half (153) of the fatalities. Several trends are observable when studying drunk driving statistics: DUI drivers (those with a Blood Alcohol Content at or above 0.08 percent) were most often driving motorcycles (27 percent), then light trucks (24 percent), then passenger cars (23 percent). Of all DUI drivers, the lowest fatality rate occurred in large trucks (just one percent). The data does not reveal if drivers of larger vehicles are less likely to drive drunk, or if they are just less likely to die in the accident due to the vehicle they are operating. DUI drivers are more four times more likely to be male than female. Traffic deaths at night are four times likelier to be alcohol-related (i.e. caused by a driver with a BAC at or above 0.01 percent) than those during the day. Of all traffic deaths in 2006 caused by drivers with a BAC at or above 0.08 percent, the majority of those drivers were age 21 to 24 (33 percent), followed by those age 25 to 34 (29 percent), and then age 35 to 44 (25 percent)." I couldn't find the before it raised to 21 but I know it lowered the number of DUI's in the 18-21 catagory and raised the number in the 21-24 catagory by about the same number. If we truly want to lower DUI's why don't we just outlaw males from driving?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:37:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2011 15:02:02 GMT -5
"Tragically, the 13,470 fatalities in 2006 caused by DUI drivers were slightly higher than the 13,451 fatalities caused by DUI drivers in 1996. One would hope that a decade of Public Service Announcements, education in high schools and defensive driving schools, as well as work by community groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) would have lessened the fatal impact of drunk driving. So, what you're saying is that in the span of a decade drunk driving deaths increased by 19 deaths using the 2006 data over the 1996 data? Riddle me this, Batman.....What was the population in 1996 versus 2006? For good measure, the (estimated) population in 1996 was around [265,189,794]. Now the (estimated) population in 2006 was around [300,009,716]. That's an (estimated) population difference of [34,819,922]. I'd say that's a huge decrease percentage wise in DUI related deaths. Wouldn't you?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 16, 2011 15:16:34 GMT -5
The annual miles driven has increased during that 10 year time period faster than the population growth. 2,486 billion miles driven in 1996 vs. 3014 billion in 2006.
That is .54 alcohol related fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles in 1996 & .45 per 100 million vehicle miles in 2006. So the accident rate that is actually used to track fatal accidents statistics has actually decreased by 17.5% in that 10 year period.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:37:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2011 15:27:45 GMT -5
Is it time to lower the drinking age to 18?
My one comment on this is that there should be one age which is recognized as the age when a person because an adult. If you can legally join the military, sign a contract, be tried as an adult, or do anything else that an "adult" can do at 18 years old then you should be able to drink. Yes, I'm sure that there will be an increase in drunk driving & yes I'm sure that a lot of 18 year olds will be killed while driving drunk. I think you have to except that fact if you pick 18 year old as the age of adulthood.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 16:37:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2011 15:37:29 GMT -5
The annual miles driven has increased during that 10 year time period faster than the population growth. 2,486 billion miles driven in 1996 vs. 3014 billion in 2006. That is .54 alcohol related fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles in 1996 & .45 per 100 million vehicle miles in 2006. So the accident rate that is actually used to track fatal accidents statistics has actually decreased by 17.5% in that 10 year period. Using different statistics, but the same overall point. Deaths caused by DUI have dropped in that 10 year period.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Mar 16, 2011 18:01:35 GMT -5
This is a difficult one for me. I do understand the argument that if they are old enough to die for their country, they should be allowed to drink.
And, in fact, they can drink legally in some states. But, given the propensity of many 18 yr olds to act and drink recklessly, I hesitate. Maybe the age should be raised to 25? (tongue in cheek)
oldtex, your argument for consistency is very logical. But if we decided to do that, I'd advocate for making the legal age 21. Of course, that'd cause problems for military recruiters since 18 yr olds tend to be more easily influenced.
|
|
|
Post by marjar on Mar 16, 2011 18:52:31 GMT -5
If the age were to be lowered, it should come with stiffer penalties for driving under the influence and for making booze available to those who are under age. Frankly, I don't have a problem with stiffer penalties as is.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Mar 16, 2011 19:29:59 GMT -5
I could definitely support stiffer penalties for anyone, any age driving under the influence. I'd be fine with jail time for the first offense as long as there were no exveptions.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 16, 2011 20:07:15 GMT -5
I could definitely support stiffer penalties for anyone, any age driving under the influence. I'd be fine with jail time for the first offense as long as there were no exveptions. Or you can drive under the influence for 40 years and never have an accident
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Mar 16, 2011 20:38:46 GMT -5
If you want to reduce the number of driving deaths of 16-18 year olds, reduce the driving age to 12. The deaths number has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with experience. If you want to increase the driving deaths of people 40-43 then raise the driving age to 40. Same logic goes with drinking. I say drinking age limit is parent determined.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Mar 17, 2011 0:49:39 GMT -5
...we're going about this all wrong... let's follow precedent and make 26 the legal age for everything... just like parents now being able to keep their "kids" of that age on their health insurance policies...
|
|
|
Post by straydog on Mar 17, 2011 1:07:18 GMT -5
Welcome aboard straydog! Thanks, I'm glad I finally got up the nerve to start posting.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 17, 2011 7:46:34 GMT -5
But no one is ever old enough to carry both at the same time.
|
|