[quaist]

I think your mum's approach is definitely exemplary.

It's just a fact that you can't keep kids from drinking altogether, and artificial parental bans simply make it even more desirable to do in their eyes.

[sunnykerr]

I think that, where underage drinking is a serious problem in the United States, it's more a question of the taboo surrounding it than the law.

I can't be sure, of course, but that's the feeling I get.

Just because (a) not all American kids go insane around alcohol and (b) if I just compare with my own experience, that seems to be the main difference.

When my mum bought me that first beer, I was still four years away from being able to drink legally. But the fact that she was basically letting me know it was alright for her if I did drink, made me think I better behave responsibly, lest I lose that permission.

If you have parents who won't even consider doing it because it's illegal... I think that's when the danger starts being real.

[quaist]

In my personal experience, the people who will show problematic drinking behavior later on usually either come from a broken home or have parents that are alcoholics themselves. Of course there are exceptions, but that's the notion I got over time.

So I don't think any arbitrary age limits play a crucial role at all there.

[sunnykerr]

I've actually had the opposite experience to be honest. Children of alcoholics being extra careful to avoid repeated all-too familiar patterns and children of single parents (of which I was one) being careful not to disappoint their parents' expectations.



Seriously, all that proves to me is that people will get to alcohol whether or not it's legal for them to do so.

If that's what they want to do.

So, yeah, laws don't really change that.

[PhoenixRising]

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) To be honest, I've always been mistified by the U.S. laws on that front. You can drive a car, go off to war, move out of the house to attend university, own a car, pay rent, hold a job... do all sorts of things that one would consider to involve a certain level of maturity and/or responsibility way before the age of 21. But you can't have a drop of alcohol legally. It's not just preposterous, it is dangerous, too.

I believe that law was enacted sometime in either the late 1960's or early 1970's. Prior to that I think the legal drinking age was 18, but I'm not sure. I believe the drinking age in the U.S. was raised to 21 as a reaction to the amount of drunk driving accidents and automobile fatalities that were occurring in the U.S., and an alarming number of them were high school and college students. Parents were sick and tired of burying their children as a result of hit and run accidents and car crashes, so they pushed for a raising of the legal drinking age to 21, around the time most students are graduating college. At least that's what I think was the reason.

[quaist]

^ Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense.

But if apparently theory and reality are not congruent when it comes to alcohol consumption, I'm not sure if that law's still living up to its initial goal.

[sunnykerr]

That's a very good explanation indeed.

It also points to the need to update that law, yet again.

Because, just as an example, back in the '60s and '70s, laws on safety-belt use in cars were much different as well.

Two different situations, I know.

I'm just saying, we need to move with the times.

Solid enforcement of drunk-driving laws won't save everyone, but then I expect kids continue to drive drunk even if they're not legally allowed to drink.

[PhoenixRising]

I looked it up and the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in the U.S. was actually finalized in 1984, so prior to that the legal drinking age was still 18 in many states, but it become 21 years of age by 1984.

Yes, back in 60's, 70's and 80's seat belt laws and other safety issues like airbags were different than they are today(and airbags were non-existent), but it's not just the occupants of the car that are in danger from drunk driving. There's also the risk to pedestrians as well, people who get run over by drunk drivers, or who themselves are too inebriated to watch what they are doing when the cross a street or walk along a road. But yeah, I believe the primary reason for the drinking age being 21 in the USA is due to DUI accident injuries and fatalities and not due to any taboos about underage drinking. It's also the reason why there are now laws here against texting or talking on a cell phone while driving as well. The number of highways, as well as suburban and rural roads, automobiles and automobile traffic in the U.S. is far greater than in European countries, I believe.

[quaist]

So if I got it right, the concept behind this law is that when drinking under 21 as well as driving's allowed, you get too many fatalities out of that -- whereas when you make drinking illegal until age 21, you'll only get binge drinkers that won't dare driving or calling 9-1-1 in case something goes wrong?

[sunnykerr]

I am obviously not the repository of the world's knowledge, but my own personal experience tells me that the taboo of underage drinking is at least one of the main problems.

We have kids who drink here, too. We have kids who drink and get in accidents, but that's happened less and less over the years, as call-in programs have been put in place to give those kids better options.

And I'm sure Canada isn't the only country in the world where kids do an inordinate amount of drinking. And unlike, say, Germany, we don't have an autobahn here, so I feel fairly confident when I say that there are no circumstances wherein this is a situation unique to the United States.

The only thing that's unique is the weird disparity between the age at which you can drive (own a car, go to war, have a job, etc.) and the age at which you can drink.

[PhoenixRising]

Originally Posted by quaist (View Post) So if I got it right, the concept behind this law is that when drinking under 21 as well as driving's allowed, you get too many fatalities out of that -- whereas when you make drinking illegal until age 21, you'll only get binge drinkers that won't dare driving or calling 9-1-1 in case something goes wrong?

Well, like I said, we also now have laws against texting and driving as well. And again I think that the main reason for the law was fatalities involving student drunk driving accidents, at least that's the general impression that I got.

I take it both of you are the moderators of this board yet neither of you are from the USA? Just wondering.

[Ann357]

I am an American who remembers when the law changed from 18 to 21. The propaganda at the time was for safety do to young adults drinking and driving. I don't know how successful the change was...

I am not aware that some taboo drove the change...I had never heard that before. The taboo now is because young adults and anyone of legal age who helps them drink is setting themselves up for problems with law enforcement and/or civil penalties.

There are lots of examples of incongruity with age and laws.

[sunnykerr]

Okay, the fault is mine here. I didn't communicate well what I was trying to say.

By the way, PhoenixRising, indeed, neither Christina nor I are from the United States.

I didn't mean to say that the taboo I perceive about alcohol consumption in the U.S. caused the law to change. Not even close.

But I do see the fact that the age was raised to 21 as living in the same universe as my perception that there is a taboo around underage drinking.

Obviously, when something's illegal, it will be frowned upon. Usually, that's just good, common sense.

I happen to believe that, when it comes to the drinking age in the United States, it's occasionally been taken to sometimes extreme levels. That's all. Not all the time, but a lot of the times.

At least, that's what my friend's experience studying at university there combined with my own university experience alongside U.S. students here have taught me.

[sunnykerr]

Democrats take New York and Virginia as Republicans win New Jersey Moderate Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has won a landslide re-election, a possible launch pad for a 2016 White House run. In Virginia, Terry McAuliffe - a key Hillary Clinton ally - narrowly beat a Republican to become governor of the pivotal presidential swing state. Bill de Blasio's thumping victory in New York makes him the city's first Democratic mayor-elect in two decades. Tuesday's results point the way to next year's US midterm elections. New Jersey's straight-talking Governor Christie brushed aside his Democratic challenger, state senator Barbara Buono, by 60.5% to 38%, retaining a handy platform for a potential presidential bid. Christie's bipartisan appeal His ability to attract the support of Democrats, independents and minorities makes him a tantalising prospect for the ideologically split Republican party ahead of 2016. "We stand here tonight showing that it is possible to put doing your job first," said Mr Christie in his victory speech, "to put working together first, to fight for what you believe in yet still stand by your principles and get something done for the people who elected you." The governor, known for his readiness to work with Democrats in a left-leaning state, won much praise for his handling of the carnage wrought on the region by super-storm Sandy one year ago. However, fellow Republicans at a national level lambasted him for his embrace of Democratic President Barack Obama as he visited Jersey Shore to see the devastation. Virginia nail-biter In the Virginia governor's race, Mr McAuliffe eked out a smaller-than-expected, 48% to 45.5% win against socially conservative Republican Ken Cuccinelli. "Over the next four years most Democrats and Republicans want to make Virginia a model of pragmatic leadership," said Mr McAuliffe, a Democrat taking charge in a state with a Republican-led legislature. "This is only possible if Virginia is the model for bipartisan co-operation." During the campaign, Mr McAuliffe had emphasised his opponent's tea party support. The hardline wing of the Republican party was widely blamed for last month's government shutdown, which temporarily laid off many of the federal workers who populate Virginia's suburbs. Mr Cuccinelli, the state's outgoing attorney general, had stressed his Democratic rival's championing of the Obama healthcare law, whose troubled rollout has been a White House public relations disaster. A Libertarian candidate who won nearly 7% of Virginia's vote may have cost the Republican the race, say analysts. Mr Cuccinelli was also vastly outspent by his Democratic opponent. Marijuana and secession Mr McAuliffe is a veteran Democratic party fundraiser who was chairman of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. His capture of the governor's mansion in a crucial presidential swing-voting state could help plot a road map to victory for her should she run again for the White House, say analysts. Meanwhile, Mr de Blasio will succeed New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to become the first Democratic mayor of America's largest city since 1993. He secured a whopping 73% of the vote, compared with 24% for his Republican rival, Joe Lhota. In his victory speech, Mr de Blasio said the result showed that America's largest city had chosen "a progressive path", and he promised to make fighting income inequality his top priority. In other elections across the US on Tuesday: Colorado voted to tax marijuana sales; Portland, Maine, became the first US East Coast city to legalise use of the drug Six of 11 counties in Colorado passed symbolic votes to secede from the state Republican infighting played out in Alabama where a candidate backed by business interests beat a tea party rival in a primary vote Mike Duggan became the first white mayor-elect of Detroit since the 1970s A Seattle suburb raised its minimum wage to $15 an hour; New Jersey increased it to $8.25 an hour Washington state voters rejected a measure to label all genetically-modified food Tuesday's off-year polls could be seen as a litmus test of the parties' support ahead of the 2014 midterm elections. Next year's votes will decide the make-up of the House of Representatives, one-third of the Senate, and governorships in more than half the states. Mr Obama's Democratic party controls the US Senate, while Republicans hold sway in the House of Representatives. Now in his second term, Mr Obama will vacate the presidency in 2017.

I hope the upshot of all of this is that, on the long term, cooler heads will prevail.

[GardenSirens]

Democrats needed that big win in Virginia. The things these Republicans and conservative candidates (conservatives were drooling for Virginia) it's nice to stop that disaster before it became too big to stop.