thoughts on the drinking age
Originally Posted by EricNau
MADD....
the brain continues to develop throughout childhood and adolescence until approximately age 20
http://www.madd.org/stats/1744
Consider your sources, as MADD is a taaaaaaad bit biased. I've read about recent studies in Scientific American, the results of which concluded that the amygdala, the section of the brain which is primarily responsible for making mature decisions, is not fully developed until age 25. Another source (
http://www.mentorfoundation.org/pdfs/prevention_perspectives/19.pdf) estimates the number to be in the early 20s. Either way, 20 seems to be a rather conservative estimate.
In my honest opinion, I think that MADD either accepted the number 20 as fact because it fits their cause ("Hey, 20 is less than 21, woohoo it *MUST* be the right number" [don't even get me started on affirming the consequence as a logical fallacy]), or, to give them the benefit of the doubt, they simply didn't realize the outdated information they used is inaccurate, according to recent studies.
Assuming that MADD doesn't suddenly change its opinion and say the drinking age should be 25 now, what should we do with the current drinking age of 21? After all, our brains aren't "fully" developed, so that obviously implies we're ignorant and naive.
If you're allowed to be drafted (aka forced) to fight for your country at the age of 18--that is, if you're allowed to die for your country--why shouldn't you be allowed to drink alcohol? Is going into combat and fighting for your life require less "mature" decision than deciding that you've had enough to drink, or that you shouldn't drive home tonight and instead call a friend or a taxi?
The problem ISN'T age. Now that's not to say that minors should be drinking, but is an 18-year-old really that significantly less intelligent than a 21-year-old Who cares whether a drunk person is 18 or 21? The point is, being intoxicated creates both large and small problems, REGARDLESS OF AGE. The solution isn't emphasizing that all of the sudden, at some specific age, you're suddenly "mature" enough to drink, and that if you drink before that magical age, you should be punished with outlandish fines and penalties. The solution is being harsher on the true problems caused by drinking--that is, alcohol-related crimes, particularly including DUI. There are other ways to instill responsibility than targeting the underage. Teach smart parenting, if kids learn the consequences of abuse, along with important guidelines to safe drinking, they'll be less inclined to abuse alcohol when they are legally allowed to drink.
With that being said, surely most of you have gathered that I don't support the current drinking age, and you might be asking what my theory is to explain why the drinking age remains at 21.
First, if you lower the drinking age, there will inevitably uproar from various political stances, particularly conservatives. Raise the age, and there will be uproar from both conservatives and liberals alike... Not necessarily the dream career highlight of an incumbant Commander in Chief. But I think there is more to it than that, as some Presidents (and I'm not specifically implying any president) have been indifferent to political uproar. I think that the real reason is the exorbitant amount of money that the government receives from underage fines. Alcohol-related fines are quite possibly the most easily increased income for the government. When is the last time the population allowed income taxes to be raised drastically, without significant protest? Yet a drastic increase in substance abuse fines are relatively uncontested. Think of how many college students are in the U.S. Now think, if the majority of the college students are in the normal sequence of education (freshman 17-18 years-old, seniors 21-22 years-old), then an overwhelming majority of college students are under 21. Bust a few college parties, and the government rakes in the dough. I'd honestly like to see an accurate number of how much the government makes *solely* through underage fines. Unfortunately, that type of information is most likely secretive and accessible only to those who would refuse to expose it, aka politicians.
But then again, that theory is simply speculation, and who knows how valid it is. And I apologize if saying that made your time feel wasted, but it was said for the sake of fairness.
I'm going to hate myself in the morning, as I've infringed on my time to sleep (not to mention while doing someting of relative unimportance), to write a comment that quite possibly no one will read because it is repulsively long.
Kudos to those who have read thus far, and good night to everyone else (and those who are unhappy with only being granted kudos).
P.S. thoughts, comments, rebuttals, relevant information, praises, criticism, or any well-meaning input is welcome:
machonguy@aim.com