I personally believe the drinking age should be lowered to 19 (out of highschool) but it really does not matter to me either way. Many people who disagree with the lowering of the drinking age site increased DUIs when the drinking age was lowered. I believe regardless of what the drinking age is that DUI penalties be increased. Not increase how much the ticket is but have the penalty be taking the driver off the road. I believe that for the first offence is your warning, you get your license suspended for 6 months or until you complete drivers school. Your second offense, mantatory 1 year suspension of your driver liscense. Your third is your third strike out, you lose your license until you have a vehicle equiped with a breathalizer ignition purchased with your money.

Why so strict? Because their is NO excuse for drunk driving, it is 100% preventable.

Thoughts, comments?

Legal drinking at age 21 is good for me. I agree with your assessment about being out of high school but you have to have some sense of responsibility and accountability out on your own. Most 19 year old's are really not out on their own yet. The biggest factor is responsibility and understanding that what you are doing is not only dangerous but dangerous to others.

I am all for harsher penalty's. But it seems that are justice system is all about being harsh with petty crimes and being lax on crimes that can get people killed.

If you can be trusted with the most dangerous of weapons you should be able to drink. At eighteen we allow our citizens to enlist in the armed forces and operate tanks, machine guns, rocket-launchers, and all other manner of destructive forces, and of course the most deadly weapon of all; the vote.

If we trust our young people with explosive devices and the responsibility of choosing civil government, we can trust them to drink responsibly. Hell, they can't be any less responsible than the countless thousands of people 21 and over who die every year from alcohol poisoning or DUI crashes.

No beer, no enlistment, no vote.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

I knew that this argument would be brought up

Now what is the biggest difference between drinking at age 18 and learning to fire weapons and handling heavy equipment full of explosives?

Training and oversight. When you turned 21 did you have to spend week after week training before you got to even touch a beer? What about having a CO standing over you 98% of the time making sure you don't drop the ball?

As for the voting aspect, this is pretty much a non issue because I think we all know or know of someone that votes out of their *** any way so it really does not matter.

At this point in Americas societal evolution I do not think that teen's cannot fully handle the responsibility of being able to drink. Drinking carry's to much of a stigma in this country. Now places such as Germany and such have embraced beer and liquor so there is not as much of a stigma associated with it making it just an every day thing.

Adults "drop the ball" all the time when they drive drunk and kill people. The issue here isn't oversight, the issue is citizenship and the equal protection of laws. An eighteen year-old is expected to serve in the military when called upon, serve adult penalties for crimes, and rationally consent to have sexual intercourse (some states even younger). They can buy an AR-15 rifle at 18, smoke a pack of cigarettes, and vote (even if out of their ***). So effectively our society tells them that while they are expected to act as adults act, and be held to the same standards as adults, they are not entitled to all of the rights and privileges associated with adulthood. It creates a second-class citizenry and THAT is why I'm against it.

Further, did being under 21 ever stop you from getting alcohol? Between friends over 21, fake ID's, and bribing store clerks I never had dry night in college unless I chose to make it dry. Just like drugs, if kids want to use alcohol, they can find a way to get it, and they'll get it fast. All the criminalization does is create a society in which getting completely hammered at age 18 is "cool" and thus leads to significant problems with alcohol poisoning, DUI, and other alcohol-related problems. Hell, by age 21 I had been drinking IN BARS since 19, so my birthday involved two beers and a hell of a lot of buffalo wings, the novelty had worn off. Let em drink at 18, let the novelty wear off, and you'll see greater social stability.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

If we can figure out how to get rid of the stigma associated with booze and take the thrill away then I am all for that but I am not sure what the best way to go about it is.

There are also the implications involving the effects on a still developing mind when it comes to alcohol as well. But that is still kind of flimsy and such so we can put that aside. I truly do not think that if we lower the age then we are going to have a wave of drunken 18 year olds but most kids at that age can barely be trusted with a car.

If we made the penalties for drinking and driving severe enough then maybe kids would understand that this is a serious issue and not screw around with it. If we would raise our kids to be responsible and good people then I would have no problem dropping the age right now but sadly this is not the case. I some times wonder if we should let 16 year olds drive, but that is another debate.

Lowering the drinking age would increase alchohol related fatalities.

I wouldn't even give them three strikes. Driving while intoxicated is a serious offense. Once should be more than enough. They have demonstrated they have no intention of obeying the law and they couldn't care less about the safety of other drivers. They are putting their lives at risk, as well as the lives of others.

If they drive while intoxicate once, they should lose their license permanently. As well as a hefty fine.

__________________

I think you might be on to something. It could be a new business venture. Just as there is defensive driving....why not defensive drinking?

So, you're saying teens can fully handle the responsibility of being able to drink (the double negatives cancel each other out).

The real difference between trusting a teen with alcohol and trusting him with a missile launcher and other military weaponry is that the weaponry doesn't make him inebriated.

These damned leftists want to give teens the right to drink and do all kinds of other things but they still want the parents to be held liable for when these teens screw up, to be responsible for paying these kids' way through college, and to pay child support and health insurance for them until they're 25. Make up your minds, leftists, are they children or are they adults?

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."