danimal wrote:
To all:
Lets look at Europe, where the drinking age is generaly between 16-18, depending on where you are, and in some countries, graduated from beer to spirits depending on age.
From the SanFran Chron.
In other countries across Europe, adolescents are making similar headlines for drinking themselves into a stupor, often passing out in the process.
And they're getting younger: A June 2006 European Union-commissioned report says nearly all 15- to 16-year-old European students have had alcohol at some point in their lives and, on average, now start when they're just 12 1/2 years old.
In Austria - where binge drinking is known as "Komatrinken," or "coma drinking" - a new law prohibits the sale of alcohol to anyone under either 16 or 18, depending on the region, and requires cashiers and establishments to card customers if they have any doubt about their age. Failure to do so can result in fines of up to $5,610 and loss of a liquor license.
"When it comes to coma drinking among young people, we're dealing with a phenomenon that needs to be battled to the best of our abilities," Economics Minister Martin Bartenstein said.
Authorities and experts alike acknowledge the issue isn't going away.
The World Health Organization estimates there are 76.3 million people with alcohol use disorders worldwide.
The experts warn that some barely pubescent juveniles are starting to reach for the bottle sooner.
"We've seen a whole series of new trends over the past five to 10 years," said Michael Musalek, director of the Anton Proksch Institute, a renowned Austrian detox center that claims to be Europe's largest.
"For one, the age of alcohol beginners keeps declining. Today, 11-, 12-, 13-year-olds are already drinking - some on a regular basis," he said.
Hospital officials notice the same trend.
At Vienna's General Hospital, up to three teens are admitted each weekend after drinking escapades escalate, often leaving them so intoxicated they become unconscious, pediatrician Zsolt Szepfalusi said. More cases are common during special events, such as the city's annual Danube Island Fest in the summer, he said.
The statement above was from an article in the SanFransico Chronicle with this headline
Kids in Europe drinking heavy at early age
Some as young as 13 end up in hospital after 'coma drinking'.
Below are the numbers from the USA.
Deaths related to drinking in the 12-20 age group per year are about 5000 young lives snuffed out. Here is the breakdown
300 suicide
1200 'other injurys'
1600 homicides
1900 Motor vehicle
When I grew up, the legal age was 18, for 3.2 beer. No matter. Most everyone in school, and in the other schools I had friends at..(all of the schools around here) drank at least on weekends. These were "good" kids from good neighborhoods and "upstanding famillies".
And all of us that had a car drove while doing it. Also, we were young and LAWS be damned, we would buy it for youger kids too, because the grown-ups didn't know **** and we were going to do as we pleased. Thats teens for you, they knew it all then, just as they do now. Funny how after my son turned 21, I suddenly became smarter then I was when he was 13-20.
The answer may very well lay in the education of youth on the subjects of addiction and responsibility. But we in the USA seem to have forgotten how to do that. Just look at the younger ages in the news everyday, from robbery to murder, to sex crimes to you name it.
Back in my day, many times you got stopped for driving drunk, the officers would actually give you a ride home, even follow you till you made it home safe. So the stats from that era are not reliable.
Is there a good answer to all this? I don't think so. But I do think making it legal at younger ages promotes more addiction and deaths. Plus when you 'lower the bar' you have the next younger group saying..."hey, I am almost of age, why not me? " And thats a fact we all, if honest about it, know that we said the same thing, more than once.
DJS
Lets look at Europe, where the drinking age is generaly between 16-18, depending on where you are, and in some countries, graduated from beer to spirits depending on age.
From the SanFran Chron.
In other countries across Europe, adolescents are making similar headlines for drinking themselves into a stupor, often passing out in the process.
And they're getting younger: A June 2006 European Union-commissioned report says nearly all 15- to 16-year-old European students have had alcohol at some point in their lives and, on average, now start when they're just 12 1/2 years old.
In Austria - where binge drinking is known as "Komatrinken," or "coma drinking" - a new law prohibits the sale of alcohol to anyone under either 16 or 18, depending on the region, and requires cashiers and establishments to card customers if they have any doubt about their age. Failure to do so can result in fines of up to $5,610 and loss of a liquor license.
"When it comes to coma drinking among young people, we're dealing with a phenomenon that needs to be battled to the best of our abilities," Economics Minister Martin Bartenstein said.
Authorities and experts alike acknowledge the issue isn't going away.
The World Health Organization estimates there are 76.3 million people with alcohol use disorders worldwide.
The experts warn that some barely pubescent juveniles are starting to reach for the bottle sooner.
"We've seen a whole series of new trends over the past five to 10 years," said Michael Musalek, director of the Anton Proksch Institute, a renowned Austrian detox center that claims to be Europe's largest.
"For one, the age of alcohol beginners keeps declining. Today, 11-, 12-, 13-year-olds are already drinking - some on a regular basis," he said.
Hospital officials notice the same trend.
At Vienna's General Hospital, up to three teens are admitted each weekend after drinking escapades escalate, often leaving them so intoxicated they become unconscious, pediatrician Zsolt Szepfalusi said. More cases are common during special events, such as the city's annual Danube Island Fest in the summer, he said.
The statement above was from an article in the SanFransico Chronicle with this headline
Kids in Europe drinking heavy at early age
Some as young as 13 end up in hospital after 'coma drinking'.
Below are the numbers from the USA.
Deaths related to drinking in the 12-20 age group per year are about 5000 young lives snuffed out. Here is the breakdown
300 suicide
1200 'other injurys'
1600 homicides
1900 Motor vehicle
When I grew up, the legal age was 18, for 3.2 beer. No matter. Most everyone in school, and in the other schools I had friends at..(all of the schools around here) drank at least on weekends. These were "good" kids from good neighborhoods and "upstanding famillies".
And all of us that had a car drove while doing it. Also, we were young and LAWS be damned, we would buy it for youger kids too, because the grown-ups didn't know **** and we were going to do as we pleased. Thats teens for you, they knew it all then, just as they do now. Funny how after my son turned 21, I suddenly became smarter then I was when he was 13-20.
The answer may very well lay in the education of youth on the subjects of addiction and responsibility. But we in the USA seem to have forgotten how to do that. Just look at the younger ages in the news everyday, from robbery to murder, to sex crimes to you name it.
Back in my day, many times you got stopped for driving drunk, the officers would actually give you a ride home, even follow you till you made it home safe. So the stats from that era are not reliable.
Is there a good answer to all this? I don't think so. But I do think making it legal at younger ages promotes more addiction and deaths. Plus when you 'lower the bar' you have the next younger group saying..."hey, I am almost of age, why not me? " And thats a fact we all, if honest about it, know that we said the same thing, more than once.
DJS
31 August 2008 08:39:42
danimal wrote:
Tom,
This statemnet is true, statistics do show this clearly.
"In fact, statistics show it actually increases binge drinking among underage adults."
That was from the recent collage age studies. But don't you think, just maybe, that lowering the age will just promote the same thing in higher numbers at the high school level, and even Jr. high?
Also please take into account that all though I am not formally 'educated' in addiction, I am somewhat of an expert, having sufferd from the disease myself. Thank God I no longer have the cravings and NEED to drink. But the truth is, I still WANT too. So I do slant towards fear for others. Thats just the nature of the beast.
This statemnet is true, statistics do show this clearly.
"In fact, statistics show it actually increases binge drinking among underage adults."
That was from the recent collage age studies. But don't you think, just maybe, that lowering the age will just promote the same thing in higher numbers at the high school level, and even Jr. high?
Also please take into account that all though I am not formally 'educated' in addiction, I am somewhat of an expert, having sufferd from the disease myself. Thank God I no longer have the cravings and NEED to drink. But the truth is, I still WANT too. So I do slant towards fear for others. Thats just the nature of the beast.
31 August 2008 11:18:04
karen.r.shaw@ wrote:
All Federal, State and Local laws, not concerned with the defense of this nation and the assurance of free travel of people, goods and services are unconstitutional and should be struck down.
It is long past time to reject the servitude and nany state of the socialists and communistgs that are polluting our society with their "better than thou" attitudes.
It is long past time to reject the servitude and nany state of the socialists and communistgs that are polluting our society with their "better than thou" attitudes.
01 September 2008 09:34:49
nouveaudeco@ wrote:
The corporation known as MADD has the distinction of successfully pushing Prohibition on Americans and at the same time reaping over $4 million directly from those "drunk" drivers who violated laws that MADD lobbied the government to pass. They also receive over $10 million in taxpayer money each year to lobby for more laws against alcohol advertising, sales and availability.
Few people in the media look past their canned press releases to find the truth: The stats that they use to whip the public into a hysterical frenzy over drunk driving and illegal adult drinking can easily be shown to be false. Two websites that delve into MADD's deception are http://www.getMADD.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.getMADD.com and
01 September 2008 10:34:34
Few people in the media look past their canned press releases to find the truth: The stats that they use to whip the public into a hysterical frenzy over drunk driving and illegal adult drinking can easily be shown to be false. Two websites that delve into MADD's deception are http://www.getMADD.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.getMADD.com and
01 September 2008 10:34:34
danimal wrote:
Just for the record, none of the info/data I posted was from MADD. Some was from a European site and the San Fransico Chronicle article. And some was from my own personal battle with alcohol.
Follow the money, it was also the insuance companies that lobbied for those same laws. But Drinking and Driving was illegal LONG before MADD was even a thought in some well meaning mothers minds.
Follow the money, it was also the insuance companies that lobbied for those same laws. But Drinking and Driving was illegal LONG before MADD was even a thought in some well meaning mothers minds.
01 September 2008 10:59:22
nouveaudeco@ wrote:
Drinking and driving is not illegal, at least for now. Driving drunk or impaired is.
It is another credit to the MADD propaganda machine that the old mantra, "Friends don't let friends drive drunk," has morphed into "Don't drink and drive." The villification of a legal and statistically safe activity, if done in moderation, has lead to more arrests of social drinkers who now fit the latest definition of drunk, but has done nothing to stop the real killers, who have about twice the newly defined legal blood-alcohol limit. MADD is pushing to change the definition of drunk again so that just about anyone who drinks and drives WILL be subject to arrest. Unfortunately, and I repeat myself, these are not the killer drivers.
It is another credit to the MADD propaganda machine that the old mantra, "Friends don't let friends drive drunk," has morphed into "Don't drink and drive." The villification of a legal and statistically safe activity, if done in moderation, has lead to more arrests of social drinkers who now fit the latest definition of drunk, but has done nothing to stop the real killers, who have about twice the newly defined legal blood-alcohol limit. MADD is pushing to change the definition of drunk again so that just about anyone who drinks and drives WILL be subject to arrest. Unfortunately, and I repeat myself, these are not the killer drivers.
01 September 2008 11:38:30
danimal wrote:
The common misconception is that .08 is impaired. In some folks it is. In others, such as extreme cases in alcoholics, at .18 and even higher, they are not as drunk as newer drinkers, (ie: teens) are. Some alcoholics function every day with levels as high as 2.3 >
So just where do we draw the line? Are we to leave it up to the individual to take responsibility? If so, how would you feel if your child/mother/wife/friend was killed by someone who had more than they should to drink, but still thought they were able to drive?
Your argument here has no merrit because even if someone had a .08 and killed your loved one, you (yes you would) would want them punished under the DUI laws.
Oh and lets be more defined.....drinking AND driving is illegal. That is the act of drinking while opperating a motor vehicle.(or bike or whatever). Drinking THEN driving is sometimes not illegal, as long as you are not over the current limit.
So just where do we draw the line? Are we to leave it up to the individual to take responsibility? If so, how would you feel if your child/mother/wife/friend was killed by someone who had more than they should to drink, but still thought they were able to drive?
Your argument here has no merrit because even if someone had a .08 and killed your loved one, you (yes you would) would want them punished under the DUI laws.
Oh and lets be more defined.....drinking AND driving is illegal. That is the act of drinking while opperating a motor vehicle.(or bike or whatever). Drinking THEN driving is sometimes not illegal, as long as you are not over the current limit.
01 September 2008 14:51:14
nouveaudeco@ wrote:
Again it appears that the MADD influence on the human thought process is working. Otherwise why single out the drinking driver as an especially heinous criminal? The red light runner who kills should receive the same harsh punishment. Why does bad judgment by a sober fellow not elicit knee-jerk anger and hatred that you see when some moron uses bad judgment and drinks one too many beers? Dead is dead whether a person is drinking, using a cell phone, speeding, or just a bad driver.
I pray each night that if I am killed by a driver, he is drunk, knowing the idiot will get a longer sentence that if he is a sober killer.
In most states, if you get 3 DUI's in a 10 year period, you're off to jail. You can get caught on camera running a red light every day and as long as you pay each $100 fine, you're a free man.
And yes, drinking WHILE driving, known as the Open Container Law, has been finally outlawed in all states. This was another law pushed by MADD back in the 1980's. I think Delaware was the last state to pass the law a couple of years ago. Easy enough to check. BTW, the other website that accurately examines the traffic fatality numbers is http://www.ridl.us.
I pray each night that if I am killed by a driver, he is drunk, knowing the idiot will get a longer sentence that if he is a sober killer.
In most states, if you get 3 DUI's in a 10 year period, you're off to jail. You can get caught on camera running a red light every day and as long as you pay each $100 fine, you're a free man.
And yes, drinking WHILE driving, known as the Open Container Law, has been finally outlawed in all states. This was another law pushed by MADD back in the 1980's. I think Delaware was the last state to pass the law a couple of years ago. Easy enough to check. BTW, the other website that accurately examines the traffic fatality numbers is http://www.ridl.us.
01 September 2008 19:59:03
coz6650 wrote:
As one who began experimenting with drinking at around 13 years old, and had a fake ID by the time I was 16... the government trying to regulate drinking is absurd. Yes I was around for 3.2 beer but my fake ID allowed me to buy "high beer". Access to beer wasn't just from unsuspecting bar owners or carryout owners. It was available from parents homes, friend's parents home, any guy that needed a buck would buy it for you... I mean... you just have to admit it. If a young person wants to drink, they will find a way to do it. Laws just make them lawbreakers. When are we going to realize that laws that regulate morality, personal lifestyle choices and even how we raise our kids... only weakens our societal fiber by giving up the personal freedoms that have made this nation strong.
02 September 2008 09:49:27
danimal wrote:
Follow the money,
Ummm, what?
here you go sir, some red light 'FACTS OF DEATH'.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that about 6.4 million crashes occurred on America's roadways in 2000. According to the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), around 40 percent of them occurred at intersections or were "intersection-related."
Red-light-running, which results in roughly 950 deaths........
Now compare that to the 1900 deaths from drinking and driving in just the 12-20 year old group. The 950 deaths were from ALL DRIVERS of ALL ages. So you see your argument holds no validity.
Of course if you wanted to discuss the morons that continue to use their cell phones while driving, you would have a GREAT argument. Cell phone distractions alone have passed DUI's as far as accidents and deaths. Those are the people that need to reeled in.
And I have to say I feel sorry for you. Do you actually PRAY for someone else to have misfortune? WOW!!! Ever read the Bible my friend? Ever stepped inside of a Church, even to just look around? GUess I will pray for you.
Ummm, what?
here you go sir, some red light 'FACTS OF DEATH'.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that about 6.4 million crashes occurred on America's roadways in 2000. According to the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), around 40 percent of them occurred at intersections or were "intersection-related."
Red-light-running, which results in roughly 950 deaths........
Now compare that to the 1900 deaths from drinking and driving in just the 12-20 year old group. The 950 deaths were from ALL DRIVERS of ALL ages. So you see your argument holds no validity.
Of course if you wanted to discuss the morons that continue to use their cell phones while driving, you would have a GREAT argument. Cell phone distractions alone have passed DUI's as far as accidents and deaths. Those are the people that need to reeled in.
And I have to say I feel sorry for you. Do you actually PRAY for someone else to have misfortune? WOW!!! Ever read the Bible my friend? Ever stepped inside of a Church, even to just look around? GUess I will pray for you.
02 September 2008 13:24:40
nouveaudeco@ wrote:
hey danimal,
Try rereading the posting. The point is that a drunk driver will receive a harsher sentence than a sober person who kills another human being.
I am wishing misfortune on no one, not even myself. Sorry you misinterpreted my ''praying'' as an actual occurrence instead of me just trying to make a point.
Back to topic: if cell phone use is as dangerous as drunk driving, as shown in two studies, then why is it legal, or in states where it is a crime, why is the fine $25-100 instead of license revocation, heavy fines and possible jail?
I am questioning the parity of our laws, not defending drunk driving. Unfortunately, when one tries to discuss the oddity of drunk driving laws, emotion and religious references trump any academic discusion. Read any MADD press release. They have it down to a science.
Try rereading the posting. The point is that a drunk driver will receive a harsher sentence than a sober person who kills another human being.
I am wishing misfortune on no one, not even myself. Sorry you misinterpreted my ''praying'' as an actual occurrence instead of me just trying to make a point.
Back to topic: if cell phone use is as dangerous as drunk driving, as shown in two studies, then why is it legal, or in states where it is a crime, why is the fine $25-100 instead of license revocation, heavy fines and possible jail?
I am questioning the parity of our laws, not defending drunk driving. Unfortunately, when one tries to discuss the oddity of drunk driving laws, emotion and religious references trump any academic discusion. Read any MADD press release. They have it down to a science.
03 September 2008 11:31:25
danimal wrote:
Follow the money,
Yeah.?? I did read the posting. And I understand your point. And as a former drunk driver, (which I make no excuses for,and there but for the grace of God go I) I think it only make sense to give an impaired driver a harsher penalty, wether its drink or drugs, and I believe that cellphone use should carry the exact same penalties. So we are not so far apart on our beliefs in that respect.
As you can probably tell by now, I am quite litteral when reading posts, as I take a person at the very words they use. I don't feel I 'misinterpreted' anything, as I just took you for your words. Praying is not something I look upon in a jestful or joking manor. Not that I don't have a sense of humor...ask anyone here!!!
And, Follow the money, I do not use MADD press releases for my info. They are a skewed, as you say, and although they started out with a good grass-roots idea, it has grown into another monster beaurocracy that gives half truths and hearsay. Much like the CATO institute.
Yeah.?? I did read the posting. And I understand your point. And as a former drunk driver, (which I make no excuses for,and there but for the grace of God go I) I think it only make sense to give an impaired driver a harsher penalty, wether its drink or drugs, and I believe that cellphone use should carry the exact same penalties. So we are not so far apart on our beliefs in that respect.
As you can probably tell by now, I am quite litteral when reading posts, as I take a person at the very words they use. I don't feel I 'misinterpreted' anything, as I just took you for your words. Praying is not something I look upon in a jestful or joking manor. Not that I don't have a sense of humor...ask anyone here!!!
And, Follow the money, I do not use MADD press releases for my info. They are a skewed, as you say, and although they started out with a good grass-roots idea, it has grown into another monster beaurocracy that gives half truths and hearsay. Much like the CATO institute.
03 September 2008 12:53:07
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.lucente.org/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
[COLUMN] Let 18-year-olds drink
Thanks to the Amethyst Initiative, a movement by 129 college presidents and chancellors who say America's experiment with the drinking age is not working, we are finally having a serious and open debate on the reality of our failed alcohol laws.
Unfortunately, I can't say the debate is an honest one. When it comes to alcohol debates in this country, the arguments, especially by those who would unjustly restrict human liberty in favor of stricter laws, are steeped in misleading statements, skewed statistics, and outright lies.
There really are several issues pertinent to the debate on the drinking age and, despite what lunatic groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving claim, none of them has anything to do with whether drinking is healthy, whether 20-year-olds are mature enough to drink responsibly, or any other silly nonsense. In fact, the issue is less about drinking and more about exercising immoral power over others.
MADD and other anti-freedom, and therefore anti-American, groups like to confuse the issue by throwing out all kinds of crazy statistics about drinking that, when actually looked at, are misleading to say the least.
That's because the real goal of groups like MADD is not responsible drinking, but outright prohibition. MADD's leaders will not rest until they deprive the rest of us of the liberty to drink a beer. MADD is nothing less than a modern-day temperance organization that spreads lies and misinformation in an effort to stifle any debate on the issue.
In reality, the main issues here are states' rights and personal liberty.
The first issue is states' rights.
We live in a federalist system that divides sovereignty between the federal government and the states.
However, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was a direct and unconstitutional attack on the sovereignty of the states. Regardless of how you feel about drinking, you can't ignore the fact that the right to set the minimum legal drinking age is a function of the state, not federal, governments.
Still, that did not stop the federal government from exercising an end run around the U.S. Constitution. Federal officials, knowing they lacked the power to set a national drinking age, blackmailed the states by threatening to withhold 10 percent of federal highway dollars.
This activity was clearly a violation of the spirit of the Constitution. The federal government essentially exercised a power it was never supposed to have.
The second issue is one of personal liberty.
Let's face it. An 18-year-old is a legal adult in most states. Right or wrong, the age of majority in the United States is 18 or 19 depending on the state in which you live. As you have heard many times before, a 20-year-old can enter into contracts, buy a house, vote, be executed for a crime, die in a foreign war of aggression, etc., but cannot buy a beer.
I know it is a tired argument, but it is true. Nearly 18 percent of those Americans killed in Iraq were legally barred from buying a beer in the United States.
It defies logic to claim that a man or woman is mature enough to vote for president, hold elected office, or die for his or her country, but not mature enough to buy a beer.
Even if we want to play the game on MADD's level and talk about drinking and drunken driving, the 21-year-old drinking age still makes no sense.
After more than two decades, the law has proved to be a failure. It has failed to prevent children or underage adults from drinking, nor can anyone demonstrate it has reduced drunken-driving fatalities.
In fact, statistics show it actually increases binge drinking among underage adults. Additionally, the law breeds disrespect for the law and leads to ethical compromises.
When the Amethyst Initiative called for public debate on the issue, MADD, in typical fashion, called for boycotts of those universities because MADD does not want an open debate on the issue.
What does MADD fear?
Despite MADD's childish behavior toward the Amethyst Initiative's call for public debate, such a national dialogue is long past due. And, I would say, MADD has forfeited its right to sit at the table with the other adults.
category | Column
author | Lucente