Are you against parents allowing underage drinking parties?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How do you know that? Do you have a magic time machine we all don't know about? Or is it your opinion so no one should do anything to deter these parents and just keep allowing them to throw parties with minimal fines.

Many people said increasing the drinking age from 18 to 21 wouldn't reduce drinking or drinking and driving and it has done in such huge numbers it is amazing.

Do you have a magic time machine that says that it will?

It's pretty well-established, empirically, that the possibility of a jail sentence does not deter people. Now, I suppose it's possible that generally a jail sentence does not deter people, but in this specific case, it would deter people. I don't know why this particular case would be an exception to the general rule, but it's possible.

No but the law of fines was put in place in 2012 and there are still families hosting and quickly writing checks. The police realized that they needed to do more so another bill is going to be put in place with jail time and harsher fines. If that doesn't work in a few years, you move onto something else more harsh. You don't just throw your hands up in the air and say you give up. Plus, I can guarantee you if some rich Mommy was wearing orange for even just a week, word would spread.

[Anonymous]

Va has a bill, doesn' t it? How does it compare?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How do you know that? Do you have a magic time machine we all don't know about? Or is it your opinion so no one should do anything to deter these parents and just keep allowing them to throw parties with minimal fines.

Many people said increasing the drinking age from 18 to 21 wouldn't reduce drinking or drinking and driving and it has done in such huge numbers it is amazing.

Do you have a magic time machine that says that it will?

It's pretty well-established, empirically, that the possibility of a jail sentence does not deter people. Now, I suppose it's possible that generally a jail sentence does not deter people, but in this specific case, it would deter people. I don't know why this particular case would be an exception to the general rule, but it's possible.

Well that is just wrong. The threat that a person will likely be punished with jail time actually does deter crime. Increasing the severity of the threatened punishment does not generally reduce crime, but knowing that punishment will likely ensue actually does discourage crime. http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/Deterrence%20Briefing%20.pdf

[Anonymous]

Please do not lump 20 year old ADULTS in with 17 year old minor children. They are not the same.

An 18+ year old HS grad who is working and/or going to school, possibly enlisting in the military or getting married and starting a family of their own is not a little kid. They are a young adult who is responsible for their own choices. If they freely *choose* to drink alcohol at a party that is on them. This idea that a 21 year old might be legally responsible for monitoring the behavior of a 20 year old is absurd.

[Anonymous]

The reason the drinking age is 21 and not 18 is because when there was a mix of states that had different drinking ages, 18 vs 21, alcohol related deaths were lower in the states where the drinking age was 21.

Alcohol related deaths included: cars (only about 30%)... the rest of the 70% was overdose, suicide and doing stupid shit when you were drunk.

The incident of binge drinking is very high before the age of 21.

The frontal lobe is not fully formed until about 25, maybe as late as 30.

I would prefer that low alcohol content beer/wine (in the 80's it was called 3.2 beer) be available at 18 (this would stop the sneaking of liquor), liquor not until 25 (of course nobody would go for that) and people should not go to war until they are 25.

The problem with the 18 yo drinking age is that kids will start at 16.

I would be fine with voting at 16 since most people are not smarter than a 16 yo.

[Anonymous]

I think energy would be better spent teaching kids about drinking in moderation rather than drinking to excess. Hanging out with friends in a living room and having beers while watching tv or playing games is fine, if they walk, cab or Uber home afterwards or crash at the friends.

I am very curious about the development of binge drinking culture in the US. Is it a peer pressure thing? I had plenty of friends and siblings who drank as teens, I chose not to solely because I didn't like the taste, not out of any moral argument.

[Anonymous]

Step up alcohol check points on the roads. Catch the people who are drinking and driving. Especially on or around campus.

I'm even o.k. if they want to do alcohol/drug testing at the school. If a kid tests positive - let them finish out HS at an alternative school and make attendance at a substance abuse meeting mandatory for them. Kids should not be drinking in HS.

Young adults can get/to from parties w/o driving drunk or riding with drunk drivers. They can walk, have a designated driver or just not drink themselves....

Adults should not be being "monitored" by other adults nor should adults be legally responsible for the willing choices of other adults. That is just so wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason the drinking age is 21 and not 18 is because when there was a mix of states that had different drinking ages, 18 vs 21, alcohol related deaths were lower in the states where the drinking age was 21.

Alcohol related deaths included: cars (only about 30%)... the rest of the 70% was overdose, suicide and doing stupid shit when you were drunk.

The incident of binge drinking is very high before the age of 21.

The frontal lobe is not fully formed until about 25, maybe as late as 30.

I would prefer that low alcohol content beer/wine (in the 80's it was called 3.2 beer) be available at 18 (this would stop the sneaking of liquor), liquor not until 25 (of course nobody would go for that) and people should not go to war until they are 25.

The problem with the 18 yo drinking age is that kids will start at 16.

I would be fine with voting at 16 since most people are not smarter than a 16 yo.

30? Ha. I guess we are all growed up when we're, what? 50? 80?

There are 20 something physicians performing surgeries in hospitals every day. I sure as hell hope that they are reasonably responsible to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think energy would be better spent teaching kids about drinking in moderation rather than drinking to excess. Hanging out with friends in a living room and having beers while watching tv or playing games is fine, if they walk, cab or Uber home afterwards or crash at the friends.

I am very curious about the development of binge drinking culture in the US. Is it a peer pressure thing? I had plenty of friends and siblings who drank as teens, I chose not to solely because I didn't like the taste, not out of any moral argument.

Countries that have 18yr old limit actually have just as much or more binge drinking than America. The problem is kids don't have the regulatory system in their brain to stop. It takes them time to realize they are drunk and by then they are so far gone. If you drink as a teen you are more likely to become an alcoholic because you are killing the regulatory system in your brain. Kids that start drinking by 16 have an 80% increase in becoming an alcoholic than someone who starts drinking at 21.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think energy would be better spent teaching kids about drinking in moderation rather than drinking to excess. Hanging out with friends in a living room and having beers while watching tv or playing games is fine, if they walk, cab or Uber home afterwards or crash at the friends.

I am very curious about the development of binge drinking culture in the US. Is it a peer pressure thing? I had plenty of friends and siblings who drank as teens, I chose not to solely because I didn't like the taste, not out of any moral argument.

Countries that have 18yr old limit actually have just as much or more binge drinking than America. The problem is kids don't have the regulatory system in their brain to stop. It takes them time to realize they are drunk and by then they are so far gone. If you drink as a teen you are more likely to become an alcoholic because you are killing the regulatory system in your brain. Kids that start drinking by 16 have an 80% increase in becoming an alcoholic than someone who starts drinking at 21.

This is exactly right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because 18yr olds have immature frontal lobes that can not regulate alcohol intake. The frontal lobe does not start maturing until age 21 and doesn't completely mature until age 25. Binge drinking between ages 18-25 does affect your front lobes growth and maturity. Adolescent drinking also affects other parts of their growing brains that does not affect an adult. Adolescents also do not have the sedation affects of alcohol that adults have. This is why, in addition to an immature frontal lobe, causes 8 in 10 kids under the age of 21 to binge drink.

When Reagan Signed the FEDERAL law for minimum age of 21:

The law came into being to solve a serious public health problem.

Before the minimum drinking age law, 16- to 20-year-olds were the most common drunken drivers.

When the drinking age was raised, the number of fatal crashes involving a young driver dropped significantly, from 61% in 1982 to 31% in 1995. It went down more for that age group than any older age group.

Is that enough for now? I have more if needed.....

But 18-year-olds vote with their immature frontal lobes. And sign contracts with their immature frontal lobes. And kill people in the name of the American people with fingers guided by their immature frontal lobes. All of this is ok -- just drinking with their immature frontal lobes is not. Why?

And yes, drunk driving is a serious public health problem. But why is the solution saying, "18-20-year-olds may not legally drink"? Why isn't it "18-21-year-olds may not legally drive"? or "Anybody who drives drunk loses their driver's license for life" or any number of other possible policies that specifically address drunk driving?

As for "8 in 10 kids under 21 binge drink" -- citation, please?

Although drinking by persons under the age of 21 is illegal, people aged 12 to 20 years drink 11% of all alcohol consumed in the United States.4 More than 90% of this alcohol is consumed in the form of binge drinks.4

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm

5.3 million young people had 5 or more drinks on the same occasion, within a few hours, at least once in the past month.4
» 1.3 million young people had 5 or more drinks on the same occasion on 5 or more days over the past month.4

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/UnderageDrinking/Underage_Fact.pdf

This is good to know.

[Anonymous]

Drinking age at 21 is bullshit plain and simple

1) It is a law that is mostly ignored

2) It is a law that does not recognize that people are legally adults at 18

3) Most of the world has a lower limit

The gang that says "its safer" misses the point. Many would be happier with a 55 drinking age and a 21 MPH speeding limit. You cant argue that would not be "safer".

[Anonymous]

I have an honest question that I am sure will get flamed for --- If I allow my Sophomore DD to have a larger group of kids over, say 40, and I hide all alcohol in my home, and walk through party every 20-30 minutes to make sure I do not see anything obvious -- including alcohol, do you think it is right to hold me responsible for kids drinking at the party? Where should 15-16 year-olds go on the weekend? I do not want my kids drinking, doing drugs or having sex. I would never buy alcohol for minors. But I do not think it should the adults fault including another parent that allows kids over their house. I don't want the gathering to be in some woods in Gaithersburg or parking lots in Bethesda. And I don't think the answer is no more get togethers. But I guess the law says I would be responsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have an honest question that I am sure will get flamed for --- If I allow my Sophomore DD to have a larger group of kids over, say 40, and I hide all alcohol in my home, and walk through party every 20-30 minutes to make sure I do not see anything obvious -- including alcohol, do you think it is right to hold me responsible for kids drinking at the party? Where should 15-16 year-olds go on the weekend? I do not want my kids drinking, doing drugs or having sex. I would never buy alcohol for minors. But I do not think it should the adults fault including another parent that allows kids over their house. I don't want the gathering to be in some woods in Gaithersburg or parking lots in Bethesda. And I don't think the answer is no more get togethers. But I guess the law says I would be responsible.

You lost me at :"If I allows my sophomore to have a large group of kids over, say 40"

You are saying you can't be responsible for what all 40 kids are doing? How about you don't invite 40 kids over your house???? I mean really

And what are kids supposed to do you say? Hang out at the mall, movies, go bowling, laser tag, have sleepovers, have small groups over to watch movies/play card games. Go to sporting events, concerts, or other holiday events like Field of Screams. Please stop the excuse that kids have nothing to do. Drinking in a house doing nothing is lame. Losers do that.

[Anonymous]

Well most of these kids are also having sex, how about hosting a sex party?