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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.