Anonymous wrote:

Teens who drink heavily are three times more likely to try and hurt themselves (self-harm, attempt suicide etc.) than those who don't.

They are five times more likely to have unprotected sex and four times more likely to have perform a sexual assault. In 80% of all sexual assault cases, the underage girl had been drinking.

The 3 leading causes of death for 15 to 24-year-olds are automobile crashes, homicides and suicides – alcohol is a leading factor in all 3.

Anonymous wrote:More than 90% of this alcohol is consumed in the form of binge drinks.4

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that drinking age should be reduced. If someone is old enough to die for their country, get married or elect a president, why can't they be trusted with a beer or a glass of cheap wine on their wedding days. I didn't grow up in the US, so the 21 limit mystifies me.

At the same time, and given the law, I am absolutely parents throwing 'drinking' parties for kids who should not be drinking by law. And if I found out that DCs were at such a party, hell would break loose.

But no, I am also against throwing such parents in jail. Other creative solutions should be found.

Okay, we get it - you said it a few times already. 18yr olds should be allowed to drink. If you feel that strongly about it, do what these parents/police did and start a bill. Go ahead and see how far that goes.

They asked their state legislators for a bill. But the drinking age of 21 is basically a federal law.

Also, there certainly are people/organizations who think that the drinking age of 21 is a bad idea. A group of university presidents, for example.

I am not the PP you're responding to.

But really, it's not so much that 18-year-olds should be allowed to drink, it's -- how come we allow 18-year-olds to do all of these other adult things with immense consequences, but we don't allow 18-year-olds to buy beer? If you have a good answer for that question, please provide it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wow lady, not the PP but you want teens to drink but then no one can get a driver's license until age 22? You are off your rocker!

Why is this so off-the-rocker? It's drunk driving that is the public health problem, right?

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Wow lady, not the PP but you want teens to drink but then no one can get a driver's license until age 22? You are off your rocker!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
He was liable for $2,500 per instance. If there were 20+ kids there, then under the EXISTING law, he could have been liable for 20 x $2,500 = $50,000 or more. I don't think that $50,000 is nothing, do you?

But, if you do think that $50,000 is nothing, and that only the possibility of jail will deter parents from allowing high-school parties with alcohol to take place at their homes, then write the bill narrowly to address specifically that problem. This bill is not narrowly written. Under this bill, if a 21-year-old college student and her 20-year-old boyfriend drink a beer at her apartment, she could go to jail for up to a year. Do you think that would be justice? I don't.

The same applies with an 18yr old having sex with a 17yr old? Do you want the statutory rape law to go away so an 18yr old can freely fuck a 17yr old without risking getting arrested? Please tell me the difference because you are grasping at straws here.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

No it will not take this away. Parents can just not serve alcohol to other minors not related to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible bill. I support safe, monitored drinking by 18-21 year olds in an appropriate environment. The idea that a 20 year old can serve in the military or buy a gun but not drink a beer is ludicrous.

+1

What are ways to keep it safe? Limit the # of drinks? Provide transportation?

I'd prefer that my kids learn how to drink moderately BEFORE college so they don't go nuts their freshman year with some forbidden fruit.

and that's fine if you want to teach *your* child this, in *your* home. That law doesn't apply to parents serving alcohol to their own kids only in their own home. But, you don't have a right to serve the alcohol to other kids. That's the point of this law.

The points of this bill are

a. to add jail time as a possible sentence for anybody 21 or older who provides alcohol in their home to anybody 20 or younger .
b. to make people feel better who think that two counts of $2,500 each were not sufficient punishment for the man in Gaithersburg at whose house the three teenagers were drinking before the fatal car crash.

I haven't read the entire bill, but, in MD, state law allows minors to drink alcohol on private premises with parental consent. So, I assume then this new bill won't contravene existing state law.

No it will not take this away. Parents can just not serve alcohol to other minors not related to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So you are saying a Dad that let twenty plus 16-18yrs old get wasted on beer and vodka shots, and then tell his daughter to tell everyone to go home should not be liable for anything but a $5000 fine? The kids in the car accident weren't the only ones who drove home drunk that night. They were all told to leave after drinking for over 3 hours. When the police arrived at the house scene, there were still drunk kids in the lawn and leaving in cars - with the Dad inside watching a movie. And since then, there have been over 20 parties under-age drinking parties busted with parents hosting. They are just the ones that were caught. It is not a one time issue. This happens all the time. Parents acting as friends.

How about the Sherwood boy who was sentenced to 18yrs for killing a fellow classmate after driving away from an underage drinking party at a high schooler's house. The thought at that time was to be able to prosecute the parents even if they are not home. Would you rather have that bill passed?

He was liable for $2,500 per instance. If there were 20+ kids there, then under the EXISTING law, he could have been liable for 20 x $2,500 = $50,000 or more. I don't think that $50,000 is nothing, do you?

But, if you do think that $50,000 is nothing, and that only the possibility of jail will deter parents from allowing high-school parties with alcohol to take place at their homes, then write the bill narrowly to address specifically that problem. This bill is not narrowly written. Under this bill, if a 21-year-old college student and her 20-year-old boyfriend drink a beer at her apartment, she could go to jail for up to a year. Do you think that would be justice? I don't.

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.....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible bill. I support safe, monitored drinking by 18-21 year olds in an appropriate environment. The idea that a 20 year old can serve in the military or buy a gun but not drink a beer is ludicrous.

+1

What are ways to keep it safe? Limit the # of drinks? Provide transportation?

I'd prefer that my kids learn how to drink moderately BEFORE college so they don't go nuts their freshman year with some forbidden fruit.

and that's fine if you want to teach *your* child this, in *your* home. That law doesn't apply to parents serving alcohol to their own kids only in their own home. But, you don't have a right to serve the alcohol to other kids. That's the point of this law.

The points of this bill are

a. to add jail time as a possible sentence for anybody 21 or older who provides alcohol in their home to anybody 20 or younger .
b. to make people feel better who think that two counts of $2,500 each were not sufficient punishment for the man in Gaithersburg at whose house the three teenagers were drinking before the fatal car crash.

I haven't read the entire bill, but, in MD, state law allows minors to drink alcohol on private premises with parental consent. So, I assume then this new bill won't contravene existing state law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that drinking age should be reduced. If someone is old enough to die for their country, get married or elect a president, why can't they be trusted with a beer or a glass of cheap wine on their wedding days. I didn't grow up in the US, so the 21 limit mystifies me.

At the same time, and given the law, I am absolutely parents throwing 'drinking' parties for kids who should not be drinking by law. And if I found out that DCs were at such a party, hell would break loose.

But no, I am also against throwing such parents in jail. Other creative solutions should be found.

Okay, we get it - you said it a few times already. 18yr olds should be allowed to drink. If you feel that strongly about it, do what these parents/police did and start a bill. Go ahead and see how far that goes.

They asked their state legislators for a bill. But the drinking age of 21 is basically a federal law.

Also, there certainly are people/organizations who think that the drinking age of 21 is a bad idea. A group of university presidents, for example.

I am not the PP you're responding to.

But really, it's not so much that 18-year-olds should be allowed to drink, it's -- how come we allow 18-year-olds to do all of these other adult things with immense consequences, but we don't allow 18-year-olds to buy beer? If you have a good answer for that question, please provide it.