re: Can anyone logically defend the 21 drinking age law?

I don't deny there are arguments. There can be an argument for anything. It doesn't mean it's logical.

My main argument is that there should be an established age of majority. It doesn't make sense to say that you are an adult for this purpose, but not for this purpose.

I don't have a problem with a 21 drinking age, but the voting age, military enlistment age, etc., should be raised as well.

Because the only problems with alcohol are automobile related???

quote:

---

I don't deny there are arguments. There can be an argument for anything. It doesn't mean it's logical. My main argument is that there should be an established age of majority. It doesn't make sense to say that you are an adult for this purpose, but not for this purpose. I don't have a problem with a 21 drinking age, but the voting age, military enlistment age, etc., should be raised as well.

---

No, even if you dislike it it's a perfectly logical argument.

It makes perfect sense to have different ages for things. You may be mature enough to do one thing but not mature enough to do another thing.

Now, you may disagree with the law as to which ages should correspond with which event, but it is perfectly logical that different events have different levels of responsibility.

There is no defending it. It is a completely arbitrary concoction motivated by any logical argument made by emotionally driven people and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving. It is a classic example of the do something mentality. The argument that it supposedly reduces drunk driving is stupid. Raising the age to 50 would reduce drunk driving also. That doesn't make it good f****** policy

quote:

---

Can anyone logically defend the 21 drinking age law?

---

Very easy to logically explain the illogical reasoning of the government: if common sense was instituted, there would be less need for the government. So it must create complicated and illogical policies so that there are more problems for it solve. It's self-preservation, and we allow it at our own expense.

quote:

---

The brain doesn't fully develop until the mid 20's.

---

what does medical evidence say about people smoking cigarettes at 18 compared to drinking at 18?

You can enlist at 17 with your parents signature.

quote:

---

This is a tough one for me. Think about how stupid you were at 21, double that, and you get 18.

The libertarian in me is also conflicted. If we were to change it to 18, why not just abolish the age restriction completely. Why 18?

I think 19 or 20 is a reasonable change because that excludes HS kids.

A physiological argument: it could be hypothesized that those close to the legal age are more likely to think themselves ready to drink and are more likely to drink underage. If we were to move the age to 18 15-17 year olds would then be the ones more likely to underage drink. Drinking alcohol to get drunk at an age where you are still developing your body and brain is not a good thing to do..

---

Disregarding the medical arguments, I've always been of the mindset that's it's better to get such shite out of your system sooner rather than later. I feel like this 21 drinking age is just another of the many things we are doing to stunt the progress to adulthood of the youth of today.

No. It should be 25. The brain is not fully developed until then.

quote:

---

No. It should be 25. The brain is not fully developed until then.

---

yay lets be nannies and tell grown ups what they can and can't do.



High sugar content fricks with insulin levels messing up hormone growth and regulation. Should have to be 21 to buy anything with high fructose corn syrup