"There was effectively no drinking age for me -- my dad would always us some of what he was drinking. Bleh. Never wanted any."

I don't know if this is a common American experience, or a common Jewish experience, but it was certainly my experience.

Nowadays though, when I have made Friday night wine available to my kids they are scandalized I would do so and make sure I know how wrong I am to do so.

In 1971 a
I was a 19 yr old buck sergeant in Oklahoma and the state drinking age was 21. I was carded often but when I hauled out that Army ID it was handed back without comment along with my drink.

Since then I have seen all sorts of nonsense about drinking. I am opposed to all sorts of prohibition because I beleive in everyone's right to choose their own path to whatever destiny they fijd.

In Germany in 1984 my 10 year old son came back to the table in a small gasthaus where his mother and I were sitting and askrd for money because a guy at the bar had bought him a drink so he needed to return the favour. The only raised eyebrows occurred when my wife asked what he was drinking and he said Jagermeiter (she didn't like the stuff). No problems and not illegal. Now he's about to turn 38 and no drug or alcohol problems. I think making a big deal out of such things is the big mistake.

"I'm always the guy to advocate for lower ages. I just believe that the lower the age the better you come to grips with what these substances are," the Libertarian Party presidential candidate said.

I'm not saying 18 or 21 is ideal, but I wish people would pin him down on just what he means here. I don't think a 6-year-old, for instance, would be able to be better to come to grips with what substances are.

Every age cutoff is going to be arbitrary. But I sure as hell don't think that the lower it gets, the better you come to grips with the effects of drinking (or doing drugs). Frankly, that's just Libertarian pandering.

I suppose if it wasn't presumed to be government's prerogative to determine at what age a young person can drink then older people responsible for raising the young person would take it upon themselves to decide. Some might not do what others think is best. So it's necessary to have government decide and force everyone to comply. Can't have people going around doing whatever they want.

My experience was the same. My mom is a teetotaler so there was seldom alcohol in the house, only when we had guests, and then I could have some. I've never really been in social circles where binge drinking was considered cool or normal.

I would eliminate the drinking age, but maybe not the drink-buying age. I'd lower the drink-buying age to maybe 16 for wine and beer, and 18 for everything else.

I remember once I was making fondue and I forgot the wine, so I wanted to send my brother out to get some, but I couldn't, as he was only 20, and I remember thinking how idiotic that was.

Reduce or eliminate - but really need to do something to fix this idiotic culture around drinking that results in some young people who don't know how to manage alcohol responsibly and all of them being treated like criminals for having a glass.

I currently live in France and in general do not see as much binge drinking, especially for high school and college aged students. It just isn't that big of a deal to them - some of them drink, some of them don't, few of them binge, but all of them (at least in my family) try to behave responsibly, including arranging a designated driver or a place to sleep it off within walking distance. Of course that is a lot easier for them to do since it isn't a crime for them to drink in the first place so they don't need to hide it.

My wife's brother used to send her to the grocery store at around age 12 to bring him back beer. He gave her the money for an ice cream for herself. Picture a little kid riding her bike with two Sapporo Giants in the basket.

This was in Japan. Japan then, not Japan now. Even the beer machines (surely sign of an advanced civilization) are turned off at night these days.

The Puritans are winning.

On a more serious note, how can you treat someone as an adult, or not, at ages 16, 18 and 21 simultaneously, depending on location and context and expect any respect whatsoever?

There are arguments on both sides. I've read recently, for example, that the idea that allowing kids to drink takes away the attraction doesn't pan out in the research (and that it's really a myth that Europe doesn't have the problems that the US does with drinking). But it's a hard thing to study, certainly.

Either way, though, I think that 21 is probably too old and 18 is too young - why not tie to high school graduation, instead? That way it's a subtle reminder that graduating HS puts you into adulthood, and you limit the problems of allowing 18 year old seniors to share it with their younger classmates. Maybe if you don't graduate HS by a certain age, you eventually age out.

That needs to be left up to the States without any input from Congress. That which the federal government does not have the legal power to do directly should not be done indirectly by blackmail. Furthermore, since adulthood is effectively 18 for all other aspects, no state should discriminate against adults on the basis of age. Those that wish to lower the drinking age below 18 should be free to do so.

A few studies have shown that alcohol can impair the development of a young adult's brain. If that turns out to be true, should it affect the legal drinking age?

FWIW, binge drinking is a huge problem in the U.K. I can't say that's driven by the drinking age, but I think it would be inaccurate to say that young people in England are more responsible about alcohol consumption.

The idea that the legal drinking age should be a federal responsibility is truly ridiculous. It was Elizabeth Dole and the Reagan administration we have to thank for that one.

Old enough here to remember when I could legally drink at 18; it was never a big deal for me as my parents weren't heavy drinkers. Beer in the cooler for adult men on the Fourth of July was about it. And 2 or 3 beers per guy, so no one was so drunk that he couldn't drive home.

Even so, when I got to college, way back when it was still legal for 18-year-olds to drink; binge drinking was a BIG part of college for so many folks, just not me.

So, based upon my own experience, I'm not sure that the legal drinking age has much effect on binge drinking or stupid behaviour; I would be inclined to think home-life is a bigger influence than the legal age.

P.S. somewhat off topic, but, I do remember when folks on both sides of the aisle condemned the Feds "blackmailing" states to up the legal drinking age by denying highway funds to states that didn't. I wouldn't mind seeing some folks back in congress that still believe that way.

The age was 18 when I got to that age, but even as a kid (8-9 maybe) I can recall having a splash of wine in cola, just enough to change the taste. I'd have a sip of my Dad's beer even younger than that. Never got drunk until it was legal for me to do so. My Dad always said on my 18th birthday he was going to take me out and get me sh*tfaced, just so I'd learn NOT to do that again. He didn't (he was disabled by then), but....

Americans are weird about alcohol. We tell a person for the first 20 years and 364 days of they're life that they can't touch it at ALL (even with parents at the dinner table), then after midnight we say "OK, now you can have all you want of this stuff you've (theoretically) never tried before. Be careful with it."

A couple years ago my wife and did a tour in Italy. Italian wine is fantastic, even the cheap stuff is FAR better than anything you find here. I admit I got buzzed a few times, but some of our tour mates just couldn't handle it (one tossed a very nice dinner all over the bus on the way back from dinner). Considering that HIGHWAY REST STOPS serve wine in Italy, I don't think I ever saw a native drunk.

The cutoff for buying legally should be 18. If we're going to demand people have the responsibilities of adulthood at 18, then they should have the perks, too. There should be no legal age for drinking. Many of us have experiences sipping our parents' drinks from a young age. A sip here and there doesn't cause brain damage, and it's not what makes an alcoholic.

People have gotten nuts about alcohol. Even fruit juice has some alcohol. If your kid drinks a lot of apple juice, he's likely getting more alcohol than he would get in a sip of wine or beer. And most of the kids I know hate the taste, anyway. Wine and beer and hard liquor are often acquired tastes.

> I'm not sure that the legal drinking age has
> much effect on binge drinking or stupid behaviour

Agree.

> Americans are weird about alcohol.

Naw. The subtlety of the American approach to this issue is underrated. Strict rules with loose enforcement strikes me as nuanced and flexible.

We're clever. Italians, outside of Maranello, are often kinda nutty.

The same age across the board for everything seems fair. Whatever the age we decide the average person is mature enough to make one choice, odds are you're mature to make the rest.

Though I'm not sure 18 is the right age. I think it was Leo Rosten who said "If you live in an area where you can sign a contract at 18, pretend you can't do till you're 21. You do a lot of growing in those three years."

MonicaP, we're not talking about changing the law to "a few sips max," and it looks like drinking is indeed more likely to impair brain function and development in younger people.

I'm finding more and more research showing that the younger a person is, the more vulnerable his brain cells and development are to damage from drinking. I'm emphasizing the "more" here.

http://susan-hance.suite101.com/young-brains-on-alcohol-a180359

Also Google "alcohol effects on young brain."

I don't know if this alone warrants enforcing a legal drinking age--because people are allowed to do a lot of dumb things that can cause lasting damage--but it appears there's a physiological difference that should be considered.

> The same age across the board for everything
> seems fair.

I'm not sure "fairness" is our highest goal.

Mostly, I'm scared of the word "fair". Americans have done some horrible things in recent years by trying to be "fair".

We want to shelter and discipline young people who are at risk for misbehavior (and illness) from alcohol, while not inconveniencing those who aren't young or at risk.

Tough assignment, right?

So long as I am legally responsible for my kids welfare, they should not be able to walk into a liquor store, buy tequila, and get blotto. I am fine with age 18. My kids all ahve had sips already, when they want.

For. Let the states regulate it (at a lower level). As it stands right now, it's just another way to felonize normal behavior.

Consider all those folks who think it's hilarious to get the cat stoned or the dog drunk.

Imagine what would happen if they could legally get their four-year-old blotto at a party.

Sadly, there are enough people in this country that need full-time adult supervision. Since we can't give it to them, we create laws to protect the rest of us from those people.

==============================

Reason weighs in against a lower drinking age:

http://reason.com/archives/2008/08/21/the-perils-of-a-lower-drinking

==============================

That needs to be left up to the States without any input from Congress.

When they were too young for Illinois liquor laws, but okay by Wisconsin laws, my Chicago cousins would drive to Wisconsin to buy beer and/or drink in clubs ... along with many of their friends and classmates.

Do we really want hordes of young people driving long distances across state lines to get drunk and then driving home?

I don't know if this alone warrants enforcing a legal drinking age--because people are allowed to do a lot of dumb things that can cause lasting damage--but it appears there's a physiological difference that should be considered.

We already pump kids full of Ritalin and other drugs without knowing the full effects of these drugs on their brains. The argument here, of course, would be that alcohol doesn't have any therapeutic effects on kids that I am aware of (and I don't consider knocking your kid out a few hours earlier so you can watch Game of Thrones to be therapeutic).

Imagine what would happen if they could legally get their four-year-old blotto at a party.

Those kids probably have worse problems to deal with. Passing laws doesn't seem to stop parents from doing awful, stupid things if they are inclined to.

But I agree that kids under 18 shouldn't be able to buy alcohol. Too much liability for liquor-store owners. My hope is that if they are drinking under adult supervision, responsible adults will monitor their intake. Fifteen-year-olds buying a bottle of Jack Daniels and hanging out at the park sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Hi Amy:

Growing up in a Portuguese family, I had the same experience as you with alcohol. I tasted beer for the first time when I was about 4. I found it so disgusting, that to this day I can't even stand the smell. I don't mind wine, but drink it rarely. I couldn't understand what the big deal was when my friends were so excited about being of legal drinking age.

My dad always said that he had never seen anyone drink for the sole purpose of getting drunk until he came to Canada. Back home, you might end up drunk on rare occasion, by accident, not because it was your goal.

I'm raising my own children the same way. So in answer to your question, I think the legal drinking age is irrelevant.

Conan, the folks who think it is hilarious to get a toddler drunk are already doing it, legal or no.

The age of 'majority' in amerca is totaly arbitrary

Adult as defined by the government

Never, if you want to take illegal, unprescribed, and on many occasions precribed drugs

23, for insurance purposes, if going to college, not your own insurance but your parents

21, if drinking

18-21, to serve alcohol depending on jurisdiction

18, for most legal decisions, (unless you are in Alabam or Nebraska and then it is 19), to take naked photos, even if married before 18 taking naked pics of self or spouse results in child porn charges

16-18, old enough to be married with out parental consent depending on jusidiction

16, old enough to be convicted for muder as an adult under the death penalty

13-18 depending on jusrdictions for intercourse, usually 16-18 for all other sexual acts. In many areas reciveing a blow job gets you more jail time then acctually having sex

13-16, old enough to get married with parental consent, not really an age of majority thing, however as a married couple some legal decisions are no longer under the prevue of either childs parents

12, to be charged as an adult with murder

8, to be charged as an adult with sexual assult, even though the 15yr old babysitter assulted the child (but we cant charge a woman with sexual assault now can we?)

"I was a 19 yr old buck sergeant in Oklahoma and the state drinking age was 21. I was carded often but when I hauled out that Army ID it was handed back without comment along with my drink."

Some years ago, my wife and I took our nephew out to celebrate his getting a promotion in the Air Force. He was 20 at the time. I ordered wine for the table; the waiter looked at me funny, but I made it a point to address my nephew by his (new) rank within the waiter's earshot. The waiter didn't say anything, but he brought a glass for my nephew. If he's old enough to die for his country etc.

Gary Johnson...anyone who is in favor of legalization (or at least decriminalization...but I think he's for legalization) of pot is a sensible person in my view.

Not sure about eliminating a threshold age for drinking (although I'm not strongly opposed to it either and it's worth consideration) but I'm definitely in favor of reducing it.

"If you can go to Iraq and die, or Afghanistan and die as a service man or women at 18, and you can't drink -- I'm sorry I don't buy into that."

That has long been one of the arguments in favor of reducing it and it's a powerful one. It truly is bizarre that a young person can risk their life in war but can't legally buy a drink.

My dad laughed at me, said something like "Bet you won't overdo it again," and the thought of throwing up kept me from drinking again until I was in my late 20s.

Sounds familiar. The woman I was with ten years ago (the real hot one who pursued me) had a daughter who was in her final two years of high school when we were together. She was a great kid. Ms. Hottie told me that when her daughter was in her early teens, she and her ex-husband got her so drunk that she got got sick and threw up. And she said her daughter loathed the thought of drinking after that. Her daughter would be 28 now and I'm curious if, like you, she eventually started drinking...at least a little.

.

"Conan, the folks who think it is hilarious to get a toddler drunk are already doing it, legal or no."

I feel like we say that a lot around here: "The kind of people who would do this won't care if it's a law."

As the zealotry of the newly converted libertarian drains out of me a little, I'm skeptical. Even on a microcosmic level, like my gym, I can see that rules change behavior in the majority. If signs are posted saying "Rack your weights," everyone does. When the signs come down, weights are left all over the floor. Laws help remind and inform.

They also give society a way to deal with bad people expediently. People who collect child porn are going to do it regardless of the law, but that doesn't mean we should make it legal.

"Old enough to die for his country, old enough to have a drink" is glib. I don't see the logical relationship. Soldiers are well-trained and under orders when they pick up a weapon. They're not going to into combat with only the good sense their parents instilled in them.

The logical relationship is that at 18 they are legally ablr to sign away their rights and join an orginazation that might result in their death.

They dont get that training BEFORE they sign a contract. As they are viewed as legally competant enough to enter into legaly binding contracts, get credit cards, buy a car or attempt to get a loan all on their own why cant they have a beer?

You dont see the logical relationship? Explain the the logical rteason for denying legal adults a legal beverage for an additional 3 yrs.

The age at which people become mature enough to perform as a soldier is not necessarily the age at which they a)are mature enough to have good judgment concerning alcohol, or b) can metabolize alcohol without damaging their brains.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-05-29-fort-bliss-drinking-age_N.htm

Enlisting in the military does entail a risk of dying, but death is not the intended or presumed result, especially today. We /know/ alcohol impairs brain development in people that age. (The science looks solid to me, but I'm willing to be wrong.)

It's a bit old, but....

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/11/28/14713.aspx

France isn't the paradise of non-alcoholicism people claim it is.

When I lived in England (2003-2006), there was no such thing as an alcoholic. There were just people "who liked to have a good time." Behavior like mass vomiting in the city streets on Friday nights was the norm.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704588404575123691166554882.html

Glamor mags like Grazia run regular articles on how to recover the next day.

Everyone's posting anecdotes about how they tried it when they were young and learned never to abuse it again, but I can't see evidence that this is what typically happens in drinking-permissive cultures.

If their brains are not developed enough to handle alcohol then who could they possible be developed enough to consider the long term consequesnces of their actions?

> France isn't the paradise of non-alcoholicism
> people claim it is.

The parenting thing is bogus, too.

> The age at which people become mature enough
> to perform as a soldier is not necessarily
> the age at which they a)are mature enough to
> have good judgment concerning alcohol, or b)
> can metabolize alcohol without damaging
> their brains.

Good blog comment (and link).

I love that kind of perspective. People are too eager to make weird comparisons, often as a power-grab: We can put a man on the moon, but we can't end the scourge of drugs/pornography/country music?

Some women begin peubrerty as early as ten, some men arent finished with puebrty until 25. So I guess we'd better raise the drinking age to n25 just to be sure right?

Perhaps I am too cynical, but I really don't know why we even have this discussion. As an experiment, try actually "discussing" this in any sort of public forum other than in blog comments. You will be lucky to escape with your life. There will be enough sanctimoniousness to power a small city or several Spanish Inquisitions. All the better if there are any representatives of law enforcement or the court system present. They will throw out scary statistics (which don't have to be real) and lay down a barrage of overwrought emotionalism that will kill any thought that may remain within 10 miles of the discussion.