21's a Bust? Seven States Debate Lowering Drinking Age

Deaf Mortgage said:
...If i had kid, I will give alcohol when they are young like 12-14 years old because I want them to be used to it and understand control before they become legalized drinking age to buy....
Click to expand...
If you do that, I suggest you don't publicize it because providing alcohol to minors is against the law, even if they are your own children in your home. You might have the cops and DSS knocking at your door if you do.
 
Reba said:
If you do that, I suggest you don't publicize it because providing alcohol to minors is against the law, even if they are your own children in your home. You might have the cops and DSS knocking at your door if you do.
Click to expand...

Do you mean that minors do not allow to drink alcohol to the public with their parents?

Also in parent´s house as well?
 
Deaf Mortgage said:
If i had kid, I will give alcohol when they are young like 12-14 years old because I want them to be used to it and understand control before they become legalized drinking age to buy. By then, i do not need to worry about them binging too much yet be glad to learn my kids helping people to clean up their vomit than having someone to clean up my kid's vomits.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that´s why we Europeans did the same things to our children. We prefer to expose our children to respect alochol at early age.

We (parents) are allow to drink alochol with children to the public and in the house because it´s parent´s responsibliy, not Government. Yes it´s Government responsibly, if minors drink alochol without parents around.
 
Reba said:
That's right.
Click to expand...

:cold: It´s scary to know that Government control parent´s responsiblity for their children.

The children is my responsiblity, not Government. I raise my children with responisiblity, not Government.

I teach my children to respect public law to not drink alochol without parents´ around.
 
jenni-m said:
I propose this

18 to drink legally (under guidance), for non military.
21 to BUY legally.
Military can buy under 21.

And yes, I think it is fair for military. If they are mature enough and old enough to serve the country, then they are mature enough to drink. But not everyone is able to handle that.
Click to expand...

I don't agree.
 
Meggie2 said:
No I don't think that they should lower the age to 18. Because young adults have difficult tolerating alcohol in their bodies.
Click to expand...

Puh-Lease! If I recall the last state that had a drinking age law under 21, was Louisiana, and it was 19, in 1986, and I happened to be 19,so I bought my first case of Budweiser! While all the other states were up at 21....

However the Federal Government said that they would cut Louisiana off with the highway funds.. if they remained at 19 to sell beer, wine, and liquor...

Louisiana quickly changed it from 19 to 21.... several months later...

Nah.. never gonna lower it anyway!!

Sorry!:dunno2:
 
Meggie2 said:
No I don't think that they should lower the age to 18. Because young adults have difficult tolerating alcohol in their bodies.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have anything to do with age, it has to do with body mass/weight.
 
VamPyroX said:
It doesn't have anything to do with age, it has to do with body mass/weight.
Click to expand...

Very True! That is 99.9% the main reason for that! Ahh, if they (states) lowered it.. Then up goes the numbers of drunk young drivers! Bad enough... Not a good idea!:dunno:
 
gmcman1996 said:
Very True! That is 99.9% the main reason for that! Ahh, if they (states) lowered it.. Then up goes the numbers of drunk young drivers! Bad enough... Not a good idea!:dunno:
Click to expand...
Umm.. no... when they raised the age limit, it didn't work so they had to make the law stricter by adding "no tolerance" law...

So since we have "no tolerance" law (based on BAC test) in several states then I see no point in keeping those age limit at 21.

I am ok if they lowered to 18...
 
Boult said:
Umm.. no... when they raised the age limit, it didn't work so they had to make the law stricter by adding "no tolerance" law...

So since we have "no tolerance" law (based on BAC test) in several states then I see no point in keeping those age limit at 21.

I am ok if they lowered to 18...
Click to expand...

Not me... Think about all the high school kids graduating from high school, and then crank up a party, and get drunk, and then see what happens.... Not good... BAC has nothing to do with that... Fact is when young 'uns have no experience driving drunk... that's where the shyt happens... and taxing the time, and efforts, of police officers, fire fighters, and rescue workers, to clean up the mess of a drunk 18 year old high school graduate.... splattered all over the highway!

Guess leave it at 21, is my opinion.... I graduated in 1986, so anyway I lucky, but I ask you if your son/daughter, was in that same situation, would you chance that? I guess NOT!
 
gmcman1996 said:
Not me... Think about all the high school kids graduating from high school, and then crank up a party, and get drunk, and then see what happens.... Not good... BAC has nothing to do with that... Fact is when young 'uns have no experience driving drunk... that's where the shyt happens... and taxing the time, and efforts, of police officers, fire fighters, and rescue workers, to clean up the mess of a drunk 18 year old high school graduate.... splattered all over the highway!

Guess leave it at 21, is my opinion.... I graduated in 1986, so anyway I lucky, but I ask you if your son/daughter, was in that same situation, would you chance that? I guess NOT!
Click to expand...

Underage kids get drunk at graduation parties and prom and all sorts of events anyway. If they want the alcohol, they will find a way to get it.

So, are you saying that experienced chronic drunk drivers are safer than inexperienced drunk drivers?

I gotta agree with Boult on this one. Zero tolerance on the BAC makes much more sense.
 
jillio said:
Underage kids get drunk at graduation parties and prom and all sorts of events anyway. If they want the alcohol, they will find a way to get it.

So, are you saying that experienced chronic drunk drivers are safer than inexperienced drunk drivers?

I gotta agree with Boult on this one. Zero tolerance on the BAC makes much more sense.
Click to expand...

Nope I am not saying chronic drunk drivers are safer than inexperienced drunk drivers... It still don't matter both ways.. Still deadly and not worth the damn chance... PERIOD!

Yeah Zero Tolerance or else C.U.I!!!!!
 
Reba said:
If you do that, I suggest you don't publicize it because providing alcohol to minors is against the law, even if they are your own children in your home. You might have the cops and DSS knocking at your door if you do.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, that's wrong. In my state (Washington), it is legal for parents to share the alcohol with the children. It varies by the states.
 
PuyoPiyo said:
I am sorry, that's wrong. In my state (Washington), it is legal for parents to share the alcohol with the children. It varies by the states.
Click to expand...
You're right. Only 20 of the 50 states don't allow parents to serve alcohol to their own children. Also, some states allow the children to taste alcohol but not consume it (maybe they spit it out?).
 
Reba said:
You're right. Only 20 of the 50 states don't allow parents to serve alcohol to their own children. Also, some states allow the children to taste alcohol but not consume it (maybe they spit it out?).
Click to expand...

Yupp. As for the tasting, I don't really see any different of tasting or consume the alcohol because if it was only for tasting then what's the really point?
 
PuyoPiyo said:
I am sorry, that's wrong. In my state (Washington), it is legal for parents to share the alcohol with the children. It varies by the states.
Click to expand...

Man! That is VERY WRONG!!! That is the worst example to pass down on your own kids.. because Washington State lets that happen... Pretty damn stupid!

I don't understand the bad examples these states are inflicting alcohol usage by minors, in the first place... That is bullshit... Pardon my french....
 
gmcman1996 said:
Man! That is VERY WRONG!!! That is the worst example to pass down on your own kids.. because Washington State lets that happen... Pretty damn stupid!

I don't understand the bad examples these states are inflicting alcohol usage by minors, in the first place... That is bullshit... Pardon my french....
Click to expand...

I can understand it being morally wrong in the state of Alabama but it's a little different in Washington State due to the historical significance of this law.

Afterall Washington state was settled by Scandinvians. :)
 
Back
Top