What should be done about laws that everyone breaks?

[Franzl]

The laws you mentioned are clearly unreasonable.

I naturally don't drive 65-70 mph when I'm in the U.S., but I've never gotten a ticket either. It's still annoying as hell to constantly fear that a cop might be waiting behind the next curve.

The "21 to drink" thing is even more annoying. Again, I know of many bars and restaurants that will serve me without asking for ID....but it's also annoying as hell to just take your chance in a place you're not familiar with. Sure, the worst that can happen is that you don't get your beer, but it's just plain embarrassing.

[Franzl]

Maybe we should legalize robbery and murder too. After all "everyone" breaks those laws. And clearly people who don't do now won't do so once it's legalized.

Robbery and murder aren't victimless crimes.

[Franzl]

Maybe we should legalize robbery and murder too. After all "everyone" breaks those laws. And clearly people who don't do now won't do so once it's legalized.

Robbery and murder aren't victimless crimes.

Going too fast on the road greatly increases the chance of an accident. Allowing drinking before 21 increases drunk driving accidents substantially. Smoking is bad for one's health. Of course none of these things involve direct victimization but society has deemed that the costs of allowing this clearly outway the benefits, which consist mainly of short-term pleasure.

Allowing alcohol consumption at all greatly increases the risk of accidents....why draw the line at 21? Why can't we just reinstate prohibition?

And speed limits don't have much effect on accident rates, as evidenced by most other countries that have sensible speed regulations.

[Franzl]

Maybe we should legalize robbery and murder too. After all "everyone" breaks those laws. And clearly people who don't do now won't do so once it's legalized.

Robbery and murder aren't victimless crimes.

Going too fast on the road greatly increases the chance of an accident. Allowing drinking before 21 increases drunk driving accidents substantially. Smoking is bad for one's health. Of course none of these things involve direct victimization but society has deemed that the costs of allowing this clearly outway the benefits, which consist mainly of short-term pleasure.

Allowing alcohol consumption at all greatly increases the risk of accidents....why draw the line at 21? Why can't we just reinstate prohibition?

And speed limits don't have much effect on accident rates, as evidenced by most other countries that have sensible speed regulations.

Prohibition increased organized crime. Younger people are much more likely to be involved in drunk driving than older people.

If you're talking about on the highway, you're right, but on residential streets... no.

You're certainly right about prohibition, but why should 21 be the limit? Why does every other country manage with a lower limit? And you know perfectly well that very few under 21s (like me when I'm in the U.S.) actually refrain from drinking. Why should a legal adult that can drive, vote, work, sign a contract, own a gun, and fight for his country not be able to have a beer legally?

I accept 18 as a sensible age for being able to purchase alcoholic beverages, as it would then be directly tied to the age of majority.

[Franzl]

Maybe we should legalize robbery and murder too. After all "everyone" breaks those laws. And clearly people who don't do now won't do so once it's legalized.

Robbery and murder aren't victimless crimes.

Going too fast on the road greatly increases the chance of an accident. Allowing drinking before 21 increases drunk driving accidents substantially. Smoking is bad for one's health. Of course none of these things involve direct victimization but society has deemed that the costs of allowing this clearly outway the benefits, which consist mainly of short-term pleasure.

Allowing alcohol consumption at all greatly increases the risk of accidents....why draw the line at 21? Why can't we just reinstate prohibition?

And speed limits don't have much effect on accident rates, as evidenced by most other countries that have sensible speed regulations.

Prohibition increased organized crime. Younger people are much more likely to be involved in drunk driving than older people.

If you're talking about on the highway, you're right, but on residential streets... no.

You're certainly right about prohibition, but why should 21 be the limit? Why does every other country manage with a lower limit? And you know perfectly well that very few under 21s (like me when I'm in the U.S.) actually refrain from drinking. Why should a legal adult that can drive, vote, work, sign a contract, own a gun, and fight for his country not be able to have a beer legally?

I accept 18 as a sensible age for being able to purchase alcoholic beverages, as it would then be directly tied to the age of majority.

It's true 21 is a rather arbitrary number. But if anything it should be raised, not lowered.

Comparing drinking beer to driving, voting, working, and military service just degrades the latter. No one needs to drink beer, we do need transportation, responsive government, income, and national defense.

I don't like the state telling me what is necessary or unnecessary. Perhaps you do.

[Franzl]

Common sense doesn't appear to be your strength.

[Franzl]

Common sense doesn't appear to be your strength.

Says the guy who apparently thinks drinking a beer is as important as driving, voting, and working.

I won't respond to any more of your posts if your purpose is just to insult me.

lol, that's an easy way out, isn't it?

I never stated that drinking beer is as "important" as the things you mentioned. I simply stated that prohibition for people under 21 is illogical, and doesn't really have any positive effects. The U.S. is the one of the only countries to have a drinking age higher than the age of majority. Many European countries' drinking ages are lower than 18.

I don't consider something to be right just because it's the current law, as you appear to think.

[Franzl]

Common sense doesn't appear to be your strength.

Says the guy who apparently thinks drinking a beer is as important as driving, voting, and working.

I won't respond to any more of your posts if your purpose is just to insult me.

lol, that's an easy way out, isn't it?

I never stated that drinking beer is as "important" as the things you mentioned. I simply stated that prohibition for people under 21 is illogical, and doesn't really have any positive effects. The U.S. is the one of the only countries to have a drinking age higher than the age of majority. Many European countries' drinking ages are lower than 18.

I don't consider something to be right just because it's the current law, as you appear to think.

It's well documented that it has saved lives. But that's not the point. The point is that most people support it because they believe that less young people drinking is preferable to more accidents. If you want to overturn it you need public opinion on your side. It shouldn't be overturned just because "everyone breaks it".

You're going around in circles here. You're seriously using public opinion as an argument? That's pretty dangerous in my opinion, to claim that something is correct simply because most people think it's correct.

I don't believe that the drinking age has very much to do with accident rates. As previously stated, other countries manage....or are you saying that Americans simply can't drive?

[Franzl]

I think we are getting sidetracked. All I'm trying to say is that if you want to lower the drinking age you should present a valid reason for doing so and not just because "everyone breaks it" or even the "I can do x,y,z too" canard. The reason we have this law is because the perceived benefit is greater than the perceived cost. The only reason to scrap it would be if the costs are demonstrated to exceed the benefits. (Which isn't too convincing http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/health/research/08safe.html?scp=6&sq=drinking+age+deaths&st=nyt)

Notice that neither Franzl or I has used the initial premise of the thread as a reason to legalizing underage drinking.

One interesting thing is that the typical minimum ages for drinking and those for driving are practically reversed in Europe. It's a common argument here in Germany, at least, that being legally able to drink 2 years before getting a drivers license (well...it's one year these days with "learners' permits") allows one to become accustomed to drinking and the effects of having a couple of drinks....which in theory is supposed to keep people from drinking and driving once they're legally allowed to drive.

Of course...I'm not sure how true that is in practice, considering that almost every American teenager has had alcohol before despite drinking laws.

Although I think you're certainly right in saying that "legal" drinking would make teenagers more responsible...by allowing them to consume 1-2 drinks in a bar or restaurant and not having to "get the most" out of drinking on some Saturday night just because it's one of the few times they have access to alcohol. The general drinking mentality is important, and I get the feeling in the U.S. among many young people that they drink primarily to get drunk. I think this, as you suggested, is partially a result of wanting to abuse the "forbidden fruit", so to say.

[Franzl]

Franzl, I'm curious as to your opinion on the idea that, because you have to be 21 to drink alcohol, you have 21 year olds buying drinks for 18 year olds, instead of 18 year olds buy drinks for 15 year olds.

I wouldn't see a problem with that, to be perfectly honest.

[Franzl]

One interesting thing is that the typical minimum ages for drinking and those for driving are practically reversed in Europe.

The reason Americans can get a license at 16 is because cities aren't as compact as in Europe. You can practically walk anywhere in European city (or so I've heard) that you need to go. It's different in the US where, because of our geographic size, everything is farther apart and cities themselves are larger geographically. Just some thoughts.

I understand the apparent reasons for getting a license when you're young in the U.S. I sure know I'd need a car if I lived back in Alton, IL right now as I did for 10 years in my earlier life.

I don't know if it's really because you can "walk" within cities in Europe....even if that's true to an extent, there are still lots of (for European standards) "rural" areas where you wouldn't be able to walk. I'd say a far superior public transportation system is the main reason under 18s don't necessarily need to drive a car.

At any rate, I'm not really interested in the reasons for getting a license or not getting one. I was just making a point about the relation between the driving and drinking age, for whatever reason.