What should be done about laws that everyone breaks?

[Jake]

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.

Speed limits haven't been increased in 30+ years while vehicle safety has increased exponentially during that same period. A speed limit of 75mph for sealed two-lane highways under normal driving conditions is perfectly safe. It's pretty funny that we rely on thirty year old laws to determine what speed is "too fast" rather than science.

Allowing underage drinking does not increase DUI rates. People driving while intoxicated increases DUI rates. Just because someone is drinking underage does not mean they are going to drive more often than those 21+. Seeing that, there is no reason to deny alcohol to under 21s just because of that.

Smoking pot is bad for you, yes. But so is drinking, smoking cigarettes, and eating unhealthy food. None of that is universally banned.

Please stop acting like a sheep.

As for the question, it'd be nice for common sense to determine our laws. There isn't a meaningful reason to prohibit alcohol to those under 21. There also isn't a meaningful reason to prohibit marijuana use while not prohibiting alcohol. Alchohol is a stronger drug and is more dangerous (in terms of the effects of over-consumption). Speed limits are simply ridiculous on highways. There is a reason for 25mph speed limits in towns/cities; there is no scientific reason for a sealed highway to have a 65mph speed limit. It's purely a revenue source.

I'd like a cite on under 21s being more likely to DUI than those 21+. Those drinking in bars have much more incentive to drive drunk than those not drinking in bars.

[Jake]

But we are not just talking about highways. We're talking about the speed limit in general.

Uh, I'm talking about speed limits in general. If there are areas where they are too low, raise them. I don't think anyone is advocating an across the board 10 mph increase, but some roads could absorb a 15-20mph increase and still be safe to drive on. The problem is speed limit legislation hasn't be altered in 30 years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd argue that legalizing alcohol consumption for 18-20s would increase the safety of them drinking. They'll be less apt to conceal drinking, meaning help will be requested sooner for those who have consumed too much and they'll be better supervised. Whether someone is 18 and legally drunk  or 18 and illegally drunk, if they want to drive, they're going to drive. The fact one is illegally drunk is not going to change the decision process.

I'll also add that the amount of high-risk (unsupervised, to excess,etc.) drinking 18-20s do wouldn't increase, it'd probably decrease. If you can only rarely drink, you're going to drink more. If you're able to drink whenever you want, you'll be less apt to over-consume.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Public consensus is a terrible way to make laws. It's what kept segregation legal for 100 years after slavery, what still denies marriage rights to homosexuals in 45 odd states, etc. For laws regulating "drugs", I'd rather science decides whether something is too harmful to regularly consume (ie, cocaine, heroin, etc.) or just trust everyone to police what they consume. I'd prefer the former, but the latter is more acceptable than prosecuting those who smoke marijuana as if they're destroying society.

Whether or not people think the benefits of a marijuana ban outweigh the costs of such a ban,
 it's clear that they don't. The US Government spends billions enforcing a War on Drugs and is still powerless to control marijuana. That money can be better spent not destroying peoples' lives by imprisoning them for the terrible act of selling a few bags of pot.

Sorry for the insult.

[Jake]

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.

[Jake]

There doesn't seem to be any speed limit here, or anyway its totally unenforced.  That said I only go about 60-70 kilometers per hour.. what's that in real measurements?  Not sure my speedometer is correct though.

High 30s-Low 40s.

[Jake]

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've found there's enough aversion to buying alcohol for minors among 21 year olds buying for 18 year olds that reducing the age to 18 would reduce purchases of alcohol for minors. It's much more likely that 21s will view 18/19/20s as peers (which is the important thing; seeing someone as a peer means you'll trust their judgement) than 18s will view freshman or sophomores as peers. Certainly raising penalties (and publicizing it) would dissuade many teens from purchasing it for other teens.