English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-07-20 17:15:41 · 16 answers · asked by jrivera_e17 2 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

shouldent it be the other way around?

2006-07-20 17:16:17 · update #1

younger***

2006-07-20 17:20:00 · update #2

16 answers

At 18 you are too stupid to drink. Its not much better at 21. Either way there is no draft so have some milk and change your diapers.

2006-07-20 17:25:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

The two are mutually exclusive. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I agree that young people should not be out on the front lines risking there lives without cause, but that is my "15 year old" position. Now it would make sense that the voting age should be as young as 18, since the 18 year oldds are fighting the war. This could become especially important if there was a draft. All in all, it is just a measure of physical and mental maturity.

2006-07-20 17:23:44 · answer #2 · answered by qwertylicious 2 · 0 0

each and every thing and some thing you eat and beverages can kill you. Beer will kill your body faster, its a certainty. the faster you start up ingesting it, the most possibly you'll die youthful. i imagine however, if someone needs to drink, opt for it. i imagine the "criminal age" of being an man or woman must be the criminal age for ingesting. I also believe that in case you drink andchronic you should be positioned to lack of existence! it truly is one hundred% certainty, each and every person knows no longer to drink andchronic, yet some human beings are only THAT dumb. however it fairly is a reason to have the age at 21. A inebriated 17 twelve months old will swear he canchronic, even even as he's inebriated off his ***. A 22 twelve months old, might want to be somewhat smarter. yet fairly it more effective relies upon on the man, no longer there age. you may strive against it any way you want, certainty is, it maximum possibly is totally not replaced lower back in united states of america. Will stay 21 continuously :< And a fifteen twelve months old can get beer with no difficulty. So doesnt rely one way or the different.

2016-11-24 23:42:09 · answer #3 · answered by berggren 4 · 0 0

Honestly I think the thinking behind this law is left-over from the prohibition period. I didn't really understand it when I was younger than 21 and now that I'm older I still don't. Don't get me wrong - I'm not about drinking in excess or getting drunk but I do look at other countries where there is no legal drinking limit (and there was no prohibition) and sometimes wonder if they don't have the right idea about alcohol. If we teach people from birth about alcohol and how to drink with moderation then perhaps we'll have fewer alcoholics, drunken driving accidents, & homeless drunks around.

Just for example - I went to Italy a few years back and went to a soccer game - guess what? They were serving beer but no one and I mean NO ONE was drunk even by the end of the game. There were no drunken fights, no one spilled beer on me, no one threw up in the stands...it was quite refreshing from some of the American sporting events I've been to. I LOVE America but hate our drinking laws and issues...

2006-07-20 17:26:39 · answer #4 · answered by desmartj 3 · 0 0

The U.S. did lower the drinking age in 1974 to 18 for that same argument. Unfortunately, automobile accident deaths involving alcohol for those under 21 skyrocketed. When the statistics were compiled and reviewed it was deemed prudent to raise the age back to 21. I remember this because I turned 21 in 1974.

2006-07-20 17:34:51 · answer #5 · answered by andywho2006 5 · 0 0

If you really want to know why it is cause at the age of 18 when people are allowed to vote most don't even register. Start showing some intuitive, become responsible adults like you want to be treated, get out and make a difference, or just sit here and complain until you are older and don't care anymore.

2006-07-20 17:30:40 · answer #6 · answered by Artistic Prof. 3 · 0 0

Technically, any state in the union can have any drinking age it likes. But the federal government withholds highway funding from states that set their drinking age lower than 21. So basically it's in the interest of national defence to enlist 18 year olds, but it's in the interest of highway safety to keep young drivers sober. It's obviously a contradictory outcome.

2006-07-20 17:22:30 · answer #7 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 0 0

The answer is Puritanism. But Puritanism is nothing new. It existed even in Shakespeare's time. This is from Twelfth night:
"Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
SIR TOBY BELCH
Twelfth Night: Act 2, Scene 3

2006-07-21 02:56:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We need strong, healthy bodies to put on the front lines. What use would you be if you killed or arrested because of DUI?

18 is too young and immature to choose what you want to drink, but you dont have to be mature to take a bullet.

2006-07-20 17:28:20 · answer #9 · answered by Politics 2 · 0 0

You can also smoke at 18 and go into strip clubs, buy porn, etc... at 18...

We can certainly try to raise the age requirement for all the other things to 21 also ...

2006-07-20 17:21:46 · answer #10 · answered by BigBadBoo 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers