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

26 answers

Given the problems that stem from alcohol there is a good case for prohibition.

The costs of dealing with alcohol related problems such as drink / driving and other accidents. liver problems, absenteism, loss of productivity, family breakdowns etc. you may find that after tobacco, governments start to look at alcohol next.

2006-07-22 21:00:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

No! I think it should be lowered.

In Europe, children have safe amounts of alcohol with meals with their parents, which breaks the idea that it is grown-up or mature. It takes away the novelty so that teenagers don't try and get drunk at every opportunity. This is a much healthier attitude and I think it would go a long way to stopping booze fueled illness and violence in this country.
Most age limits in this country (UK) are bizarre. At 17, a person is seen by the law as responsible enough to drive their husband/wife and two children around in a car, but not to buy alcohol or watch certain films at the cinema! Where is the logic in this!

2006-07-22 22:46:22 · answer #2 · answered by guest 5 · 0 0

In the UK it is 18, however it should be 21, the alcohol problem, especially among young people is very bad. Alcoholism is a huge issue here. The increase in liver disease and mental health problems is frightening, it's 34 percent for liver disease in the last 5 years. It not only causes health problems, the violence and other social problems caused by it are very frightening. The government are worried about it and I have read medical reviews that say that the youngsters now will be the first generation to die before their parents. That's scary.

2006-07-23 22:39:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

This question has been a struggle in the USA and I believe most of the states have raised the minimum drinking age to 21. A new front of legal enforcement is currently being taken with zero tolerance for intoxication for minors. If you look at my reference link, would you ban alcohol all together or remove everyone's access to a car after drinking? The link is really difficult to take if you're soft hearted.

Education is the only true answer to sponsor true responsibility for consequences after drinking and driving.

2006-07-22 21:25:24 · answer #4 · answered by sakura4eternity 5 · 0 0

I'm assuming that you're not from the U.S., where the minimum age is 21. Regardless, no, I don't think so. Especially in North America, I think that people are a little overly protective about alcohol. Why is it that Western Europe, where children are permitted to have a glass of wine, have less alcohol abuse than in Canada and the U.S., where strict minimum ages are enforced?

2006-07-22 20:58:09 · answer #5 · answered by LivetoTravel 2 · 0 0

Instead of raising the drinking age and then spending money enforcing it. They should just spend that same money to educate and inform people on how to drink responsibly.

No matter how old you are, you're still responsible for your actions. If you don't understand that by 18 you're going to go through some tough times on the way to 21.

2006-07-22 21:05:19 · answer #6 · answered by Tomis 3 · 0 0

this will NOT stop anything at all, because even though its 18 at moment here in Australia, there is nothing out of the ordinaary to see kids as young as 13, drinking .

Raising the age to 21, will just make more , underage people go and get friends to buy grog for them .

And its also less money to the government.

2006-07-22 20:57:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

its 21 in california, but since i live about 20 minutes from mexico, people drink younger. its not that big a deal. plus, a lot of people underage drink, having the age set at 21 just makes more people get in trouble. more people vote at 21 than at 18, so i think they should switch things around. on top of that, having the age lowered back to 18 may take the novelty off of underage drinking, perhaps kind of making people cut back.

2006-07-22 21:01:14 · answer #8 · answered by theboi 3 · 0 0

YES. because i think at 18 we're still not mature enough 2 handle the responsibility of alcohol. a large percentage of the trouble that results comes from young drinkers. i'm 21 and i dont drink at all, what we see on the news and features about alcohol put me off, i dont see the point of drinking.

2006-07-22 21:01:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I'm in the UK and although the legal age is 18 in most shops you're asked to produce ID if you're under 21. What difference would it make? Teenagers would still get their hands on cider and other icky drinks and get pissed at the park.

2006-07-22 21:48:41 · answer #10 · answered by Pink Laydee 2 · 0 0

It is 21 here in United States. I personally you should be required to carry a 10 million dollar insurance retainer if you're going to drink and have a card to show for it when you purchase.

2006-07-22 20:57:20 · answer #11 · answered by bombhaus 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers