Yup.
Because of the increased incidence of stupid behavior of 18 year-olds that are drunk, the powers that be decided to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21. Like other laws designed to "protect" you, this law is "supposed" (BWA HA HA) to keep the demon alcohol away from those who would abuse, (ie, teenagers) it. A 21-year-old is allegedly more mature than an 18-year-old.
Doesn't always work though. Any psychologist will tell you that if you deny someone something, no matter what it is, the desire to obtain it becomes that much greater. I can go on a page-filled rant about it, but that is beyond the scope of your question.
2007-04-30 08:28:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by CyberCop 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I took a Alcohol Server Training Class required by some states to serve alcoholic beverages. I learned that before a person is 21 there bodies (livers) cannot break down alcohol the same way as someone over the age of 21. This increases the chances of alcoholism to start early on. I believe this is true because many of my friends started drinking in high school and still drink an awful lot. I also have a close relative that drank way before 21 and has drug addictions and alcoholism.
2007-04-30 08:38:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dooger 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
18 is way too young. 21 is still to young. For most they never get old enough or mature enough to drink in the first place.
Drinking is for losers anyway.
I've always wondered why not being legal to drink, but being of legal age to "die for your country" has been put into the same sentence so many times throughout the years. A lot of kids die as a result of alcohol related incidences.
Me? I would much rather have "Died honorably fighting for freedom" on my headstone rather than, "found in ditch after being thrown from vehicle covered in his own puke and crap with a crushed head".
Besides. Kids who drink to party at 15, 16, 17 or 18, usually turn out to be the burger flippers and Pizza Hut managers of America.
2007-04-30 08:31:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by scottdman2003 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Statistically speaking, young adults are irresponsible about when and where alcohol consumption should be. E.g., at home, just before hopping into the car to go over to a friend's house, the club, or some other event (and as a result of imparement, driving too fast and with less control, resulting in possibly their death, as well as the deaths of others).
Frankly, if the parents would take the time to spend with their kids, and them respect and consequences apropriately, folks might understand that alcohol can be fun, but that it, just like a gun, must be treated with respect for it's deadly aspects.
2007-04-30 08:27:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by sjsosullivan 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's much more likely an 18 year old will buy and distribute to younger folks than it is for a 21 year old to do the same. Didn't start until I was 20 and my social life didn't suffer for it. Many lobby to change it; maybe you should join the fight. Also, in some states you can drink at 18 if you are in the company of your parent or guardian.
2007-04-30 08:24:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
They say that you body isn't fully matured yet and drinking at a younger age than that can cause serious problems later in life. Also teens tend to take worse risks when under the influence. Not to mention you will be more likely to become an alcoholic because your brain is still developing.
2007-04-30 08:26:40
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
World Drinking Ages
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/LegalDrinkingAge.html
2007-04-30 08:29:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yeah, called liability. The whole court system would be in the s&@t if it weren't for liability insurance. In other countries, maybe its OK for someone to crash into you and leave you with non-functioning limb, or worse brain damage, cause they ran the red light.
Oh, and for your answer, cause most kids are still considered living at home after age 18, up to 23 years old for college kids. 21 is when we finally decide what to do with our lives.
Get real, and call Geico.
2007-04-30 08:30:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by JOHNNY D 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
It lowers the incidents where drunk driving kills more people. They tried it back when Vietnam was going on because of the same idea. We are sending them to die for our country shouldnt they have all the rights alotted to them? That was the idea, however death tolls rose and so did other problems associated with alcohol. So they tried it and found that this works better. If even it saves a few people from a deadly accident that don't deserve it, isnt that proof enough?
2007-04-30 08:24:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by fancy 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
It should be 30
2007-04-30 08:27:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by Alanna F 1
·
2⤊
1⤋