...encourage overdrinking by minors (since they can't get it all the time, they gotta drink a lot when they do). These same minors naturally grow to be overdrinking adults. The money they spend as minor and adult overdrinkers brings in more money for the alcohol companies and taxes for the government.

Current drinking laws are in place for the purpose of taxes/profits, not public safety.

Am I crazy?

8/13/2010 11:43:38 PM

Current drinking laws have a lot to do with MADD

8/13/2010 11:56:00 PM

Quote :

"...encourage overdrinking by minors (since they can't get it all the time, they gotta drink a lot when they do). These same minors naturally grow to be overdrinking adults."

I don't think there is much merit to that at all. I've heard that argument for years as well as the one that binge drinking in college comes from not being able to drink as much before then and then going "all out" once you can drink legally. I've also heard that people would be more "responsible" drinkers if they started drinking earlier.

Some people are always going to drink. Some people are always going to drink a lot. Some people are always going to be irresponsible when they drink. Some people are always going to think it is ok to drink and drive. I think all of that exists regardless of whether the drinking age was 18, 21, or 25. That stuff has to do with personality, human nature, environment, friends etc. more than the law. I never really drank until I was of legal age, but the people/friends I knew who did IN HS had no problem getting alcohol. Some of them today are borderline alcoholics, some of them are merely weekend social drinkers, some hardly drink at all anymore now with jobs etc. Really not a lot of correlation there to the fact that they were drinking underage. I believe they all would have turned out the same way in regards to their alcohol consumption whether they started at 17 or 21.

As far as the drinking laws are concerned, I don't care. I'm certainly not saying that they shouldn't lower it or anything. I don't care whether they lower them or not. But I can't see ANY correlation between the current laws and certain individuals over-drinking. Especially not to the point where the government is actively scheming this as a way to make more money on taxes. There is just no evidence that would support that. For every person who over-drinks as an adult, I can find you someone who doesn't drink at all or has <a six pack per month. Heck I know a few people who never drank until they were 22 or 23 that are out every weekend getting wasted these days and my one friend that drank *the most* out of my friends in HS doesn't drink period anymore.

I just don't think there is any way to support this.

[Edited on August 14, 2010 at 12:11 AM. Reason : ]

8/13/2010 11:59:49 PM

^^Yeah, some of those MADD folks are interesting.

But it seems to me that InBev and the like would actually be against loosening our drinking laws.

The 21 age limit seems to serve them perfectly in a really twisted screwed up way.

[Edited on August 14, 2010 at 12:00 AM. Reason : ]

8/13/2010 11:59:51 PM

Quote :

"...encourage overdrinking by minors (since they can't get it all the time, they gotta drink a lot when they do)."

i don't think there is much merit to that, new drinkers will always be stupid no matter what the age/circumstance

where i think a big advantage of having the drinking age lower is that kids are learning how to handle their shit while living at home with their parents instead of on their own in college. sure there will still be underage drinking and drinking that the parents don't know about (and some just generally bad parents) but i think it would help out a lot of people.

(and i've also never understood how if someone is legally an adult they can be prevented from something that other adults are allowed to do)

[Edited on August 14, 2010 at 12:14 AM. Reason : ()]

8/14/2010 12:13:31 AM

Quote :

"m52ncsu: i don't think there is much merit to that, new drinkers will always be stupid no matter what the age/circumstance where i think a big advantage of having the drinking age lower is that kids are learning how to handle their shit while living at home with their parents instead of on their own in college"

Seems like a giant contradictions party.

[Edited on August 14, 2010 at 12:19 AM. Reason : ]

8/14/2010 12:18:50 AM

not really. they will still be stupid, only now the parents have a chance to do something about it and try to keep their kids out of trouble.

8/14/2010 12:20:52 AM

I think it is less an issue of restrictions on purchasing alcohol than it is restrictions on providing alcohol. It discourages parents from teaching their children to drink in moderation. For instance, there is no reason why a 12 year old shouldn't be able to have a watered down glass of wine at a wedding reception or other celebration. There is nothing wrong with a father splitting a beer with his son. These are ways that parents can create positive associations with responsible alcohol consumption. But under our laws, parents would be committing a crime.

These are the ways that I learned to drink. I was very experienced with alcohol before the peer pressure kicked in in high school and college. As a result, I never had the desire to binge drink.

8/14/2010 7:00:46 AM

Return the legal drinking age to 18.

Abolish the legal drinking age. (States could do that, right?)

8/14/2010 8:59:23 AM

They sure could, however they would likely then immediately lose all federal funding for things like highways. That's always been the traditional threat whenever a state talks about changing the legal drinking age to something logical like 18.

8/14/2010 11:25:10 AM

^ They'd only lose 10%. I imagine that's still not chump change, though.

8/14/2010 12:02:51 PM

yep, how's that for pissing on the 10th amendment, lol. I fail to see at all how that is remotely Constitutional.

8/15/2010 7:42:39 PM

as for OP, alcohol consumption is the highest in europe where they have lower drinking ages

you should just do a quick google before posting

8/15/2010 7:49:50 PM

Quote :

"alcohol consumption is the highest"

Meaning what?
Over-drinking by some? or total drinking by all?

Quote :

"I fail to see at all how that is remotely Constitutional."

I fail to see at all how any drug prohibitions are remotely Constitutional.

8/15/2010 8:12:33 PM

He's right, our per capita consumption of alcohol is lower than in most European countries (lower than Germany, the UK, France... but higher than Poland, Iceland, Norway), but still higher that that of South American countries, it's on par with Canada. Basically, proves nothing.

Interestingly enough, our rates of alcoholic liver disease... Germany's is 3 times higher than ours, but ours is 3 times higher than the UK. Make of it what you will.

8/15/2010 8:25:17 PM

Quote :

"Meaning what? Over-drinking by some? or total drinking by all?"

It's obvious which is relevant if you read the OP. The original statement is higher drinking age causes greater sales volume of alcohol. This is difficult for me to believe off-hand, and coincedentally it is very easy to prove or disprove to a simple degree, all one has to do is see if lower drinking ages in europe has caused them to have lower alcohol consumption. This entire thread is nothing but conjecture, so I suppose I'm dissapointed no one was able to do this simple and basic research.

^^What I would make of it is that overdrinking has more to do with culture than drinking ages.

[Edited on August 16, 2010 at 9:06 AM. Reason : ]

8/16/2010 9:05:52 AM

Quote :

"This entire thread is nothing but conjecture"

CONJECTURE?!??? IN MY SOAP BOX??!?!? HELL NO!, WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!!!111111

Quote :

"What I would make of it is that overdrinking has more to do with culture than drinking ages"

I agree, but

WHERE'S THE PROOF? EVIDENCE? GET THAT CONJECTURE OUT OF HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111 j/k

[Edited on August 16, 2010 at 9:12 AM. Reason : ]

8/16/2010 9:10:46 AM

Quote :

"CONJECTURE?!??? IN MY SOAP BOX??!?!? HELL NO!, WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!!!111111"

The original post purposed some sort of conspiracy theory in which alcohol companies lobbies the government in order to keep more people alcoholics, it's a tad far fetched and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a small bit of evidence to go with it.

Quote :

"WHERE'S THE PROOF?"

Right above it, they posted evidence, I just responded with a reasonable conclusion

8/16/2010 9:25:14 AM

Way to miss a joke, Kris.

Also, the reason for something not being one particular thing isn't proof that's it's some other particular thing....
(unless those two things are the only possible things)
(were you also making a joke?)

8/16/2010 9:37:48 AM

Its always been my opinion that at 18 you should be considered an adult in the eyes of the law. meaning all of the arbitrary ages for things could be condensed to one birthday...18;

right to drive
right to vote
right to drink

Ive always thought the driving age was too low and the drinking age too high.

8/16/2010 10:17:04 AM

I didn't take it quite as seriously as it might have sounded, I guess I should have put in smiley faces or something.

Quote :

"Also, the reason for something not being one particular thing isn't proof that's it's some other particular thing...."

I was refering to the seemingly unconnected levels of liver disease between country, per capita alcohol consumed, and drinking age.

8/16/2010 10:17:26 AM

Quote :

"encourage overdrinking by minors (since they can't get it all the time, they gotta drink a lot when they do). These same minors naturally grow to be overdrinking adults. "

There is almost a Catch-22 when it comes to MADD, the local community, and the current 21 year old drinking age.
One of the arguments for a 21 year old drinking age is that youth below this age are to immature, rowdy, drink-and-drive,
and cause problems with their wild parties. Yet by outlawing drinking for those 18-20, they actually encourage the problem.

The most obvious problem being crazy college parties and events like brentroad. By not legitmizing drinking to college
age (18-20) students, instead of going to bars these young adults instead go to parties and create many of the problems
that the anti-alcohol lobbyists are trying to eliminate.

Sure there will still be parties but how many of these "nusiance" out-of-control parties would there be if 19 year old
students had the option of going to the bars. Why go to some party that may get broken up, wait in line 10 minutes for the keg, when
you can go down to East Village.

Quote :

"why a 12 year old shouldn't be able to have a watered down glass of wine at"

12 is kind of young. I would probably "introduce" my teenager to alcohol around 14/15. By the time they are 16, there is a lot more likely
chance that they can/will have the capability to attend some party where alcohol is served.

Quote :

"The original statement is higher drinking age causes greater sales volume of alcohol. This is difficult for me to believe off-hand, and coincedentally it is very easy to prove or disprove to a simple degree"

Yeah i have trouble believing that a 21 year old alcohol age "increases" sales. However this does not eliminate the likely statistic that
it does INCREASE binge drinking.

Quote :

"Ive always thought the driving age was too low and the drinking age too high. "

Hence why NC is a progressive driving permit system.

Age 15- Drivers Learning Permit
Age 16- Limited Drivers Permit, restricted hours 5am-9pm, limited non-family under 21 passengers to 1. No Cell Phone calls
Age 16 & 1/2- No restrictions except for no cell phones.

I think it is a big relief for parents to have their 17 yr old drive themselves to work, school, etc. Plus parents
have the rights to revoke their childs priviledges or take their keys away if they feel that their teen is irresponsible.

8/16/2010 1:22:33 PM

yeah, a lot of high school kids have no problem with the responsibilities of driving, but they are, by far, the most dangerous group of drivers on the road next to the elderly. 2 years of maturity I think would go a long way. just my $.02

8/16/2010 2:48:59 PM

Experience goes a long way. Might as well get it done when mommy and daddy can supervise instead of letting them whiz off as n00b drivers when they turn 18.

Same applies to drinking. At 25 I do not binge drink because I do not enjoy hangovers and after a point being drunker does not necessarily make anything more fun.

[Edited on August 16, 2010 at 3:35 PM. Reason : a]

8/16/2010 3:35:07 PM

I didnt say get rid of the graduated driving program.

8/16/2010 6:35:10 PM

Quote :

"Am I crazy?"

Yes. The current drinking laws exist because of moralizing bitches like those at the aforementioned MADD. No alcohol company will argue in favor of changing the position because they'd immediately be marginalized by the same people for targeting "minors" (though most likely this would refer to people who are only "minor" when it comes to buying a beer).

I suspect most alcohol purveyors would do better business if the drinking age were lowered, but not so much better that it's worth the backlash.

Quote :

"Ive always thought the driving age was too low and the drinking age too high."

And I've always thought it seemed like a bad idea to hand someone the keys to the car and the liquor cabinet at the same time. Make them drive a couple of years first so they don't have any (or at least, as many) illusions about how great they are at it.

8/17/2010 3:05:04 PM

people drink and drive all the time now, including the underage. drinking and driving is always going to happen.

I just think that the government's perspective should be that you are either an adult or you are not.

8/17/2010 3:09:54 PM

How about non-vehicular open-container laws?
Why do we need these?

8/17/2010 3:13:48 PM

Quote :

"I just think that the government's perspective should be that you are either an adult or you are not."

I fundamentally agree here, but I don't think it has to be that driving comes with the age of majority. I'd rather give you some experience with it before I turn you loose on the world as a full adult.

Aside from which, there are practical concerns for a lot of people -- when I was in high school, my ability to drive the family backup car to school and back saved my parents a whole lot of grief some days.

Quote :

"How about non-vehicular open-container laws? Why do we need these?"

I don't know if we need them, but I suspect most communities have them in order to reduce the number of visibly drunk people walking around town. If I'm a business owner I'd like to have legal recourse to remove a bum drinking wild irish rose in the vicinity of my place, scaring away customers.

So there's that. And at least these laws are state or local. And it's not unreasonable that the law restrict what you can do in public areas, at least to most of us -- I wouldn't be shocked if you said we should have the right to walk down the street with our balls hanging out. So from where I'm sitting, the main argument against the law is "For God's sake, at least they're drinking and walking rather than driving."

8/17/2010 3:50:15 PM

Yeah, my bad on this thread, guys. I was really bored.

That said, Kris's "evidence" against my obviously wrong point is lame. The US has lots of non-drinkers that bring our per capita consumption down (in short, our actual drinkers drink just as much as theirs). Furthermore, Europe's problem has become worse in recent years (I believe we've shipped our culture over there a bit.).

There are still places like Spain that seem to have no problem at all, and I'm interested in learning more about their culture and what they do when it comes to drinking.

8/19/2010 12:02:15 AM

How do we have both "lots of non-drinkers" and yet export a culture of binge drinking?

8/19/2010 12:50:17 AM

^
Really? (I thought you were a little smarter than that...)

8/19/2010 9:07:57 AM

^^ Different standard deviations.

San Diego may have a higher "average" temperature than Omaha Nebraska. Omaha, however, may have more binge hot days
of 100 degree plus than san diego. Whereas san diego is not known for scorching summer hot days. On the converse nebraska has
a lot colder winters which are drag down the average temperature.

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 9:46 AM. Reason : a]

8/19/2010 9:20:32 AM

a

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 9:46 AM. Reason : a]

8/19/2010 9:20:32 AM

The fact that we consume less alcohol and have lower instances of liver disease should prove it in itself. But I could pull the historical data that will show Europe leading the US in per capita consumption.

8/19/2010 9:21:32 AM

Just because Europe "drinks" more does not mean that the US does not have a more prevalent binge drinking culture.

Sounds like you need to retake statistics.

8/19/2010 9:48:18 AM

I didn't see your post, you posted it while I was replying.

Whether or not we have binge drinking isn't the question. Whether we export a binge drinking culture is the question.

8/19/2010 9:52:56 AM

My $0.02:

15 - Drinking age
- You can't drive yet, so your only option is to drink at home or have someone drive you. This encourages parental supervision and teaches good drinking habits. You're not some college student living away from home that has no one to keep you in check. You also get a year to celebrate your drinking-age status before you can even touch a car.
16 - Learner's Permit
- You can only drive with a parent in the car. This will pretty much stop new drivers from drinking & driving for at least a year (well, the ones that follow the rules).
17 - Driver's license (before 9pm)
- If you can't drive after 9pm you're less likely to wrap your car around a telephone pole at 2am when the bars close. Again, the kids breaking these rules were going to break them anyways.
18 - Voting, Tobacco, after 9
- Now you're free to make your own decisions. At least if you join the military you can go drink when you're on leave.

Basically, I think a drunk 16-year-old is less dangerous to society than a driving 16-year-old. The former can kill himself/herself, the latter can kill someone else.

EDIT: Maybe add some kind of rule about the alcohol content of what you're allowed to buy, so at 15 you can buy beer but you can't buy liquor until 16 or 17.


[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 4:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/19/2010 4:20:49 PM

Is anyone in favor of N.C.'s blue laws? Specifically 18B-1004(c), our Sunday closing law prohibiting alcohol sales before Noon on Sunday. I'd like to hear from anyone with more insight into the Legislature about any recent attempts at repeal, or whether there are any specific Representatives or Senators who are responsible for the continuation of these laws.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_18B/GS_18B-1004.html

I don't always go to the grocery store before Noon, but did today and couldn't purchase the 6-pack I picked up. This minor incovenience caused me to email me State Rep. and Senator to inquire as to their positions on N.C.'s Blue Laws; we'll see if I get a response.

I couldn't find any other threads on topic.

[Edited on December 8, 2013 at 2:04 PM. Reason : .....]

12/8/2013 2:00:19 PM

I was drunk when I made this thread.

I take no responsibility for it.

12/8/2013 7:08:25 PM

Quote :

"I don't always go to the grocery store before Noon, but did today and couldn't purchase the 6-pack I picked up."

That's crazy. What do they think they're preventing with this law? People showing up to church drunk?

12/8/2013 9:29:18 PM

I don't know the full history of Blue Laws, but I'm assuming this is just another situation where it's more costly to a politician to attempt to repeal an outdated law because of the bootlegger/baptist coalition. But dang if I didn't go back to the store today at 3pm to get my 6 pack of Saranac Caramel Porter.

12/8/2013 10:00:26 PM

They're all stupid. I'm against all of them. The sunday morning purchases law doesn't affect me that often, as it's rare that I'm out and about anywhere before 11-12 but when I forget and am at the store around 11:30 it is a PITA

I just want my GD Happy Hours, you assholes!

12/9/2013 10:41:10 AM

I wish I could buy a Bloody Mary on Sunday morning with brunch

12/9/2013 10:55:28 AM

Quote :

"but I'm assuming this is just another situation where it's more costly to a politician to attempt to repeal an outdated law because of the bootlegger/baptist coalition."

Throw in MADD and you've got your reason why. The current GA won't change the blue laws.

As stupid as they are, we'll need a large culture shift in this state to change the blue laws.

The sunday law is all about religion. The happy hour law is all about "binge drinking" (as defined by prohibitionists, usually around 3 drinks). Serving time is about nuisances and drunk driving... how driving while drunk at 2 AM is different than 4 AM is beyond me.

12/9/2013 11:47:16 AM

Repealing Sunday prohibition laws should be something everyone on TSB can rally around. But that's why I asked if anyone on here was in favor of maintaing the status quo. Hopefully my Rep. and Senator will respond to my inquiry at some point, but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't think a huge cultural shift is going to be necessary for the Sunday prohibition law to be repealed. I think a few committed individuals deciding to make this an issue could have an effect. I've yet to hear one reasoned argument in favor of these laws from anyone I've spoken with about the issue. I think I may have to reach out to the legal team at FFRF to see what, if any, work they've done on this issue.

12/9/2013 3:34:31 PM

I don't think anyone here is in favor of maintaining it, but it certainly isn't enough of an inconvenience to actively do anything about it. Unfortunately NC is locked within the bible belt so traditional laws like that will be pretty hard to overturn.

[Edited on December 9, 2013 at 3:57 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2013 3:56:57 PM

So here's what FFRF has to say on the topic of Blue Laws

http://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/item/14008-blue-laws-sunday-closing-laws

12/9/2013 5:14:36 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled that even though blue laws originally had a religious purpose, they now exist to promote the secular purpose of securing a common day of rest."

12/9/2013 8:37:15 PM

That assumes that everyone works a salaried 9-5 job. What about people that have to work on Sundays that don't get their "day of rest"?

They're antiquated laws and I'd say economically/fiscally they do more harm than good...

12/9/2013 8:53:56 PM