Drinking Age Poll

[Sopranos Republican]

16 (Normal)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

16 (Normal)

[Supersonic]

18 (UK normal).

*even though I started drinking way before.

[Comrade Funk]

16 year olds drinking would make me want to push the driving age even further.

[politicallefty]

I voted 18, which is what I think the alcohol purchase age should. Otherwise, I do not believe there should be an actual drinking age.

[dead0man]

As I've said before, the drinking age is lower than 21 in most states.  18 should be the purchase age.

[Hatman 🍁]

Where is the "eliminate drinking age" option?

[windjammer]

21 (D)
Alcohol is evil and must be fought.

[LeBron]

21 (D)
Alcohol is evil and must be fought.

If only Americans were as smart as French people.

I don't support Prohibition, but I'm also a Democrat who supports it at 21. 16 is way too young and anyone in their teens could be completely irresponsible with it and get themselves hurt or killed. I'm already 19 and the only time I've ever had a drink(s) was under an Ohio exception for 18 and up that allows you to have small portions as long as it's seen and permitted by a supervised adult. There's stories always on the news about drunk teens behind the wheel, and if they get lucky, a cop will pull them over and save them, but that's not always the case and can end up dead for one stupid decision involving alcohol (also a reasonable argument for being against recreational marijuana).

[Franzl]

18... or ideally 17, if one can get a driving license at 18.

[TNF]

No consumption age, but set 16 as a purchase age.

21 (D)
Alcohol is evil and must be fought.

If only Americans were as smart as French people.

I don't support Prohibition, but I'm also a Democrat who supports it at 21. 16 is way too young and anyone in their teens could be completely irresponsible with it and get themselves hurt or killed. I'm already 19 and the only time I've ever had a drink(s) was under an Ohio exception for 18 and up that allows you to have small portions as long as it's seen and permitted by a supervised adult. There's stories always on the news about drunk teens behind the wheel, and if they get lucky, a cop will pull them over and save them, but that's not always the case and can end up dead for one stupid decision involving alcohol (also a reasonable argument for being against recreational marijuana).

Literally everyone I know drank before turning 16. If anything, 16 is an acceptable compromise for not abolishing the drinking age altogether. The state has better things to do than lock up some 16 year olds for drinking in their parents' basement and not hurting anyone in the process. Obviously drunk driving laws would remain on the books and would still be in force, but I still think it's pretty ridiculous to argue that people who can legally be employed should not have basic legal rights such as the right to consent to sex, the right to drink and smoke, the right to vote, etc. There are literally no reasonable arguments for being against recreational marijuana, despite the Anti-Fun/#420NO brigade's continued assertions to the contrary.

[Goldwater]

18 (R), although I would also be fine with 16.

[free my dawg]

Anyone who knows me well enough knows my answer to this.

[TDAS04]

Probably 18, but 16 would be better than 21.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

18 as a purchase age would be acceptable if it came with both a vastly improved public transit system a la Europe (which is why they have far fewer alcohol-related accidental deaths) and a more reasonable American culture towards drinking than getting blackout drunk 1 or 2 days a week. Thus, this is one of a few issues where my paternalistic views come out.

[courts]

No consumption age, but set 16 as a purchase age.

21 (D)
Alcohol is evil and must be fought.

If only Americans were as smart as French people.

I don't support Prohibition, but I'm also a Democrat who supports it at 21. 16 is way too young and anyone in their teens could be completely irresponsible with it and get themselves hurt or killed. I'm already 19 and the only time I've ever had a drink(s) was under an Ohio exception for 18 and up that allows you to have small portions as long as it's seen and permitted by a supervised adult. There's stories always on the news about drunk teens behind the wheel, and if they get lucky, a cop will pull them over and save them, but that's not always the case and can end up dead for one stupid decision involving alcohol (also a reasonable argument for being against recreational marijuana).

Literally everyone I know drank before turning 16. If anything, 16 is an acceptable compromise for not abolishing the drinking age altogether. The state has better things to do than lock up some 16 year olds for drinking in their parents' basement and not hurting anyone in the process. Obviously drunk driving laws would remain on the books and would still be in force, but I still think it's pretty ridiculous to argue that people who can legally be employed should not have basic legal rights such as the right to consent to sex, the right to drink and smoke, the right to vote, etc. There are literally no reasonable arguments for being against recreational marijuana, despite the Anti-Fun/#420NO brigade's continued assertions to the contrary.

[TNF]

18 as a purchase age would be acceptable if it came with both a vastly improved public transit system a la Europe (which is why they have far fewer alcohol-related accidental deaths) and a more reasonable American culture towards drinking than getting blackout drunk 1 or 2 days a week. Thus, this is one of a few issues where my paternalistic views come out.

lol

[Cassius]

21 (D)
Alcohol is evil and must be fought.

I second this.

[traininthedistance]

18 as a purchase age, no actual drinking minimum.  The best way to prevent unhealthy relationships with alcohol is for parents to expose kids to booze themselves, in moderation- that way it's not some sort of forbidden fruit.

FWIW I was 16 when I first had alcohol and that seems about "right".*

As for the scourge of drunk driving, the obvious solution is to raise the driving age instead.   Maybe start introducing learner's permits at 18, and don't issue full licenses until 21.  (I would also consider raising the age to serve in the military or to own firearms to 21, along with driving- the privilege of operating deadly machinery is not a right in the way that votin' or boozin' is, and really does need to be only entrusted to people who have demonstrated sufficient maturity.  Sorry folks.)

*I would not necessarily oppose a purchase minimum of 16, but it would have to be coupled with raising the driving age for me to support it; and I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for teenagers to be able to be exposed to alcohol before they're allowed to buy it themselves.

[LeBron]

No consumption age, but set 16 as a purchase age.

21 (D)
Alcohol is evil and must be fought.

If only Americans were as smart as French people.

I don't support Prohibition, but I'm also a Democrat who supports it at 21. 16 is way too young and anyone in their teens could be completely irresponsible with it and get themselves hurt or killed. I'm already 19 and the only time I've ever had a drink(s) was under an Ohio exception for 18 and up that allows you to have small portions as long as it's seen and permitted by a supervised adult. There's stories always on the news about drunk teens behind the wheel, and if they get lucky, a cop will pull them over and save them, but that's not always the case and can end up dead for one stupid decision involving alcohol (also a reasonable argument for being against recreational marijuana).

Literally everyone I know drank before turning 16. If anything, 16 is an acceptable compromise for not abolishing the drinking age altogether. The state has better things to do than lock up some 16 year olds for drinking in their parents' basement and not hurting anyone in the process. Obviously drunk driving laws would remain on the books and would still be in force, but I still think it's pretty ridiculous to argue that people who can legally be employed should not have basic legal rights such as the right to consent to sex, the right to drink and smoke, the right to vote, etc. There are literally no reasonable arguments for being against recreational marijuana, despite the Anti-Fun/#420NO brigade's continued assertions to the contrary.

IMO, being able to drive is far more important than being a 21st century version of a bootlegger when it comes to what teens deserve more. I would rather have my license as I do than sneak a couple of beers into the basement and I would hope others would agree. Also, employment isn't comparable because a job makes someone a better person, more responsible, and you get paid at that low of an age while drinking and smoking don't. Driving and a job have more to offer than underage drinking and a ride in a cop car. I do support lowering the voting age though because that should be expanded for everyone young like ElectionsGuy who are interested in politics and likely want to vote this year. And it's not as much "anti-fun" as it would be pro-protective.

[TNF]

No consumption age, but set 16 as a purchase age.

21 (D)
Alcohol is evil and must be fought.

If only Americans were as smart as French people.

I don't support Prohibition, but I'm also a Democrat who supports it at 21. 16 is way too young and anyone in their teens could be completely irresponsible with it and get themselves hurt or killed. I'm already 19 and the only time I've ever had a drink(s) was under an Ohio exception for 18 and up that allows you to have small portions as long as it's seen and permitted by a supervised adult. There's stories always on the news about drunk teens behind the wheel, and if they get lucky, a cop will pull them over and save them, but that's not always the case and can end up dead for one stupid decision involving alcohol (also a reasonable argument for being against recreational marijuana).

Literally everyone I know drank before turning 16. If anything, 16 is an acceptable compromise for not abolishing the drinking age altogether. The state has better things to do than lock up some 16 year olds for drinking in their parents' basement and not hurting anyone in the process. Obviously drunk driving laws would remain on the books and would still be in force, but I still think it's pretty ridiculous to argue that people who can legally be employed should not have basic legal rights such as the right to consent to sex, the right to drink and smoke, the right to vote, etc. There are literally no reasonable arguments for being against recreational marijuana, despite the Anti-Fun/#420NO brigade's continued assertions to the contrary.

IMO, being able to drive is far more important than being a 21st century version of a bootlegger when it comes to what teens deserve more. I would rather have my license as I do than sneak a couple of beers into the basement and I would hope others would agree. Also, employment isn't comparable because a job makes someone a better person, more responsible, and you get paid at that low of an age while drinking and smoking don't. Driving and a job have more to offer than underage drinking and a ride in a cop car. I do support lowering the voting age though because that should be expanded for everyone young like ElectionsGuy who are interested in politics and likely want to vote this year. And it's not as much "anti-fun" as it would be pro-protective.

Employment makes someone a better person? What? Employment (under the present economic conditions) destroys a person's humanity, if anything, because it requires their subservience to some cigar-chomping dick in a suit.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

18

18 as a purchase age, no actual drinking minimum.  The best way to prevent unhealthy relationships with alcohol is for parents to expose kids to booze themselves, in moderation- that way it's not some sort of forbidden fruit.

FWIW I was 16 when I first had alcohol and that seems about "right".*

As for the scourge of drunk driving, the obvious solution is to raise the driving age instead.   Maybe start introducing learner's permits at 18, and don't issue full licenses until 21.  (I would also consider raising the age to serve in the military or to own firearms to 21, along with driving- the privilege of operating deadly machinery is not a right in the way that votin' or boozin' is, and really does need to be only entrusted to people who have demonstrated sufficient maturity.  Sorry folks.)

*I would not necessarily oppose a purchase minimum of 16, but it would have to be coupled with raising the driving age for me to support it; and I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for teenagers to be able to be exposed to alcohol before they're allowed to buy it themselves.

Anyone who proposes anything like this seems to be forgetting how difficult and unfeasible learning to drive while in college is. It's just not workable.

[TNF]

18

18 as a purchase age, no actual drinking minimum.  The best way to prevent unhealthy relationships with alcohol is for parents to expose kids to booze themselves, in moderation- that way it's not some sort of forbidden fruit.

FWIW I was 16 when I first had alcohol and that seems about "right".*

As for the scourge of drunk driving, the obvious solution is to raise the driving age instead.   Maybe start introducing learner's permits at 18, and don't issue full licenses until 21.  (I would also consider raising the age to serve in the military or to own firearms to 21, along with driving- the privilege of operating deadly machinery is not a right in the way that votin' or boozin' is, and really does need to be only entrusted to people who have demonstrated sufficient maturity.  Sorry folks.)

*I would not necessarily oppose a purchase minimum of 16, but it would have to be coupled with raising the driving age for me to support it; and I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for teenagers to be able to be exposed to alcohol before they're allowed to buy it themselves.

Anyone who proposes anything like this seems to be forgetting how difficult and unfeasible learning to drive while in college is. It's just not workable.

It also ignores the fact that most people do not go to college, and that unless you live in a city, you'd be completely f**ked with literally no way of getting from Point A to Point B.

[Oakvale]

16 (I/O, normal etc.)

The phrase "pro-protective" I saw pop up in this thread a few posts above is terrifying.

[IceSpear]

18, considering that's when you're a legal adult. 16 doesn't make sense and 21 makes even less sense.