Americans of Sup Forums, how do you feel about your countries' legal drinking age? Do you think it should be lowered to 18 like most other countries, or are you glad it's 21?
Just seems silly to me that Uni students and young veterans can't drink legally, seems like they all drink anyway making it illegal for under 21's just pushes it underground.
I think it should be lowered. It's not like it's really stopping anybody, it's just making it a pain in the ass for people.
It's dumb as fuck, hopefully when Marijuana achieves a more legal status at the federal level they'll bump it down
Should be lowered to 19 but the ability to buy large quantities of booze all at once should still be restricted until an older age to keep college students from getting bombed and doing dangerous shit as a group
How would you define 'large' though? And why 19 rather than 18?
For what I understand it's up to the states to decide if the drinking age is 21 or not.. when I was 20 I was being served at a VFW in Texas.
My understanding is it's up to the states, but any state that has a legal age below 21 gets stripped of a lot of federal funding so all the states have 21 as the age to keep that federal cash.
When was it you were 20 just out of curiosity? Because currently my understanding was all states have 21 as the age.
I think one of the big reasons is our drunk driving accidents and fatalities are way higher than other countries, which in part is bc its harder is US to walk places unless you're in a city.
that was a private place though as well, technically a club can serve sometimes to over 18
It's 21 in Texas, I live here.
And to OP, yes. I think you either raise the age for military enlistment to 21, or lower the age to drink to 18. You shouldn't be able to die for your country and not be allowed a drink.
But this is super correct.
But if they're still way higher even with the age being 21, surely it's not working to reduce the rate?
Drinking is stupid all together and should be banned.
But if you have to drink then I think the age limit should be when the brain of the average person stops developing to cause the minimal amount of damage.
This point just happens to be around 21 years, so it's not just an arbitrary number but a quite scientifically produce one.
And to add to that, a lot of big cities (like Houston) invest all their transportation $ to road building and have shit walkability and public transportation.
In Sweden back in the days we had a book called a "motbok". It was a government issued small book that you had to bring with you to the government owned liquor shop.
Each person could only buy a certain amount of liquor every 30 days and not everyone could get one of these books.
Poor people and women usually wasn't allowed to have them. Those were simpler times.
But surely if someone's over 18 it's their right to decide whether to damage their brain, just like they can decide almost everything else. As says surely if you can decide to die for your country you can decide to pickle your brain in booze?
That seems fucked up. I met a Swede in uni who said alcohol was really expensive back home to try to stop people drinking, why so many restrictions on drinking?
Glorious
Because society needs to protect the uneducated masses or we will run out of a somewhat reliable work force.
If they fuck up their lives too early it's just a burden on the rest of society.
The military consists of purely the uneducated masses and requires them it would however be dangerous having a young boozer enlisted.
In Belgium, you're allowed to drink before you can drives, which makes it safer as you had time to learn how to handle beer and wine...
Beer / wine : 16
Driving/ alchool : 18
Or they'll put one on weed.
That argument doesn't hold much water when the rest of the developed world has 18 as the drinking age (16 in some countries as said) and they haven't run out of a reliable work force.
>My understanding is it's up to the states, but any state that has a legal age below 21 gets stripped of a lot of federal funding so all the states have 21 as the age to keep that federal cash.
This is correct. Yet the lower courts ruled that Trump could not strip funds from sanctuary cities.
Regardless of what you think of Trump and his policies, that seems very troublesome -- judges ruling based on what they wish the law was instead of what is has been established to actually BE is a Bad Thing..
That;s becuase it is bass ackwards. The drinking age should be 2 years below the driving age. Give kids a chance to learn to handle their drinking behavior before handing them a car.
Prohibition should be brought back, drinkers and drunks are obnoxious shits that do naught but cause trouble, if you can't take life sober go off yourself
I'd agree with this, the age is 16 for driving in most states which seems a little young to me (South Dakota wins the batshit crazy award on this one, you can get a licence there at 14 which is beyond fucked up)
The story is that we had nothing to do, so we were killing ourselves with alcohol.
We are also a socialist country bordering on soft communism so the government loves telling people what they can or cannot do.
Their solution was to take control of every beverage that is more than 7 proof and only sell it in special government owned shops.
They are never open on Sundays or public holidays and only until 3pm on Saturdays which is bullshit.
They also refuse to sell any cold beer because they don't want people to nip in just to buy a beer to drink in a park.
The price thing isn't necessarily true though, it depends on what you are after.
For your bog standard beer and booze, it is more expensive.
But if you want to buy an old scotch or a fine wine we have great prices and cheaper than most other countries. Mainly because they can order these items in bulk.
You can walk down an aisle and find a Heineken next to a world award winning 20 year old Rum from Honduras.
Most other countries you have to go to specialists shops or import it yourself.
There are a few upsides but mainly nobody likes it. You can also just go to Denmark or Estonia or some other shitty place like that and buy whatever you want and make a weekend out of it. You can bring around 40 bottles of booze with you over the border, no problems.
Sweden is pretty shit for many reasons.
Nigger you been to SD? Who cares if it's14 there's like 200 people and nothing for them to wreck into
Also farm reasons
So for the higher quality stuff it's relatively cheaper, but for the cheaper stuff it costs more? Man for a borderline socialist country that seems specifically designed to fuck over poor people
I don't care now that I'm over the legal drinking age and it didn't stop me when I was younger cus my mom just gave me liquor so she didn't have to deal with my autism
You're an uneducated mass.
You obviously don't know shit about the military, there are a lot of young enlisted personnel that drink way more than they should.
Personally I think we're too far gone to try to switch over to some lower age limit set up like Europe. There's enough stupid shit going on here as it is, much less having a bunch of drunk ass 18 year old kids running around everywhere.
>nothing for them to wreck into
Yeah I've heard there's nothing pretty in SD (pic related)
>Also farm reasons
That doesn't seem a good enough reason. In the UK I think it's legal to drive on private land at any age, surely SD could make an exemption like that to keep all the 14 year old brats of the public roads?
>don't care
>autism
makes sense
I think drinking, smoking (tobacco or otherwise), gambling, any addictive vice should be illegal. We will never reach our full potential if we keep partaking in the drugs of the poor and lower classes. Let the blacks and other lower races drink and smoke and enjoy their own little bubble realities. Meanwhile the Whites will bring glory to their race unencumbered by the baggage that alcoholism and addiction brings.
Yeah that seems like an absurdly political decision, surely if the federal government can defund for one reason that leaves the door open to doing it for any reason.
Does it have something to do with one being about defunding states, the other being about cities maybe?
Not that user, but iirc they take away federal funding for interstate highways if drinking age is below 21
Maybe it's the libertarian in me, but I think it should be up to individuals what they put in their bodies not the government. Yeah drunks are obnoxious but if they're not committing a crime to pay for their booze or randomly assaulting people what's the problem?
The government knows what is best for us. Giving the mob power to make decisions has always proven to be a terrible idea. I mean, shit, they elected Donald Trump. If that's not an argument for stripping common citizens of the right to vote I don't know what is.
So you're in favor of what system then? Oligarchy? Plutocracy?
>America elects a fascist
>that's a reason to bring back fascism
kek that's good user. It reminds me of one of the best Churchill quotes, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
If you can die for your country you should be able to have a fucking beer
...
>or randomly assaulting people
Have you ever watched the show Cops?
Drinking is degenerate, worst than smoking
USA is retarded, but with drinking portrayed and encouraged to be used in excess in media, adverts, and general culture, I get it.
Also another Churchill quote relevant to this debate, when some bitch called him a drunk:
'My dear you are ugly, but tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be ugly'
Drinking age should be 18 and the smoking age should be 21 federally. Same with marijuana.
There should not be a drinking age. Instead you should have to pass a drinking test and get licensed to drink. That way we can stop these angry/depressed emotional drinkers from ruining my buzz
I support a version of plutocracy, where the head of state is a businessman (a successful one, not a complete moron like Trump) and runs it like one while having absolute authority. Profit is all that matters, and the current system of government impedes progress and thus profit. There should be no "reaching across the aisle" to compromise - there should be no aisle, you're either with the government or against it and if you're the latter you should have no say in how the government runs. Go fuck off to canada or whatever.
I haven't actually never seen it on British TV. Yeah I know drinking can make some people violent, there's this ace drink called Buckfast that gets mentioned in at least a few hundred crime reports in Glasgow every year. But why should the majority of drinkers who aren't cunts be punished because of the minority of twats.
Isn't that from the Sopranos when Ralph has a sit down with Paulie? He probably stole it from there.
...
>Giving the mob power to make decisions has always proven to be a terrible idea.
Shit I guess giving the government absolute power has always worked
>implying the existing laws prevent college students from acquiring large amounts of alcohol and doing stupid things while intoxicated
This seems like bait but I'll take it anyway; What would be on that test? And what about child prodigies that can memorize how to pass almost any test by age 12 or younger?
it's a matter of finding the right person to give power to. Find a true Patriot who seeks power to help the country and not for personal reasons and we'd be set. With the right person at the helm of the USA with it unleashing its full military might, nobody in the world could stand against us
I hate faggots like you. Do you realize what will happen if marijuana is legalized? Harder drugs will be introduced to everyone which will fuck up the population. Look at Colorado, heroin and cocaine has gained popularity since marijuana was legalized. Fucking Liberals.
You could argue that the American people didn't actually elect Trump but the government and it's antiquated election laws did.
This. Especially when you have a four year Uni system instead of 3, you have a group of fellow students aged at least 21-22 who will happily buy giant amounts of booze for freshers.
We need to restructure our government to be 100% exactly like north korea.
this. Criminals don't like to obey laws. If you make one of their vices legal they will jsut turn to an illegal one because the now-legal one isn't thrilling enough anymore.
You guys are retarded, barely anyone smokes weed just because it's illegal, and the gateway drug theory has been debunked.
16 cigarettes, beer and wine
18 spirits, any other drug should be the way
yeah and nobody drinks underage because it's illegal/taboo. Stop reading pothead propaganda.
So it's a matter of building the perfect government... NEXT
>finding the right person
Almost impossible to find, there is almost nobody who gets into politics for the right reasons. And who in this system would decide who the 'right person' is?
Isn't there an IT system handling this atm?
Oh no. Not a written test. A drinking test. A week long one. First you pound beers and listen to people one up your stories and hit on your significant other. Next is vodka and every one talks about how hot your mom and sisters are. Then whiskey and your significant other dumps you. Then tequila and your favorite sports team loses. Then rum and an underage flirts with you. If you react poorly/emotionally to any of the test stimuli, you fail. Cant take the test for another year.
voting people in clearly isn't working
Not to mention finding multiple successors, unless that one individual just stays in power until they die (still will need someone else eventually). After being that powerful for a number of years, it's likely for a person to change and no longer be that ideal leader they once were.
the catholic church
just have a panel of objective observers who will execute any leader who does something that results in harm to the country
>nobody drinks underage because it's illegal/taboo
Maybe edgyFags and people drinking for the first time. People drink underage because drinking is fun, people get high because being high is fun. That's not 'pothead propoganda' if it was nobody would be buying legal weed in Colorado, because what would be the point if the illegality was the only thrill?
because they are addicted, user
>just have a panel of objective observers
Who decides who the objective observers are?
No system is perfect because they all involve people. Voting is not a bad system as long as it isn't fucked with.
As the other user said, who decides who is an objective observer? Why not just have votes and then just elect whoever gets the most votes (ie majority rules).
And there will be a three strike rule once you are licensed to drink. You have a drunk fight/emotional outburst three times in a year, you lose your drinking license for three years
look, just let me run it all, obviously I'm the only one comprehending the system I want to implement
>because they are addicted
Yeah some people are psychologically addicted to weed, but my no means all people who smoke are. That's like saying everyone who sometimes drinks is an alcoholic
Old fag here. When I was a kid in Texas, legal drinking age was 18. Since I was 6'3" and 205 when I was 13, I started buying then.
people are generally idiots who have no idea what is best for them though. It takes a higher class person to know what they need. It's like pets - left to their own devices, a dog will eat anything and everything they can even if it hurts/kills them. They need a firm hand to make sure they do what is best for them.
Lol sameish story here. 6 3 and 200 with full beard by 16. Celebrated 3 twenty first birthdays before i turned 21
It might as well be lowered to 18. You can die for your country at 18, but you're not allowed to have a beer yet. Also, if kids want beer there's always someone who can get it for them
shut your dumb shitholes you uneducated blockheads.
It's an interesting theory, I've never been an angry drunk but have known a few so the idea of me being able to keep chugging while some of them cunts can't is appealing.
But the 'emotional outburst' part seems dangerous. I've never had a drunk fight, but I've been a weepy drunk on more than 3 occasions I must admit. Where do you draw the line between normal emotions and an emotional 'outburst'?
>mfw marijuana has no chemically addictive properties
Im talking about the man or woman at a party or bar bawling their eyes to every stranger in eye sight. If you keep it contained to just your group amd dont bother anyone else with your emotions you are ok
Yeah I remember having a friend like you who could get us served at 13-14 here in UK, there was one club that let us in at 14 as well but they got shut down obviously. Guess that is one downside of the age being 18.
i had an emotional outburst once when I was drunk and lost in a bad neighborhood. I called 911 and was sobbing saying there were "niggers everywhere" (they told me this when i called the police station the next morning asking where my keys were). One of the responding officers was black and really laid into me about racism and I said I didn't mean him, he's one of the good ones.
I would have supported their decision if they revoked my drinking license forever.
Right, but it can be psychologically addictive. That's kind of rare though, and usually only happens if pot is used as an escape from stress or a coping tool.
Stoner here, come off it there is a difference between physical addictions and psychological ones. Weed is not physically addictive you're right but I've known people who were mentally unable to stop.
That's a fair one, I'll admit I did get weepy at a party once when I was 14 but every other time it's been just with close friends.
This is how it is in Switzerland. Except the drugs part. But cops are really lenient about pot, just make you dump it out and stamp it into the dirt usually. Cigarettes 18.
Works fine. But we have superb public transport and young people generally take drinking and driving really seriously. It's also very easy to get jail time for serious traffic offenses.
U.S., if you aren't in a major city it's almost imperative to be able to drive before 18. Also, it makes sense that if you can join the Army and die in war you have enough sense at that age to drink responsibly. Either raise the enlistment age to 21 or drop the drinking age to 18. 21 to drink is stupid.
Fuck me user that might be the most awkward thing I've ever heard.
This country is already full of undereducated, up-tight imbeciles.
There should be a mandatory IQ test to vote, reproduce, and consume any mind-altering substance.
Until then, raise the drinking age to 25.
>mfw this is now a reaction image thread
>It's also very easy to get jail time for serious traffic offenses.
This seems like where the US goes wrong, you aren't going to stop young people drinking but if you crack down hard on drunk driving it sends the message.
ok
that's only half the story. I ended up sleeping in some guy's truck bed (because I had no keys to my apartment) until they could cut me a new key. Then I had to go find my car, which I couldn't remember where I parked it.
It was the worst night of my life. I haven't stopped drinking though, so maybe we need laws like the user suggested.
I don't think you realize that to even get to the closest school you have the drive miles, on miles, on miles most the time in places like SD. It's more of a relief for the parents than it is a privilege for the kiddo. Friends live miles away, cities are miles away - without driving, a 14 year old would most definitely go stircrazy in a place like this.
This thread if full of retards.