Recently in class we talked about peer influence as it relates to substance abuse. It was very interesting for me to sit there and listen to the six other people around the table talk about drinking and alcoholism and how a parent’s use influences a child’s use. And then there’s me sitting at the table thinking all drinking is wrong and the criminalization and negative associations of it is not a bad thing.
The way they were talking though, everyone in the world has had a drink, everyone in the world has smoked, everyone in the world has had sex. Which is interesting, because I know many many many many people who have never had a drink, who have never smoked, and who have never had sex outside of marriage (like me). These are adults who were saying, “but everyone’s doing it.” Isn’t that something that teenagers say and then we grow up and realize there is more to the world?
The age limit of drinking came up as well.
At age 18 in this country you can vote. At age 18 in this country you can join the military and fight for this country.
And for some reason, there are those that believe that those two things mean you should also be able to legally get drunk. It’s kind of an if A=B and A=C then of course we must also agree that A=D. I’m okay with the argument B=C, but where in the world does D come in to this picture? (A is being 18, B is voting, C is military, and D is drirnking, in case you hadn’t figured that out.)
Adulthood is coming much later these days, so all the articles I’ve read. You know, kids living at home longer, not marrying or having children until much later, etc. Then why haven’t we changed the legality of later adulthood? It irritates me that people are surprised when they find out that I have never smoked, drank, or had sex before marriage. Jared was sexually harassed at his last job (a dental office with all female dentists and assistants). They couldn’t believe that people like us still exisisted. People like us? What are we? MORAL! Is that such a bad thing? Should we be made fun of or harrassed because of it? Okay, sorry about that, I’ve pulled it together now.
The age at which a person is legally considered an adult is called the “age of majority”. In most states it is 18 (19 in Nebraska, it was 21 in Pennsylvania but that may have been changed by now).
The examples you mentioned are some things that kick in at the age of the majority. There are a whole slew of others (ability to emancipate from parents, ability to be charged as an adult for crimes committed, ability to enter into legally binding contracts, able to purchase a firearm, etc).
The examples you cited seem to be media favorites when discussing this issue. I’m guessing they’re meant to be used as logic ploy in order to put potential critics on the defensive (“It’s wrong that one can fight and die for their country but they can’t have a beer” etc).
The broader question that is raised is why, if a person is considered an “adult” for all other purposes at 18, is alcohol still prohibited until 21? From a procedural perspective it creates a form of “dual adulthood.”
The recent push by some university presidents to lower the drinking age has caused a discussion in legal circles that is in line with what Mimi wrote: Does 18 accurately reflect the age of majority for modern youth. Some say it should be older. Some are saying it should be younger.
Yes, by all means, let’s lower the drinking age because then it won’t be illegal and so it won’t hold such a big appeal and kids won’t drink so much, I mean, jeez, it works so well in the UK. Research shows they only treat a KID UNDER 10 every three days in the hospital for alcohol effects. Imagine if the drinking age were higher!
(Yes, this comment is full of sarcasm. Lowering the drinking age to reduce underage drinking is some pretty faulty logic.)