Comments on: The Debate On Lowering The Drinking Age

60 Minutes: Some Say Age Should Be Lowered To 18, But MADD And Others Strongly Disagree

Add a Comment See all 347 Comments
by tomalciere February 20, 2009 11:16 PM EST
To see what happens when they punish responsible drinkers for being under 21 instead of getting drunk drivers off the road, see my memorial to double victims (over 100 of them) at http://udadd.com/memorial.html
Reply to this comment
by tomalciere February 20, 2009 11:13 PM EST
"Nine hundred families a year would have to bury a teenager," predicts Chuck Hurley, executive director of MADD.

... but not if the government eliminates drunk driving, instead of trying to eliminate underage drinking. Then there wouldn't be ANY teenagers killed in drunk driving crashes.

In a free country, the citizen would decide what to eat and drink, parents would govern their child until he or she grows up and moves out, and drunk drivers would be the ones who get punished, but too many politicians would rather punish people under 21 than impose tougher DWI laws on themselves.
Reply to this comment
by tomalciere February 20, 2009 11:10 PM EST
"Nine hundred families a year would have to bury a teenager," predicts Chuck Hurley, executive director of MADD.

...but not if the government eliminates drunk driving, instead of trying to eliminate underage drinking.

The government never had any right to impose the drinking age on a person who never consented to it.
Reply to this comment
by mahdeealoo February 20, 2009 10:44 PM EST
Our drinking age in the state where I grew up was 18 for beer and 21 for hard liquor. I can not tell you how many died in alcohol related accidents before I graduated from high school and then college. If the drinking age were about 26 there might be a little more common sense about drinking and driving.

It's too much fun for someone who barely knows how to drive, to get in a car while drunk and go careening down the highway at 80 MPH. NOT
Reply to this comment
by ljgbjgrpgmpg February 20, 2009 6:39 PM EST
When I was young the drinking age in NY was 18. When I drove to my Senior Prom I was 18 - drinking was legal. did I drink? NO. Why? It was no big deal - I could drink whenever and wherever I wanted - legally. There was no binge drinking - again, why? Because we could not know when we could get our next illegal bottle? It is like *** - are you going to try to make that illegal too until 21? Kids, college age kids especially, are going to drink. I would prefer it not be the forbidden fruit it has been made out to be by current law and beleive there would be less abuse. There seems to have been when the age in NY was 18.
Reply to this comment
by stopdwi February 20, 2009 5:26 PM EST
Alcohol remains the deadliest drug there is, even Heroin Yet, it continues to be legal and socially acceptable.

Going after the provider is going to reduce underage drinking. The charge and fine should be undated to a point that the provider simply "cannot afford it".

I still think the "drinking kids" need to spend at least one night in jail, and also receive a ticket that "breaks the bank", so to speak.

Charles Hodges
Administrator - Stop DWI, Inc. West Texas
Reply to this comment
by timao11 October 20, 2009 3:39 PM EDT
spend a night in jail? we are criminals now? what is wrong with ppl, JESUS DRANK WINE, JESUS...
by strmrnnr February 20, 2009 9:09 AM EST
With a frame of mind like that, they should push for legalizing marijuana. There are plenty of them smoking marijuana. Oh ya, you don't see them because they don't cause trouble, do they.

Anyway, I think if they just kept an open mind about the whole thing and just arrested the ones causing trouble the students would respect the police a lot more. They must have drinking in public place laws there. Even if the kids /are of age they would be breaking the law by walking around in public drinking.

As Rev. JJ used to say, "THE QUESTION IS MOOT."
Reply to this comment
See all 347 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
60 Minutes RSS Feed