Does the Minimum Legal Drinking Age Save Lives?

Whenever you are in the neighborhood, let me know, Howie. NYC still seems like home to me.

"Thou shalt not drink," just a call for moderation. And, in fact, wine is an essential part of the Christian liturgy ... or do we send Jesus and all His Apostles to hell for drinking it?.

Gary...Obviously you were not raised by the "proper" denomination BAPTISTS know that Jesus drank only the purest non-alcoholic grape juice!

"Upstate New York"

Ah, Howie, what an elusive term that is. For my money, if it isn't New York City and maybe a couple of northern burbs, it's "Upstate New York". [Anything north of the Tappen Zee basically.]

All of Upstate New York adjoins New Jersey, unless you want to give the lower Hudson River to "DownState".

Wikipedia has a very good discussion of the term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstate_New_York

Regards, Bob

I call where I live "Over-State, NY." We are over to the west, and our border is with Pennsylvania, along that horizontal line going east to west.

NYCity is still my home, as it is my birthplace, but I do know the level of provincialism that we city dwellers hold in our hearts...

"Thou shalt not drink," just a call for moderation. And, in fact, wine is an essential part of the Christian liturgy ... or do we send Jesus and all His Apostles to hell for drinking it?.

Gary...Obviously you were not raised by the "proper" denomination BAPTISTS know that Jesus drank only the purest non-alcoholic grape juice!

Yes, Brian. The wine industry has been for generations avoiding that Middle Eastern yeast that won't ferment no matter how much sugar is in the juice and no matter how rare refrigeration may have been in the region 2,000 years ago.

Interesting story: a few years ago I was invited to make a wine presentation to a group. The lady who invited me was a caterer who told me she had clients that sought wine education but she was not qualified.

When I got to the venue, I noticed that these people were more than just clients--they acted like they knew one another and were friends. I asked the caterer about it and she said that they did know one another--they were all Jehova Witnesses in a local congregation.

She saw the shock on my face and she quickly calmed me by saying they wouldn't be trying to persuade me--they wanted me to teach them about wine and food pairing.

I asked: do you people drink wine?

She replied: Of course. We interpret the bible literally...

[Robin Garr]

For my money, if it isn't New York City and maybe a couple of northern burbs, it's "Upstate New York". [Anything north of the Tappan Zee basically.]

Bob, I recall a time in my life when I thought of "Upstate" as beginning north of 14th street.

Even when we lived in Astoria, Westchester County seemed pretty much upstate to me.

For my money, if it isn't New York City and maybe a couple of northern burbs, it's "Upstate New York". [Anything north of the Tappan Zee basically.]

Bob, I recall a time in my life when I thought of "Upstate" as beginning north of 14th street.

Even when we lived in Astoria, Westchester County seemed pretty much upstate to me.

You live near Newark like I did and anything north of West Milford and not New Jersey is already upstate.

"Bob, I recall a time in my life when I thought of "Upstate" as beginning north of 14th street."



I also like the way the word "City" or the phrase "New York City" means Manhattan to many people. It sure did when I was growing up in Wisconsin and moving "home".

And, people in the Boros and the Burbs often talk about going to the City, meaning Manhattan.

"Bob, I recall a time in my life when I thought of "Upstate" as beginning north of 14th street."



I also like the way the word "City" or the phrase "New York City" means Manhattan to many people. It sure did when I was growing up in Wisconsin and moving "home".

And, people in the Boros and the Burbs often talk about going to the City, meaning Manhattan.

Bob,

As a Brooklynite, I can tell you about the inferiority complex connected to "The City."

Even the subway signs fostered the illusion: "To the City" and "To Brooklyn" or "To the Bronx" or "To Queens." Nobody wanted to go "To Staten Island," at least not back then...

The five burroughs: Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, Staten Island, and The City.

At the risk of returning this thread to the original topic of ‘underage drinking and driving’ here’s my take.
There are two parts – drinking- & -driving- (seems obvious doesn’t it). Teenage drinking (absent driving) leads to relatively few deaths. Teenage driving (absent drinking) leads to numerous deaths. Just ponder that.
Isn’t the “logical” solution (no morality issues) to raise the driving age and lower the drinking age? That way teens (using the term loosely – I really mean introductory or learner drinkers) can learn how to handle alcohol before they tackle the VERY dangerous task/skill of driving?
Of course, drinking and driving do not mix well at all and should be appropriately discouraged/punished regardless of age.
So, in summary it’s not ‘underage drinking’ that’s the problem; it’s inappropriate driving skills.

And, people in the Boros and the Burbs often talk about going to the City, meaning Manhattan.

The Bay Area is very weird about this. In the locally based media, San Francisco is always referred to as "The City" (capitalized as shown). The self regard of America's Babylon is amusing!

And, people in the Boros and the Burbs often talk about going to the City, meaning Manhattan.

The Bay Area is very weird about this. In the locally based media, San Francisco is always referred to as "The City" (capitalized as shown). The self regard of America's Babylon is amusing!

I think most metropolitan areas do about the same. When I lived in Nieder-Olm, Mainz was "die Stadt."

...I call where I live "Over-State, NY." We are over to the west, and our border is with Pennsylvania, along that horizontal line going east to west....

Then I guess Niagara County would be considered "The Panhandle of NY".

...I call where I live "Over-State, NY." We are over to the west, and our border is with Pennsylvania, along that horizontal line going east to west....

Then I guess Niagara County would be considered "The Panhandle of NY".

Does that make you a panhandler, Howie?

"Even the subway signs fostered the illusion: "To the City" and "To Brooklyn" or "To the Bronx" or "To Queens." Nobody wanted to go "To Staten Island," at least not back then... "

Even the Post Office reinforces that idea: "NY, NY" for Manhattan -- a city so nice it got named twice.

Oops, sorry, I accidentally broke off part of this thread while testing, and there's no easy facility for putting it back. My bad!

Drat. And I spilled a lot of ink in the other (now orphaned) thread, concerning my own experience during the low-drinking-age 1970s in the USA. I won't repeat that here. Go see it in the other thread if you wish.

The general observation is that, throughout the animal kingdom, every organism that has organized neural ganglia seems to take pleasure in imbibing toxic substances that goof them up. Garden slugs will seek out dishes of beer and imbibe until they drown in them. It is well known among butterfly collectors that one can lure species that normally only fly high in the tropical canopy to near ground level (where they can be caught) by putting out rotten (i.e., fermented) fruit. I've seen Mourning Cloak butterflies flock to trees where shelf fungi were exuding who-knows-what hallucinogenic substances, and then greedily imbibe the fluids until they get so zonked out they fall to the ground, twitching their wings and legs. Cats love to get off on catnip. Humans have discovered a whole variety of substances to trip out on.

Every society seems to have one socially sanctioned mind-altering drug and the others are varying degrees of taboo. In Western society, alcohol is sanctioned and everything else prohibited. In Middle Eastern Muslim societies, alcohol is prohibited but marijuana tolerated. Opium smoking is OK in some further East Asian societies. Coca leaves are OK in South American aboriginal society.

In all cases the purified forms of drugs seems to cause more trouble than the more natural forms. Hard liquor is more of a social problem than beer or wine. Hashish is more troublesome than marijuana. Heroin and morphine more problematic than opium. Cocaine more of a problem than coca leaves.


Back to the original topic of driving while impaired.

It's been said that your freedom of movement ends when your fist is about to hit my face. Similarly, from a libertarian point of view, one can argue that it is nobody's business but your own whether you decide to indulge in mind-altering drugs. Until, with judgment impaired, you get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle you are in no condition to operate safely, and you plow into me or my vehicle.

It seemed at the time (the mid-1970s) that those in the 18-20 year old age bracket, who had recently been granted the legal right to drink ethanol, had proven incapable of exercising sufficient judgment not to drive while fatally under the influence. So the drinking age was raised back to 21. I was in the 18-20 age group while this was going on, I saw it happen, and at the time I thought the move, while regrettable, was an improvement over the alternative.

If the studies cited in the other thread on this topic are valid, I'm no longer so sure. If raising the drinking age really hasn't resulted in a decrease in teenage alcohol-related fatalities, then what's the point of the higher drinking age?

-Paul W.

Oops, sorry, I accidentally broke off part of this thread while testing, and there's no easy facility for putting it back. My bad!

Drat. And I spilled a lot of ink in the other (now orphaned) thread, concerning my own experience during the low-drinking-age 1970s in the USA. I won't repeat that here. Go see it in the other thread if you wish.

The general observation is that, throughout the animal kingdom, every organism that has organized neural ganglia seems to take pleasure in imbibing toxic substances that goof them up. Garden slugs will seek out dishes of beer and imbibe until they drown in them. It is well known among butterfly collectors that one can lure species that normally only fly high in the tropical canopy to near ground level (where they can be caught) by putting out rotten (i.e., fermented) fruit. I've seen Mourning Cloak butterflies flock to trees where shelf fungi were exuding who-knows-what hallucinogenic substances, and then greedily imbibe the fluids until they get so zonked out they fall to the ground, twitching their wings and legs. Cats love to get off on catnip. Humans have discovered a whole variety of substances to trip out on.

Every society seems to have one socially sanctioned mind-altering drug and the others are varying degrees of taboo. In Western society, alcohol is sanctioned and everything else prohibited. In Middle Eastern Muslim societies, alcohol is prohibited but marijuana tolerated. Opium smoking is OK in some further East Asian societies. Coca leaves are OK in South American aboriginal society.

In all cases the purified forms of drugs seems to cause more trouble than the more natural forms. Hard liquor is more of a social problem than beer or wine. Hashish is more troublesome than marijuana. Heroin and morphine more problematic than opium. Cocaine more of a problem than coca leaves.


Back to the original topic of driving while impaired.

It's been said that your freedom of movement ends when your fist is about to hit my face. Similarly, from a libertarian point of view, one can argue that it is nobody's business but your own whether you decide to indulge in mind-altering drugs. Until, with judgment impaired, you get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle you are in no condition to operate safely, and you plow into me or my vehicle.

It seemed at the time (the mid-1970s) that those in the 18-20 year old age bracket, who had recently been granted the legal right to drink ethanol, had proven incapable of exercising sufficient judgment not to drive while fatally under the influence. So the drinking age was raised back to 21. I was in the 18-20 age group while this was going on, I saw it happen, and at the time I thought the move, while regrettable, was an improvement over the alternative.

If the studies cited in the other thread on this topic are valid, I'm no longer so sure. If raising the drinking age really hasn't resulted in a decrease in teenage alcohol-related fatalities, then what's the point of the higher drinking age?

-Paul W.

Paul, for one more, anecdotal, evidence: in our two local papers there is the old police report section. It is striking how many DUI and DWI arrests are made on the over forty crowd around here...

If the studies cited in the other thread on this topic are valid, I'm no longer so sure. If raising the drinking age really hasn't resulted in a decrease in teenage alcohol-related fatalities, then what's the point of the higher drinking age?

Agreed. Certainly there are other potential benefits to less teenage drinking (less fights, less vandalism, etc). But the primary reason stated for the return to 21 was the drunk driving factor. So this warrants looking at again.

However, as with just about anything, one study claiming to have found results that are contrary to a whole mess of other studies is not in itself a reason for policy changes. As I noted earlier, Miron is a vocal libertarian critic of anything he regards as "big government", and it is not surprising to me that he found that the federal goverment's pressure was ineffective. Not having read the study, just the small abstract, its hard to say what the study really found. I'd also be curious to know who funded the study. Miron's most well-known work before was a study that found economic benefits to decriminalizing marijuana. The funder? The Marijuana Policy Initiative, a group that (gasp!) supports decriminalization. None of this discredits Miron's work, but it is always nice to be aware of bias and agendas.

For the record (since conversation veered), I have libertarian tendencies and am cautiously in favor of decriminalization of pot. Issues around teenage drinking are fraught with complications and contradictions. I grew up with 18 as legal age, which made it easy at 15 to get a senior to buy alcohol. My evidence is anecdotal, but I knew of 3 car crashes involving alcohol and kids from my HS (one with fatalities) and multiple DWIs (in an era with less roadblocks). My stepson just graduated, none of his friends have gotten DWIs. I'd guess that has more to do with the zero tolerance rules (under 21, any alcohol means loss of license)- kids aren't scared of death, but terrified of having to go back to asking parents for rides.

But it does seem ridiculous that you can serve in the military yet not buy beer. On the other hand, the lack of development of the risk-gauging part of the brain that makes alcohol extra dangerous for 18 year olds is why they are prized as foot soldiers.