Drinking age

[Xendran]

What do people here think that the drinking age should be? what are your opinions on the current ages.

Here in Canada, it's legal to drink at 18, and (correct me if im wrong) its 21 in the States. shuld the ages be lowered or raised or kept the same?

i myself think that if you let people drink at a younger age, itll make it less appealing. People do things because your not supposed to do it and it gives you a rush (sex, alcohol, drugs, etc)

[Pure Sorrow]

im sticking with 21, it just makes the most sense

[gerlert_fav2005]

Well...In my opinion,Canada is the more controlled out of the two,so they wouldn't worry about teens going crazy and doing drugs.
Meanwhile...

...well,you get me.
They should leave the age limit like that!

[Repliku]

I could swear there was a thread devoted to this debate already somewhere here. However, I think the age should be reduced to 18. Those who say it saves lives, I am not seeing it. As a teenager, I could and did occasionally go out with friends who were older and had alcohol any way. I grew out of the big deal of having alcohol when I was 21, which I then was inebriated on my birthday but eh, after that it was much more just a casual social thing and now I don't drink so much as I have a lot of studies and things I have to do, and I'm not really dependent on it.

Using myself as an example probably isn't the best thing since there are people I know who still get smashed etc after 21 and in reality I'd say some people I know shouldn't be drinking at 45. However, I guess I'm under the thought that if you are 18 you have the right to vote, which makes you an adult. You also have the right to become a soldier and die for your country, which makes you an adult. Therefore, I think 18 is sufficient since I really cannot say anyone I know that actually does not drink at least at home when 18 years old on up. Sometimes I think it's more deadly to have the age at 21 because then people are in secrecy doing what they would do more sensibly if not held from it. I do realize some people are idiots with alcohol but I've seen that a lot from people ages 15 to 30 some.

[Nailpolish <3]

Is it 18 or 19 for Canada. (eh, talking as a 14 year old living here xD)

anyways, no, most of the people in my school have already drank beer =/
^ they don't drive yet.
I don't think lowering it will make it less appealing, I think it will be more influenced.

[Nymph of Destiny]

Hmm...well, I think 21 is fine, since if you're introduced to it when younger, you'll be more influenced by it, increasing the desire to drink more of it in the future. It isn't very healthy (in large amounts) so I think drinking when you're 21 (an adult, where your body is more capable) is fine - it shouldn't be lowered nor raised.

[Hakurei Reimu]

meh...I really don care about the drinking age very much so long as it's over 18...

[Roxas is Hot]

I stay it stays at 21, or goes higher.


Even at 21, people are still quite immature. They decide to hang out at parties, get drunk, and wake up in the morning next to someone in their bed and they have no idea who the hell they are.

I'm not really going to explain it all, since there's a bit too much for my attention span, and I just finished typing up an essay not too long ago, and my hand's cramping up.

21? Yes. 18? NO.

[Solid Snake]

i dont care im not gunna drink anyways

[8730]

I also think there is a thread to this somewhere, lol I may even have made it. But I think it was in the main section not in the Debate Corner >_>

On-Topic: In the UK you can drink under adult supervision in your house from the age of 5. The age to purchase alcohol is 18 but there have been calls to raise it to 21. I personally think it is fine at 18. Raising it to 21 wouldn't solve anything. Under-18s can get alcohol very easily, making them wait 3 years longer won't stop them.

As for people not being mature enough, there are some people who will never be mature enough, should we just bring back prohibition? There are people who are mature enough before 18, do you think it is fair on them to raise the age even further?

It statys at 18 in my opinion.

[JedininjaZC]

I would say there should be a law on how much you can drink a week, like people in spain drink wine every day, and they are teenagers, or younger!! I would say age does not matter, but it's the way you drink. so if your permant record says you aren't very careful in a situation(or somthing like that) you are not aloud to drink.

[MARIExBRIARWOOD]

I believe that if you lower the drinking age, you should increase the age you need to be to get a license. Keeps drunk kids off of the road. If you lower the drinking age to 18, any 18 year old regardless of whether they are still in school or not will be getting smashed and going to parties, be a little less focused on school.

Sure teens do it now anyways (sadly, I was one of them. I flunked high school because of my immaturity and stupidity), but only the ones who really want to and know who to go to to get their stuff. But think about if they were able to do it themselves?

I'm not so sure of the statistics of other countries, but my friend is from Germany he grew up there and he is pretty responsible. Yeah, they're drinking age is 16 for beer and I believe 18 for spirits (correct me if I'm wrong on that, but don't flame me!) but they're driving age is 21.

[Lithium]

The drinking age in the UK is 18, so it's fine here. I think the US is a bit OTT, though :\

I mean, you can get married and have sex legally at 16, you used to be able to smoke at that age, though now it's 18 here. So, if you're doing all that way before you're 18, why not be able to drink when you reach that age, rather than wait an extra 3 years?

[clawtooth35]

I don;t know about in the UK (here) but in France they introduce alchohol to children at a young age (3-4). The parents and schools work together to build up a respect for alchohol that the British or Americans just don't have. You barely see any drunk french people baceause of this, they know when to stop. I think that this should be addopted in the Uk and States.

[Sara]

The thing is with the U.S. is that there's so many well... Drunks... Out there. *no offense to anyone*

People who are drunk, and are around kids with that. Putting kids at that age might screw them up a lot more than living in that home. My parents bought me fake alcohol and I hated it so much after a few weeks I never have touched real or fake alcohol since.

I think it's personally up to the parents and the country. In high school, I was scared out of anything involving drinking and/or smoking. Here at least for me, they told you all the horror stories behind the joy of drinking and smoking.

But a lot don't, so I don't know...

[Darkwatch]

I think it should be whatever age the *public* thinks that boys and girls are mature enough to handle it... =/

[8730]

I think it should be whatever age the *public* thinks that boys and girls are mature enough to handle it... =/
Tbh I think the public rarely knows what good for them. Although that's not saying the government knows any better as after all they are the public, just more corrupt ;D

Anyway, I think raising to 21 would not solve anything. People drink before 18 already so what's to stop them drinking before 21? You'd just end up with protests and more people drinking who normally wouldn't just to 'stick it to the man'. Also, the government would probably lose too much through the loss of tax on the alcohol as less would be bought, and you know how much they love their money (70% of the cost of petrol in the UK is tax, meaning 70p out of every £1 spend goes to the taxman x.x)

[Starry :D]

Yeah.. .I think Canada is 18 I forget... but in way.. it doesn't matter because people are already drinking underage...

[Sara]

Here they just keep on raising the tax for cigarettes. Doesn't really stop a lot of people from buying even if they don't have enough money for much more.

The problem is, both of them are highly addictive. You can put a 5 billion dollar tax on cigarettes and people would still buy it because they need it. It's the same with caffeine. My mom is so addicted she can't do anything until she drinks her first cup of coffee. She even told me once she wouldn't even be able to drive without that first cup.

[Xendran]

I think that keeping it at 18 is fine, but they really do need to be more responsible wiht it *not including responsible people*

[11jones2]

i say 18 because even if the drinking age is 21 it would still be easy for 21 years and younger to get beer but also its 12 turning 13 here speaking

[EvilMan_89]

i would say 21, cuz 18 year olds really aren't as responisble as popular belief would like you to believe

[8730]

i would say 21, cuz 18 year olds really aren't as responisble as popular belief would like you to believe
Gross-simplifications and stereotypes are the problem with this argument. There are plenty of 18 year olds (and younger as well) who are perfectly mature enough and sensible enough to not overdo it with drink. Likewise there are plenty of 21 year olds and older who should never be allowed to drink or still aren't mature enough yet. Raising the age will just increase the amount of illegal use as more people will want to know what the fuss is about. Happens all the time.

[Darkandroid]

Raising the age would only cause more underage drinkers. In the UK underage drinking is a bigger problem then those over 18. When you get to 14-15, it becomes a mystery, of what's it like to have alcohol and get drunk. People get drunk because of peer pressure and the idea that they shouldn't be doing it. And at that age they think they can handle any drink, but then they get drunker faster then they realise.

If parents introduce it at a young age it will be less of a mystery, and people will learn their limits. Of course it won't stop binge drinking, but it would stop people drinking for the sake of drinking and because they know they are breaking the law.

I never say the big deal of alcohol when I was 15. I had it from time to time at home. I didn't feel the need to get drunk. Though drinking at parties when underage is legal if a parent is there. It wasn't until I was nearly 18 going to 18th birthday parties when I really started to drink. But I only drink socially. Some of you may think of me as a drunk, but i'm far from it. I'm simply living the student life. I don't crave nor feel the need to drink all the time. I only drink during parties, going out to club, general gatherings. And I don't get drunk all the time. I'm generally responible with my drinking because I knew all about it and it wasn't a big deal to me.

[Crumpet]

Well in Australia you hit 18 you drink, I don't really know if it should be raised, as it well shouldn't be lowered. I mean if we raise it, the law would be stricter, people wouln't be happy, and there'd probably be a riot. Then again, there'd be less stupid stunts, which means less deaths on our roads which is a big plus.

[White_Rook]

I'm simply living the student life.

Bravo *ovation*

[Roxas13579]

Im from Ireland, and we have a serious underage drinking problem here. (Yes, all the rumours you've heard are partly true...) The legal age is 18, but so many young people just binge drink anyways. It's worrying. And no matter what the legal age is, the problem won't go away. And then, you take a country like France, where kids drink wine from a very early age. And they have no such problem there.

It's the attitude to alcohol that's important, not the drinking age, IMO. If teenagers don't feel the need to abuse alcohol and go on a bender every other weekend, then there may as well be no age limit for the consumption of alcohol. It wouldn't be necessary. (so long as young children dont drink, obviously).

[Rоxаs]

I think they shud lower it all to 9...Im 11 and i dont plan on drinking but...My 9 year cousins do and i dont want them gettin in trouble!

[mixt]

Part of me thinks that you shouldn't drink until 30 because your mind is still developing through your late twenties believe it or not. And I don't know if it's bad for development necessarily, but it can't be good. But at the same time I think if it were lowered people would drink more responsibly. The part of your mind developing happens to involve the ability to make intelligent decisions so I would say raise it. Not everyone would follow it but it wouldn’t hurt. Maybe have an earlier age with some kind of permit?

[White_Rook]

Part of me thinks that you shouldn't drink until 30 because your mind is still developing through your late twenties believe it or not. And I don't know if it's bad for development necessarily, but it can't be good. But at the same time I think if it were lowered people would drink more responsibly. The part of your mind developing happens to involve the ability to make intelligent decisions so I would say raise it. Not everyone would follow it but it wouldn’t hurt. Maybe have an earlier age with some kind of permit?

Well anything beyond moderation is always bad for you. In a number of cases moderate amounts of alcohol can actually increase reaction time and cortical stimulation which is why we tend to become rather sociable after 1-3 drinks on average. Lowering the age would probably make things much worse. Young children and teens are already being exposed to a great deal of stressors to begin with, and allowing them to have alcohol would only contribute to a developing dependence. While most underage drinking is as a result of teens wishing to establish a way of autonomy and threats to personal freedom it would be far worse if it was just handed to them. Raising the age may show some improvement in the number of alcohol-related risks and accidents, especially among college students and people who have just hit the legal drinking age as they're the population labeled as being the most at risk. Then again chances are that we'd experience the same thing that we do with restricting younger teens from drinking, except on a much larger scale no doubt.

[Pyrɸ]

oh boy... we had loong and interesting discussion abt this in our history class the other day... well we all believe that the drinking age sud be 18 in the states becuase its legal for 18 yr olds to go join the army and go to war... so lets look at it like this.. you can go die when your 18.. but still not have the freedom and pleasure of drinking...

well not that teens dont drink.. but logically speaking.

[mixt]

One thing I thought of was actually needing a permit. We don't let people drive until they show they are responsable but we let anyone of a certain age drink? Ok I get that lives are at stake with a car, but still I think that privleges should be earned and not just given.

[8730]

Since when was drinking alcohol a privilege? Alcohol is fine in moderation. The reason it is a problem in todays society is because people take it way to excess. Also, I think people are drinking themselves to oblivion (mostly socially) as they are bored with life. Getting completely off your face makes you forget about things for a time (and sometimes forever :S). It is an escape for a lot of people. That is a problem with the mindset with a lot of people today.

I am still against the age being raised.

[HellKitten]

I do believe 21 is a reeasonable age. At 18 you're world revovles around sex, and if drinking is allowed in the mix of that. More babies or AIDS/HIV. In france and other European countries children are allowed to have a tiny bit of wine just before Dinner, but in our states and Canada and other countries its illegial.

[White_Rook]

At 18 you're world revovles around sex, and if drinking is allowed in the mix of that. More babies or AIDS/HIV.

This is an inaccurate assumption.

[Repliku]

One thing I thought of was actually needing a permit. We don't let people drive until they show they are responsable but we let anyone of a certain age drink? Ok I get that lives are at stake with a car, but still I think that privleges should be earned and not just given.

Drinking alcohol is not a privilege. It is a right. Driving is a privilege that can be revoked for being stupid behind the wheel. What needs to happen is there need to be more strict rules for Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and not just fines; people losing their driver's licenses. If they get caught again, they lose their vehicles. Most of the time, first and second offenders of drug/drinking and driving get the most minor punishment for the crime and if it was raised higher and people didn't just take it as a joke, things would be different. Driving is the privilege and if someone cannot be trusted to drive while not inebriated, they don't need to drive.

Having said that, at 18 people can vote, do about anything, pay taxes etc. You can take out loans, purchase homes, join the military etc. I see no reason that drinking should be at 21 for someone who can be out on his/her own and managing to live, do work full time and even have children before 21 and be married. The only people I see that are the main issues with alcohol are college students in dorms and some other sorts of things where groups are required to focus but can bring drinking home. These students will act very stupid and perhaps there should be a rule of no alcohol in the dorms. They do that in the military in barracks where they allow only certain weaker level alcohol and only a certain amount. I don't see why this cannot also apply to college students. Also, if it is a college town, they could have a bus or something go pick up these people at certain clubs at a certain time of night. There are ways to compensate and do things.

As for saying alcohol means more sex...teens who are under 18 aren't all getting alcohol and then ending up pregnant or getting STDs. It may be an issue for some upper aged teens, but normally not for others.

I think the best age really though should be 19. That way kids are definitely out of High School, other than a few that get held back but even they mostly get out the year they are 19 and well they should not have alcohol either as a steady thing till they are done. Hardly anyone, unless they are really daft, is in school beyond 19 years old. Those who go to college have a year to get ready for it and so many won't flunk out of freshman year. Those in the military might be more mature and well, clear AIT etc that is important, and it does seem that the person has some time to grow up. I just don't see a reason for it to be 21 or to increase the age past that. There's nothing saying that teens still don't drink etc and maybe it's time more parents started teaching kids to drink responsibly instead of acting like drunken sots themselves or avoiding the situation of mentoring kids on life. People will drink. It's the way it goes and some are going to do dumb things. People in college and in the military get alcohol any way before 21. It certainly isn't slowing 'binge' parties to have the age 21.

My dad was smart. He told me he knew sometime I'd probably do something despite his wishes and he said that he might scold me or punish me the next day if I was drunk, but he'd really kick my ass if I drove home in that state. He said we'd have a 'no questions till the morning' policy if I ever got drunk and needed him to pick me up. It made me think on things and realize the responsibility behind his words and that well, he was counting on me to not be dumb. I also occasionally picked him up from a bar too and it was cool. Saved my mom having to go get him heh.

[Ghillie in the Mist]

Drinking alcohol is not a privilege. It is a right. Driving is a privilege that can be revoked for being stupid behind the wheel.

Well said.

My opinion on the debate... 18 is a good age. I mean, if thier old enough to make "informed decision" such as who is the next person to rule the United States of America, and go off and serve in combat, they can make an "informed decision" not to drink when it would be bad circumstances, such as driving.

[Absol]

Eh,I guess it should be 18
Some people drink younger then that anyway,so...

[Pyrɸ]

Eh,I guess it should be 18
Some people drink younger then that anyway,so...

I AGREE... this should be considered. everyone knows that teens WILL drink wether you like it or not... so there is no point in raisisng the age... its kind of giving teens all the more reasons to drink more... and well break the rules... thats what they do/love best

[EvilMan_89]

well....in other countries there is no drinking law requiring a certain age. in those countries it's not an issue at all becuz not many ppl get into car accidents because of this. i guess its' because there it's not some sort of forbidden fruit. but here it is. but i dont' know if the US SHOULD eliminate the age restriction becuz once they do, there WILL be a surge of teens getting drunk right after becuz they can finally do so. after that initial surge, i think activity with alcohol will decrease tho. but that intial HUGE surge of drunkeness is soemthing no one wants to face. but it MIGHT not decrease i'm not sure, but GENERALLY, Americans are not very well behaved compared to ppl of other countries or that's what i heard anyways -_-

[mixt]

Drinking alcohol is not a privilege. It is a right. Driving is a privilege that can be revoked for being stupid behind the wheel.

So drinking is a right but driving is a privilege? So where are you placing the defining line? Many of my friends say that having rights recognized at all is a privilege.

The right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights but does that mean we should have no gun control at all? Even rights need to have control.

[EvilMan_89]

oh i dint see that actually. i don't understand why you would think drinking is the right and driving is a privledge, i would think it would be the other way around.

[Repliku]

Because driving is even told to you in testing etc, drivers' ed and more that it is a privilege. You drive because you are permitted to do so. You pay to have a drivers' license that declares you know how to drive, you are maintaining a safe vehicle, and that you know the laws regarding safety and what to do in case of accidents etc. You are taught to not drive off if you hit someone. You are taught not to go above the speed limit or drive too slow. You are taught to adhere to the law and drive in the lines, remain sober while driving, etc. When you fail to comply with all of these things and more, you are in violation and that driver's license can easily be revoked, suspending your privilege to drive.

Drinking - When you are of age to drink, you don't have to go out and buy a special license to drink, you just have to prove you are 21 or 18 or whatever it is in your area. You can go out and buy whatever. Even if you get in big brawls etc or do stupid things and you might go to jail for disorderly conduct, you can still drink when not incarcerated. You can drink yourself to oblivion. You are not forced to go to rehab etc. You can walk out at any time. Therefore, if you want to rot your liver, you are perfectly capable of it so long as you can afford the alcohol. That is a -right-. The only thing that stops someone from drinking is the legal age in which someone may purchase it (though how well is a debate). Once you are 21 or 18 (depending where you are located) have fun because there is no law that I know of which forbids you to absolutely stop drinking alcohol even if judges try to scare you with words.

The Right to Bear Arms - This is now more of a privilege than a right, though it kind of sits on the fence between them. You can indefinitely lose your right to 'bear arms' if you are stupid enough. Not everyone can get one. If you have been a felon in the past, no one is 'supposed' to sell you a gun. If a ex-con is found with a weapon, it means automatic jail time again. However, on the 'right' side of things, if you go through the process of getting the weapon legitimately (which generally takes a couple weeks), you can keep it indefinitely and no one has the right to take it away from you unless you do something stupid with it out in public. You can have it to defend your home and life. This 'right' really is moving more the way of being a 'privilege' because access is not as easy, people can lose the ability to have guns etc and well, there's a black market of guns which a lot of gang people buy or military collectors. I hardly see it as a right anymore.

Well there we have my daily essay, but the freest thing out of the 3 options we have really...is to get blitzed out of our minds on alcohol. Driving and Bearing Arms are much more controlled. And they have to be. What is sad is that we have 'rights' that are really not rights anymore so much.

[8730]

oh i dint see that actually. i don't understand why you would think drinking is the right and driving is a privledge, i would think it would be the other way around.
The reason that driving is a privilege is that it is not inherent to your life. You aren't born with the ability to drive. You have to prove that you are capable of doing so. This makes it a right as not everyone has the correct skills to drive.

Consuming liquids is essential to life. People have the right to do whatever they want to their own bodies. As alcohol is not illegal (and may it never become so again) people should have every right to drink it. It is their conscious choice to do so.

Also, the point about the right to bear arms is an extremely dodgy one. The American Supreme Court (I think it was that one) is reconsidering giving Americans the right to bear arms for the first time in hundreds of years, possibly the first time ever. Just because something was decided way back when doesn't mean it is still applicable. In this case (the gun thing) especially so.

I just think that treating teenagers as children until they turn 18 is bad enough without raising the age to 21 and saying that they aren't trusted by the rest of society to not drink dangerously.

I for one am sick of it.

EDIT: @Repliku: What's happened to you lol I was expecting longer xD Oj. I just thought my post would have been drowned out by your usual amazing and mind-bogglingly long posts *salutes you*

[Repliku]

EDIT: @Repliku: What's happened to you lol I was expecting longer xD Oj. I just thought my post would have been drowned out by your usual amazing and mind-bogglingly long posts *salutes you*

It's a brief short essay this time. =:) I agree with your points too. If you can't prove you can drive and have the minimum physical requirements, that isn't happening. That's one I missed! Anyone can drink and requires liquid to survive so it's easy to do that. Another point on drinking...they found how fun it was once to try to take away drinking rights during the Prohibition. No one wants a repeat of that, so it's doubtful alcohol consummation will ever be made illegal again.

[8730]

It's a brief short essay this time. =:) I agree with your points too. If you can't prove you can drive and have the minimum physical requirements, that isn't happening. That's one I missed! Anyone can drink and requires liquid to survive so it's easy to do that. Another point on drinking...they found how fun it was once to try to take away drinking rights during the Prohibition. No one wants a repeat of that, so it's doubtful alcohol consummation will ever be made illegal again.
Lol, also governments make too much off of alcohol in duty to ban it again. Almost certainly the reason why cigarettes aer still around. Most of the price of cigarettes (in the UK at least) is from high taxes both to discourage people from buying them and to make the government a quick buck.

Anyway, could there also be medical benefits? It has been proven that (even though this is an extreme example <_>) small amounts of radiation help you to build up an immunity to radiation. Could drinking in small amounts help your body protect itself from the negative side-effects? Also, there is a thing called the resilience of youth. I have never had a proper hangover to date xD But then again I'll probably be crying some time down the line with cirrhosis of the liver. Meh

[mixt]

Repliku disappoints. You are defining right vs. privilege as how rules have been set up for it. This started with me suggesting that you would need a permit for alcohol; saying that it is wrong because you don’t need one now is foolish. Neither good nor bad can come from staying where we are, and the vast majority of the time if we wind up wrong we simply return to the way they were with no lasting damage dealt.

@ Bunterx: That’s along the lines of saying that pot should be legal because breathing is a necessity, just a choice of what you inhale.


And you both proved my gun control point. We have the right to bare arms. Written clear in paper and there to stay for a long time I imagine (debated, but there). But it has never been the case that someone would be handed a gun when they became an adult, there are safety practices that come with it.

(I’m considering another point but there are too many side debates as is)

[8730]

How is it the same as the pot argument? With that you have to light up. Breathing involves little or no effort. It is also not an hallucinogenic. Now you are just being pedantic >_>

[mixt]

there is a chemical process for alcohol (especially if you want it pure. though few people do) pot would just befinding a type of leaf wrapping it up and burning it. If you want to bring effort into the equation, by natural means pot is far easier if you ask me. It just becomes harder in society because it is illeagal which isn't even what I was suggesting.

[Repliku]

Repliku disappoints. You are defining right vs. privilege as how rules have been set up for it. This started with me suggesting that you would need a permit for alcohol; saying that it is wrong because you don’t need one now is foolish. Neither good nor bad can come from staying where we are, and the vast majority of the time if we wind up wrong we simply return to the way they were with no lasting damage dealt.

@ Bunterx: That’s along the lines of saying that pot should be legal because breathing is a necessity, just a choice of what you inhale.


And you both proved my gun control point. We have the right to bare arms. Written clear in paper and there to stay for a long time I imagine (debated, but there). But it has never been the case that someone would be handed a gun when they became an adult, there are safety practices that come with it.

(I’m considering another point but there are too many side debates as is)

This makes no sense. The 'Right' to Bear Arms has been obtaining 'attachments' to it in the last two or more decades because of abuse of it. It isn't really a 'right' anymore. That doesn't win the argument here. Most people can tell the 'Right' to Bear Arms is an illusion now and if it is passed that it is no longer something that will be in our Constitution and abolished, well that shows how much of a 'Right' has been lost already. The point stands as proof.

With drinking, you can drink your life away and it is a well proven fact. No one can force someone to not touch another drop of alcohol. It is a right. You do not have to do anything and can in fact become homeless and drinking in the streets with no job etc. There is a great difference here. You can be sick, poor, with disease from drinking etc and still drink as long as you can afford it. Even if you drink yourself to all sorts of health issues, you will be treated for them and advised to not drink but no one can force it. That is a Right without question. The worst thing that happens to people who drink in excess is they might be tossed in the drink tank to sleep off the night or two. When charged with things, it usually goes with disorderly conduct or abuse etc, not with 'drinking'. Note though that Drinking and Driving..it doesn't also take away your right to -drink-. It takes away your right to -drive-.

Driving is only a right because you can hop in your car if it is properly set up to go and drive nearly anywhere within the confines of your territory without problem as long as you have a license. However, the roads are maintained by the government or toll roads are by whoever runs the tolls. They do have the right to deny you use of roads and also can remove your license and privilege at any time. If you do not have proper insurance or registration for your car you cannot drive it. If you are caught you are fined and must fix these things before the state will issue you another driver's license. Your license can be suspended for various reasons.

This is not a freedom to go do whatever you want. You have responsibilities and if they are not met, you are not allowed to drive. That is the difference. It is a point of validity. I said the Right to Bear Arms is sort of in an in between stage of being a right or privilege anymore because of all the gun control and legal routes one must go to in order to have a weapon and also there is a restriction on who can get a gun legally. Name to me please what restrictions there are on alcohol consumption beyond age? There isn't one. Therefore it is a right. Name to me the restrictions on driving. There are plenty. Therefore it is a privilege.

[mixt]

Again you are explaining the way things are. I know the way things are, I'm explaining how they could be. One has no influence over the other except in initiation.

[Repliku]

Again you are explaining the way things are. I know the way things are, I'm explaining how they could be. One has no influence over the other except in initiation.

Again, it does not matter how things will be. It matters how they -are-. As it stands, this is the way things are. If you want to make someone get a 'permit' to drink, that is making that a privilege too, should it pass and btw who is legit to drink and who is not? How would you even control such a thing? No one would tolerate it. Explain things more, please?

[8730]

With something like drinking, as I have previously stated before, everyone is different. Not only in their ability to drink responsibly (or lack thereof) but of their natural physical limits on how much alcohol they can drink. Are you saying that every person who wants to drink would be tested to see if they are capable of the "privilege" of drinking? That is unworkable. I agree that in theory it is a good idea, but would never be a practical option.

[Repliku]

With something like drinking, as I have previously stated before, everyone is different. Not only in their ability to drink responsibly (or lack thereof) but of their natural physical limits on how much alcohol they can drink. Are you saying that every person who wants to drink would be tested to see if they are capable of the "privilege" of drinking? That is unworkable. I agree that in theory it is a good idea, but would never be a practical option.

That is the problem I am seeing but want him to explain how this 'permit' would even work. Many people can drink properly and responsibly realizing their own lives could be at stake, let alone other peoples, if they are stupid. However, there are just people that will abuse nearly anything. There are people who abuse eating food, exercise etc. It seems very hard to make something legit that others would care about to control something that people do not want controlled but by their own determinations. As much as I know plenty of people who drink and handle alcohol well, I know others who don't but I can only force so much on them, as in if they drink at my place or a bar etc, I take their keys away and set them up for the night to sleep or I drive them home and make sure they are safe. As much as I can say I might agree some people -should- not do what they do when under the influence of alcohol, I don't think a permit will ever work, but I want to see what this permit Mixt is suggesting would do and provide.

[Darkandroid]

You can't just raise the age or limit the amount you can have in the way it is now. In the UK it's pretty much a part of the culture, especially student culture. Everything advertised to us is about the cheap drinks, it's what raises revenue for the government and for business. With it being such a vital part of the student life raising the age would damage bars, clubs and also the freedom. Also how can you limit it? In big clubs it's impossible to tell who has drunk what and also how would a license for alcohol work? How can you prove you are worthy? Drink carefully for 6 months, and then when you get the license drink to your hearts content. This things won't work.

To stop underage drinking is more partenal action, parents let there kids drink, or they don't know they are or simply don't care. It's up to the parents and schools to teach them about it and enforce more action.

[mixt]

For getting it in the first place I was mainly thinking that people should at least know how what they are drinking affects them and others. There are too many people that don't understand it and are just drinking because it's cool. There is no absolute way to tell if someone will abuse it just like with driving; but what I liked about this system is that by licensing it you give the option to remove that ability on a person-by-person basis. When some drives drunk, gets in a fight, or some other dangerous activity influenced by alcohol, you would be able to suspend that license to stop them from hurting themselves or others.

[Repliku]

For getting it in the first place I was mainly thinking that people should at least know how what they are drinking affects them and others. There are too many people that don't understand it and are just drinking because it's cool. There is no absolute way to tell if someone will abuse it just like with driving; but what I liked about this system is that by licensing it you give the option to remove that ability on a person-by-person basis. When some drives drunk, gets in a fight, or some other dangerous activity influenced by alcohol, you would be able to suspend that license to stop them from hurting themselves or others.

Yes, but it would never happen because you cannot always prove by just someone's nature that he or she is going to abuse it. Also, people can take tests etc for this permit and fill in whatever but it doesn't mean they actually care about the answers. No one wants to pay to get a license to drink responsibly and have it revoked etc. It's not also going to run into corruption of judging some people wrongfully. I could only see problems implementing it. This is why if someone is dumb enough to drink and drive, they are still going to find a way to drink but you take away their driver's license and make it illegal for them to drive. If someone has a temper and gets into assault charges and aggravated assault charges, they will find a way to drink but you can get orders of protection, sentence jail time on the person and punishments and fines for it otherwise. These people have issues and already know that the law is there for beating on people or driving drunk. Drinking doesn't -cause- people to do stupid things. It lets go of inhibitions to prevent people from doing what they are already thinking of doing any way. If someone is a jerk when drunk, they just mask it better when not.

As for underage drinkers...well, parents even more than schools need to start caring more and know that the reality is that a kid will probably try to do it. Schools pretty much do all they can to help with all of these responsibilities that parents are getting out of. I don't see what else they can do. Jobs also send people home and can fire people if they are wasted coming to work. The real problem is that kids aren't being disciplined by parents and spoken to realistically. There are way too many things forced on schools to teach that parents need to do. Also, some kids just don't give a crap what parents say so they may have to learn the hard way. Underage drinkers are the only ones really who can be punished for drinking directly and I think that's about as severe as it's ever going to be or it will be unfair to every other citizen.

[White_Rook]

Let's humour the idea of strictly policing alcohol consumption for a moment. Say we do require a license, what manner of scale or system is going to prove that some people are able to drink and some people (regardless of age) are not? At least with a license to operate a motorized vehicle there is a definitive competence required. A number of complex factors go into determining people who are at risk for consuming alcohol, and that's regardless of age too; just because teens will consume alcohol does not imply that they will become susceptible to the countless risk factors associated with drinking. So with all that in mind you're proposing that everyone who desires to consume alcohol endure some form of capability screening? That's like schools discriminating and denying students simply because of their IQ scores.

[Aura]

I actually hate alcohol.After what happened to my dad I hate it.If they were to lower the drinking age that wouldn't be right.They are putting more innocent people at risk of getting injured.They should keep the drinking age at 21.

[mixt]

I made sure to say that people are influenced by alcohol. I know very well that people aren't controled (so to speak) by alcohol, they just have less control over themselves.

For example my brother wrestles with me on a near daily basis, but we stop before anyone is really hurt or we break anything. But when he comes home runk he will flat out attack me leaving me with scars and several things broken arround the house.

Leading me to my other point. My brother goes from lovable to violent over a few drinks. So it's not safe to have him drink, but he shouldn't nessecarily be in jail since he's completely fine (almost idealistic) without alcohol.


There isn't a way to prove (in getting the license to begin with) that some one will or will not abuse alcohol, it's more so about the knowledge of what alcohol is. It's more so that someone could have their license suspened when they show that they have abused it.

[EvilMan_89]

well....the only way i can see of ensuring people can consume alcohol safely is by performing background checks for stuff like crime or mental illenss and issuing a license to drink. but that's just not going to happen unfortunately becuz if that ever becomes a law, it'll just cause ppl to go drink it illegally and drive the whole thing underground making it illegal. so the only sure fire way is down the drain, too bad.

best alternative is i guess encouraging ppl to be more responsible but we know how there will ALWAYS be someone who disobeys the best advice and ruin it for everyone else by making everyone else look bad.

EDIT: i dunno if age really should be a factor deciding when soemone is ready to drink but i suppose the stereotype that Americans are less behaved than ppl from other countries makes it so that a person must be a certain age to drink. other countries have no restrictions whatsoever, i'm GUESSING it's due to the fac tthat they have no stereotype or generalization about their children being bad. i hope ther'es a way to prevent more careless accidents tho, but my methods are a LITTLE over the edge i know. i'm sort of a strict person when it comes to responsibility and behavior

[Repliku]

well....the only way i can see of ensuring people can consume alcohol safely is by performing background checks for stuff like crime or mental illenss and issuing a license to drink. but that's just not going to happen unfortunately becuz if that ever becomes a law, it'll just cause ppl to go drink it illegally and drive the whole thing underground making it illegal. so the only sure fire way is down the drain, too bad.

best alternative is i guess encouraging ppl to be more responsible but we know how there will ALWAYS be someone who disobeys the best advice and ruin it for everyone else by making everyone else look bad.

EDIT: i dunno if age really should be a factor deciding when soemone is ready to drink but i suppose the stereotype that Americans are less behaved than ppl from other countries makes it so that a person must be a certain age to drink. other countries have no restrictions whatsoever, i'm GUESSING it's due to the fac tthat they have no stereotype or generalization about their children being bad. i hope ther'es a way to prevent more careless accidents tho, but my methods are a LITTLE over the edge i know. i'm sort of a strict person when it comes to responsibility and behavior

It isn't that Americans are more foolish than people in other countries. Drunken disorderly behavior happens anywhere. The point here is that people like to be in each other's business so much and the way to make things harder to get to is to make laws preventing it and to waste people's times instead of just instructing people early on about the dangers. I agree with all else you pretty much said and suppose I want to highlight a bit on some things, because it's one of those 'issues' or well, more than one combined that fit here and get me going.

We have a lot of anal idiots that petition for things like raising the age of drinking, forcing kids 10 years and younger to the back seats of cars, taking away video games, forcing religion down our throats in school, raising ages of consenting sex, TV show removal, music bans, movie bans, book bans, fighting a war on drugs that is a losing battle etc, because people are always up in other people's businesses and not taking care of their own families. This is why we get a bad rep as in 'Americans are out of control'. They paint it that way. We aren't that bad and probably there would be less spree killings too if some people would stop being so anal and thinking they should run the lives of others. On this same note though, we have the jaded other side that doesn't seem to give a crap and lets their kids do whatever because they themselves are loafers. Most people are not either of these things but unfortunately we all get hell for it because we can always point out people who are on either side of that fence.

This is why I am very against 'stupid laws'. We have so many lame laws now and some oldies but goodies too that really need to go, but yet somehow get approved and are maintained. A permit to drink to me seems to be another strict law that cannot be enforced by any means and people would just laugh at it. Yes, some people act like idiots on alcohol but I think the drug war and alcohol issues are not as hard to cope with as people think. In the end, as cruel as it sounds in some ways, I think they ought to just make pot and some other drugs legal and alcohol should be left alone. Attach all the rules for alcohol to drugs as well, such as if you drive under the influence of a drug, you get punished.

Next, since we have to deal with an influx for a while of people who abuse it, take that money used to traffic out drugs and put it into drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers. If someone gets 2 or 3 strikes and alcohol or drug abuse is found to be an encouraging factor to this behavior such as involvement to their arrest of assault or driving etc, force them to go to rehab and also be more inventive in procedures of teaching people how to deal with obsession and well, the need for something. Drop the lame 12 step program and get some real research psychologically done to help people drop an addiction and do something else with their lives. In this way we help the people addicted to drugs or alcohol, we stop bothering to spend countless money on a war that has failed since it's beginning, and good people who can control alcohol etc are not condemned to have to get a permit and be treated as too dumb to do anything. The real problem with alcohol seems to usually be the addicts that drown themselves in it so I don't see a need to have to torture others who aren't doing anything wrong with a permit. You can't stop someone from drinking, but if the help is there to teach them to learn to either drink responsibly or encourage them to find another joy in life that doesn't harm others because they have addictive personalities, we all suffer less.

If we educate and teach truthfully the harm that alcohol can instigate (as well as drugs) and tell the -TRUTH- about it (because in the 80s and 90s schools were spreading over exaggerated lies), then kids can know and we need to start energizing the parents too. However, if someone is going to be stupid, they are so rehab seems to me a better answer than all of this money being wasted on other crap. If someone wants some E, pot, PCP etc, you just have to know who to hit up for it. It is -very- easy to get drugs even though they are illegal. It is a simple process for teens to get a hold of alcohol either at home or from friends etc. Parents can help make it more difficult. Education can make it less encouraging. And adults...they should know better and if they do not care, rehab gets them away for a while and incarceration for the crimes they commit when inebriated still works. Last thing I want to see is a permit on alcohol or a ban on alcohol because it will just be another Prohibition again and if it is so easy to get a hold of illegal drugs, it's even easier to get a hold of alcohol.

Anywhoo that's the end of my rant. ~whee~. I could have said this easier by saying 'punish and/or help the abusers; not the people who are doing fine.

[EvilMan_89]

It isn't that Americans are more foolish than people in other countries. Drunken disorderly behavior happens anywhere. The point here is that people like to be in each other's business so much and the way to make things harder to get to is to make laws preventing it and to waste people's times instead of just instructing people early on about the dangers. I agree with all else you pretty much said and suppose I want to highlight a bit on some things, because it's one of those 'issues' or well, more than one combined that fit here and get me going.

We have a lot of anal idiots that petition for things like raising the age of drinking, forcing kids 10 years and younger to the back seats of cars, taking away video games, forcing religion down our throats in school, raising ages of consenting sex, TV show removal, music bans, movie bans, book bans, fighting a war on drugs that is a losing battle etc, because people are always up in other people's businesses and not taking care of their own families. This is why we get a bad rep as in 'Americans are out of control'. They paint it that way. We aren't that bad and probably there would be less spree killings too if some people would stop being so anal and thinking they should run the lives of others. On this same note though, we have the jaded other side that doesn't seem to give a crap and lets their kids do whatever because they themselves are loafers. Most people are not either of these things but unfortunately we all get hell for it because we can always point out people who are on either side of that fence.

This is why I am very against 'stupid laws'. We have so many lame laws now and some oldies but goodies too that really need to go, but yet somehow get approved and are maintained. A permit to drink to me seems to be another strict law that cannot be enforced by any means and people would just laugh at it. Yes, some people act like idiots on alcohol but I think the drug war and alcohol issues are not as hard to cope with as people think. In the end, as cruel as it sounds in some ways, I think they ought to just make pot and some other drugs legal and alcohol should be left alone. Attach all the rules for alcohol to drugs as well, such as if you drive under the influence of a drug, you get punished.

Next, since we have to deal with an influx for a while of people who abuse it, take that money used to traffic out drugs and put it into drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers. If someone gets 2 or 3 strikes and alcohol or drug abuse is found to be an encouraging factor to this behavior such as involvement to their arrest of assault or driving etc, force them to go to rehab and also be more inventive in procedures of teaching people how to deal with obsession and well, the need for something. Drop the lame 12 step program and get some real research psychologically done to help people drop an addiction and do something else with their lives. In this way we help the people addicted to drugs or alcohol, we stop bothering to spend countless money on a war that has failed since it's beginning, and good people who can control alcohol etc are not condemned to have to get a permit and be treated as too dumb to do anything. The real problem with alcohol seems to usually be the addicts that drown themselves in it so I don't see a need to have to torture others who aren't doing anything wrong with a permit. You can't stop someone from drinking, but if the help is there to teach them to learn to either drink responsibly or encourage them to find another joy in life that doesn't harm others because they have addictive personalities, we all suffer less.

If we educate and teach truthfully the harm that alcohol can instigate (as well as drugs) and tell the -TRUTH- about it (because in the 80s and 90s schools were spreading over exaggerated lies), then kids can know and we need to start energizing the parents too. However, if someone is going to be stupid, they are so rehab seems to me a better answer than all of this money being wasted on other crap. If someone wants some E, pot, PCP etc, you just have to know who to hit up for it. It is -very- easy to get drugs even though they are illegal. It is a simple process for teens to get a hold of alcohol either at home or from friends etc. Parents can help make it more difficult. Education can make it less encouraging. And adults...they should know better and if they do not care, rehab gets them away for a while and incarceration for the crimes they commit when inebriated still works. Last thing I want to see is a permit on alcohol or a ban on alcohol because it will just be another Prohibition again and if it is so easy to get a hold of illegal drugs, it's even easier to get a hold of alcohol.

Anywhoo that's the end of my rant. ~whee~. I could have said this easier by saying 'punish and/or help the abusers; not the people who are doing fine.

not to get off topic but what's wrong with that law?
but then they'll kill themselves becuz there's nothing stopping the addiction
they've actually been doing this for quite some already, at least in places i've seen
i mean sure the ppl who can behave shouldnt' be punished but this ridiculous law is a law for a reason while not everyone will do stupid crap becuz of alcohol and not everyone will lose control, there will be ppl who will and we can't just not take them into account. since we can't tell who can and can't control themselves at a younger age, that's why the law targets everyone

[kingdomheartsluver]

ummmmmmmmmmm.............21. It sounds the best.

[Repliku]

not to get off topic but what's wrong with that law?
but then they'll kill themselves becuz there's nothing stopping the addiction
they've actually been doing this for quite some already, at least in places i've seen
i mean sure the ppl who can behave shouldnt' be punished but this ridiculous law is a law for a reason while not everyone will do stupid crap becuz of alcohol and not everyone will lose control, there will be ppl who will and we can't just not take them into account. since we can't tell who can and can't control themselves at a younger age, that's why the law targets everyone

What's wrong with that law is that some kids have reasons to sit up front such as motion sickness which causes them to throw up if they sit in the back seats. I can see small children sitting in the back but when they are 5 years old and more I don't see the reason that cars can't modernize to adjust. Also, when parents go to drop off kids at school etc, they have to get out of the car and let the kid out of the back which means they have to shut off the car so it isn't stolen, get out of the car, get the kid out etc. Also, for cars without back seats, what happens then? It's inconvenient and a dumb rule.

What I wrote after about rehabilitation and real help for people to solve addictions and work them through would be better than putting people in jail as they are now over small things. The jails are overcrowded due to possession rules for minors having alcohol and for pot possession. There are worse crimes out there. Also, as I said, if people are found to be doing things such as assaults or driving etc under the influence, they do time for that crime but can get help if alcohol or drugs is involved to try to get them clean and learn to stop abuse.

Yes, they have been trying to but still some schools teach paranoid versions of things and are not teaching accurately. One thing I did learn traveling around the states is that they do not all have the same curriculum and I wish they did. All schools are not equal. The point though was to keep doing this sort of thing and encourage more action from parents to watch their kids and work out situations with them to prevent abuse situations and if alcohol situations arise, to have a game plan on what to do about it.

Also, you are right. We can't exclude people who will do things and the law does sooner or later figure out who is doing things wrong and who is not and if drugs or alcohol are involved. My point is that a permit would mean that we have to subject many others to getting it, paying for it etc and why? It's another freedom we lose and I do not think we should continue to keep giving up freedoms due to fear or bad people all the time. It's why I said to punish those who do the wrongs, get them help and let the rest of us be. If proper rehabilitation was set up along with how the prison system works (and improving that wouldn't hurt either) then I just think with proper education, discipline and information, it would work better for all than screwing over everyone with some new law.

As for the age issue, I do think 18 or 19 is enough. I really haven't seen proof that teenagers can't get alcohol just as easy as they did years ago and well some 18-20 year olds are mature enough. If nothing else, I'd say perhaps 18-20 year olds should at least have the right to drink at home because I can see at bars how they can be annoying or the younger teens try to get in all the time. The carding issue for selling works well enough though some places will give out alcohol to minors. I just think that 18 is the age of being considered an adult and if someone does not know the risks by that time any way, they probably will either learn or get the lesson through their head the hard way. Addiction itself though is different to me. I've partied etc but never felt 'addicted' to alcohol but know others who were and have had to get assistance or well, they ruin their lives. That's why I'm pretty strong on proper rehabilitation and education helping people with it rather than keeping on fighting a losing battle of prohibiting things.

[EvilMan_89]

yea i agree that 18 years of age is a good age tho, i have no problem with that, but before that is too soon in my opinion seeing as the legal age to start driving where i live is at age 16.

[Darkandroid]

The age is fine as it is in most countries, it works with the culture of that country. Though the only one I have a slight issue with is in the US. You can do most things at the age of 18, so why is drinking alone so high? You have to wait until you are probably out of college until you can even officially buy and drink it. With a high age limit it will just promot underage drinking, it's like a forbidden apple. Heck you can drive at 15 in some states which to me is way to young to be on the road. If a person is responible enough to have a car and drive anywhere then why not drink.

The age is Japan is 20. But that works with everything else since you can do most things when you get to 20.

[EvilMan_89]

The age is fine as it is in most countries, it works with the culture of that country. Though the only one I have a slight issue with is in the US. You can do most things at the age of 18, so why is drinking alone so high? You have to wait until you are probably out of college until you can even officially buy and drink it. With a high age limit it will just promot underage drinking, it's like a forbidden apple. Heck you can drive at 15 in some states which to me is way to young to be on the road. If a person is responible enough to have a car and drive anywhere then why not drink.

The age is Japan is 20. But that works with everything else since you can do most things when you get to 20.

well....i guess they don't want newbie drivers to be drunk AND driving and would rather have a pro drunk driver rather than a newbie drunk driver on the road? that is what i would think.

[Darkandroid]

well....i guess they don't want newbie drivers to be drunk AND driving and would rather have a pro drunk driver rather than a newbie drunk driver on the road? that is what i would think.

Fair enough, but in the UK the driving age is 17, and drinking is 18. I don't think it takes 6 years for people to realise that drink driving is bad. Heck, I knew that before I even started learning to drive. Most people are responible drivers anyway, and know they shouldn't do that.

[The Lone Wanderer]

I live in the US and I think that the age should stay 21. It doesn't really matter though because its so easy to get where I live. I bet I could walk into a super market, buy a case of beer, pay and walk out un-noticed. I'm only 15, and I definitely look 15. I don't think I'll ever drink in high school. Smoking is a whole other story here. I think that 50% of my school smokes or has smoked and thats just the minimum.

[EvilMan_89]

i think it should stay 21 as well but i wouldn't really mind if it were 18 years of age either.

[Bubble Master Califa]

18 years in UK and many of us minors think it's far too high, we break that rule because it's there and getting alcohol is easy.

You can sk hobos, older siblings or older friends to get it for you and mix it with soft drinks and drink them while walking down a road.

And no that's not from personnal experience but i think the age should be lowered, less people would drink because many do it for the thrill of law breaking.

[White_Rook]

I made sure to say that people are influenced by alcohol. I know very well that people aren't controled (so to speak) by alcohol, they just have less control over themselves.

For example my brother wrestles with me on a near daily basis, but we stop before anyone is really hurt or we break anything. But when he comes home runk he will flat out attack me leaving me with scars and several things broken arround the house.

Leading me to my other point. My brother goes from lovable to violent over a few drinks. So it's not safe to have him drink, but he shouldn't nessecarily be in jail since he's completely fine (almost idealistic) without alcohol.


There isn't a way to prove (in getting the license to begin with) that some one will or will not abuse alcohol, it's more so about the knowledge of what alcohol is. It's more so that someone could have their license suspended when they show that they have abused it.

There's still the issue of screening for risk factors. Some studies have found that alcohol abuse and susceptibility to abuse and other negative effects are highly correlated to genetic and hereditary factors. We'd essentially be denying some people a freedom based on their genetic inheritance, if further tests demonstrated a causal nature between heredity and alcohol abuse.

Also, suspending a license and assuming that will do something is rather naive. Thousands of people drive without a license everyday without consequence, junkies find a way to get high in rehab, and most importantly speak-easies found ways to get people drunk during prohibition. Realistically speaking, a piece of paper that states that the government has deemed a person fit to drink after they have met a certain criteria isn't going to prevent those that don't "qualify" from consuming alcohol.

[*Sora*]

Fair enough, but in the UK the driving age is 17, and drinking is 18. I don't think it takes 6 years for people to realize that drink driving is bad. Heck, I knew that before I even started learning to drive. Most people are responsible drivers anyway, and know they shouldn't do that.

If only. America has the bloodiest streets in the entire world. I agree that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. People enjoy doing things because they know they shouldn't or can't, so by allowing them to just do it would definitely rain on their parade. Also, for the hell of it, I have an incredible problem with drunk driving. I don't drink, and I doubt I ever will. More than 90% of my friends do, though, and it's quite annoying. Kids don't understand much of anything when it comes to drunk driving until they've actually been in an accident. Still, even after that, they continue to do it. Innocent people are killed every day by drunk drivers, and I don't feel their punishment is sufficient. Me? Here's what I would do: To any man, woman, teenager, anyone, who has wrongfully taken the life of anyone as a result of driving under the influence of any narcotics; you should have your leg put up onto a table and have your thigh smashed with a sledge hammer. For the next 6 months, you're wearing a cast up to your abdomen with a little flap in it so you can go to the bathroom. You're not going to be driving again for well over 6 months, and damn are you going to feel it when it rains. But not just that; Every year on the birthday of the person he/she killed, they should have to visit the family and express their sympathy and apologies, visit schools and tell the story of how they took someone's life as a result of over-drinking at a wedding and not knowing when to stop or driving yourself home from a party because you were too selfish or ignorant to make sure you had a ride home from someone who was sober. After all of that, you think they're going to -ever- drive drunk again? I don't think so. This is how it should be done. And hell, if they do it again, kill them and charge their family for the bullet.

/endrant