Drinking Age Discussion

[decocker 7,198]

I'm not sure why you guys think just because something isn't prohibited people will automatically go around doing it all the time.

So we say kids can drink. Does that mean parents are going to get their kids drunk? We can drink and drive. Are people going to do it more? Eventually, the individual must take responsibility for themselves. It's not the state's job nor anyone else's to take care of us.

for most licensed drivers who also happen to be black out prone alcoholics, the threat of losing their driver's license is enough to keep them off the road while drinking. usually black out prone alcoholics get to that point of self restraint after having to jump through hoops to get their license back after offending. you can't say that drunk driving laws have zero affect on keeping drunk people more weary of their actions. if there were no possible consequence other than maybe possibly causing an accident and killing someone..there would certainly be more drunks on the road at any given moment.

[slim 1,533]

I can say without a doubt, one of the reasons i rarely drink, is because I am always driving. My wife does not drive. I will not chance drinking and getting behind the wheel. The penalty is just not worth the risk. If there as no law against drinking and driving, I am sure I would drink and drive from time to time

if weed were legal and readily available here, I might partake. Since it is not I do not.

Are you sure you'd cause accidents and harm other people or do you think you'd be self-responsible since crashing your car and hurting other people isn't good for you either?

for most licensed drivers who also happen to be black out prone alcoholics, the threat of losing their driver's license is enough to keep them off the road while drinking. usually black out prone alcoholics get to that point of self restraint after having to jump through hoops to get their license back after offending. you can't say that drunk driving laws have zero affect on keeping drunk people more weary of their actions. if there were no possible consequence other than maybe possibly causing an accident and killing someone..there would certainly be more drunks on the road at any given moment.

Is that why many people with four, five, ten DUIs stop? Because of the hoops?

See my above comment. At some point, it's harmful to ourselves to drink and drive. It may take some people longer than others to get that through their heads but the point remains it's not cost-effective to go through life being a drunk - whether driving or not.

[decocker 7,198]

Are you sure you'd cause accidents and harm other people or do you think you'd be self-responsible since crashing your car and hurting other people isn't good for you either?

Is that why many people with four, five, ten DUIs stop? Because of the hoops?

See my above comment. At some point, it's harmful to ourselves to drink and drive. It may take some people longer than others to get that through their heads but the point remains it's not cost-effective to go through life being a drunk - whether driving or not.

i don't really see the problem with a state revoking a license to drive for one too many duis. if you can't take it away, why issue it in the first place?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Quite simply, drink driving laws are in place to provide some legal protection to sensible people (i.e who are responsible enough to know that alcohol and motor vehicles don't mix) and criminal punishment for the actions of stupid people (i.e think before you drink unless you want to end up being cornholed in the can).

Edited July 21, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[slim 1,533]

why issue it in the first place?

Agreed!

One more set of regulations we could do without.

[decocker 7,198]

Agreed!

One more set of regulations we could do without.

states up and deciding to get rid of driver's licensing isn't really probable.

[Operator 1,927]

The NC senate just passed a bill to require mopeds/scooters to carry insurance and register with the state. I'm glad these jag-offs will finally have to pony up like the rest of us however it's gonna cost $1m to oversee it. Maybe instead of making them buy insurance they could just remove the fines for running them off the road. Seems like a better punishment than just suspending them for a year.

[slim 1,533]

The NC senate just passed a bill to require mopeds/scooters to carry insurance and register with the state. I'm glad these jag-offs will finally have to pony up like the rest of us however it's gonna cost $1m to oversee it. Maybe instead of making them buy insurance they could just remove the fines for running them off the road. Seems like a better punishment than just suspending them for a year.

This is a free market answer!

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Are you sure you'd cause accidents and harm other people or do you think you'd be self-responsible since crashing your car and hurting other people isn't good for you either?

Is that why many people with four, five, ten DUIs stop? Because of the hoops?

See my above comment. At some point, it's harmful to ourselves to drink and drive. It may take some people longer than others to get that through their heads but the point remains it's not cost-effective to go through life being a drunk - whether driving or not.

Because I am older, and I just don't party down anymore. I doubt I would ever get knee knocking and get behind the wheel. I might have several drinks with dinner. As it is right now, I will not even drink a beer and get behind the wheel. It's just not worth it

[Teddy B 17,252]

I'm not sure why you guys think just because something isn't prohibited people will automatically go around doing it all the time.

So we say kids can drink. Does that mean parents are going to get their kids drunk? We can drink and drive. Are people going to do it more? Eventually, the individual must take responsibility for themselves. It's not the state's job nor anyone else's to take care of us.

When something is prohibited, most people DO refrain from doing it. Just the fact that something is illegal to do and comes with a penalty if caught is enough of a deterrent for most logical folks. There will always be law breakers, that does not mean that a law is ineffective because someone decides to break a law. If something is legal to do, more people will do it, this really isn't rocket science.

In regards to the state taking care of us, yes it is the states job to protect law abiding citizens from the law breakers. You have this distorted view that having freedom and rights means that anything goes, and everyone is responsible for protecting their own well being from things they cannot control, that isn't how it works. I can't stop the drunk who lives two towns over from getting in his car wasted and killing myself or a member of my family, but we put laws in place and have people to enforce those laws in an effort to help stop that from happening. The laws do work.

[Sousuke 1,214]

When something is prohibited, most people DO refrain from doing it. Just the fact that something is illegal to do and comes with a penalty if caught is enough of a deterrent for most logical folks. There will always be law breakers, that does not mean that a law is ineffective because someone decides to break a law. If something is legal to do, more people will do it, this really isn't rocket science.

Definitely not true. It depends what is being prohibited and how much of a social norm it is. Prohibiting murder works because its not a social norm. If we turn around and say prohibit BBQs because of fire risks, people will not refrain.

Prohibition reduced alcohol consumption by at most 30% so clearly the majority of the population ignored the law because drinking is a social norm.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Drinking may be a social norm, but people need to be educated that drinking and driving isn't. That's why these laws exist, it's why there are so many public information campaigns about it to raise awareness.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Definitely not true. It depends what is being prohibited and how much of a social norm it is. Prohibiting murder works because its not a social norm. If we turn around and say prohibit BBQs because of fire risks, people will not refrain.

Prohibition reduced alcohol consumption by at most 30% so clearly the majority of the population ignored the law because drinking is a social norm.

I would say 99% true. Alcohol may be the exception to that rule.

Laws need to be somewhat sensible in the first place in order for them to work properly. Prohibiting bbq's in certain areas because of a fire risk is done to a certain extent, such as wooded and brush areas during dry season and those laws are followed for the most part. Prohibition was not a reasonable or sensible law to begin with, which is why it didn't work to well.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Drinking may be a social norm, but people need to be educated that drinking and driving isn't. That's why these laws exist, it's why there are so many public information campaigns about it to raise awareness.

I see nothing wrong with DUI laws with the exception of one thing. I've known people to be charged with something called a 'wet reckless" which the police charged them with after having a elevated BAL that was below the legal limit. If the law is .08, ppl should not get charged for a .07 IMO.

The other issue that another poster brought up is that texting while driving, while more dangerous than drinking and driving, only carries a fine.

[Sousuke 1,214]

I would say 99% true. Alcohol may be the exception to that rule.

Laws need to be somewhat sensible in the first place in order for them to work properly. Prohibiting bbq's in certain areas because of a fire risk is done to a certain extent, such as wooded and brush areas during dry season and those laws are followed for the most part. Prohibition was not a reasonable or sensible law to begin with, which is why it didn't work to well.

And the 21 law doesn't seem to work either.

The average starting age is 16.1 years old. By 18, 65% have been drinking.

I can't find a stat for college students under 21 but that percentage probably climbs into the 80% range.