MN Faces Idea Of Lower Drinking Age, Again [What should the drinking age be?]

State lawmakers in Minnesota are bringing forward a plan to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18, and even allowing those sixteen and seventeen to drink in bars in accompanied by their parents.

It’s rational. Alcohol in moderation with food isn’t any more dangerous for a teenager than a bottle of tequila on an empty stomach is for a middle-aged man. Teenagers are more likely to drink too fast but only if they’re doing it as a risk-test among themselves, not with the elders around, so I see no danger. The parents should be legally accountable for making sure the young ones do go home and stay off the road after the bar though.

Here it is 18, 16+ at home with parents permission.
If you can vote, drive, smoke, gamble etc why not be allowed alcohol?

i voted 21+, if it had been an option i would have voted 25. this isn’t based on any moral idea, because i was drinking well before that, and i like the law here in Texas that minors can drink anywhere if they are within visual sight of a consenting parent.

however the liver doesn’t really reach full maturity until about 25 years, and it has been shown that the risk of liver disease in people who drink the same amount for the same amount of time is much lower in people who started after 25.

and for the record it wouldnt hurt my feelings if the voting age was bumped up a little too in case someone wants to make that argument.

Well, I hope they do, and do it successfully. Then other states might take courage and follow suit. Of course, MADD will “whine” about it…

I don’t think anybody “likes” the idea of high school age young people drinking. But I like even less the idea of young people ignorant about proper use of alcohol and getting their education, still underage, at a college party many miles from wiser adults or law enforcement.

I know many people that drank dangerously when between 18-20, simply because of the allure. It’s kind of the great American all-you-can-eat buffet mentality: get your money’s worth. Couple that to the “I’m finally free to make my own choices, so darnit I’ll make that choice!” and the reality that there really are few socially viable evening activities that do not involve alcohol, and you get binge drinking. People I know (myself included) suddenly discovered that upon turning 21, we didn’t drink nearly as much. Alcohol (with ID) was accessible, and we’d already discovered our limits of sobriety. Getting pissed was just not that much fun, and actually stupid and expensive. Maybe we’d also been to the funerals of our peers who were not so lucky.

I really wish that laws allowed purchase and consumption of alcohol, in moderation, while one was still growing up and living with parents. It would give young people the opportunity to experience how it affects their mood and judgment in public, in the company of family and friends. They would have a model for an appropriate, social use of beverages in moderation. They could learn their limits. They would not feel the terror of needing to call emergency help for their unconscious friend without getting anybody “in trouble.” And call me elitist, but they would be free to discover higher quality drinks than Bud Lite.

I think that military personnel on active duty should be able to drink at 18 years old. This is despite the definite problem in the armed forces as to alcoholism.

Eighteen – the age should never have been raised and it’s a travesty that the states were blackmailed into raising it by the Feds.

Yeah, I know, “It saves lives”. So what?
So would raising the age to 25 or 30 or lowering the speed limit to 35mph everywhere. “Saving lives” is the nanny-state excuse for encroaching our liberties.

Here’s my reason for keeping it at 21. Your brain needs to develop fully without being impaired by the devastating destruction that alcohol does to brain cells. Work in any hospital especially a drug rehab one and you can see why.

Read the line that specifically states on the age a person begins drinking and the link to damage of the brain too.

Yeah, absolutely. If someone is old enough to carry a rifle in Afghanistan, he is old enough to drink legally in public.

Sometimes I hear the argument that if a person is old enough to fight for his country then he should be old enough to drink. I don’t fall for it. I think responsibilities come BEFORE rights.

Except that most people are given the right to drink alcohol without bearing the responsibility of defending our country.

I think if someone is willing to put their life on the line for us, they have earned the right to drink (even if the drinking age is higher for non-military.)

Actually, its nothing about rights and responsibilities. Military service aids in the maturing of an individual and there is a lot of peer review. Some of the peer pressure is negative and some positive.

I think that military personnel are held to a much higher conduct standard than many of our college students or other 18 year olds footloose in civilian life.

I definitely agree this was true 10 - 15 years ago. And I have no reason to think it would be any different now.

NIH’s studies have repeatedly been found to have flawed methodologies; I can’t speak to this one, but an NIH study is written, normally, with a strong bias to find danger in whatever they are investigating.

At a quick and casual glance, the link is to a literature review, whcih is grabbing the worse effects out of every referenced study, in a methodology that is propagandistic, not scientific.

I’m no expert, but I remember traveling frequently to Louisiana in my callow youth. The drinking age then and there was 18. Seemed to me all the drunken young people were from out of state at the time, though perhaps I didn’t see all the locals at their worst. I can remember, though, going to parties at LSU, and it seemed even then that we out-of-staters were the heavier drinkers. Maybe “holding one’s liquor” was a matter of pride to, e.g., the KAs. Seemed like every fraternity was, essentially, KA at heart.

But Minnesota, now. Isn’t everybody in Minnesota some kind of Teuton; sober even when they wish they were drunk? (And if I lived in that arctic region, I would wish it.) Probably the drinking age there could be age 5 and no harm would be done. Knowing Germans as I think maybe I do, the real drinking age probably IS age 5, as a practical matter.

Stupid, stupid idea.

Kids just get a license at age 16. They are in charge of a 2 ton vehicle with very little experience, surrounded by idiots who think they have experience (read: adults in a big hurry cutting everybody off), and now you are going to allow these inexperienced drivers to drink??? (And we all know that 18 year olds WILL have a drink or 2 - or more - and then get behind the wheel.) Why do we know this…because so many of these so-called adults do it all the time. How do people get to bars? They drive. What do they do at bars? They drink. How do they get home? They drive.


Maybe it is because I have a 17 year old, but I think it is a really dumb idea to allow drinking at 18.

Now, what a PARENT allows their child to do in their presence is a whole nuther ball game. Parents should decide whether their kids can have a glass of wine at dinner, etc. But accompany grandpa to the bar so Junior can have a beer while Grandpa downs a few with his buddies? No, don’t think so.

(This stooopid bill was introduced by Phyllis Kahn, a very liberal Democrat, who is usually off the deep end on many issues anyway).

I heard from my dad that the reason the drinking age is 21 because the Department of Transportation wouldn’t give federal funding for highways to the states unless they raised the drinking age to 21.

Check the thread on Georgia turning down $5 million in federal funds because it has no seat belt law for pickups.

Rights come whenever the law says they come, so all you’re doing is stating a preference, not a rule.

Carrying a rifle in Afghanistan is a fairly major responsibility, one of the most serious responsibilities someone will have. The young adults I knew in the Service were typically more mature than their counterparts.

You convinced me. The shouldn’t be allowed to vote, drive, smoke, gamble, etc. And they certainly shouldn’t be allowed to drink!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit