cool responses...interesting ones, too.
I for one, am not interested in the government "protecting me". I have enough sense to know NOT to drive under the influence. I have enough sense not to get plastered and make a fool of myself. To me; alcoholic beverages are just another drink -- and I don't appreciate being told I'm not old enough to have one by Big Brother. I mean, to be fair - there are some at 18/19 that shouldn't be drinking. And yet, there are some at 30 and 40 years old who shouldn't drink it, either! Age, imo has nothing to do with it.
You don't have an epiphany at 21 that suddenly makes you qualified to drink.
I didn't have an epiphany at the magical age of 16 that qualified me to drive (and I don't think that age should be raised. Different topic -- but simply; I
needed to drive [work, etc], and I was certainly qualified to do so.) And I didn't amazingly understand how to wage war at 18.
If less emphasis was placed on drinking, if the age was lowered - I don't think nearly as many young people would go out of their way to find alcohol and consequently do stupid things under the influence. The tighter the leash, the more the Dog tries to escape, as it goes.
I mean, we might as well try prohibition all over again! After all...alcohol is bad.
The cold hard truth is that there are always going to be idiots out there: of ALL age groups, from 16 and up. And generally stating that people at 18/19 aren't 'mature' enough to drink really has no truth to it, because there are 18/19 year-olds who can handle alcohol. And it's a stupid punishment for them in order to 'protect' the ones who can't handle it.
It's cold, and somewhat harsh...but I don't think the fools who misuse alcohol deserve any protection
because they're fools. This country has too many nanny-laws that overlook the 'good guy', imo; and this is one that I'd like to see repealed. Waste of time, paper, and money -- and totally counter-productive.