Drinking age

[Comrade B]

What age should people be to be legally allowed to drink?



Your vote is public

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Depends on other factors.

Mainly, what are the other minimum ages (consent, emancipation, smoking, driving, etc.)? Personally, I think it's silly to allow someone to vote or join the military, but not drink.

The simple answer, however, is that little Tommy might be mature and responsible enough at 15, while Johnny isn't until his mid 20s, and Peter never grows up at all, so any age of consent for anything you set is too early for some, and not soon enough for others.

It would be nice if everybody had parents/guardians that could take on such responsibility as deciding when their child is mature enough, but we all know that isn't always (or even usually) the case.

If there is going to be an age of consent, however, I say make it uniform for emancipation, driving, smoking, drinking, military service, etc.

If there is not an age of consent, then I hope that more parents are better at raising responsible children then what I think there are.

[Pia Fidelis]

Alcohol use is damaging to both a developing mind and body. It is on this reason alone that I think drinking age should be later in life. 19 seems like a pretty standard age.

[F9]

i hate alcohol but i hate age limits too.:thumbdown:
as it is always said in all such topics with age limit think,the age is not the one who counts but the person and how his organism ma react in something.
Just for the vote part,and not really believe to it i voted 13-15 where people in such ages may be able to take it as adults.

Fuserg9:star:

[gla22]

let the commune decide democratically. keep laws like this decentralized so they only copver areas where they are needed.

[Mala Tha Testa]

agree with gla, but i went with 18 at random.

[TC]

The average person at any age cannot be relied on to conduct themselves in a consistently "responsible" fashion, whether that means just aesthetically not getting too drunk or practically not drinking and driving, not beating up domestic partners while drunk, not starting bar fights, etc.

The notion that theres some kind of medical justification for drinking ages is just wishful thinking: the body of a large 13 year old is no less able to process alcohol than the body of a small 23 year old, and larger people and those who can process more alcohol faster simply drink more of it to get the same affects.

No, the reality is that there can be no rational, consistent justification for leftists to endorse any age based restrictions above the age of language and long term memory acquisition.*

For some reason, liberals whether open liberals or self-identifying 'leftists' who retain bourgeois morality, seem to believe that when it comes to 'adults' there is in a sense a right to behave irresponsibility, or at least the right to personal autonomy trumps restrictions placed to ensure their lives are not fucked up by their own stupidity. When it comes to children however, for some totally arbitrary reason, the balance shifts so that the child's rights are diminished in comparison to the risk the child poses to itself.

The only explanation for this is essentially that the unbridled paternalism of the state which is tasked with providing a replaceable labor force complicit with its own exploitation, is allowed to do to children what it would love to do to everyone simply because children are less capable of resisting effectively. It is this trade off in paternalism vs liberty, that liberals allow the state to treat children as property jointly owned by itself and their parents (who take the position, essentially, as junior partners to it), so that after the state has 18 years to shape them it graces them with a bit more freedom or gives up. It is quiet clear that children are indeed joint-owned property in a material sense because by imposing restrictions on what they can do with themselves one is saying that theres are interests present in them other than their own. There is nothing ethical or philosophically justified in this arrangement it is merely ho the balance of material power has come out, and as is normally the case, the ideological justification for the balance occurs after the fact. There was for instance, no such justification for the difference in slave societies where most people are treated as investment properties and no special status for children at all in certain agricultural societies where the state and ruling class have no need for unfuckedup skilled labour.


(*This is not to say that there shouldn't be any non-age based restrictions that in some ways may appear to be defacto age based. For instance no one should be allowed to drive who hasn't passed a driving test and successfully completing a driving test would require having the physical dimensions needed to operate an automobile which people younger than a certain age are certain to lack. Similarly although I don't think 'statutory "rape"' i.e. sex that violates not the will of either individual involved but the will of the state, can never be compared to real rape at any age, it seems reasonable and necessary for prepubescents who consented to sexual acts to bring lesser charges after the fact given a natural inability to make a fully informed decision; in this case the difference being between criminal negligence and battery. That is however not a matter of age but of measurable development.)

[TC]

Alcohol use is damaging to both a developing mind and body. It is on this reason alone that I think drinking age should be later in life. 19 seems like a pretty standard age.

Alcohol is damaging to the mature mind and body too.

The difference is that we recognize that alcohol also enhances people's social lives and ability to interact and liberals (including liberal communists/anachists) care about that for themselves but don't give a shit, or at least not enough of one, when it comes to children.

[Devrim]

The notion that theres some kind of medical justification for drinking ages is just wishful thinking: the body of a large 13 year old is no less able to process alcohol than the body of a small 23 year old, and larger people and those who can process more alcohol faster simply drink more of it to get the same affects.

It is well know that alcohol effects the development of a child's body.

Despite this the actual age where you are legally able to drink in the UK is five.

Devrim

[Black Dagger]

For me the bottom line is that regardless of health issues, people should not be punished by the state for what they choose to consume. If someone is doing harm to themselves they need support and we need to ensure they have full access to the medical facts of their situation, the potential risks etc. of their activity, and free health care if they want it, but without condescencion or condemnation. Like with drug prohibition alcohol prohibition leads to an increase in 'risk-taking behaviour' amongst users (which is potentially harmful to everyone not just individual users), and despite being premised on safety or health concerns prohibition is not a preventative approach. It's like preaching abstinence as a stop against the potential health risks of sexual activity.

[BobKKKindle$]

Alcohol use is damaging to both a developing mind and body.

Even if this was actually true (you have provided no evidence to show that alcohol does have this effect, and some reports suggest that alcohol may have a positive impact on blood circulation) this would not be sufficient justification for preventing people from drinking, because there are may other things which are harmful (or have the potential to harm) which we are still allowed to do - the most obvious example being contact sports. People should be allowed to do anything they want, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of other people who have not consented to being harmed.

[Devrim]

Even if this was actually true (you have provided no evidence to show that alcohol does have this effect, and some reports suggest that alcohol may have a positive impact on blood circulation)...

Of course it is true, and there is loads of evidence to prove it.

Devrim

[Demogorgon]

Sixteen. That is the age at which I think one should legally be able to buy it. As it is best that children drink small amounts of alcohol to get them used to it, parents should be allowed to give them alcohol in the home. I would keep the UK age of five for that. Though parents should still be prosecuted for giving children excessive alcohol.

[Mujer Libre]

Of course it is true, and there is loads of evidence to prove it.

Devrim
Certainly, alcohol abuse causes significant (massive!)physical and mental illness, but I don't think that setting what is necessarily an arbitrary minimum age on consumption is the solution (this part isn't really directed at you, since I dont know what your stance is). I mean, we have one now, and kids drink far more than they should, so do adults.

I think education and just... talking about being responsible drinking, and about the consequences of alcohol abuse is a far more successful strategy. Also, I think Demogorgon is onto something with the idea of taking away the taboos associated with alcohol by letting kids drink a little, which makes alcohol much less thrilling, and exposes them to responsible drinking.

And of course, I don't believe that people should be punished for doing something to their own bodies, even if it is harmful.

[apathy maybe]

Tragic (TC), Black Dagger, Bobkindles and Mujer Libre have all said very good points (and would all be getting cookies except that I don't give cookies to people with two bars (last time I did that the bugger went to three bars), and I can't give one to Bob just yet), and I don't really feel the need to say anything more.

Actually, not true,

Of course it [the effects of alcohol on a developing body] is true, and there is loads of evidence to prove it.
Yes. However, punishing children for drinking is not the answer. For proper children (say under about 10), the simplest thing to do is to keep the stuff out of reach. For teenagers, education is the biggest thing that the community, and those who are raising the children, can do.

We don't say to a fifteen year old, "you shall not drink" and, "you shall not have sex", because they are going to do it anyway. And studies have shown many times that sex education means that that 15 year old is going to practice safe sex, without education, they'll still have sex, but it won't be safe. And the same with drinking. They are going to drink anyway (I did, almost everyone at my school would have as well), so the best thing to do is to education them.

And don't punish them, because they'll do it anyway, and try harder not to get caught.

[BobKKKindle$]

Of course it is true, and there is loads of evidence to prove it.

There are obvious harms which can arise if someone decides to drink large quantities of alcohol over an extended period of time - but this is clearly not the typical behaviour of young people, as most people are aware of how much they should drink and so are unlikely to be faced with any serious health problems, and for the small minority who are susceptible to alcohol abuse, it is unlikely that laws would actually discourage them from drinking, because they exhibit symptoms which are typical of substance addiction.

The positions put forward in this discussion are symptomatic of the alarmist attitudes which are frequently expressed by governments on the subject of drinking, particularly amongst young people. In the UK, the government has condemned the consumption of alcohol in public places on the grounds that public drinking erodes the safety of the local community and poses a threat to the personal health of teenagers who are not mature enough to know when they should stop drinking (such that the police and community support officers now have the power to confiscate alcohol from teenagers even when they are not disturbing other members of the community) and the government has also banned drinking on the underground system, despite the relative absence of unruly incidents. This is basically an attempt to treat teenagers (and people in general in the case of the underground ban) as incapable of regulating their own behaviour, despite the lack of scientific basis for "adolescence" as a meaningful biological concept, and the paternalistic content of these initiatives. This paternalistic trend also includes a sexist dimension, as the fact that more women are now drinking and getting drunk (which could only be viewed as a positive thing, as women were once denied the right to participate socially on an equal basis with men) has encouraged commentators to criticize what is seen as a trend towards a binge-drinking culture, despite the fact that men have always engaged in this kind of behaviour and have never received similar criticism.

[Demogorgon]

There is talk of it being wrong to punish kids for drinking. I agree with that, my position is that shops or bars should be punished for selling to under 16s, not the other way round.

[TC]

It is well know that alcohol effects the development of a child's body.


Nope, sorry, you confuse myths made popular because they provide a convenient excuse for adults to excuse their hypocritical paternalism with medical fact.

It is a popular myth that alcohol effects physical development, it has yet to be proven as a medical fact, despite numerous attempts by right-wing anti-alcohol researchers to do so.

Even published reviews that attempt to argue for more severe penalities for underage drinking such as this one: http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/AA67/AA67.htm admit that at best alcohol simply may effect development but that this is merely a matter of speculation and no such effect has been scientifically demonstrated!

What the same published review cited above also says is this:


the severe health problems associated with harmful alcohol use are not as common in adolescents [who drink] as they are in adults[who drink],

[QUOTE] young drinkers are able to consume much larger amounts of alcohol than adults (17) before experiencing the negative consequences of drinking, such as drowsiness, lack of coordination, and withdrawal/hangover effects (18,19). This unusual tolerance may help to explain the high rates of binge drinking among young adults. At the same time, adolescents appear to be particularly sensitive to the positive effects of drinking, such as feeling more at ease in social situations, and young people may drink more than adults because of these positive social experiences (18,19). [quote]

It seems that you are not only wrong, but in fact the medical reality is the opposite: alcohol (like many other things) is worth for adults than for adolescents.

Sorry that you can't use science to excuse your bourgeois morality and paternalism (which by the way, would not be justified as an excuse even if your false claims were in fact true).

Smashing bourgeois morality, the ideological framework that justifies control not only of children but all of us, is precisely why general emancipation from oppression requires a cultural revolution in addition to a social and political revolution.

[TC]

For me the bottom line is that regardless of health issues, people should not be punished by the state for what they choose to consume.


Absolutely: if harming one's own body is punishable, the implied conclusion is that your body is at least partial property of the state, that it contains personal interests that can be violated other than your own. The idea of this is reprehensible.

[TC]

But 18+ Is just terrible. It means more people do harmful drugs and crime instead to pass time.

More harmful drugs, such as what? Apart from tobacco (legal at a younger age most places) and heroin (expensive and unpopular), alcohol is by far the most physically damaging drug around (and I say this as someone who approves of drugs of all sorts including alcohol so no moral judgment there).

The lethal to effective toxicity ratio for alcohol exceeds nearly all recreational drugs (apart from heroin, alcohol is the easiest drug to overdose to death on), the chronic effects of overuse are worse than nearly all other recreational drugs (except inhaled tobacco), its nearly the most addictive (apart from nicotine) and alcohol is the only recreational drug with potentially lethal withdrawal symptoms (not even heroin withdrawal is as bad).

[Devrim]

Nope, sorry, you confuse myths made popular because they provide a convenient excuse for adults to excuse their hypocritical paternalism with medical fact.

From the report you quoted:


Growth and Endocrine Effects—In both males and females, puberty is a period associated with marked hormonal changes, including increases in the sex hormones, estrogen and testosterone. These hormones, in turn, increase production of other hormones and growth factors (50), which are vital for normal organ development. Drinking alcohol during this period of rapid growth and development (i.e., prior to or during puberty) may upset the critical hormonal balance necessary for normal development of organs, muscles, and bones. Studies in animals also show that consuming alcohol during puberty adversely affects the maturation of the reproductive system (51).


Sorry that you can't use science to excuse your bourgeois morality and paternalism (which by the way, would not be justified as an excuse even if your false claims were in fact true).

Please show an example of my 'bourgeois morality and paternalism' from this thread, or admit that you are throwing insults at me which have nothing whatsoever to do with the ideas I hold.

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

Absolutely: if harming one's own body is punishable, the implied conclusion is that your body is at least partial property of the state, that it contains personal interests that can be violated other than your own. The idea of this is reprehensible.

Oh good grief.

You are strictly forbidden from selling yourself into slavery; does that mean that you are partially property of the State?

Humans, and their bodies, are not property, and the rules regarding them are not property laws.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

its nearly the most addictive (apart from nicotine)

Well, this part is certainly false. Alcohol is arguably one of the least adictive drugs; you can use it regularly for years before becoming addicted. In fact, it is the drug for which the distinction between "social use" and "addiction" was invented, and arguably the one for which it makes more sence.

Luís Henrique

[TC]

From the report you quoted:


Read that quote a tad bit more carefully, it says that they may not that they do, in other words they are speculating because they don't know that it causes any such developmental effects, they just wonder that, you know, it may. They can't provide evidence for this speculation, thats why they wrote it the way that they did.

Wishful thinking on their part, wishful thinking on your part, the difference is that while both want to support bourgeois ideological paternalism, they wont claim that something is actually the case when its not as you do, they admit to speculating.

[TC]

Oh good grief.

You are strictly forbidden from selling yourself into slavery; does that mean that you are partially property of the State?

No of course not, the fact that human beings do not belong to anyone but themselves entails that one may not transfer rights over oneself to others. Having such non-transferable status is part of the exclusive status of personal rights not evidence against them (to make a comparison that someone as wedded to bourgeois thinking as you might appreciate, a trustee of a trust may often not abdicate their responsibility and control over it to a third party under the terms of their trust, so they retain responsibility for what third parties they subcontract do with the trust, this naturally does not mean that they do not have the responsibility and control to begin with only that this relationship is exclusive and non-transferable).


Please quote one example, as I asked before, of me 'supporting' bourgeois paternalism', or withdraw your absurd allegations.

You seem not to grasp the fact that you are not in a position to expect inane requests of me to be met. I don't have the time or inclination to humour every idiot on this forum and if I did I'd be here all day.

When you attempt to play internet forum warrior and the worthiness of your contribution dips below the minimum worth responding to, i'm just going to ignore you. I'm not here to score telling points like on a neurotic highschool debating team, so i'm not going to be drawn into your pettiness. If you persist in attempting to draw me into repeating myself or offering explanations for the sake of entertaining your rhetoric in the future, you will simply be wasting your time and receive no response as I will not permit you to waste mine.

[Jia]

More harmful drugs, such as what? Apart from tobacco (legal at a younger age most places) and heroin (expensive and unpopular), alcohol is by far the most physically damaging drug around (and I say this as someone who approves of drugs of all sorts including alcohol so no moral judgment there).

The lethal to effective toxicity ratio for alcohol exceeds nearly all recreational drugs (apart from heroin, alcohol is the easiest drug to overdose to death on), the chronic effects of overuse are worse than nearly all other recreational drugs (except inhaled tobacco), its nearly the most addictive (apart from nicotine) and alcohol is the only recreational drug with potentially lethal withdrawal symptoms (not even heroin withdrawal is as bad).

Please.. I'm totally new to this. Go easy :p

I just believe that the more harmful drugs (Such as Heroin, Cocaine) Are more likely to be taken if drinking age is too high.

For one simple example my young relative in the US has their front door ripped off for they do drugs, and her mother always wants to look at her.

The other one, who lives in the UK, has never taken drugs and drinks lightly instead.

[Luís Henrique]

No of course not, the fact that human beings do not belong to anyone but themselves entails that one may not transfer rights over oneself to others.

But then the relation between a person and her body cannot be one of property or ownership; property is utere et abutere; it is transferable by definition.


Having such non-transferable status is part of the exclusive status of personal rights not evidence against them (to make a comparison that someone as wedded to bourgeois thinking as you might appreciate, a trustee of a trust may often not abdicate their responsibility and control over it to a third party under the terms of their trust, so they retain responsibility for what third parties they subcontract do with the trust, this naturally does not mean that they do not have the responsibility and control to begin with only that this relationship is exclusive and non-transferable).

But that's exactly the point, the relation between the trustee and the trust is not property, which is the reason that it is untransferable...

Luís Henrique

[Lost In Translation]

Why do these threads keep popping up???

Anyways, it really depends on the people. Not everybody is of the same build and equal physically. However, I really do think kids under the age of 10 should refrain from partaking in alcohol. Otherwise, I chose a random number (18).

[Revolutiondownunder]

let the commune decide democratically. keep laws like this decentralized so they only copver areas where they are needed.

Yeah that sounds best. I voted 16 but that sounds much better.

[Comrade B]

Why do these threads keep popping up???
Looking at the similar threads listed below, there were really only 2 posts like this before, and they were both from 2003.

[lombas]

I have drunk wine with my supper since I was about thirteen.

[Chapter 24]

I voted eighteen, just 'cause. That's right... just 'cause. Although I wouldn't be opposed to a drinking age as early as 16. 16 is just a sound number to me. 18, however, is sounder, yet clearly not as strict as 21.
EDIT: By the way, can anyone here tell me about alcohol useage in the Soviet Union?

[lombas]

I voted eighteen, just 'cause. That's right... just 'cause. Although I wouldn't be opposed to a drinking age as early as 16. 16 is just a sound number to me. 18, however, is sounder, yet clearly not as strict as 21.
EDIT: By the way, can anyone here tell me about alcohol useage in the Soviet Union?

So you want sound numbers and for that reason fuck up other people's ideas about how to raise their own children?

[Comrade B]

At the age of 15 I began drinking with my friends. My parents stopped caring when I turned 16.

I have been educated by my parents, who knew that I would naturally drink later in my life, about safe drinking habits, and I follow them.

Drinking age limits only result in drunk driving and dangerous drinking habits.

A method my friends often use is going into ally ways and chugging as much alcohol as possible before heading out and hanging out. Just yesterday one of them had to go to the hospital because of alcohol poisoning, in fact. I know better than to take part in this.

Because my parents have established only a few, very reasonable rules for my life, I feel that I should obey these out of respect. Don't drive while intoxicated, don't get someone pregnant, and don't get addicted to heroine.

My friends on the other hand, deal with a billion rules of alcohol, sex, and other drugs. They listen to none of them. I have realized, over time, that it seems that more religious kids, whose parents make no difference between meth and marijuana, do harder drugs, because they have always been taught that they are equally bad for you. Also, many of my friends with automobiles end up driving home while totally smashed because they know that their parents would be royally pissed at them for having drank, so they just swerve their way home, and sneak into bed. There are plenty of more dangerous things that underage drinkers do to escape punishment.

[Demogorgon]

EDIT: By the way, can anyone here tell me about alcohol useage in the Soviet Union?
It was excessive and restrictions were practically non-existent until Gorbachev. The drinking age was theoretically 18, but they didn't really care about underage drinking. Alcohol was widely available and very cheap and drinking at work was often allowed.

That funnily enough is thought to have been at the route of most health problems in the Soviet Union.

[Chapter 24]

So you want sound numbers and for that reason fuck up other people's ideas about how to raise their own children?

You know to be quite honest I don't exctly have enough information and history to have a strong opinion on the subject. If you have wine with your supper, go ahead. Hopefully it's not a problem to you that in my mind there are just certain numbers that just stand out as being responsible ones. But of course that's not how it works in real life because you could have a very responsible ten year old and a totally irresponsible seventeen year old. If I said that I didn't know what I was talking about would you jump out at me as you just did?

[lombas]

You know to be quite honest I don't exctly have enough information and history to have a strong opinion on the subject. If you have wine with your supper, go ahead. Hopefully it's not a problem to you that in my mind there are just certain numbers that just stand out as being responsible ones. But of course that's not how it works in real life because you could have a very responsible ten year old and a totally irresponsible seventeen year old. If I said that I didn't know what I was talking about would you jump out at me as you just did?

Hell no.

:D

[XII Bones IIX]

I think every one should get on board with Virgina. Lower the drinking age to 18 if you can take shot in another country you should be able to take shots in a bar.

[The Spirit of 1918]

Answered 18.
Finnish drinking culture being what it is, I really dont want to see more teens downing Koskenkorva, picking fights with strangers and passing out in the snow.

But hell, I started my career as a ne're do well drunkard when my older brother taught me how to make kilju, I was 12.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't think anyone should be punished for consuming alcohol (well - so long as they're not driving or flying), but you can certainly add stipulations to land that say there should not be a distribution to X group. Like the age of consent thread, I think it should be taken on a case-by-case basis, with ignorance substituting non-consent.

[Guerrilla22]

No one using alcohol is going to resonsible, whether they are 21 or not.

[Comrade B]

No one using alcohol is going to resonsible, whether they are 21 or not.
Do you drink? Perhaps it is more of a personal problem than universal.
I can personally say I am a responsible drinker. I don't drive, I don't get angry, I also know my limit and don't exceed it. I have never passed out and I have never vomited from drinking.

[Ken]

anyone at any age should be allowed to drink alcohol, and if i see a seven year old drinking whisky in the streets i will slap him.

[Leo]

I would not support any state restriction on it, since it will be pointless in this regard and in fact be serving another agenda, but I think 13 is a reasonable age to start.

That's when I started anyway.

[Ken]

did you get drunk at 13?

thats not good...

[Comrade B]

did you get drunk at 13?

thats not good...
Humans have a right to be dumb asses.
It is up to parents to teach their children safety, not the state.

[Leo]

did you get drunk at 13?Actually I started buying alcohol myself and drinking with friends when I was 13.

I must have gotten drunk with family the year before that two or three times.


thats not good...It was quite nice actually.


Humans have a right to be dumb asses.
It is up to parents to teach their children safetyIs teaching a child that alcohol is not a big deal rather than saying "oh alcohol is so bad" being a "dumb ass"?

[Comrade B]

Is teaching a child that alcohol is not a big deal rather than saying "oh alcohol is so bad" being a "dumb ass"?didn't really mean to direct that at anyone in particular, I think is is solely based on how you use the alcohol.
I meant that, whether you think it a good decision or not, a person has the right to make it.

[cop an Attitude]

I said 16 but i think it should be more of a guidline than a law. anything before 16 can cause health risks. 16 is also a mature enough age to chose to drink. Its etheir 16 or no restrictions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There should be no age restrictions. If a kid wants to drink, he's going to find a way to get alcohol one way or another - it's one of the world's most popular drugs. I think we should instead teach older kids and young teenagers (the groups most likely to be trying alcohol for the first time) to get the most of alcohol - how to get pleasantly buzzed without puking up, how to recognise addiction and what to do about it if one wants to stop, and so on.

If alcohol is "forbidden fruit", then kids and young teenagers end up drinking without any kind of guidance from more experienced drinkers, and deaths and anti-social behaviour are the results.

[Module]

There should be no age restriction, but responsible drinking should obviously be encouraged.
No age restriction is necessary while responsible drinking is effectively encouraged, and trying to protect teenagers from drinking seems to be counter productive.
If you treat individuals like responsible equals, no matter what age, they are more likely to act like it.

[Jazzratt]

1) It should be noted that, from a medical perspective, the best age to start drinking is 14/15 or any time after that. Before that the body is considerably more vulnerable to alcohol related complications.

2) The best way to avoid people being stupid drunken pricks is to start them early and teach them respect for alcohol. I started fairly late (15/16) and had absolutely fuck all respect for booze, so my first few experiences were deeply unpleasent (I vomited on someone's ceiling at one point). Trial and error is not the best way to do this.

3) Considering most people are lucid enough to decide for themselves what they should do at a fairly young age if there are de jure restrictions on alcohol the age should be around that of the age of consent. I don't think their should be restrictions but 13-15 as an age range has a lot going for it. Anything more than that is just inviting trouble.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No limit
If the commune were to hold a vote I would strongly advocate for no age limits

even babies can drink limited amounts of booze with no ill effects

If you told 10 year old Dr. Rosenpenis that he wasn't allowed to drink an innocent little glass of kir royal with his family at christmas or whatever, I would have kicked you in that balls

[Killfacer]

Like most brits i started drinking heavily when i was 14. I have no problem with the way things are at Britain at this current time, although i would be open to changing the laws.

It's part of growing old, trying to get served in about 8 different places until you find a dodgy eastern european off license which would sell porn to a toddler and you buy some blackthorn and hang out in a park.

[Rjevan]

Drinking should be allowed for everyone who's at least 13.
Almost everybody I know was allowed to drink a glass of wine at his birthday-party or at christmas when he was 12. But I'm against no drinking restrictions at all, because I don't like the idea of 6 year old alcoholics.

[INDK]

13-15. I started drinking at 14 and at that point I was thinking responsibly enough to not go and kill myself, I learned my limits and was sensible. Of course, I wasn't taught; there were a few nights I went to far and threw up all night till I passed out, but I knew not to drink that much again. I think around 13, 14 is when you start to be more sensible. You're still young, but you are getting older. So yeah, I voted 13-15.

I mean, this is pre-revolutionary, right? Post-revolutionary I'd advocate no drinking age at all, Anarchist theory says people can manage themselves under Anarchism and I believe that. No 9 year old, and no parent of a 9 year old would let them anyway, would go drinking all night.

[Jazzratt]

But I'm against no drinking restrictions at all, because I don't like the idea of 6 year old alcoholics.

Yeah. I'm against the idea of alcoholics full stop, perhaps we should ban drinking altogether?

[ev]

Fuck that, drink responsibly. These laws should be decentralized to the local councils, I'm fine with 18.

Drink & party like Yeltsin!
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/04/24/js24w_yeltsin_wideweb__470x343,0.jpg
Peace!

[Das war einmal]

While I dont really care if dumb *****es like to prematurely damage their brains, alcohol abuse is a burden to outstanders aswell.

[Bilan]

The legislation against drinking is pretty pointless. By and large, young people just abuse it anyway, and there are so many ways to get alcohol that the law really means shit all. The only thing is, if you're under 18 you can't get into a pub or club or drink. So, a park suffices.
Education is the key, not legislative drinking restrictions.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

While I dont really care if dumb *****es like to prematurely damage their brains, alcohol abuse is a burden to outstanders aswell.

Go fuck yourself.

Did you ever think that people are smart enough to know if they are willing to risk the health risks to benefit from the enjoyment of alcohol.

To make both the health risks and the benefits clear we need proper information not the "if you drink you will think your spiderman and fall of a roof and die" style adverts we have had recently.

[Killfacer]

Go fuck yourself.

Did you ever think that people are smart enough to know if they are willing to risk the health risks to benefit from the enjoyment of alcohol.

To make both the health risks and the benefits clear we need proper information not the "if you drink you will think your spiderman and fall of a roof and die" style adverts we have had recently.

You think anybody is actually going to pay attention to and advert which just has information and nobody falling off a building?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I dont mean adverts i mean education any the like. All we got taught about beer was "dont drink it - you get drunk and fall of buildings like on the tele". The effects and bonuses of alcohol need to be common knowledge unlike today when early teens find out about how alochoal though trial and error.

[Das war einmal]

Go fuck yourself.

Did you ever think that people are smart enough to know if they are willing to risk the health risks to benefit from the enjoyment of alcohol.

To make both the health risks and the benefits clear we need proper information not the "if you drink you will think your spiderman and fall of a roof and die" style adverts we have had recently.
Hah, our government has been trying that, the most funny to the most brutal campaigns to prevent the youth from drinking too much, do you think it helps?

[Das war einmal]

Go fuck yourself.

Did you ever think that people are smart enough to know if they are willing to risk the health risks to benefit from the enjoyment of alcohol.

To make both the health risks and the benefits clear we need proper information not the "if you drink you will think your spiderman and fall of a roof and die" style adverts we have had recently.


In what country do you live that they dont give you proper information? They must really hate youngsters there

[Das war einmal]

The legislation against drinking is pretty pointless. By and large, young people just abuse it anyway, and there are so many ways to get alcohol that the law really means shit all. The only thing is, if you're under 18 you can't get into a pub or club or drink. So, a park suffices.
Education is the key, not legislative drinking restrictions.


It could help if they stopped selling breezers and other lemonade like alcoholic drinks

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Hah, our government has been trying that, the most funny to the most brutal campaigns to prevent the youth from drinking too much, do you think it helps?

No of course not. Everyone just things "oh alright i wont climb about on roofs then".

[Dosoftei]

It should be restricted because alchool is the reason of the majority of all this accedents and everything else

[Jazzratt]

It should be restricted because alchool is the reason of the majority of all this accedents and everything else

1. Extraordinary claim, please present your extraordinary evidence.

2. What the fuck do you mean by "everything else"?

[Rjevan]

It should be restricted because alchool is the reason of the majority of all this accedents and everything else
Apart from that what Jazzratt said it would just make things worse. Remember the prohibition in America in the twenties which led to the golden age of the mafia.

[Ephydriad]

as a straight edger i believe there should be no restrictions..
we should be looking into the sources of drinking problems in our society, though, and curbing the reasons for alcoholism etc...
you don't belong to the state.
i just don't think that you can be fully aware and ready to support the revolution if you're intoxicated...
the same attitude for drugs.
legalisation and strong discouragement, and efforts to curb abuse.

[Rousedruminations]

yes i agree, the state should not punish anyone for what they consume, in this case, its alcohol. Yet it is a mere fact that that alcohol consumption if taken excessively eventuating into binge drinking, can be a problem among the masses, and thus can be a chosen lifestyle, that people may gregariously adopt through social inclusion and peer-pressure. So punishable no, but a limit yes.... possibly by thorough and meticulous education of the masses on these matters.

[Pogue]

Around 14-15-16 is when most young people start getting seriously interested in alcohol, so around then.

[Ephydriad]

Around 14-15-16 is when most young people start getting seriously interested in alcohol, so around then.

obviously if they're drinking that young (at least in the US) they're already disobeying the age restrictions, so really what's the point in having them at all?
what needs regulation is the advertisement industry that makes it seem like alcohol is the only way to be cool and fit in in the first place -- like joe camel for cigarettes.

[Charles Xavier]

around 8 for wine and 16 for spirits and beer.

[CommieCat]

I don't understand your distinction; wine typically has far higher levels of alcohol content; the standard wine drink is smaller (less than half?) than the standard beer drink.

[Jazzratt]

I don't understand your distinction; wine typically has far higher levels of alcohol content; the standard wine drink is smaller (less than half?) than the standard beer drink.

Quite right. Beyond that I'd also like to ask Tupac 2 why he slected those ages - they seem fairly arbitrary.

My guesses as to reasons though: in a number of cultures around europe children are often allowed a little wine with their meals, so perhaps that's why? (Then again they are usually allowed beer too. In the UK, for example, I believe [could be talking out of my arse] that from the age of about 14 you can order a glass of beer, cider or wine with your meal. You may also have any booze your parents give to you within your own home from the age of 5). Also a lot of people like to carp on (and on and on aand on) about how healthy a glass of wine is - antioxidants yadayada - another reason to allow it to be consumed first?

Personally I don't think one should be able to drink until one has enough adult teeth to open a beer bottle (i.e I'm still completly unsure as to where a good limit would be).

[Josef Balin]

Quite right. Beyond that I'd also like to ask Tupac 2 why he slected those ages - they seem fairly arbitrary.

My guesses as to reasons though: in a number of cultures around europe children are often allowed a little wine with their meals, so perhaps that's why? (Then again they are usually allowed beer too. In the UK, for example, I believe [could be talking out of my arse] that from the age of about 14 you can order a glass of beer, cider or wine with your meal. You may also have any booze your parents give to you within your own home from the age of 5). Also a lot of people like to carp on (and on and on aand on) about how healthy a glass of wine is - antioxidants yadayada - another reason to allow it to be consumed first?

Personally I don't think one should be able to drink until one has enough adult teeth to open a beer bottle (i.e I'm still completly unsure as to where a good limit would be).
Why? Why arbitrarily say that different states of mind are necessarily bad?

[Jazzratt]

Why? Why arbitrarily say that different states of mind are necessarily bad?

I'm not entirely sure how you got that from my post? I was wondering why Tupac 2 held the position he did and offering suggestions. I don't think I mentioned different states of mind being necessarily bad. If you're referring to the last part of my post - that was one of these things called a "joke". The only reasons I would restrict alcohol to younger people would be the toxic effects on underdeveloped organs, although even that is iffy.

But yeah, where were you getting the idea that I condemn drunkeness or other non-sober mindstates (if you'd ever met me you'd understand why I'm thoroughly confused by this insinuation)?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't think there needs to be a drinking age, but parents should be held responsible for the health of their children so long as they're claiming custody.

[eisidisirock]

I think it works ok with 18+

[thinkerOFthoughts]

I dont think their should be an age limit. This would actually help society at large (like statistically in Europe) learn how to drink in moderation. Most families that can actually have a glass of wine at dinner (all ages) wont be so prone to drunkardness because they, are able to practice moderation.

[Eleftherios]

no age. it shouldn't be up to the state to decide what people put in their bodies.

[eisidisirock]

Fuck yeah it should. The state can't just watch they're country taking drugs and being drunk all the time.

[Rangi]

It's my choice what chemicals I ingest/snort/inject and not the state.

[jaxik]

I dont think people should be told they cant do anything unless they physically cant do it. If you can drink alcohol, even though it may have negative effects on you at a young age, you should be allowed to do it. Natural selection states that the weak will fail and the strong will survive, being able to say no to somthing that is healthy for you is intelligent, though i do drink amongst other things, intelligence is the leading factor in being able to survive. As humans we are no different than animals, we just have the intelligence that makes us semi superior to those we supercede on the food chain.

[NecroCommie]

Ban alcohol completely. A dangerous poison that can only harm society in the long run. Even though I would ban alcohol, I would not punish people violating this ban, but I would simply have him labeled irresponsible in front of the community. The community would decide wether they enforce the label or not.

I can already hear the anarchists of this forum banging on my door shouting: "no government should deside on what we can put to our bodies!" Sure thing, but I've seen what happens when alcohol becomes legalized, and that aint something I would want my children to live in. Same goes for drugs smoking and coffee.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Ban alcohol completely. A dangerous poison that can only harm society in the long run. Even though I would ban alcohol, I would not punish people violating this ban, but I would simply have him labeled irresponsible in front of the community. The community would decide wether they enforce the label or not.

I can already hear the anarchists of this forum banging on my door shouting: "no government should deside on what we can put to our bodies!" Sure thing, but I've seen what happens when alcohol becomes legalized, and that aint something I would want my children to live in. Same goes for drugs smoking and coffee.

That's utterly ridiculous.

[Demogorgon]

Ban alcohol completely. A dangerous poison that can only harm society in the long run. Even though I would ban alcohol, I would not punish people violating this ban, but I would simply have him labeled irresponsible in front of the community. The community would decide wether they enforce the label or not.

I can already hear the anarchists of this forum banging on my door shouting: "no government should deside on what we can put to our bodies!" Sure thing, but I've seen what happens when alcohol becomes legalized, and that aint something I would want my children to live in. Same goes for drugs smoking and coffee.
Have you seen what happens when alcohol is banned?

Just finished a lovely pint there. Think I might have to have one last one before I go to bed.

[Bitter Ashes]

I'd say that it's dependant upon the age of majority.
If you're deemed able to become informed enough to cast a vote, which effects everyone, then you should be informed enough to have a drink which effects your own body.
I dont particualy mind what age that is, regardless of the higher health impacts that younger drinking has, so long as the person making that choice has been deemed able to aknowledge the risks and accept the responsibility for the consquences to thier own body. :)

[Dr Mindbender]

i voted 16, based purely on scientific evidence that was publicised on television here recently that drinking before 16 can hinder brain development.

[LOLseph Stalin]

It should be legal at 18. I think it's stupid that the government can trust people in the military with a loaded weapon, but not to go out and enjoy a few drinks with friends.

[Bitter Ashes]

It should be legal at 18. I think it's stupid that the government can trust people in the military with a loaded weapon, but not to go out and enjoy a few drinks with friends.
That's a very good reason. At the same time, I would like to point out though that the British Army begins recruitment at 15...

[Glorious Union]

Drinking restrictions shouldn't matter on age, but rather the person's responsability in consumption.

Same goes for just about everything else that is addicting, impairs judgement, or damages a person's physical/mental health.

[piet11111]

16 seems alright with me but its more of a do-not-sell to underaged people thing then an actual drinking age.

if parents allow their kids to drink at a younger age then its up to them but if they could get alcohol themselves i would expect peer pressure to force kids to get drunk at every party and that would be bad for their health.

[fanoflenin]

If you have to go to war for the USA you ought to be able to drink your sorrows of war away. I also feel it should be taxed much more heavily to pay for the damn health crisis it has managed to put upon this nation. :crying:

[LOLseph Stalin]

That's a very good reason. At the same time, I would like to point out though that the British Army begins recruitment at 15...

I was referring to the US and Canada specifically. In those countries people can join the military at age 18, but the drinking age is even higher.

[political_animal]

Erm, can we not have another option that considers that an individuals ability/right to do anything shouldn't be based on age? Different people mature at different ages and for this reason I have always found it unacceptable/pointless to base anything on age.

As there wasn't an option for that on the poll, I voted 16 as this is the age (certainly in the UK) when you start being accepted as an adult (being able to legally marry/become sexually active/join the armed forces). If there are going to be age-based restrictions, I don't understand why there is a disparity for various things - driving (17), drinking/smoking/voting (18), becoming an MP (21). If one is considered an adult at a certain age, it should apply across the board. But as I said above, I find the whole notion of age based restrictions pointless, but that doesn't mean I agree with there being 'no drinking restrictions'.

Sorry for being awkward :confused:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

i voted 16, based purely on scientific evidence that was publicised on television here recently that drinking before 16 can hinder brain development.

Im more then capable of working out if the entertainment of drinking is worth the health risks, thank you very much.


I also heard on the news that leaving the house can get you hit by a car. Should we ban kids from leaving their homes?

[Jazzratt]

I also heard on the news that leaving the house can get you hit by a car. Should we ban kids from leaving their homes?

Doors should have patronising labels on them that alert people to this fact.

[Louise Michel]

Ban alcohol completely. A dangerous poison that can only harm society in the long run. Even though I would ban alcohol, I would not punish people violating this ban, but I would simply have him labeled irresponsible in front of the community. The community would decide wether they enforce the label or not.

I can already hear the anarchists of this forum banging on my door shouting: "no government should deside on what we can put to our bodies!" Sure thing, but I've seen what happens when alcohol becomes legalized, and that aint something I would want my children to live in. Same goes for drugs smoking and coffee.

I guess you've had some bad experiences with drunks but is it really right to generalize this to every body who drinks (or takes drugs, or smokes, or drinks coffee!?) Besides which drugs are both illegal and widely available and their illegality makes them more dangerous (impure substances and so on).

[Comrade_Red]

Just because we don't have an 'anything goes,' 'if it feels good, do it' mentality, doesn't mean we're 'self-identifying leftists who retain bourgeois morality.'

[Comrade_Red]

in the United States, the age should be 18.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Just because we don't have an 'anything goes,' 'if it feels good, do it' mentality, doesn't mean we're 'self-identifying leftists who retain bourgeois morality.'

Yes it does. You have a "we know whats best for you" attitude. The kind of attitude that makes me want to punch babies.

[Jazzratt]

in the United States, the age should be 18.

18 to do something banned?

I've never really met ant teetotallers yet all of my friends and family do not appear to be suffering liver failure or any kind of chronic addiction. :rolleyes:

[Alejandrus89]

Well, I think everybody can do watever he wants, so if a boy wants to be an alcoholic, it depends on the home education, but the gov can not avoid the fact that the prohibited stuff is more atractive. So, no restrictions for drinks..

[RedAnarchist]

Well, I think everybody can do watever he wants, so if a boy wants to be an alcoholic, it depends on the home education, but the gov can not avoid the fact that the prohibited stuff is more atractive. So, no restrictions for drinks..

I realise that you probably didn't mean to, but why only boys? Can girls not also get drunk?

I voted for no restrictions, because no law is as stupid or useless as one which punishes you for doing something that could potentially cause you harm.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

I chose you can't at any age.But I think that theres no limit but restictions