US Drinking Age

Here in australia the idea of upping the legal drinking age to 21 was suggested, and immediately shot down by all the parents of 18 year old military personnel for exactly the same reason as previously outlined.

Insofar as drink driving goes, I agree that the penalties should be stricter, however, I do believe that they should be scaled depending on BAC and circumstance.

For example, a friend of mine was called away not long ago due to an EXTREMELY urgent family emergency. He had been drinking, and due to the location and time, had no choice but to drive. He was pulled over and blew over the legal limit. He challenged the charge in court and his penalty was reduced due to mitigating circumstances.

Can you imagine his situation if the laws did not allow for leniency under exceptional circumstances?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosuav
A DUI expires after three months?

---

I'm sure it's more than 3 months. I don't know what it is for sure. I was just trying to show how minimal our fines seem to be for repeat DUIs.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maelgrim

For example, a friend of mine was called away not long ago due to an EXTREMELY urgent family emergency. He had been drinking, and due to the location and time, had no choice but to drive. He was pulled over and blew over the legal limit. He challenged the charge in court and his penalty was reduced due to mitigating circumstances.

Can you imagine his situation if the laws did not allow for leniency under exceptional circumstances?

---

Yeah. It would mean that maybe he would have not driven.

I don't see why its fair that everyone else on the road had their lives put at stake because this guy had a family emergency. Why is his family more important than everyone else's family?

He should have called a cab or found some other method of transport.

It is not acceptable, in my view, for him to get to put everyone else's lives at risk just because his family had a problem.

I still think 1 year mandatory prison time for your first offense with no exceptions.

NOTE: Not to get too into the legalities, but I still the actus reus should have to be proven. In other words, that you actually drank. If someone else injected alcohol into your body and then put you in a car, there would be no actus reus and thus you would not be guilty of the crime. I am only noting this for the sake of completeness.

Lowering the drinking age is sort of tough for me to comment on. On one hand I hear what you guys are saying about how someone being eighteen is an adult in so many ways (I joined the Army at seventeen), so why can't they drink? I guess I agree that it should be lowered in that light, my only reservation comes from the medical impact, if any. Does anyone know if an 18 year-old's liver is more susceptible to damage than a 21 year old's?

DUI. You're being too lenient in my opinion, Aristotle. Prison for a year, and you lose your license forever. If I get in my car right now, and go driving through the city shooting a pistol out the window, I would never be allowed to own a gun again. If I drive through the city risking everyone's life with my car, I should never be allowed to drive again.

The only friends I've ever lost were killed by drunk drivers. I don't tolerate it, I don't suffer it to be done, I dumped my fiance when I caught her drinking and driving. I quit my last job when my boss got busted for a DUI, because I don't work with lunatics.

Don't do it. It's such a dishonorable act, and people will die.

I'm not sure why there is a legal drinking age at all. If you're under 18, such decisions should be made by parents. If you're over 18, the age where the law considers you to be legally responsible for your own actions, then the decision should rest in your own hands.

Drinking is only one part of the drinking + driving equation. More emphasis should be placed on the driving part. If you're caught driving drunk, you should have your license snatched. However, I also think you should have your license taken away if you fall asleep while driving. So much emphasis is placed on deaths caused by drunk driving that people overlook those cause by tired drivers. These accidents are caused by the exact same reasons - slower response time, impaired vision, and inability to make proper judgments. The only difference is that it's a lot easier to quantify BAC with a handheld device.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aevar


DUI. You're being too lenient in my opinion, Aristotle. Prison for a year, and you lose your license forever.

---

I think that tougher penalties would definitely go a long way towards reducing drunk driving. However, there will still be people who do it anyway, same as they always have. The problem with giving these people automatic jail time is that our prisons are already overcrowded. The number of people arrested for drunk driving would be so significant that it would exacerbate this problem.

Getting anyone to go along with building new prisons nowadays is almost impossible. Besides, don't we already spend enough tax dollars as it is?

Now, the other suggestion, losing your license forever on the first offense, that's made of win. You get busted for DUI, you lose your license, and I think the fines should be raised to ridiculously high levels. You get caught driving after losing the privilege due to DUI (except in life/death emergencies), then maybe it's time to start looking at jail time. Perhaps a DUI should also be upgraded to a felony crime on first offense. I think that these would be excellent alternatives that imply a no-nonsense approach to DUIs without costing taxpayers more. We would just need non-pansy judges to stick to their guns and sentence the convict accordingly.

Killing someone while DUI would also deserve a prison sentence as well, of course.

As a side note, if all of the above penalties were implemented, and the drinking age was lowered to 18, then there would have to be super-massive alcohol education programs in schools to make sure kids know what they're getting into.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Deokoria

Drinking is only one part of the drinking + driving equation. More emphasis should be placed on the driving part. If you're caught driving drunk, you should have your license snatched. However, I also think you should have your license taken away if you fall asleep while driving. So much emphasis is placed on deaths caused by drunk driving that people overlook those cause by tired drivers. These accidents are caused by the exact same reasons - slower response time, impaired vision, and inability to make proper judgments. The only difference is that it's a lot easier to quantify BAC with a handheld device.

---

I agree these other impairments should get more attention, but there is one very significant difference between falling asleep at the wheel and driving drunk: Consuming alcohol is a binary thing. You know that you either did it or didn't do it. If you drank booze, you shouldn't get into a car AT ALL.

One's level of fatigue is a tougher thing to judge. So there is not the same level of recklessness here.

But I agree completely that people "pushing themselves" to drive when they KNOW they are super tired is asinine and also deserves very severe punishments.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jyn
The problem with giving these people automatic jail time is that our prisons are already overcrowded.

---

This is easily solved. Legalize drugs and stop putting people in prison for smoking pot or killing themselves with crack. The last time I read up on this somewhere between 60-80% of our inmates are in for drug related non-violent crimes. Ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jyn

Killing someone while DUI would also deserve a prison sentence as well, of course.

---

I think this should carry the potential of the death penalty.

While my thoughts on the Drinking subject can get in depth I can sum up the key points:

Drinking age 18? Sure, your choice, but beware the consequences.

Drinking and Driving = Attempted Murder/Suicide
Death as Direct Result of Drinking and Driving = Murder/Suicide
...and they should be legally punished under those definitions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
NOTE: Not to get too into the legalities, but I still the actus reus should have to be proven. In other words, that you actually drank. If someone else injected alcohol into your body and then put you in a car, there would be no actus reus and thus you would not be guilty of the crime. I am only noting this for the sake of completeness.

---

Of course. But if you're found behind the wheel and someone had filled you full of alcohol, then you shouldn't be permitted to drive. You may be found innocent of the crime, but there's no way you should be allowed to drive. This is totally tangential, but one thing that annoys me is that there seems to be no difference between "that is not a crime" and "that's alright to do".

Here's an alternative. Instead of arguing as to whether or not the drinking age should be lowered, how about raising the driving age? At the moment, you can (in Victoria) start taking official driving lessons at 16, with the result that you can get your licence on your 18th birthday (I think that's how it goes). You can be driving around with L-plates before you're 18. Now, a car is a pretty heavy piece of machinery. It has a hefty engine in it, and the slightest touch on a control can make that thing VOOM (as long as it's not pining for the fjords). Compare with other pieces of heavy machinery. Do you allow the most junior person in the factory to run the biggest machine, with a bit of supervision if he's under 18? Does every 18-year-old automatically assume that he should be allowed to turn on the massive device that draws three-phase power from four plugs? No. Why should it be automatic that every 18yo can drive a car, to the extent that people express genuine surprise that I don't?

Raise the minimum driving age to 21, or at least make it so you can't start on official lessons until you're actually 18. Yes, it'll be inconvenient for some people. No doubt there'll be people who are trying to be adult in every other way who hate the idea of getting chauffered about by Mum or Dad all the time. Well, most cities have some kind of bus system, and there's always public taxis. Raising the minimum driving age will also reduce the amount of hooning that happens, as the number of hoons over 25 or 30 drops off pretty rapidly.

But I know for sure that THAT will never be implemented - way way too much opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
I am all for lowering the drinking age to 18.

To placate MADD, what if the law did three things:

1) Lower drinking age to 18.

2) Massively increase DUI penalties. First DUI is a mandatory 1 year in prison. No exceptions. Sorry Michael Phelps. Second DUI, 2-10 years in prison. Third, life. All DUI convictions are published on the front page of the local newspaper and announced on all location TV and radio news stations. Also, a web site would be created nationwide to track all DUI offenses. It would be publicly searchable. You could also enter your address and find all DUI offenders near you. It would be like a sex crime offender list.

Driving drunk is a helluva lot more dangerous than people seem to understand and accept. It needs huge penalties and massive public scorn.

3) Increase the punishments for businesses selling or serving alcohol to people under 18.

---

Im fine with all of that. I do not think that the age should just simply be lowered to 18 without a massive re-write of how the law handles DUI and alcohol related crimes.