I lived in Germany for a year as an exchange student when I was 16, the age at which kids can drink without a parent present. They can't get a license until 18. The vast bulk of kids there, in my experience, seemed to figure out sane drinking well before they got behind the wheel.
Coming back to the US and going to college, I watched kids drinking at 18-19 and driving, because they were inexperienced with alcohol, and in a culture that tends to encourage binge drinking.
It'll never happen; the US simply seems culturally incapable of healthy approaches to easing kids through becoming adults on a number of dimensions.
I couldn't agree more, and numerous problems are pretty much a direct result.
I grew up in Europe. I was planning on letting my kid try a small glass of wine with food in their early teens. But doing so in the US, I actually risk jail and loss of parental custody. Let that sink in...
The US has a really unhealthy attitude towards alcohol that results in binge drinking and excess in college, and society here almost prefers it that way which is depressing.
PS - I know many parents ignore these laws, but the point remains, the law makes no exception for parental consent or at home.
This may seem kind of bizarre, and perhaps the criteria in many states need to be made clearer and more objective, but it's not an inconsistent position. In many contexts the law allows parents to expose their kids to different kinds of risks, but if the overall amount of risk is considered too high, then the parents' fitness may be questioned. In the alcohol context, a judge might consider that letting children drink at meals in their parents' presence was not unfit parenting, but knowingly allowing the children to drink every day without any supervision was.
This is true for several states.
My middle son turned 21 (legal drinking age here in the US) a couple of weeks ago. He never drank at all as a "kid." You couldn't give him a glass of wine at a holiday dinner, or a beer to watch a ball game or anything. Neither myself nor his mother were a part of his birthday celebration. I was honestly quite worried that he would be out with friends and have his first experience go horribly wrong. He has no idea how it will affect him. (Thankfully all turned out ok).
> Can an underage person possess and consume alcohol beverages on licensed premises?
> Yes. Persons under age 21 may possess and consume alcohol beverages if they are with their parents, guardians or spouses of legal drinking age; but this is at the discretion of the licensee. The licensed premise may choose to prohibit consumption and possession of alcohol beverages by underage persons.
But contrast it with Utah[1], Arizona[2], Kansas[3], North Dakota[4], Tennessee, Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, West Virginia, Pennsylvania or Vermont.
[0] https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/APIS_State_Profile.html?...
[1] https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/APIS_State_Profile.html?...
[2] https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/APIS_State_Profile.html?...
[3] https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/APIS_State_Profile.html?...
[4] https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/APIS_State_Profile.html?...
Unfortunately this is true and applies to a broad range of subjects.
There I learned a lot of metal working including welding and operating lathes. Spent 3 years there and ended up as a certified maintenance electrician for diesel-electric locomotives (never worked in railroads after that but several skills were useful both at professional and hobby situations).
Now the laws are more aligned with the USA and that school is closed. Such laws are said to be more "protective" as if teenagers are incapable of handling sharp tools. Brazil wastes no opportunity to dumb down.
I don't think they even have shop in middle schools anymore.
Every America city I've lived it use to have amazing tram systems. They're all gone now; killed by the desire of Ford and GM to see us a car future. There is an amazing amount of advertising that trained Americans to love their cars and consider buses as the means of transport for the poor.
More walkable spaces and better community transport; removing the necessity for a car, would greatly reduce the amount of drunk driving more than fines/jail-time/campaigns. It's insane that the US drinking age is still 21 when so many of other countries, from most of Europe to Australia to Canada to Singapore, all have 18 as their drinking age.
The region is now spread far, far beyond those original borders. Only about 300k of the 2.8 million residents of greater St. Louis currently live within those limits.
The historic streetcar network cannot be replicated today precisely because, yes, we are too spread out.
Excellent examples: Melbourne and Adelaide in Australia. In fact, Adelaide is pretty spread out and suburban, but it still has a nicely laid out (if a bit dated) train network). Melbourne didn't ditch their trams and now have the largest network in the world (and they still have tons of suburbs with regional V-Lines reaching almost all of them).
If the tram networks hadn't been removed, we would have seen different priorities. Also, just because it's gone now, doesn't mean we shouldn't start fixing it. The amazing thing is when you do lay out rail, people tend to start building around them; including stores and housing. They have a an incredible impact on commerce simply by being laid down. There is a psychological impact of seeing the rails and seeing the trams pass at constant intervals that changes the way people think about transport.
I'm passionately in favor of your counterfactual. If we hadn't allowed so much low-density development, if we'd have kept and extended the streetcar lines, if we hadn't invested so much in automobile infrastructure, then we'd be in a much better position today.
But now we're faced with a confluence of factors that make getting to that counterfactual really, really hard. Those factors, collectively, are what I'm referring to when I say we're too "spread out."
"Spread out" isn't just about distance; it's about population size over a given area. It's about density, in other words.
Melbourne has 4.6M people in 3800 sq mi.
It has a tram/light rail network of over 160 miles of track on 24 separate routes, and nearly two thousand tram stops. It runs a network of nearly 500 trams, and carries 200 million passengers a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trams_in_Melbourne#/media/File...
To give scale to that map, the radius of those routes (you can see something of a circle around the downtown area) from the city center averages about 15 miles (East Malvern, Box Hill, etc), and stretches near 25 miles at points.
Using your St Louis example and recognizing that certainly, not all of the Melbourne urban area is serviced by light rail, well over 700 sq mi is 'very well served'.
Yes, I agree that we should strive for higher population densities and that we shouldn't have invested so much in automobile infrastructure, but given that this is where we are, people will make rational decisions.
That's what I mean when I say that we're already too "spread out."
By the way, on the off chance anyone's interested, here's a map of those original streetcar lines:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1W809wsAmB9GR3ZvyII...
Obviously for many situations in big cities everyone can't just drive a car or you end up with terrible grid lock. Traffic problems now suggest that keeping the old trams around would probably have been better but around the time they got rid of them cars may have been truly more efficient and people lacked the foresight to save the public transit.
> https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impa... "Among drivers with BAC levels of 0.08% or higher involved in fatal crashes in 2014, three out of every 10 were between 21 and 24 years of age (30%). The next two largest groups were ages 25 to 34 (29%) and 35 to 44 (24%)."
It's not unreasonable to assume the 18-20 age group would be a similarly high percent as the 21-24 currently is, if it were legal for them to be drinking.
And no it's not unreasonable at all to assume that. I am frightened enough as it is by drivers under 25, heck some of that is thinking back to 18, 20, 23 year old me driving.
Add in the availability of public transit, and you can basically always go to whatever bar you wish without driving.
Plenty of US cities have 24 hour bus service too.
In small cities and towns where walking everywhere isn't the social norm nobody does it because walking home from the bar at 2am is likely to get you bothered by the cops because it's not typical.
Most vendors/bouncers in a college town are going to know the kid handing them a florida ID thousands of miles away from florida is almost certainly a fake - the fakes being produced by IDGod and most of the other college vendors are pretty terrible. They don't care though, it's enough to keep them from being fined/losing an alcohol license should police become involved. Hell, most of the local police departments in college towns are relatively unconcerned about underage drinking unless they can use it as a way to shut down other behavior they deem an issue. Most parents in the US are fine with their college students drinking as well.
The optimist in me thinks our insane drinking laws are the next to fall after widespread legalization of cannabis, but unfortunately most of the influential people in politics are so far removed from that period of life that they're apathetic towards it being an issue.
The better question is among those who plan to drink in the US, who actually waited to be 21 to drink? I don't know anyone.
In the last 5 years or such, that lax attitude towards IDs has changed.
Police departments in large cities, are asking bar owners to use the ID "verification" machines to check IDs at the door. And in some cases, that ask is making its way into the state's alcohol control departments' policies.
> http://www.idscanner.com/legal/new-york-id-scanner-law-affir...
I put verification in quotes, because while these machines verify the data on your ID, what they actually do is record the magstripe data for later downloading.
That data can then be downloaded by for CRM purposes, or likely by your PD after a crime, to gain a list of potential suspects and/or witnesses.
That data can then be downloaded by for CRM purposes,
or likely by your PD after a crime, to gain a list of
potential suspects and/or witnesses.
That's not correct. The law states clearly that alcohol purchase and consumption in public are illegal for underage people [1]. It's also illegal to enter premises where alcohol is served, without being escorted by an adult. Unfortunately the problem with Greece is not the lack of laws, it's enforcing them
[1] https://www.taxheaven.gr/laws/law/index/law/213 (in greek)
Drunk driving is something that's already illegal (obviously), and the bac threshold is quite low here, although I do wish it was (much) more stringently enforced.
You can't throw law enforcement at a problem when it itself is a problem in a lot of cases.
Hey, you don't have to tell me, I'm still waiting for smoke-free bars. Underage drinking is enforced even less than that, but it's a much less widespread problem.
The lack of "on-premises" laws is especially of little concern, as we very rarely get public disturbances because of drunk people.
To be fair though I'm witnessing a shift the last few years, at least in restaurants/tavernas/fast-food joints. You can more easily find places to eat these days where smoking inside is not allowed.
They don't. Some people even at 20s, 30s, 40s, haven't had the necessary mental/emotional development.
Which (right or wrong) is the rationalization behind restricting alcohol to those under a certain age.
Self driving cars should probably fix this someday. All other cars should have mandatory ignition interlocks for breathalyzing.
Someone should invent an bluetooth-connected breathalyzer which at least annoyingly beeps when you drive until you pass. It worked for seatbelts! Kids used to not wear then until the beeping made it more annoying to not do it. Annoyance is a big motivator.
Not judging you BTW. In the long run not drinking is probably healthier than drinking. Certainly the case if one struggles to control the quantity of drinking.
Beer takes a bit to develop a taste for, but it's pretty much sugar water and it goes so perfectly with so many dishes.
I'm tempted to pick up a non-alcoholic beer like O'Douls, but I don't want to start drinking again and I figure drinking non-alcoholic drinks is a step in that direction for me (I'm not a recovering alcoholic, I quit because it was getting in the way of my health/fitness goals).
There may totally be nothing that fits your flavor profile, but I wouldn't write it off totally as an acquired taste. Might just not have found what clicks for you.
I also actually think that it's the taste of the actual alcohol that I don't like, because I can't even have food if it has a little bit of liqueur in it or whatever. The taste sticks out greatly.
Also, my understanding of the word drunk is that it means "very or extremely intoxicated." Even if you hated the taste of alcohol you could still put up with the taste and have a small amount to feel slightly intoxicated and still not be drunk.
I like beer. And if I could have non-alcoholic beer that tasted as well as standard beer I'd prefer that. (IMO todays alternatives still taste very different.)
But anyway my point still stands: I'd still drink beer if didn't get drunk. Actually I think I would drink more beer then.
In the late 90s, when I was 16-17 and doing my A levels in the South East, plenty of people had fake "Prove It" cards and the like.
If you wanted to grab a drink at anything but the most desperate of pubs or go out in e.g. Brighton, you didn't have a hope unless you could prove your age.
Funnily enough, I knew plenty of 18 and 19 year olds that also used fake IDs, just because getting a more legitimate form of ID was a bigger pain than they could be bothered with - and taking your passport out seemed a bit over the top.
I dunno, maybe I just hung out with the wrong crowd?
A lot of teens aren't learning to drive in the UK anymore due to the high cost and quality of public transport in cities. So they by extension don't get a driving license until well into their 20s (if at all). So their choice was either, as you said, take out your passport (dangerous/impractical) or use a fake ID.
That's why they had to create the PASS scheme (Proof of Age Standards Scheme)[0][1]. In essence it is a non-driving licence/non-national ID card, card which only exists to prove your age. It costs £15, but that's still cheap relative to getting a driving licence (inc. test/cost to learn £200+) or replacing a lost passport (£72.50).
It is a good scheme.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_Age_Standards_Scheme
We knew the places which wouldn't ask, and it helped if you're tall
You and me both. I remember going out "in town" drinking and watching live bands from the age of 14, fake ID in hand. Pretty much all of my friends had them. Good times.
A gun dealer with an FFL has a license to do interstate commerce in firearms and is subject to federal regulations on the subject. A private sale is governed by state law.
There's all sorts of situations where it is legal for minors to drink alcohol.
Like for example, when accompanied by a parent in a bar in Wisconsin.
Anything else and it can be used to throw the book at you in a lot of ways.
I had a friend kicked out of our high school graduation because a teacher disliked him, convinced an officer to breathalyze him, and he blew a ~.02 if I'm remembering correctly. He'd had a beer with his parents at dinner before the ceremony, but by the time that was all sorted it was well after the ceremony had ended. Kid didn't walk the stage at his own graduation because of a power hungry teacher and a (legal) beer his parents gave him.
In most states in the US having any alcohol at all in your system or being in possession of it is very much a crime and the burden of proof is on you that it was consumed legally.
No bar owner wants to deal with nitpicking from law enforcement over whether or not the person with the minor was actually their parent or guardian, and serving someone that is obviously a minor is a big enough cultural taboo in the US that few if any business owners/managers are willing to do it.
One would've thought that maybe a place which stuck it's neck out and became known as 'the place to drink under 21' would get a lot of business, but I guess that could also be a potential PR disaster
[0]http://drinkingage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...
The activities listed - getting married, serving in the military, etc. are related to no longer being a minor. It is completely ridiculous that people who are not minors are barred from purchasing alcohol.
Quite a quick walk out of the pub that day.
I don't see how 18 prevents fake ids from 16 and 17 year olds though.
And it doesn't, but it can be slightly harder for a 16-17 year old to get a fake ID without alerting their parents.
You need to be 18 in most of the states where it's legal, 21 in a handful and 19 in Alabama. I've never seen anyone carding at a racetrack, but then most of the people at a racetrack are 40+
This doesn't change your overall point about fake IDs, but it does support the idea that America has a bizarre set of age limits around "sinful" behaviors.
And 21 is the gambling age in many states in the US.
Also, under 18s probably still want to be served. I was 14 when I first tried to get served in a bar (barman sold a 16yo the drinks, then came and confiscated them; canny barman).
Likewise with the violence you'll see in the media. Most of America is safe and people aren't walking around waiting to shoot someone.
It would be like saying you won't visit any of the great European cities due to terrorism concerns. The perceived risk is much greater than the actual tiny risk.
My most recent travel to Europe took me through Madrid and Copenhagen on the way to London - I recall seeing everyone (EU residents and non EU residents) waiting in line to clear immigration into the UK. On those same trips I also flew through France and Germany - those were all like domestic US flights without any additional screening but the UK definitely seemed to screen everyone. I also know multiple EU residents/family members who have had similar experiences with UK immigration being less than friendly when returning from the US.
Google also suggests that many EU countries have reintroduced border checks due to security concerns - https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/border...
Passing from one state to another in the US doesn't involve any stop or screening.
It's no where near what I had to go over when I visited USA, each time after long exhausting flight - a long queue and at the end a guy that asks you stupid questions e.g. "do you have your flight back tickets with yourself?" (no, this is XXI century, I have it in an email), "how many times have you been here?" (where "here" might mean the city or the country, whichever you answer you will be wrong).
Oh, and don't say "hi" to them (trying to be polite, English is not my first language), I once did and was asked "Do we know each other?".
The 21 year drinking age is still idiotic and actively harmful.
The United States (from my perception) seems to have far more establishments serving alcohol, whose policy is to ask identification for everyone (or if not everyone, a ridiculously over-heavy subsection of their clients, eg "we check ID for anyone under 35"). Probably for CYA reasons.
I don't ever recall any place in Europe asking for ID when buying a beer over in there (even when I visited when I was in my mid 20s). Whereas, I still occasionally get asked for ID in the United States in spite of being over 40.
It's all pretty bonkers.
Why is that? Are Polish persons more grown up looking?
The UK was perfectly fine before the maastricht treaty and will be in 2 years time.
But we don't have MADD, I guess.