If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
legal age for alcohol consumption should be lowered
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
i think so, especially for beers, lagers and wines
drinking alcohol isnt necesserily habit forming and it remove the thrill of drinking underage, i know when i turned 18, it lacked something getting drinks at a pub, possibly knowing you were allowed to
drinking alcohol isnt necesserily habit forming and it remove the thrill of drinking underage, i know when i turned 18, it lacked something getting drinks at a pub, possibly knowing you were allowed to
0
Comments
If people have an empty feeling when 'legally' buying alcohol then it's the individual who has the problem, it isn't the age limit which is at fault. We shouldn't back down and change laws just because people don't respect them. Shall we let 12 year olds have sex and 15 year olds drive while we're at it? It isn't 'necessarily' habit forming, but for many people it is. Alcohol kills thousands and thousands of people every year, and a huge percentage of crime is commited by intoxicated individuals. Like the first reply said, last thing we want is an even greater number of burberry clad teenagers parading round our towns off their faces.
true but i think thats more of a cultural thing than the state of the law in those countries
From what I've heard from people who have visited over there, the drinking age of 18 is more of a formality. At least compared to around here where to get your hands on alcohol you have to be dedicated to the task.
Most Brits are extremely dedicated to getting their paws on alcohol
Wonderful.
I'm reckoning it should stay 18 to buy alcohol in shops and bars/pubs, but really, that doesn't make a bit of difference cause I know 16/17 year olds who go out and get drunk nearly every weekend.
Lowering it would bring in the possibility of even younger people going in and trying to get some, and being successful. Although then there is that thing about it being lower in other countries and people respecting that, but I can't see that happening in the UK.
I've seen kids smoking who have less oxygen in their lungs than the smoke from a cigarette. I've seen kids drink on the parks who look about 13. Lower it and they'll just do it more. Which, on a positive note, may rid them from this world if they give it a hard enough shot.
I wonder how many 13-year olds could realistically pass for 16 :rolleyes:.
Teens will get drunk - it's an established norm. The vast majority of 18 year olds who drink have been drinking since they were underage - so bringing the legal age down the 16 is common sense. People should realise prohibition of anything generally or to certain age groups is utterly useless.
Alcohol is hardly the root cause of teenage pregnancies, is it?
That's no reason to bring the legal age down.
The legal age is there to protect your body.
sorry that makes no sense, you can drink small amounts at any age and you'll be alright, you can drink loads of amounts at any age after 18 and die from alcohol poisoning...
But society largely ignores the legal age - it is ineffective and useless. Getting alcohol under-age is absolutely no problem whatsoever. At 16, you're old enough to start making your own way through life - or at least you should be.
Yeah but I meant between the government stopping you drinking it to protect you while you're still growing and developing, after 18, if you drink so much that you die from alcohol poisoning, you're an idiot, and its your responsibilty.
But is that a problem with the law or our culture.
The problem lies with the law. Your average 16/17 year old doesn't give a shit about a petty legal age - and why should they? It's a rite of passage, drinking under-age is perfectly normal and i see nothing reprehensible about it whatsoever. The problem certainly isn't our culture - it's our nature to get drunk & what not.
what about the adults who drink ever so responsibly
if licensed premises were to actually to follow the law and not serve those they think dont need another drink, thatd solve more problems
lowering the age for beer and wine is a pragmatic answer, obviously itd be that if you dont look 18, they should make sure youre over 16
i really dont get some peoples logic on here, its a sensible solution
So if we largely ignore the rest of the laws on the statute, should they exist?
Surely all you highlight there is a fault in society/failings of the enforcement officer...
:thumb:
If I'm not mistaken a child of five can legally drink alcohol...
In which case, you're impliedly saying it's society which is the problem not the law. What is the difference between saying that and saying 'the 70mph limit on motorways is rubbish because everyone drives at 90 anyway'. In that instance it is the individuals which have the problem if they can't abide by laws which are there for your own protection. How can you say the problem lies with the law as you did in a later post and then 'justify' it by saying that the law is rubbish because people ignore it. That is possibly the worst jusification for an argument I've ever heard! Laws which criminalise rape are useless too, because people still carry out rapes, right? An extreme example maybe, but you can't say that a law is wrong simply because people ignore it and to use your own words16/17 year olds 'don't give a shit'?. That's absolutely absurd.
Edited- Also, if we're to go down this route, should we also lower the age of sexual consent to 13 or 14 just because people ignore the law and 'do it anyway'?
Should we bring the smoking age down to 12 because kids of that age 'do it anyway'?
It stands to reason that to do such things would be ridiculous. You don't modify laws reactively and say 'ah well, they don't give a stuff about the law so we'll change it'!
Is is however the root of a huge percentage of crime amongst juveniles.
You could just see what would happen if we reduced the legal age to drink to like 15?? It would be mayhem... even more Chavs in pubs L(.
Drink is a huge problem, particularly with regards to violence. I've got an inbox full of pissed up teens having fights because of the beer. The simple fact is that kids can't handle their beer, and they shouldn't be encouraged to try.
If we had a "continental" drinking culture then there wouldn't be a problem. Peple would get merry, have a song and go home. But the British seem to need to get as drunk as humanly possible, and have fights. Kids are far more likely to fight than older people because they can't handle the beer or their hormones.
That said, there are a lot of merits to it. Kids will get drink anyway, that's a fact, and it would be a lot better for them to get drunk with their mates playing pool in a pub than it would for them to get pissed on the rec in January and end up passed out from drink and cold.
I think kids should be allowed to drink in pubs at that age, but not in music venues or nightclubs.
how comes you always hit nail on the head
however they may not be able to handle drink, the people who tend to get violent werent too calm normally anyway, the age doesnt alter that
You've misunderstood.
Society ignores the legal limit as a norm because it's unenforcable & imcompatible with the realities of life.
Certain laws (drugs, alcohol) cannot be properly upheld, society ignores them, and they have no practical basis for existing.
How do you come to the conclusion i've implied society is at fault? It's quite clear i've said the law is irrelevent and without use - which is something completely different.
Where have i said anything about the law being "rubbish" (
You know the difference between cases of rape etc - i really don't need to point that you.
What is the point of upholding laws which do more harm than good?
You're saying the law is at fault and is useless/meaningless because people ignore it. You have just repeated that sentiment. So just because certain people flout the law, it is the law which is wrong, not the people concerned?!
That's what you're basically saying, and it is illogical.
Ok, let me use an example which isn't so extreme. Loads of drivers every day travel at speeds of 90mph +. Using your logic, that 'law must be compatible with the society it is meant to govern', we should change the speed limit and make it higher, simply because people ignore it anyway so it is, in your words, 'meaningless' and 'unenforceable', regardless of the fact that changing the law would mean road users and those involved in RTAs are more likely to die.
That is an exact application of your logic!! And the consequences thereof can only be negative!
You went on to say that the law is 'incompatible with the realities of life'. If people ignore the law, then yes it is!! But if they abide by it, it is perfectly compatible!! Simple!
I know the difference between cases of rape? It was an extreme example, but once again, an application of your 'if society reject the law then it is meaningless and useless' would again dictate that if society rejects a 'norm', whatever that norm may be, then the law should be changed to suit society.
If the law reflected certain groups of society, then it would be legal to beat up kids and video it on your mobile phone, it'd be legal to urinate in public, it'd be legal to spit at other people. After all, people are 'going to do these things anyway' and therefore the law is 'meaningless' and 'useless', right?! Hmm!
The point is that to reactively make law and amend laws just because certain people choose to ignore them is possibly the most absurd and logically indefensible comment I've ever heard. Take the examples I've just given.
Almost every road user speeds, the law only claims money from them when they do, which is handy for the treasury but slows cars down not one bit. If you made rape legal, you wouldn't (I like to think) get a rash of rapes, because most people aren't rapists.
You've made a big assumption, and that is that it's the law that prevents crime, when really most people are quite capable of living for themselves without it. The law just tries to clean up the mess afterwards, it cannot prevent a goddamn thing, if someone wants to do something - they can.
The law is only reactive. It can do nothing until after an event. 99% of people despise rapists, 99% of people think theres nothing wrong with going a bit faster than you "should."