52 Comments

1. Fresh Air:

Oh dear! Has Steve Chapman been let out to use a keyboard again? I don’t know how he got a reputation as a conservative. Here we see the Chicago Tribune mushing along again, in the tired ruts of Col. McCormick’s New England Republicanism.

BTW, when I was in school, binge drinking (five or more beers in one sitting) is what we had during the first 90 minutes of Friday happy hour. These administrators must not get out much, though, like a blind pig, they have located that truffle of wisdom to keep students off the roads and in the bars where they can be witnessed throwing up on their shoes.

Aug 21, 2008 - 10:23 am 2. William Briggs:

Disraeli is always lurking.

I did some poking around and found the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration query system, but the data only goes back to the late 1990s, well after the change in drinking ages to 21. There don’t seem to be other reliable sources of data available.

Just plotting the raw fatality numbers by age for each year, no matter what they show, are apt to be misleading. There are a number of other factors to first control for. Among them:

1. Total miles driven by age by year. Raw numbers of accidents are not interesting.

2. Normalization by population size. Total number of miles driven might have gone up, but this is not interesting unless the total miles per person in the relevant age group has gone up, too.

3. Safety of vehicles and of the roads. Surely, the increase in reliability of cars, more SUVs, better roads etc. contribute to fewer fatalities.

4. Percent of driving that is done on highway versus small road.

And on and on, and it’s boring enough already. Most importantly, you cannot allow the arbitrary picking of dates to prove a point. A common trick is to pick the high point of fatalities before the 21-age change and then show how fatalities have gone down. But, needless to say?, before the high point, when the drinking age was < 21, the percent of fatalities was lower. What was it in the 1960s? 1950s? Not nearly so high. So it’s more of a cultural problem then an age problem, after all.

Anyway, you can’t trust 95% of statisticians.

I can also recall, when I was first in the service in 1982, thanking God that I was allowed to have a beer while risking my skin.

Aug 21, 2008 - 2:23 pm 3. John Bonaccorsi:

I’ve been watching you alcohol lovers for half a century now. Anything that gets in your way is fine with me.

Aug 21, 2008 - 3:36 pm 4. heather:

wasn’t Elizabeth Dole responsible for raising the drinking age to 21??

Aug 21, 2008 - 10:31 pm 5. John Bonaccorsi:

I see nobody can fool William Briggs — he of the mathematic subtlety. And the wit: “You can’t trust 95% of statisticians.” I’d quip that that was funny the first ten million times I heard it — but then I’d be doing the same thing he is, wouldn’t I?

Fresh Air is diverting, too: “BTW, when I was in school, binge drinking (five or more beers in one sitting) is what we had during the first 90 minutes of Friday happy hour.” Keep boasting, white man.

And I notice that Fresh Air can compete with Mr. Kimball himself, in the art of droll insult. (”Oh dear! Has Steven Chapman been let out to use a keyboard again?”) That’s how we fight the culture war, isn’t it?

Death penalty for drunk driving, anyone? Oops — there I go. Spoiling the party.

Aug 21, 2008 - 10:33 pm 6. Steve:

This is one of the few areas where I think we here in the U.S. could stand to be more like the Europeans. I think teenagers could be taught to moderate their drinking if it wasn’t such a big deal for a “minor” to have adult beverages.
I don’t see what’s so hard for “adults” to say to their children “you can enjoy, but in moderation.” Good post. Keep up the good work.

Aug 21, 2008 - 11:58 pm 7. William Briggs:

Ah, Bonny John, I’m fooled by lots of things lots of times.

However, if you have a specific objection to any of the caveats listed, I’d love to hear them. And the argument for allowing beer to servicemen is particularly strong, is it not?

I do blush over the 95% “joke”; I feel shame. It is so bad and hackneyed, in fact, that it even makes your joke about a death penalty for drunk driving seem droll.

I’ll try to be funnier next time.

Aug 22, 2008 - 12:08 pm 8. Steve Skubinna:

Chapman’s dismissal of the “old enough to enlist” argument is obviously well thought out. By which I mean asinine. I won’t go all chickenhawk on him, but I do wonder if he has the slightest clue about matters military. How did he come to his insightful grasp of what makes a good soldier?

I agree with the argument, myself. If we can teach 18 year olds to use deadly force in combat, and are comfortable with them carrying rifles, driving tanks, and serving artillery, then why can’t we trust them with a beer? I’d say they deserve one or two.

Back when I first enlisted, during the Jurassic, 18 year old troops could drink 3.2 beer on base. That’s since gone by the wayside as the meddling hang wringing nannies find more areas of private life to inject themselves into.

Aug 22, 2008 - 1:17 pm 9. Mary Jackson:

“Nunc bibendum est.”

I’ll drink to that. Never trust a man – or woman – who’s prissy about alcohol.

Aug 22, 2008 - 2:03 pm 10. John Bonaccorsi:

I’m not interested, Briggs, in examining your caveats, which bored me about four paragraphs before you noticed they were boring you. What I’m interested in is determining how so many members of the white race arrived at the conclusion that it’s acceptable to go through life fat, drunk, and stupid. As for servicemen: Most of them seem to me to be the sorts of louts who, in civilian life, direct unkind words toward anyone who tucks his shirt in. God help Roger Kimball if he ever finds himself among a pack of them. And what makes you think my remark about the death penalty was a joke? Being completely without a sense of humor, you not only can’t tell a joke, you can’t tell whether or not one has been told by someone else. (Philadelphia, PA)

Aug 22, 2008 - 2:45 pm 11. Roy M:

The decline in death on the roads with increasing drinking age, if true, isn’t a ‘flawed argument’ because drunken drivers don’t kill only themselves. Worse, sometimes kill others without killing themselves.

18 seems a reasonable age for a legal beer. But it sould be linked to a zero limit for alcohol for young drivers.

Aug 22, 2008 - 4:43 pm 12. William Briggs:

Bonny John, I’ve read your latest post. Which of the caveats are irrelevant? And why?

All that you say about servicemen might be true, but you have forgotten to say whether or not you would deny them a beer.

I await your answer eagerly.

Aug 23, 2008 - 2:54 am 13. John Bonaccorsi:

All of the caveats are irrelevant, William, because I don’t care whether the drinking age — of whose existence I, having no interest in alcohol, was all but unaware — has had any effect on drunk-driving casualties at all. The drinking-age itself is merely an evasion of any serious effort to stop behavior — drunk-driving — that I want stopped and about which, I sense, you and other persons who are quick to respond as you responded to Mr. Kimball’s article are insufficiently concerned. Student alcohol-poisoning fatalities or whatever similar phenomena trouble the signatories of the Amethyst Initiative never get my attention — but if students of the type involved can find a way to drive drunk so as to kill themselves only, I will now form a committee to pay for the drinks. I really don’t care what is granted or denied to servicemen, as long as they’re far away from me — which is where, I’d guess, they’d be pleased to be located themselves.

Aug 23, 2008 - 8:24 am 14. Fred Beloit:

“As for servicemen: Most of them seem to me to be the sorts of louts who, in civilian life, direct unkind words toward anyone who tucks his shirt in.”

Well, Mr Goodrivers, we are not all such ruffians and louts. Personally, I only direct unkind words to someone who tucks his shirt in under the waist band of his thong…someone like you.

Aug 23, 2008 - 9:04 am 15. John Bonaccorsi:

Well — there you have it: Mr. Beloit has just proved the statement at which he took offense. As for a thong, Mr. Beloit: I don’t even know what one is, but I’m pretty sure I don’t wear one.

Aug 23, 2008 - 10:03 am 16. Billy Beck:

{hah!} Bonaccorsi, I’m cracking a brand new bottle of Crown Royal in your name, sonny, and there’s not a damned thing you can do about it.

Have an ice day.

Aug 23, 2008 - 3:13 pm 17. John Bonaccorsi:

You’re awfully tough, Beck. Let me guess: You’re white and a moron.

Aug 23, 2008 - 4:20 pm 18. Fred Beloit:

“Let me guess: You’re white and a moron.”
Oh, goody, guessing games. I love those. Let’s play. Goodrivers, you’re tan and a moron.

Aug 24, 2008 - 7:49 am 19. William Briggs:

Actually, the caveats matter a lot, Bonny John. See, the question about what age drinking should be allowed is an empirical one. There is nothing that logically dictates the age that minimizes vehicular homicides/deaths is, say, 20 or 19 or whatever. Our only recourse is to look at the data and use it to inform what we already know about human behavior and then decide.

In fact, there is another caveat that might be important. I have been unable to discover that the deaths cited for driving under the influence include other chemicals besides alcohol.

I take we agree that allowing military members to drink is justified. What age would you say is reasonable to allow drinking?

Have someone you loved been killed by a drunk driver?

Aug 24, 2008 - 11:33 am 20. John Bonaccorsi:

William — My point is that I’m not really concerned about a drinking age. I know virtually nothing about alcohol and have never considered whether it should be legally denied to persons below a certain age. If there were no such thing as a drinking age, I probably wouldn’t even notice. I wasn’t kidding when I said that I give no attention to stories about fools who drink themselves to death at frat parties. If I could bestir myself to think about them at all, my thought would be, “Good riddance.”

On the other hand, the bastard who takes a fatal, drunken plunge from a tenth-floor dormitory window — or who drives drunk — endangers persons other than himself — and should be dealt with as what he is. He’s not just a “regular guy,” whose fun is threatened by Puritans. He’s a son of a bitch and should be put to death early.

You now seem to raise the question whether alcohol impairs driving at all. I don’t have the scientific expertise to answer that. Assuming it does, drinking ages and similar measures are pointless. The behavior must be opposed strongly.

I often get the impression that many persons for whom alcohol is an important part of life are almost completely unaware that there are persons for whom it is almost no part of life at all. Consequently, they seem to want everyone else to regard drunk driving as something like the weather. It’s just “there,” with nothing to be done about it. It’s homicidal — and should be dealt with as such.

No — no loved one of mine has been killed by a drunk driver. In fact, I’m troubled by the question. It confirms my sense that you and many other persons are, as I have said, insufficiently concerned about the problem. The deaths of many others and the threat faced by my loved ones and me and everyone else, including you, are enough to disturb me. If they do not disturb you, too, it is you, not I, who have explaining to do.

Aug 24, 2008 - 12:33 pm 21. John Bonaccorsi:

Tan, Mr. Beloit? You mean like the half-Negro children whom I see being escorted down the street by white grandparents, who, as you, were unable to put their shot glasses down for five minutes to understand and oppose the political changes that have turned Western civilization into what looks as if it will be their race’s burial ground? No, I’m not that.

Aug 24, 2008 - 12:49 pm 22. William Briggs:

Bonny John, my point is that I am concerned about the legal drinking age. You might recall that was the point of the original post.

So what, in your opinion, should it be? This is the main and only question. Picking an age. To claim this is not your interest might be true, but irrelevant. A decision about the best age must be made, we as a society must make it. You may opt out of the process and claim you do not care. Very well. I will accept that you are unable to form an opinion.

Despite your ungentlemanly suspicions, I asked about your potential experiences to be civil.

Aug 24, 2008 - 2:56 pm 23. John Bonaccorsi:

William — I’m not sure my suspicions were ungentlemanly. Yes, I took it you were wondering whether my view had something to do with ruin done to my own family by a drunk driver. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen editorialists or the like speak patronizingly of persons who have campaigned against drunk driving after suffering just such ruin. Maybe I was incorrect.

I don’t feel obliged to suggest a legal drinking age, because I’m not convinced one is even necessary.

Aug 24, 2008 - 3:10 pm 24. John Bonaccorsi:

William — Ignore my previous post (August 24, 3:10 pm). It was a draft, which, until a moment ago, I did realize had been posted. I’ll get back to you in a little while.

Aug 24, 2008 - 4:02 pm 25. John Bonaccorsi:

William — My post of 4:02 pm had an error, too: Obviously, I meant to say “did NOT realize.”

To get to your statements:

Yes, I hastily took your inquiry to be a prelude to a patronizing response to my anger about drunk driving. I apologize.

I’m not convinced there has to be a drinking age. In fact, I’m not convinced that the persons who push for one really even want one; they might simply think they can’t secure the serious laws they would prefer.

Yes — this exchange of ours began in discussion of Mr. Kimball’s article about the drinking age; but the more I think about it, the more I realize how much that article angered me. Mr. Kimball thinks the drinking age of 21 is silly? Maybe he’s right. Maybe any drinking age is silly — but by what measures would he inhibit the drunken crossing of highway center-lines at sixty miles an hour into opposing traffic?

You know what I propose: death — to anyone caught drunk driving. Let me add horsewhipping of anyone otherwise drunk in public — because we’re not going to wait to see whether he falls out of a window and onto someone else. (My comments above notwithstanding, there’s little point in a death penalty for plunging fatally from a dorm room.)

Maybe I’ve made myself clear: The drinking age strikes me as quite possibly a non-issue — a distraction. Additionally, the problems it is intended to address are connected to other problems. The campus drinking nonsense, for instance, is probably to some extent a result of our quasi-socialistic educational system. Administrators are now simply parasites, who live on a percentage of the “student aid” for which we are all forced to co-sign and who become, in effect, government agents, their actions to control their supposed domains circumscribed by Constitutional concerns. Eunuchs can hardly be expected to deal with nonsense in the manner of men.

Aug 24, 2008 - 5:35 pm 26. Polemicscat:

It would save more lives to raise the driving age to 21. There is plenty of evidence that shows teenagers have more than their share of automobile accidents.

Also study of brain development shows that sound judgement is the last acquisition in mental maturation. The founding fathers knew that too. Look at the ages required by the Constitution for holding office.

Aug 24, 2008 - 5:43 pm 27. Michael Lonie:

Prohibition of alcohol was so successful the last time we tried it. So Mr. Bonaccorsi wants to repeat it. Riiight.

As for executing drunk drivers, Mr. Bonaccorsi does not propose executing only drivers who kill people in accidents, he proposes to execute drivers for driving with enough alcohol in the blood to qualify as “drunk”. Given his animus towards alcohol that could be the slightest amount. That’s not to mention that there may be other chemicals which will give a positive reading on a blood alcohol test but are not intoxicants. One false positive and you’re dead, Liquor Boy! And what will come next? What other crimes will the New Carrie Nations deem worthy of capital punishment, hanging the Widow Brown for stealing bread crumbs?

“Tan, Mr. Beloit? You mean like the half-Negro children whom I see being escorted down the street by white grandparents, who, as you, were unable to put their shot glasses down for five minutes to understand and oppose the political changes that have turned Western civilization into what looks as if it will be their race’s burial ground? No, I’m not that.”

What a repugnant paragraph. Dislike miscegenation do you? Who turned over your rock?

Aug 24, 2008 - 7:16 pm 28. John Bonaccorsi:

Yes, Lonie, I dislike miscegenation. Damn — I thought I’d masked that.

Aug 24, 2008 - 8:11 pm 29. John Bonaccorsi:

But let’s examine Mr. Lonie’s remarks on the main question:

He sarcastically indicates that Prohibition was unsuccessful, and he says I want to repeat it. I have no idea whether or not it was successful — whatever that might mean — but why does he say I want to repeat it? What have I said to that effect? Nothing that I know of. Indeed, prohibition strikes me — unfairly maybe — as a measure that would be urged only by a person frantic about alcohol problems within his or her own household or, maybe, social circle. My good fortune is that I am not faced with such problems.

Mr. Lonie speaks of my animus against alcohol and says that, because of it, the amount of blood alcohol that would qualify a person as drunk by law under my dispensation could be “the slightest amount.” I do not grant that I have an animus against alcohol; but regardless, the only proper place for Mr. Lonie’s contention is a book of rhetoric, where it could be presented as a straw man too obvious to be of any good. The truth, conveniently enough, happens to be precisely the opposite: Under Mr. Lonie’s dispensation, drunkenness could not be associated with any blood-alcohol level, however great. For reasons I can’t guess, he and many other persons simply don’t want drunk driving opposed.

That’s also why Mr. Lonie makes his obfuscatory remarks about evidentiary questions — “false positives” or whatever is the jargon of the Intoxication Cultists. He is not concerned about a miscarriage of justice. If that were really his concern, and if, at the same time, he were concerned about drunk driving, his remarks about the reliability of blood-alcohol testing would, at the very least, be accompanied by advocacy of — or a plea for the development of — an alternative to it. To say it again: Mr. Lonie is opposed to opposition to drunk driving.

The remarks about Carrie Nation and Widow Brown are trite and evasive — although Widow Brown does sound like a lowlife.

Aug 24, 2008 - 10:00 pm 30. Tout D. Suite:

Unfortunately, Roger, you are right: there are people who want to tell everyone else how to live their lives. They are called Democrats. No liberal Democrat I know is happy until he’s thoroughly lectured me on how I should spend my days on earth. My response to them is always the same: la-la-la-la-la. la-la-la-la-la…..

Aug 25, 2008 - 8:04 pm 31. John Bonaccorsi:

Re my conclusion that Mr. Lonie would reject any blood-alcohol level as indicative of drunkenness, I failed to observe that he places the word “drunk” in scare quotes, courteously provided to disabuse any of us of the notion that drunkenness exists at all. His is a type encountered all over the internet (and not only there): the antisocial being disguised, even in his own mind, as Defender of Liberty. He is a menace.

Aug 25, 2008 - 8:31 pm 32. ZEITGEIST:

[...] MORE ON A LOWER DRINKING AGE, from Roger Kimball. [...]

Aug 25, 2008 - 8:36 pm 33. Pete:

The problem, as I see it, is typical of our lack of enforcement
of laws on the books. Judges let drunks off again and again and
they end up killing people. Illegal aliens are not deported when
the are arrested for the nth time driving while drunk. Lowering
the drinking age to 18 won’t do anything to remedy our weak
attempts at enforcing drunk driving laws..there will just be
more 18 year olds arrested for drunk driving. Leaving the drinking
age at 21 might just deter a couple of 18 year olds from driving
while drunk…and maybe saving a few lives at the same time.

Maybe I’m just naive.

Aug 25, 2008 - 9:01 pm 34. Wilmer:

Your problem, Mr. Bonycondom, is like that of the old Baptist preacher–you’re in love with the sound of your own voice.

Go have some fried chicken and a shot of Jim Beam and calm down, son.

Aug 25, 2008 - 9:13 pm 35. peter jackson:

The legal blood-alcohol limit should be be about 1.5, seeing that the vast majority of drunk-driving accidents are caused by those with this level of alcohol in their blood or higher. But most importantly blood-alcohol should cease being a sole-sufficient criteria for DUI conviction. It should be required to stand alongside the evidence of field sobriety tests and other factors.

Most people who are killed on our highways by drunk drivers are killed by people who are shit-faced with BAC levels of .2 and above and are almost as likely to be multiple offenders. Essentially alcoholics who insist on driving when they are loaded are the enemy here. Our laws need to such that these people understand and understand quickly that we don’t care how much they drink, but if they’re drunk then they will not be tolerated on the public roadways. If we limited the system to apprehending, arresting, prosecuting and convicting impaired drivers, we could justify a 5-8 year prison sentence for second offenders.

yours/
peter.

Aug 25, 2008 - 9:39 pm 36. P. Ami:

I’m curious what Bonaccorsi finds repugnant in mixing the races and if sexual mixing is the only sort you oppose.

BTW, I never got the idea that JB thought alcohol should be banned. I’m curious though, why do do think public intoxication should be punishable by horse-whipping? Have you seen any significant cases of drunks falling from buildings? What if said building was private property? Until they climbed up on the roof and slipped they would not have behaved in a manner punishable by horse whipping.

Last question, the editorial was about drinking age not drunk-driving. I get it, and I assume most people do as well, that drunk driving is a serious crime. I even agree that drunk driving is not taken seriously enough by the law (although I’m not yet ready to accept the death penalty for these offenses). The question is, why did you project your anger for drunk driving at arguments about lowering the drinking age.

Aug 25, 2008 - 9:50 pm 37. htom:

Lower the drinking age, if accompanied by parent(s), guardian(s), or their designees, to twelve. Unaccompanied, to sixteen. DUI, revocation of license until 25. Everyone has to take and pass both written and driving tests every four years, too.

Aug 25, 2008 - 9:55 pm 38. Fresh Air:

Heavens! This Bonaccorsi fellow has been on an old-style Progressive rant for four days now, and I’ve missed all of it. Drat!

BTW, I do think definitions of five or more drinks at one sitting is pretty preposterous, in the same way a blood alcohol content of 0.08 or below is a silly level for DUI. That after all, is the whole point here, Mr. Bonaccorsi–a point that you have first ignored, then obfuscated, and finally, triumphantly punted. Drawing the line is what adults do, you see, another word for it is lawmaking. If you can’t offer any wisdom on this subject, maybe this political stuff just isn’t your cup of tea.

Aug 25, 2008 - 10:53 pm 39. tonynoboloney:

One only has to live in a household with 5 teenagers to see that the legal drinking age should be about 25. They are “wild & crazy” enough without booze. Dad.

Aug 25, 2008 - 10:56 pm 40. John Bonaccorsi:

P. Ami — I hope you don’t mind that I won’t continue on the subject of race-mixing. I recognize that I brought it up. To answer your question: Sexual mixing is not the only sort I oppose.

Probably the main reason my comments did not focus on the drinking age is that my involvement with alcohol is so slight that, in a sense, I didn’t realize that that’s what Mr. Kimball’s article was about. Evidently, there is, effectively, a nationwide 21 drinking age, around which the lives of countless persons under the age of 21 are largely organized. I had no idea.

That’s not to say I think my comments have had no place here. In his closing, Mr. Kimball glibly ridicules those who would provide us with a “perfect prophylactic existence.” He elaborates: they would protect us from alcohol, tobacco, trans-fats, fast food, playground equipment. I personally don’t want to be protected from any of those things; I hope I shall handle all of them with care. Among the things that, on the other hand, I would like me and everyone else to be protected from are drunk drivers; and Mr. Kimball certainly knows that, wisely or unwisely, the concerns of those who advocate a 21 drinking age include drunk driving. He simply lacks the courage to address it.

Being unfamiliar with the body of law about public drunkenness, I can’t remark or opine on questions of the nature of public spaces, private spaces, and so on. I’ve advocated a specific punishment.

Have I seen any significant cases of drunks falling from buildings? I don’t know. What would an insignificant case look like? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen significant cases of drunken mobs tearing whole neighborhoods apart to let the world know that their local team of sub-moronic professional athletes has won a championship game or some similar triumph. They should be discouraged.

Aug 25, 2008 - 11:18 pm 41. John Bonaccorsi:

Fresh Air — I can’t tell what it is you think I have ignored, obfuscated, and punted. I have mixed feelings about the fact that I recognize “punted” as a term from football.

If you are saying that I should vote 18 or 21 on the drinking age, please see my remarks at Aug. 24 5:35 pm and Aug. 25 11:18 pm.

I don’t know what is meant by “an old-style Progressive rant” — but you weren’t being complimentary, were you?

Aug 25, 2008 - 11:34 pm 42. John Bonaccorsi:

But P. Ami — Allow me to put aside my remarks about drunken mobs and drunks who have fallen from windows. With those statements, I have only confused things. It is enough to say that I approve of laws against public drunkenness and that wherever horsewhipping is not the punishment for it, I recommend it. I hope I have responded to you adequately; I can’t give any more time to this page of comments.

Aug 26, 2008 - 1:02 am 43. P. Ami:

JB,

I meant a significant number of cases where drunks fell from buildings. By a significant number I mean 1 or more a week.

You are an odd combination of ignorance, eloquence and opinion. I do not know to what extent to take you seriously. What has kept you ignorant of the nation wide drinking age and yet knowledgeable of race relations? Do you normally condescend to activities you have chosen not to participate in? Do you consider your opinions malleable?

Aug 26, 2008 - 1:20 am 44. mr.frakypants:

Clearly John B. is obviously a troll. A character. Shtick. No one “doesn’t know a thing” about the drinking age, or lacks the foggiest clue about the outcomes of prohibition, or, for that matter, has no idea about the specifics of a thong. Well, maybe if they’re Amish, but then they wouldn’t be reading and posting here, eh?

I can’t believe so many people seriously responded to him. It’s like arguing with a muppet.

Aug 26, 2008 - 5:10 am 45. fmw:

J Bonaccorsi writes: “Have I seen any significant cases of drunks falling from buildings? I don’t know. What would an insignificant case look like?”

Perhaps the question should be expanded, not that it will do any good at all, as you are deliberately playing the fool. Have you seen any cases, significant or otherwise, of drunks falling from high windows? It has happened, of course, but it is not high on the list of things I expect I might die of, ranking just a bit below being savaged by a freshwater shark, and a bit above apoplexy at the site of a mixed-race child brazenly promenaded down main street.

Aug 26, 2008 - 5:29 am 46. Danny Noonan:

John B, you are the most impressive genius since Ignatius Reilly. Too bad the rest of the world is laughing at you.

Aug 26, 2008 - 5:55 am 47. SGT Ted:

“As for servicemen: Most of them seem to me to be the sorts of louts who, in civilian life, direct unkind words toward anyone who tucks his shirt in.”

Bigotted ignorance on display.

Aug 26, 2008 - 6:04 am 48. David Gillies:

yeah, DNFTT. No-one is as much of a combination of prissy arrogant prig and self-confessed ignoramus as this Bonaccorsi fellow.

Aug 26, 2008 - 8:21 am 49. Helveticus:

I’ll weigh in… I live in Switzerland, a country I find very mature when it comes to most public policy issues like this. Over here, the drinking age for beer and wine is 16, and for the hard stuff it’s 18. However, you can’t get a driver’s license till you’re 18, and even then you have to jump through some real hoops to get it: i.e., there is no Driver’s Ed in school; driving is not considered a “right” that is more or less automatically bestowed upon you for reaching the age of 16 and 1 month (and passing a ludicrously easy test). Here, if you want a license, you have to take private driving lessons, which cost about a thousand bucks by the time you’ve added it all up. There is a significant fail rate on the test.

(By the way, this doesn’t make the Swiss better drivers, sadly.)

Drinking, on the other hand, is considered part of living well. I live in a wine-growing region (Lake Geneva), and it’s normal that wine is part of an evening’s pleasure. My 15-year-old daughter is regularly served in restaurants when she is with me – and she has never been asked for an ID. Likewise, my son and I could enjoy a brandy after dinner when he was only 17, and nobody gave it a second thought.

The key is teaching kids to respect alcohol, and to know something about what they are drinking. My kids are hardly wine snobs at their age, but they already know a litle about wine, can appreciate a good wine and also tell if they are being served crap. They love its taste and its diversity and I think they understand that it’s only good in moderation. I honestly can’t imagine either one of them even wanting to indulge in a binge-drinking activity: what’s the point? If you actually like beer or wine, then where’s the enjoyment in drinking till you throw up?

Footnote: drunk driving is taken very seriously here. First offenders will usually face a fine of around 500-800 bucks and probably also a suspended license for 30-90 days. Second time, your license is gone for a year.

Helveticus (a displaced American)

Aug 26, 2008 - 8:41 am 50. Fresh Air:

Drunks who fall out of windows are just committing suicide to avoid the capital punishment that Bonaccorsi has waiting for them. It’s just the right thing to do.

Aug 26, 2008 - 9:02 am 51. fmw:

Helveticus: “drunk driving is taken very seriously here. First offenders will usually face a fine of around 500-800 bucks and probably also a suspended license for 30-90 days. Second time, your license is gone for a year.”

I think that’s pretty much in line with penalties in the US, at least in the states I’m familiar with, at least for the first offense. On top of that people generally have to take some sort of course that they also have to pay for to get their license reinstated. The laws tightened up quite a bit in the 80s and 90s.

Actually, come to think of it when I was in school someone did drunkenly fall from a dorm window and die on our campus. This was a pretty impressive feat, as the windows in the dorms were not made to open easily to prevent just that. But the chances of being hit by someone falling from a window seem very low to me.

Aug 26, 2008 - 3:56 pm 52. Mary Jackson:

This thread has rather gone off the rails and is now about drunk-driving, which is a wicked thing to do.

Drinking and driving absolutely do not mix. I enjoy drinking and pride myself on my driving. That’s two reasons why I don’t ever drink and drive.

In the UK the driving age is 17 and the drinking age is 18, but many learn to drive later. I learned to drive only in my twenties, but “learned” – if that’s the word – to drink in my teens. So I got used to socialising without a car. I’m not unusual. I think Americans do it the other way round. So possibly they use their cars for socialising, then some maybe drink too when they’re old enough.

We have perhaps less of a car culture because public transport is better, at least in the cities. The downside – more of a yobbish drinking “culture” and plenty of alcohol-related problems, probably more than in the US. Brits abroad – our lager louts – are a disgrace.

Aug 26, 2008 - 5:17 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: