backtop

Print 101 comment(s) - last by lemonadesoda.. on Aug 14 at 5:33 PM
The Internet, The Booze, The Internet

A survey from the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of America claims that millions of minors are either buying alcohol online or know someone underage that purchases alcohol online.  More states also want to make online alcohol sales more prevalent but a lack of resources will limit the amount of age enforcement that can be done by the state.  WSWA Chairman Stan Hastings said:  "This is a dangerous situation. For the first time, we have hard evidence that millions of kids are buying alcohol online and that the Internet is fast becoming a high-tech, low-risk way for kids to get beer, wine and liquor delivered to their home with no ID check."  The survey claims more than 3.1 million underage drinkers have bought alcohol online, and over 550,000 claim they have ordered alcohol.

Before a court decision last year, wineries were not legally able to ship products to customers in different states.  The interstate sales ban forced the wineries to sell products to only state-licensed wholesalers, which would then sell the alcohol to liquor and grocery stores.  The elimination of the interstate sales ban allegedly makes it easier for minors to purchase alcohol without having to present some form of ID.

However, news reports have been published claiming that the number of underage drinkers using the Internet to order alcohol isn't as serious as the WSWA claims.  But the article wraps up mentioning that selling alcohol online does have the potential to become a  serious problem in the future.  Tom Riley, spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy said:  "While online sales of alcohol have not yet been a big part of the addiction problem, parents need to learn what teens already know: that the drug dealer who used to lurk in the seedy side of town is now just an e-mail or a URL away from your home."

From personal experience of having wine shipped from local California wineries, UPS always requested whoever signed for the package to show a government issued form of identification before turning over the package.  However, a quick Google search will yield a number of online alcohol vendors that go as far as claiming all packages are sent "discreetly in plain packaging."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
The real issue
By Nik00117 on 8/12/2006 2:32:46 AM , Rating: 2
Here in Germany you can buy liqour at 16. Its supposed to be just Beer and Wine at 16 but heh its not enforced. In all honsety America should lower their drinking age. If your over 18 your not a minor and should be allowed to drink.

O BTW even with the drinking age beign 5 years younger then it is in the states the alcolic rate is down, DUI is down, and overall crime is down. And a lot of kids start before 16. Its not uncommon for a 13 year old to drink a beer with his dad or have a glass of wine with ehr mom at a fest or at a party or somthing. And at 14-15 they start going to the fests with friends.

Lower drinking age just to 18 and this won't be as much as an issuse.

You can die for your country, but you can't buy a beer the day before you get shipped off to some war.




RE: The real issue
By masher2 (blog) on 8/12/2006 6:21:19 AM , Rating: 2
> "In all honsety America should lower their drinking age"

Our overly-high drinking age is the result of knee-jerk reactions to teen drinking. The theory is that, the longer you delay giving kids responsibility, the more mature they'll be when they get it. Of course, it doesn't work that way. The longer you delay adult responsibilities from children, the slower they mature. If the legal age for drinking, marriage, voting, drivers license, etc, was all age 30, you'd see 29-year olds acting just like the 19-year olds of today.

Right now there's a push in my state to raise the drivers license age to 17. Some states are considering age 18. Of course, if you do that, you'll see a temporary reduction in accidents from new drivers. But over time, you'll see the situation return to the status quo-- new, age 18 drivers being just as irresponsible as our new drivers of today.


RE: The real issue
By pertsa on 8/12/2006 6:55:58 AM , Rating: 2
That's true with certain limitations. Eg. some brain areas (like the prefrontal cortex) mature at a relatively late time point (~15yrs.).


RE: The real issue
By TomZ on 8/12/2006 9:37:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The theory is that, the longer you delay giving kids responsibility, the more mature they'll be when they get it. Of course, it doesn't work that way.

That would make sense if alcohol use was the only responsibility in question. Children also can learn responsibility from many of the other important activities in their lives at this age - driving, taking responsibility for their own finances, performance at school, social interaction, holding down jobs, etc. I agree with your conclusion if you delay all responsibilities, but I don't think that is what is being suggested.


RE: The real issue
By masher2 (blog) on 8/12/2006 4:45:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "Children also can learn responsibility from many of the other important activities in their lives at this age - driving, taking responsibility for their own finances, performance at school, social interaction, holding down jobs, etc"

This is my point. That society is in a continuing process of deferring all those responsibilities to a later date. One law raises the drinking age, another the driving age, a third something else. How long before we tack another year onto High School?

A couple hundred years ago in America, a 14-year old boy might well be married, and setting out with his wife to homestead his own farm, miles away from anyone else. Now I'm certainly not advocating a return to that...but the fact is, that boy was mature enough to handle that situation. What 14 year old could today?

Certainly society is vastly different today. But we have the same cerebral cortexes as we did in 1815. The difference is due, in large part, to our deferring more and more adult responsibilities to a later age.



RE: The real issue
By Lord 666 on 8/12/2006 10:06:03 AM , Rating: 2
Masher,

You completely hit the issue on the head. "Evidence" of this "man-child" epidemic can be seen by the increasing amount of 21-32 crowd still live at home with their parents, including a friend of mine who sometimes has a role on a cable tv show(meaning he has the money, but rather not move out.)

Newsweek ran an article with one of the leading theories being baby boomers babied their children more and longer. But as you pointed out, its more socio conditions around them; high age of drinking limit, reduced enlistment into the military, and high prices of college education on campus living.

I've been drinking since 13, but had the internet been the way it was back them (early 90's) it would not have changed drinking habits. Even brew your own beer was too much effort.


RE: The real issue
By NullSubroutine on 8/12/2006 12:23:07 PM , Rating: 1
Aye, people dont get into crashes because they are young or irresponsible it is because they are inexpereinced drivers. You could set the driving liscence age to 45 and if they have never driven before they will be just as likely to get in an accident as teenagers.


RE: The real issue
By TomZ on 8/12/2006 2:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Aye, people dont get into crashes because they are young or irresponsible it is because they are inexpereinced drivers. You could set the driving liscence age to 45 and if they have never driven before they will be just as likely to get in an accident as teenagers.

Experience is not the only factor. Another factor is risk, and as it should be self-evident, generally younger drivers are more willing to take more risks than older drivers.


RE: The real issue
By lemonadesoda on 8/12/2006 5:50:14 PM , Rating: 2
... especially drunk ones


RE: The real issue
By Ringold on 8/12/2006 10:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
As a pilot who's watched others go through training at all ages, as early as 10 and old as 70, I'd say the MAIN component there is indeed experience.

Flying you might say is different than driving, but let me tell you a secret: not really. Demands more attention, stakes are higher, and can't be medically impaired in many ways, such as being blind in one eye, and still fly, but thats about it.

The younger pilots (and I don't have studies in front of me to prove it) learn perfectly well, and admittedly are more gung-ho, but extensive training means that when they're cut loose they are fully prepared in all aspects for most every situation in which they can find themselves in the planes they are qualified to fly in. Thats a broad statement, but its a broad truth. Now, retention of all of that is a different matter, but the older pilots fall victim to that just as the younger ones do.

Facts regarding how the brain develops means I wouldn't let 8 year olds loose, but 18 is ridiculous. I myself flew solo a $300k C172 long before I could drive a family sedan. Allocating proper funds to driver training would be the best thing.


RE: The real issue
By TomZ on 8/12/2006 10:31:31 PM , Rating: 2
Difference is that driving a car is something that people do every day, and there is no conscious thought about safety. Flying, on the other hand, is surrounded by a culture of safety. Based on this, I don't think it is a valid comparison.


RE: The real issue
By Ringold on 8/12/2006 10:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
Regarding what I said about them being 'gung-ho'..

I'll retract that a bit.. I was too, until one time I was recovering from a practice engine-out approach to a suitable field at around 200 or 300ft when my CFI told me to recover. I started by raising flaps first, and could instantly feel the stall starting at the root of the wings and rapidly propagating outwards. Being a damn n00b, if I'd been solo, probably would've stalled and made a hard landing or a near escape, but CFI about messed himself and slapped the flaps back up.

What was that though? Experience from extensive training. Never did that little mistake again.... Nothing to do with maturity in that case though, just experience. Because it was with an instructor, with was experience at no cost to safety. Driving incorporates none of that, leaving xp to be gained in blood.


RE: The real issue
By lemonadesoda on 8/12/2006 7:28:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can die for your country, but you can't buy a beer the day before you get shipped off to some war.
That's OK. If you let them drink, they won't drink one beer, but get completely pissed on the hard stuff before they go. Second problem. If you let them drink before they get "shipped off", you should equally let them drink "in their time off", or before they go to battle", or before they go out on reconnaissance or patrol.

Result: Soldiers in poor state of alertness, possibly reduced judgement, possibly more prone to the wrong kind of aggressive behaviour, possibly trigger-happy.

We have enough problems with the bahaviour of soldiers in foreign countries. Let's not make the situation worse!

You cannot link "drink" with "die for your country". Its a falacious argument. Just like you cannot link "drugs" with "cannon fodder".


RE: The real issue
By mindless1 on 8/12/2006 8:32:25 AM , Rating: 2
The falacious argument would be that you know better than they, whether they'd drink enough to impair them the next day. Further it's rather arrogant to think you should choose FOR them the consequences of their actions. Perhaps you are thinking bad for the country that it happen but those who sit on the sidelines should be thankful, not controlling of what the players are doing.

I do think it "might" be bad to get drunk the night before an important mission, but that's quite different than blanket statements about drinking in general before being shipped out. For one there's the timeline, most of the time in the military is not in battle, the all too familiar phrase comes to mind "Hurry up and wait.".


RE: The real issue
By lemonadesoda on 8/12/2006 5:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
What mindless rubbish. The next ego-liberal-statement you will come up with is: Its a falacious argument that you know better than they, whether they'd drink enough to impair their driving ability. Ergo, no drink-driving laws needed, no breathalizers, no court proceedings, SINCE, according to your argument, it would be arrogant to think you should choose for them.

Now either I completely misunderstood your post, or you have a noodle-in-der-kopf.


RE: The real issue
By mindless1 on 8/13/2006 11:51:16 AM , Rating: 2
You made no definition of intoxication level, just your nonsense about drinking before being shipping out the NEXT DAY. Are you thinking that drinking the night before being shipped out translates into a hangover, let alone high blood alcohol level days later? You seem a bit ignorant of reality, have you been in the service?


RE: The real issue
By AmbroseAthan on 8/14/2006 11:27:27 AM , Rating: 2
Well unless I missed something, military law already has some strict protocol on drinking before a mission. Not to mention anyone in your unit would likely attack you with bars of soap like happened in "Full Metal Jacket" if you got drunk before a mission.

And being you don't like the military and drinking age comparrison: If I get married at 19 to my 18 year old sweetheart, its not odd I can be trusted in a marriage but not be trusted to drink a glass of champagne at my wedding?


RE: The real issue
By xsilver on 8/12/2006 9:44:42 AM , Rating: 2
yes, which is why education is much more important
dont know about USA, but in australia there is a probationary period of 3 years after getting your license where A) zero alcohol B)No high powered cars

with alcohol it should be the same, education from parents needs to be admitted at an early aged where lessons of moderation are taught otherwise people get absolutley smashed and commit reckless behaviour

thats what the problem is, I dont think that for a teenager not many people will have a problem with half a glass at dinner with the folks 2-3 times a week
however 1 whole bottle of vodka /night is really the source of the problem


RE: The real issue
By TomZ on 8/12/2006 9:44:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lower drinking age just to 18 and this won't be as much as an issuse.

How do you know this? I've referenced some research in a post above that contradicts what you are saying.


RE: The real issue
By masher2 (blog) on 8/12/2006 10:30:26 AM , Rating: 2
I think that research makes the classic mistake (so common among the social sciences) of mistaking correlation for causation.

Research shows that AIDS levels are much higher in urban areas than rural. Those same areas have a much higher use of chlorinated drinking water. Conclusion-- chlorine in water causes AIDS!


RE: The real issue
By TomZ on 8/12/2006 11:21:39 AM , Rating: 2
I agree completely, and causation is very hard to prove any time you can't control the experiment.

But I think the data in those studies pretty much sidelines the assertion that underage drinking is less of a problem in Europe compared to the US. Also, the proposal that lowering the drinking age in the US would lead to less problems with underage drinking is also not supported by the cited research.


RE: The real issue
By NullSubroutine on 8/12/2006 12:28:55 PM , Rating: 1
Another problem becomes is that research is supposed to help each other out, if there is a study that shows a correlation between A and B the research can say there is a link there, but in truth they dont know the specific link. However, what it is supposed to happen after this point is other researchers reproduce or alter part of the research to see where and WHY the link exists. Most intelligent researches recognize causal links dont mean actual cauation, but the politicians who get their grubby paws on there data or conclusions dont, and fubar it all to hell.


RE: The real issue
By lemonadesoda on 8/12/2006 5:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
Oh! Thanks for the warning! I'd better buy bottled mineral water from now on.

;-)


I fail to see the concern...
By killerroach on 8/11/2006 10:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
After all, in order to pay for anything online, you need a credit card or checking account, which means you have to be at least 18 or have your parents on the account... I know it's below 21, but still, the difference of a couple of years isn't a huge deal, especially when you consider 18 is the drinking age for liquor in most of the rest of the world...




RE: I fail to see the concern...
By tacorly on 8/12/2006 1:05:47 AM , Rating: 1
uhh, I'm 17 and have my own debit, I've ordered lots of things that you have to be 18-21 to buy and didn't need any signature...


RE: I fail to see the concern...
By tacorly on 8/12/2006 1:06:12 AM , Rating: 1
oh right sorry, forgot to address this, I don't have anyone else on the account, it is my own and I opened it myself.


RE: I fail to see the concern...
By goku on 8/12/2006 2:10:33 AM , Rating: 1
? How is this even possible? Usually if you're under 18 it's joint signer etc.


By peternelson on 8/12/2006 5:29:11 PM , Rating: 2

Here in the UK, there are some banks I was reading about today who offer debit cards on 11 year olds upwards.

As for myself, I have a Mastercard account on which I can obtain duplicate cards for users at least 13 years old. They need not be related to me, although I would of course ultimately have to pay for purchases, or get reimbursed by the cardholder.

With many purchases, the purchase is not detailed, other than a company merchant name and the amount.

Clearly someone could purchase items the nature of which would not be obvious to the 18+ person who maintains the account.

My point is that you cannot assume persons with electronic payment methods for the internet are over 18. There are some systems eg (UK) splashplastic designed for the net, but available (and mainly targeted) to teenagers. That card does have an age verification system whereby the cardholder can register some proof that they are a certain age and the scheme operators verify to the merchant that they are old enough to purchase certain age restricted items. Unfortunately acceptance of that payment method is not very widespread so far.


By rushfan2006 on 8/14/2006 2:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
? How is this even possible? Usually if you're under 18 it's joint signer etc.


It this person lives in the USA it isn't possible. Either he/she is lying for some silly "gotta get the one up over somoene on an Internet forum" thing OR her/his bank is run by idiots and she/he benefited from their overwhelming stupidity.

18 years old is the legal age for a binding contract and I'm pretty sure its that way in 50 states, though I suppose there is an oddball hick state that may have their contract law set at 17 years old.

I know folks in law firms, banks and real estate and never heard them say anything under 18 is legally binding.

As for the topic itself I agree with the OP...its a crock..they don't care about our kids just protecting their bottom line.


RE: I fail to see the concern...
By Spyvie on 8/12/2006 1:46:36 AM , Rating: 2
This is pointless internet FUD for the masses.

As far as I know the only booze you can buy online is fine wine, how many kids are getting drunk on a bottle of merlot? That’s not to say teen drinking isn’t a problem, but I don’t believe some 17yo ordering a case of wine then waiting a couple of days for delivery is a major issue.


RE: I fail to see the concern...
By TomZ on 8/12/2006 9:43:00 AM , Rating: 3
You're exactly right. The real problem is Joe Consumer ordering a case of Merlot right from the vineyard, which effectively bypasses the distributor which is in the middle of the "Three Tier System" that guarantees profits for distributors. The WSWA, which is the sponsor of this "research" is a trade group that represents distributors.

http://www.wswa.org/public/about/brochure.pdf

In the long-term, elimination of the "middle man" would lead to greater economic efficiency.


RE: I fail to see the concern...
By BladeVenom on 8/12/2006 9:53:38 AM , Rating: 2
It's all about distributors trying to hold onto their government enforced monopoly. A corrupt collaboration between wholesalers and easily bribed politicians.

For every kid who buys it online, 100 buy it from the regular distribution system. So we'd be better off selling it all online.

When I was a kid, my friends would sometimes get it from wholesalers. They were less likely to check your age than anyone else, but of course you had to buy it in large quantities that way.


By lemonadesoda on 8/13/2006 2:49:35 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
elimination of the "middle man" would lead to greater economic efficiency
I disagree in most cases. The middle man creates communication, distribution and quality control. All of these 3 things are required in an efficient economy.


RE: I fail to see the concern...
By hoppa on 8/12/2006 2:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
You know wrong. There are plenty of places to buy both beer and liquor online. As someone who has ordered plenty of regional beers from various venders (and only got "carded" once), I can say that the thing that would hold back most teens is the extreme cost of shipping. And that you can't get crappy beer.

I did have a 19 y/o friend in college that ordered a big box of liquor. The shipping was pricy, but it lasted him most of the rest of the school year. That is, until he had a nervous breakdown and left school to work at a bagel shop for the next 3 years.


By killerroach on 8/12/2006 2:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
You don't look online much, do you? It is possible to buy absinthe (yes, absinthe!) online without much hassle. I kid you not. Again, though, as long as the person is at least 18, who really cares?

(And no, I'm not saying this as an under-21 adult wanting to drink legally... I'm a few days short of my 23rd birthday, and, to be honest, rarely, if ever, drink. I just think the whole nonsense of a legal drinking age of 21 is nonsense, and probably helps exacerbate the problem of binge drinking amongst high school seniors and college underclassmen)


Sh*t hitting fan in 3... 2...
By bersl2 on 8/11/2006 10:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
1) Those desiring to drink should be starting earlier, not later. It is easier to teach responsibility at a younger age.

2) I will never understand the obsession with alcohol.




By mendocinosummit on 8/11/2006 11:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. One of the worse things is a Freshman in college who came from a family who did not allow them to do anything whiel in high school. They are the ones who are more likely to drink way to much and/or not pass their first year of college, because they are having to much drunken sex and drinkin' to much.

Also, I love liquor. I started drinking when I was 12, because it is a great social variable. Now it is still great socially, but mostly because they taste great.


RE: Sh*t hitting fan in 3... 2...
By TomZ on 8/12/2006 12:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those desiring to drink should be starting earlier, not later. It is easier to teach responsibility at a younger age.

Completely wrong. Where did you get this information? Here are the real facts:

Parents' drinking behavior and favorable attitudes about drinking have been positively associated with adolescents' initiating and continuing drinking. Early initiation of drinking has been identified as an important risk factor for later alcohol-related problems . Children who were warned about alcohol by their parents and children who reported being closer to their parents were less likely to start drinking.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa37.htm

quote:
I will never understand the obsession with alcohol

You are expressing a great ignorance here. There are serious risks associated with underage drinking (well-summarized at the link above). Also, obviously you have no direct experience with how problems with alcohol can negatively affect individuals and families.

I'm not against alcohol use (I enjoy beer personally), however, moderation and responsibility are pretty important. I think you are also in a way advocating this, but you are apparently unaware of the risks of underage drinking.


RE: Sh*t hitting fan in 3... 2...
By tacorly on 8/12/06, Rating: 0
RE: Sh*t hitting fan in 3... 2...
By TomZ on 8/12/2006 9:28:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who are you to say "completely wrong?"

I wasn't making a judgement, I was saying that the medical research doesn't support the claim made. The medical research that I quoted supports the exact opposite conclusion, that drinking should be delayed until kids are older and more mature.
quote:
Are you the expert on social behavoir?

No, which is why I am referencing medical research rather than stating my own views.
quote:
To what discredit do you give the above claim about the freshman in college.

That is just an anecdote. I can tell you about folks I knew in college that never drank until they started college (due to strict parenting in some cases and personal choice in other cases) that drank some in college but didn't go crazy with it. Anecdotes don't prove anything in a statistically significant way.


RE: Sh*t hitting fan in 3... 2...
By hoppa on 8/12/2006 2:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is a well served point that the protected freshman in college loose for the first time will likely indulge himself further than those who have been partying for several years prior and are accustomed to handling themselves and continuing to live their lives like normal citizens.


While it is true that many students that come from over-protective families go a little wild in their first year of college, they are usually cooled off by their 2nd or 3rd year, which is right around when all the "normal" kids (the non-popular, not-overprotected kids) have come to the fore. By the end of senior year, 99% of people I knew drank. And everyone that drinks has been 3 sheets to the wind at some point or another.


RE: Sh*t hitting fan in 3... 2...
By NullSubroutine on 8/12/2006 1:59:08 AM , Rating: 1
If you are gonna quote research data, take the time to think critically about what is being said.

quote:
Parents' drinking behavior and favorable attitudes about drinking have been positively associated with adolescents' initiating and continuing drinking.


This means if parents drink, the liklihood the child drinks. This DOES NOT say if a parent takes upon themselves to teach thier child how to drink responsibly they are gonna be drunks, I have seen plenty of research showing the complete opposite. The data is also from the 1980's so it is either a real great study (which I could go look it up through univeristy library) or it is out of date.

quote:
Early initiation of drinking has been identified as an important risk factor for later alcohol-related problems .


This research says nothing about parents teaching their child to drink responsibly and without looking at the data specifically I can take a pretty educated guess this data relies heavily on alcoholic or drug abused families and parents. Are kids of alcoholics more likely to drink than kids who arent? Without going to some goverment site to back myself up, I am going to go out on a limb and use some common sense and say yes.

In so you accuse him of being ignorant to the problems of underage drinking, I feel it is my duty to explain to you that you are ignorant to what contributes not to "underage drinking" but irresponsible drinking habits which are the real problem (regardless of age).

Kids close to their parents likely have good role models, they teach them how to act responsibily in many different circumstances, one of which is how to drink socially. If a child never experiences of observes adults drinking responsibly or socially, they will not likely adopt this behavior.

The problem is not underage drinking, it is siginificant portion of society that has never learned how to drink without the purpose of getting sloshed. They are children that were forbidden to drink by their parents or law and when they had access, legal or not, they gorged themselves without self-control.


RE: Sh*t hitting fan in 3... 2...
By TomZ on 8/12/2006 9:31:02 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with your thesis that the research I referenced did not directly address the factor of parental responsibility. But look at my post below, because it does reference research that more clearly looks at the differences between US and Europe with respect to underage drinking, and seems to conclude that the assumed greater parental involvement in Europe does not lead to fewer problems with underage drinking.


RE: Sh*t hitting fan in 3... 2...
By NullSubroutine on 8/12/2006 12:14:52 PM , Rating: 1
Doesnt make sense that if it is legal for 15/16 y/o's in a country to drink there would be MORE of them than in a country that does?

quote:
-A greater percentage of young people report having five or more drinks in a row.


What exactly is a 'greater percentage'? What constitutes drinks in a row? Lets also frame this in another context, lets say jumping on a pogo stick is not allowed in country A until the age of 21, and in Country B they can at the age of 15/16. Now if you are gonna survey a population out of A and B, the likelihood that country B has more pogo jumpers than A is not necessairly because country B ha a pogo jumping problem, but more of a population that can do it freely. And again, if Country B has more pogo jumpers than A in a pool of population, it is more likely you are gonna find pogo jumpers who like to jump more than 5 hops in a row.

The problem is that most research done in the world is done with errors, whether in sampling, methology, or analysis.


By NullSubroutine on 8/12/2006 12:18:47 PM , Rating: 1
ugh thats supposed to be down there....


RE: Sh*t hitting fan in 3... 2...
By lemonadesoda on 8/12/2006 7:19:42 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry TomZ, that's complete FUD.

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa37.htm

Why are you quoting government propaganda? There's clearly an agenda to a government agenca self-promoting their cause.

***

1./ Take European countries where alcohol restrictions are much lower. Alcohol problems are not as severe as in the US. Especially in wine cultures like france, italy, spain. Wine is part of the family and food tradition, and is taken in moderation. It sets a precedent.

2./ However, take (from whatever country), adults who hit the hard stuff through depression or socio-economic disorder and abuse alcohol. This is not a good role model for kids. If these people have kids, then I'm not so sure it's the alcohol, or the cigarettes, per say, that are the blame, but the environment in which the kids are being brought up in.

3./ In fact the true issue is not just alcohol, but other substance or behavioural abuse, whether that drugs, over-indulgence in "self", and other bad habits.


RE: Sh*t hitting fan in 3... 2...
By TomZ on 8/12/2006 9:21:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why are you quoting government propaganda? There's clearly an agenda to a government agenca self-promoting their cause.

Yes, probably - the cause of health , since it is the National Institutes of Health. I would agree about that. Anyway, I'm not sure how you figure that medical research is FUD, since the point of research is to bring out more facts. Maybe you are thinking that the research has been manipulated by "interested parties."

quote:
Take European countries where alcohol restrictions are much lower. Alcohol problems are not as severe as in the US. Especially in wine cultures like france, italy, spain. Wine is part of the family and food tradition, and is taken in moderation. It sets a precedent.

Have you seen research that backs that claim? The research I could find on the Internet does not support that claim.

Commonly, Europe is held up as an example where there are more liberal drinking age laws and attitudes that, in turn, foster more responsible styles of drinking by young people. It is often asserted that young Europeans learn to drink more responsibly than young people from the United States.

According to the research, there is no evidence that the stricter laws and policies regarding drinking by young people in the United States are associated with higher rates of intoxication. Equally, there is no evidence that the more liberal policies and drinking socialization practices in Europe are associated with lower levels of intoxication.

In comparison with young people in the United States:

-A greater percentage of young people from nearly all European countries report drinking in the past 30 days.

-A greater percentage of young people report having five or more drinks in a row.

-About half of the European countries have intoxication rates among young people that are higher than the intoxication rates in the United States.
http://www.parent-teen.com/newsreleases2001/eurodr...

Conclusions from another study:

Although European nations have lower legal drinking ages (16-18) than in the United States (21), similar proportions engage in underage drinking. In two-thirds of European countries, a greater percentage of 15-16 year-olds drank five or more drinks on an occasion in the past month than in the United States. In both the United States and Europe, the earlier people begin to drink, the greater the likelihood of developing alcohol dependence and other alcohol-related problems, including alcohol-related crash involvement, during adolescence and adult years.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=...

I should say, I don't claim to be an expert in this area, but the research I'm seeing doesn't point to the sorts of conclusions that you and others are drawing.


RE: Sh*t hitting fan in 3... 2...
By pertsa on 8/12/2006 10:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
There are huge differences in European countries regarding alcohol consumption. In Finland (where I live) and most of Eastern Europe people consider drinking just a couple of drinks insane. The situation is quite different in France and Spain, for example. Of course, self-reports are highly inaccurate, if intoxication is considered negative in that culture (or in the other case people could boast about their drinking - it's really usual in my country amongst teenagers).

Imo, you can't say what would or would not happen if you lowered the legal drinking age, based on this kind of research. (Well, usually legalizing a substance or lowering age limits has lead to a sudden rise in consumption and later decline to the "usual" level)


By NullSubroutine on 8/12/2006 12:19:27 PM , Rating: 1
Doesnt make sense that if it is legal for 15/16 y/o's in a country to drink there would be MORE of them than in a country that does?

quote:
-A greater percentage of young people report having five or more drinks in a row.


What exactly is a 'greater percentage'? What constitutes drinks in a row? Lets also frame this in another context, lets say jumping on a pogo stick is not allowed in country A until the age of 21, and in Country B they can at the age of 15/16. Now if you are gonna survey a population out of A and B, the likelihood that country B has more pogo jumpers than A is not necessairly because country B ha a pogo jumping problem, but more of a population that can do it freely. And again, if Country B has more pogo jumpers than A in a pool of population, it is more likely you are gonna find pogo jumpers who like to jump more than 5 hops in a row.

The problem is that most research done in the world is done with errors, whether in sampling, methology, or analysis.


By lemonadesoda on 8/12/2006 5:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
Some good points. And I do agree with you, that you can pick and choose your sources, or pick and choose WHICH countries in a survey are included in the statistics, to just about prove whatever you want.

It's a contentious issue.

Ultimately, cross country comparisons may be invalid, since the culture and behaviour amongst the target group varies so differently, that the same "rule" applied in a different country WILL lead to a different "effect".

I do agree that just because a lower drinking age may work in France, or Czech Republic, (just two example countries that I have visited where drinking culture is very different from either, e.g. the US and UK), that this does not mean we will get the same result if we just transfer the same laws to the US or UK.


Correction
By CelSnip on 8/11/2006 10:09:12 PM , Rating: 3
"Two percent (551,000) of those ages 14-20 say they personally have bought alcohol online."

I think the title is misleading.




RE: Correction
By Knish on 8/11/2006 11:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
That's *directly*. If you read the article you would know they are also talking about indirectly.


RE: Correction
By GaryJohnson on 8/11/2006 11:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
The actual survey is here:

http://www.wswa.org/public/media/tru-research/TRUS...

*The 551,000 figure is an estimate.
*The survey was of 1,001 minors ages 14-20.
*Around ~20 (2% of 1,001) said they've bought alcohol onine.
*The survey admits a +/- 3% margin of error.


RE: Correction
By NullSubroutine on 8/12/2006 1:32:33 AM , Rating: 1
so its possible -1% of kids bought alcohol...hah so that mean they selling it.


RE: Correction
By jimmy43 on 8/12/2006 5:15:26 AM , Rating: 2
No that means a margin of error regarding the result, meaning ~20 +/- 3% (<1), so 19-21. What your saying is +/- 150% error.


RE: Correction
By masher2 (blog) on 8/12/2006 6:06:43 AM , Rating: 2
> "No that means a margin of error regarding the result, meaning ~20 +/- 3% (<1).."

No. Survey error is quoted in percentage points, not percent of the result. If a survey says the result is 10% plus or minus 5 percentage points, the actual result is anywhere from 5 to 15%....not anywhere from 9.5% to 10.5%.


RE: Correction
By jimmy43 on 8/13/2006 3:30:19 AM , Rating: 2
Haha yes yes you are right. I just found the original results to be crazy and assumed it that way. Guess it shows this survey is a joke more than anything.


RE: Correction
By pertsa on 8/12/2006 7:18:07 AM , Rating: 2
Even if the error was countes that way, I don't think these figures are reliable. It is typical to report a single margin of error in a survey where there are several different sized groups (like estimating election behavior, some parties (in Finland) have about 20% of total votes, while others have about 1%. Now if you ask 1000 people who would they vote, it is very likely that you won't get exactly 10 (in a 1% support scenario). You could get 11 or 9 or what ever, but the error is usually much higher than stated (for the small support parties)).


RE: Correction
By NullSubroutine on 8/12/2006 12:16:47 PM , Rating: 1
yah like masher said, in every statistics class i had to take, or the research i had to do it was done in percentage points. the margin of error is figured based upon the size of population that you take the survey from.


RE: Correction
By NullSubroutine on 8/12/2006 12:17:17 PM , Rating: 1
i also forgot to say i was trying to be funny


I think
By Merry on 8/12/2006 12:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
People are missing the point. Many people drink underage due to various stresses present at that time, indeed i get my exam results in a few days time and theres a good chance i will be getting off my face.

This happens nearly every weekend in the UK and is little to do with the drinking age, although in my experience those exposed to alcohol at an earlier age are often more responsible.




RE: I think
By lemonadesoda on 8/12/2006 6:02:58 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. Nearly everyweekend? That's a lot of exams!

Perhaps you should take up smoking. I hear it can also relieve the stress...

LOL ;-)

Merry, thanks for your post. Your post demonstrates that young people are using alcohol as a drug. In your case you legitimise its use for relieving stress. This confirms the general concern that alcohol is easily misused, abused, overused, in the young age group. As a form of protection it is therefore made illegal.

I'm now tending to agree with the "draconian laws".


RE: I think
By Merry on 8/12/2006 7:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
legitimise its use for relieving stress.

i never said anything of the sort

This confirms the general concern that alcohol is easily misused, abused, overused, in the young age group. As a form of protection it is therefore made illegal.

This isnt just our age group, it is also older generations who work longer hours etc

As a form of protection it is therefore made illegal.

As i said above, its not just my generation, also making it illegal makes it more of a problem as it becomes 'cooler' to drink.


I think you misunderstand me. Its not just exams its a whole range of social issues such as working hours, monetary worries etc. Yes, i am 18, therefore i am legal to drink and yes, I do, on occaision get very drunk but then so does my dad, who is 61, and my sister, who is 21. Age is not the point and therefore the drinking age is irrelevant.

You also raise an interesting point, as kids, much younger than me, are increasingly smoking more. Mainly because they can buy cigs from the age of 16 and not alcohol, so perhaps i should start smoking after all *rolls eyes*



RE: I think
By lemonadesoda on 8/12/2006 7:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
Merry, sorry, I wasn't trying to get at you personally, just using your comments as ammunition.

The parent - daughter - son drinking link is however interesting. Not actually the drinking, per se, but the getting pissed.


RE: I think
By psychobriggsy on 8/13/2006 12:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
If you lived in the UK you'd drink, if you had enough money after the government grabbed as much of it in taxes as it could. Everyone uses drinking as a drug over here, actually older people moreso than younger people.

In my opinion, when you're an adult you should be able to do what you like within the law, and the law for a 18 year old should be the same as the law for an 40 year old. The state shouldn't protect people from their own behaviour, otherwise unhealthy fast food should be made illegal too.

If you use alcohol irresponsibly, then the law can punish you for your behaviour, or you'll get fired, etc depending on what you did. Therefore drinking responsibly, and limiting excessive drinking to friday/saturday night is sensible.

I think that 18 year olds should be able to buy and drink alcohol by law in the US. That, or raise the age of being an adult, and all the responsibilies and consequences thereof to 21. There is a very vocal minority of people who have issues about other people's alcohol behaviour and they want to do all they can to impose their beliefs on those people via the law. I understand that in the US states will have their highway repair budget cut by central government if the drinking age is under 21. That's simply wrong.

In the UK we had for 90 years a retarded system whereby alcohol was not allowed to be sold in pubs after 11pm. It led to the eventual situation where people would binge drink without eating - i.e., you leave work, you go to a pub, and you drink as much as you can in the few hours allotted by the law. That wasn't healthy. Imagine thousands of drunk people being thrown out of pubs at the same time into the streets! For about 8 months now we've had longer licensing hours, and bad behaviour has dropped despite being able to drink for longer. People don't feel they're 'beating the system' by drinking more in a short time, so they drink slower. They have a meal before going out. It's more European, and hopefully over time the spectre of drunken British holidaymakers will fade away.

If you keep on delaying people's adulthood, they'll simply take longer to reach a state of responsibility. Delaying the drinking age to 21 does not stop DUI and accidents, it drives previously legal drinking underground, it uses up valuable police time, and DUI levels don't drop, the perpetrators are merely a bit older.


RE: I think
By lemonadesoda on 8/14/2006 3:39:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Therefore drinking responsibly, and limiting excessive drinking to friday/saturday night is sensible.
Thanks for the admission that in the UK, young people use alcohol excessively.

In your mind, and indeed in many other UK youths, excessive drinking is culturally acceptable. (As long as it is Friday / Staurday night).


RE: I think
By Merry on 8/14/2006 6:50:35 AM , Rating: 2
You're a patronising git arent you.

Is there some reason for this? Is it something to do with religion? You're basically calling the youth of the UK alcoholics which, for me is a little insulting. Are you trying to tell me you have never been drunk on any occaision?

Drinking is a social thing in the UK. We all go down to the pub, have a few pints, play darts/pool/pub quiz, and generally forget the stresses of the day. This does not amount to a serious drinking problems, indeed i actually find it sad that people of my age cant do this in the US.

Yes, sometimes events get on top of you and you drink too much, but then this happens all over the world, regardless of age. If it wasnt alcohol it would be something else, probably smoking, like you said before, and i certainley know which one i would choose.


RE: I think
By lemonadesoda on 8/14/2006 5:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get angry with me just because I quoted you. And throwing insults around rather than providing a logical argument is pretty immature.


Real Issue: Distribution Monopolies
By TomZ on 8/11/2006 9:51:58 PM , Rating: 4
The real issue is that the existing beer, wine, and liquor distributors have virtual monopolies in their regions, basically guaranteed by state licensing laws. They see Internet distribution as a real threat to their monopolies. The ban on interstate shipment of alcohol is just one of the other related tactics.

I mean, really, does anyone really believe that these distributors care at all if underage kids are puchasing liquor? All they care about is maintaining their existing sales and profit margins. Since they are businesses, this is understandable, but let's be clear about that and see through this smokescreen that they see Internet distribution as a threat to our children - LOL.




RE: Real Issue: Distribution Monopolies
By lemonadesoda on 8/12/2006 7:11:42 AM , Rating: 3
Very true. A similar issue exists with bottled WATER distribution in Europe.

There are many local bottlers/distributors of mineral water in Europe. Their distribution system is expensive. Deliver glass bottles in crates, customer pays small deposit, collect empty bottles... Or customer buys glass bottle in supermarket, pays deposit, returns empty bottle for deposit refund.

The glass bottles are heavy, and returning them is a pain. If dropped they break, etc. Somehow, plastic PET bottles would be so much more convenient.

Some years ago, supermarkets and discounters started selling mineral water in PET bottles (no deposit). Guess what? Sales of PET water rocketed. Sales of glass-deposit-return bottles plummeted.

What happened? Through political "masterplay", the local water bottling/distribution companies convinced the governments to introduce deposit on PET bottles. Funny, isn't it, that the deposit on the PET bottle is 3x the deposit on a glass bottle. I leave you to your own conclusion.

Some European countries have implemented this system, some are considering it, some have not. To me, it is legislating inefficiency into the market.

While I like the concept of supporting, maybe even "protecting" local companies and local employers, I am fundamentally against legislating inefficiency and public burden into the economy.


RE: Real Issue: Distribution Monopolies
By lucyfek on 8/12/2006 10:28:23 AM , Rating: 2
i can't see a link between deposit and a monopoly and the price difference between glass and pet is obvious once you take enviromental issues into account. and trust me, your efficient economy without "public" burden on it seems to be somewhat crippled - it's enough to look around in places of the total economic "freedom" with no rules in place. and after all, one way or another you'll pay for your junk - either in the form of deposit (you can claim it back) or in the trash removal fees (forget about seeing this money again). so actually, deposit is a good thing - it help you remember to bring the container back and not just to dump it to the landfill or on the highway (american way(s) of life) and money is the best way to teach people. and if you tired of dooing it, let your kids do it (i remember doing this myself instead of asking parrents for pocket money) or just leave it next to a dumpster and someone will take care of business (money does not stink).


RE: Real Issue: Distribution Monopolies
By lemonadesoda on 8/12/2006 5:39:16 PM , Rating: 2
lucyfek. Perhaps you are unaware that in Europe we have 3 trash bins for EVERY house. 1 x paper for recycling, 1 x plastic and cans for recycling, 1 x other trash for landfill.

Hence PET is being recycled already. No need for a deposit and return system. Did you also know that YOU CANNOT recycle PET bottles to make new PET bottles? Once PET is recycled its chemical structure changes, and the plastic you end up with can be used for many purposes, but NOT new bottles.

Your argument is completely crippled as you say.





By Crassus on 8/14/2006 9:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hence PET is being recycled already.


Just the fact that you can but the PET bottle into the yellow trash bin doesn't mean it gets recycled. And recycling is only the second best alternative, before that you want to REUSE that bottle as many times as the bottle can handle. And as far as I'm aware, PET bottles are better in that respect than glass. And this is where the deposit comes into play. What do you hate about that deposit so much? Is it really so much bother to take the crate of empty bottles to the store when you have to go there anyway to shop?


Teenage+Drink+Driving=Death
By kilkennycat on 8/12/2006 2:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
Take away any one of these 3 variables and the road death rate rapidly falls.

Today's teenagers have easy access to a fatal weapon called a car.

A close friend of my son died in a single-car crash just a half mile from where I live just a couple of months ago. She was driving a convertible. She ran straight into a vertical one-inch steel post at the apex of a bend that she failed to take. Her car totally disintegrated and she was thrown out against a wooden fence which caused massive fatal injuries. Her passenger was thrown free and miraculously survived with minor injuries. She was 19 years old. The location where she died still has fresh flowers placed every week. There were alcohol containers in the car and it was confirmed that she was over 2X the legal limit (.08 in the USA).




RE: Teenage+Drink+Driving=Death
By killerroach on 8/12/2006 3:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
It's the same canard as holding the gun responsible in shooting deaths... if somebody hasn't learned how to handle either alcohol or a car responsibly, they won't, regardless of their age. Yes, there are teenagers who rashly drink, drive recklessly, and take other risks... but they aren't the only ones. I could tell a similar story of a family friend who did similar to the girl in your tale... only he wasn't 19, he was in his 40s. So, should we raise the drinking age to 50?

Social issues are never a clean-cut issue, but I try to avoid the use of anecdotal statements in the process of trying to formulate a position, as there are enough anecdotal statements on just about anything to come to whatever position you want to make...


RE: Teenage+Drink+Driving=Death
By lemonadesoda on 8/12/2006 6:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
Ultimately, it comes down to a question of at what age should society (either parents or government through legislation) take responsibility for minors?

If we know something is dangerous, then if they are a minor, we have an opportunity as parents to teach and discipline, or as governments to allow or make illegal, certain actions.

At some point - defined as an age - then we need to hand over responsibility from society to the minor. Usually this is 18. For some activities, and in some countries, this age is higher or lower.

Perhaps the conclusion of this very long thread is that AGE, by itself, is a VERY POOR indicator of when a person is able to take full responsibility for their actions.

What makes this more complex, is that "maturity" is a multi-facited concept. A person can be "mature" in some activity, but "immature" in another: responsible for some actions but irresponsible for others. Here comes the boys vs. girls argument... <cut for pace>... just an illustration to help make the point.

For some activities that society defines as "skills", like driving, using a gun, becoming a police officer, a doctor, an accountant, etc. etc. there is a need to study, learn, pass an exam, and receive a certificate or license.

Society does not ask us to obtain certificates or licenses for things that we do to ourselves, in this case, drinking. And to have such a system would be counterproductive... and uninforceable. So we therefore have to revert to the blunt age rule .


RE: Teenage+Drink+Driving=Death
By killerroach on 8/12/2006 7:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
Although, one has to admit, the concept of a "learner's permit" for drinking does sound rather amusing...

"Now, if you get a DUI or an indecency in public violation while under your permit, you will have your permit revoked for a year, and it will be another year after that before you can get your full privilege..."

Apologies if I'm just being glib now.


By lemonadesoda on 8/12/2006 7:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
I guess if you really took this to the edge of technology, we would all have smart-chip ID cards, that we would need to show and validate to purchase alcohol, and there would be a maximum alcohol per hour or per day allowance.

For smart-chip ID would work for other activities and products also. Perhaps even self-electing or parent-controlled options. e.g. one drink, or one packet cigarettes, or one bubble gum per day. LOL.

If you like Orwellian concepts, this is one hell of a number. LOL.


By psychobriggsy on 8/13/2006 12:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone + Drink + Driving can lead to Death

Therefore all alcohol should be banned just because a few people aren't responsible?

Now if she'd been at a bar drinking, instead of drinking illicitly, she wouldn't have had to drive to buy the alcohol and go somewhere safe to drink it, or there would have been a designated driver, or she'd have been at home having a civilised drink and thus not needed to drive at all.

Arguably it is better to have the "problem" out in the open where it can be monitored, than to drive it underground. You can't eradicate drinking, it's something that a lot of people in Western culture do, the vast majority managing to do it completely responsibly.


Wackos
By INeedCache on 8/14/2006 1:46:11 AM , Rating: 2
soem of you people are wackos. Lower drinking age to 16? 14? Are you out of your minds? You seem to think by lowering the age you will increase responsibility? There is such a thing as maturity, which is gained through experience, which we gain as we get older. A few years ago I lived near a high school in a state where 14 year olds could get a license to drive to and from school only. It was downright dangerous around there in the morning and afternoon. Hardly a week went by without an accident with injuries, or a fatality. Now you want to add alcohol to that mix? If that happens, I don't want to be driving or be anywhere near a road or highway, especially at night. I doubt you would, either.




RE: Wackos
By rrsurfer1 on 8/14/2006 9:58:13 AM , Rating: 2
I hate to break this to you, but age != maturity. In any way, shape or form. You said it yourself, "maturity, which is gained through experience." Sure to a point the brain is still developing up until a certain age, but certainly not 21. And most of our knowledge is not innate. We learn by hearing from our parents or others, or by doing and making mistakes. When you make the drinking age higher it does NOT cause more mature drinkers. It causes either:

1) Illegal underage drinking that can lead to a slippery slope of much worse drugs. Behind the parents backs so they can't assist the child in learning correct drinking habits.

2) Immature 21 year olds getting trashed and blowing years when they need to be productive more than ever before.


RE: Wackos
By masher2 (blog) on 8/14/2006 10:06:28 AM , Rating: 2
> "There is such a thing as maturity, which is gained through experience, which we gain as we get older"

The factor you ignore is that maturity comes not from any experience in general, but from experience in handling responsibilities. If a person's sole life experience is in daily supervised trips to Disneyworld, he'll stay a child forever...even at age 30.

Its life's responsibilities that give us maturity. If you believe you can defer them and children will mature anyway, you're mistaken.


RE: Wackos
By Spinne on 8/14/2006 12:39:19 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't we just start putting alchohoc level meters into a car and requiring a safe pass before the car starts? If they can make a $100 OLPC, I'm sure they can make the alcohol testers cheap too.


Minors are not buying alcohol online
By Christopher1 on 8/12/2006 11:56:37 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think so. I know from trying to buy alcohol online just as a test recently when one of my young friend's parents told me that it was easy to buy alcohol online.

They wanted a credit card number, and they would only ship to the same billing address as on the card.
There is NO way that a parent wouldn't see a big box saying 'warning: flammible liquid' on it and get nosy.

Most teenagers also do not have credit cards in order to buy this stuff. I, myself, only have a bank card at the age of 26! It can be used as a credit card, but everything I buy shows up on my bank statement, so I would know immediately if someone used it to buy alcohol for a minor.

One of the earlier posters are right, this is the distribution centers and others being worried that they will be driven out of business by online sales.




By Christopher1 on 8/13/2006 12:03:16 AM , Rating: 1
A note of age on the credit card that is being used to buy alcohol or pornography online would also help.
While I don't believe that children should NOT drink (my daughers get a kip of wine from me about once every month) or not get pornography online (come on, like they haven't seen mommy and daddy having sex and it might help them put off sex until later in life!), I do think that the parents should be able to know if they are buying these things online.

This is more about parents not wanting children to be able to make their own decisions in life. We are turning childhood instead of into a preparation for adult life, into a non-preparation for adult life.
We need to realize that most children who drink, don't drive drunk and don't get drunk at all. That is the purview of those whose parents totally prohibit them drinking, so they have to drink a lot at one time in order to not make the parents suspicious of where they are.


By TomZ on 8/13/2006 8:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
You always have to find a way to inject your distorted views on adult-child sex into these discussion, don't you.

Sorry, but kids seeing mom and dad having sex is gross. If I saw that when I was a kid, it would not be "educational"; it would have been scarring. I would never want to see my parents that way. Therefore, as a parent, I take precautions to protect my children from the same.

I sure wish you would get some professional help.


By rrsurfer1 on 8/14/2006 9:59:05 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. Every post this guy makes is about child-sex in some way. It's disturbing...


eh.....
By Brainonska511 on 8/12/2006 2:26:58 AM , Rating: 2
What's the point of ordering off the internet? When I want beer or liquor (~age 18), I just ask my friends (also same age) and they go to a gas station or convenience store to buy with some kind of fake id (or no fake at all since the owners don't care). Buying off the internet is a waste of time when there are plenty of people that will sell to minors.




RE: eh.....
By mindless1 on 8/12/2006 8:25:18 AM , Rating: 2
In addition to the immediacy of buying locally, I tend to think most in the pre-21 age group are not wine connoisseurs, they'd avoid the additional expense of a shipping fee as it's not so hard to obtain something acceptible sold at every gas station or several local liquor stores. The more opportunities that exist, the higher the probability of success.


By Yarbtron on 8/12/2006 1:36:16 AM , Rating: 2
When you make a purchase online with a debit/credit card the seller checks the bank details you provided for fraud purposes. All they need to do is add an age check and the problem is gone...




So what
By Nik00117 on 8/12/2006 11:19:45 AM , Rating: 2
More europeans may report having more then 5 drinks in a roll, or drinking in the last 30 days yes. In fact my last beer was a few hours ago at the golf course (i'm 17) last time I had mutliplie drinks in one setting was a week ago at a birthdparty. I had 4 vodkas and a beer extactly. I wasn't anywhere near intoixcated greanted relaxed laid back a lil more but not piss ass drunk.

And I am part ameircan myself I lived there for 7 years. And from what I saw teenagers bringe drink like mad. They may not drink for 30 days, but after that they'll get shit faced drunk. Even at the pubs, and clubs I rarely see a person pass out or anything. I once saw two, one was a american other one was admittely a German. I can name 15 cases in a month where a friend or a friend of a friend ended up in a hostipial because of drinking in the states. And I had a small group of friends as well.




Ages
By Egglick on 8/12/2006 8:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I've never agreed with the drinking age being 21, when in all other respects you're a legal adult at the age of 18.

If at 18 you're mature enough to decide whether you want to enter into legal contracts, put your life on the line in the military, or be punished as an adult for any and all crimes, you should also be able to make the decision of whether or not you want to drink a freakin beer.

This isn't to say that I think the drinking age should be 18, but rather, that the age should be uniform for ALL acts. If someone can make a point that a person isn't responsible enough to drink until 21, then someone could make a point that a person isn't responsible enough to do any of these things until 21.




BS meter on full...
By sandorski on 8/13/2006 1:03:43 AM , Rating: 2
..window has cracked.

Millions? Come on!

Millions probably "could" do it, but are doing it is an entirely different thing.




good
By judasmachine on 8/13/2006 2:55:18 AM , Rating: 2
maybe they'll quit asking me to buy it for them.

and couldn't they just require a ID check by UPS, Fedex, or DHL?




absinthe...
By plonk420 on 8/13/2006 4:56:42 AM , Rating: 2
the only thing i want is some nice "naughty" (overhyped and overrated) Absinthe from Europe ... a good $100 shipped from a place that will send it and even resend it if seized, which, according to them and the wikipedia article, is rare ($50 for a half decent Absinthe, $50 for shipping) .. not as exciting being 25, but that's still kinda cool idea :)




Drop It...
By uksupramk3 on 8/13/2006 11:06:07 AM , Rating: 2
The age limit i mean, honestly legal drinking age of 21 is just plain retarded! 18 is pushing it, 16 is more acceptable, and in France, it's 14. As you increase the drinking age, you end up with far more kids/adults desperate to have booze, and you find that when they get to 21 or whatever, they end up going well over the top. Supervised at the age of 16 or whatever would result in less alcohol related accidents, deaths etc.

Also, whats the point of being 18 if you still cant drink? "Oh congratulations, you can legally drive, operate heavy machinery and cause massive amounts of death with a handgun , but drink a beer? Oh god no..."




This is a disaster
By haelduksf on 8/13/2006 10:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
Oh no! Does this mean that kids in highschool can drink alcohol now? That would be terrible, possibly even the end of the world as we know it.




Statisitcs
By mtnmanak on 8/13/2006 11:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
There are lies, damn lies - and statistics.

nuff said




what's the link?
By L1NUXownz1fUR1337 on 8/12/06, Rating: 0
RE: what's the link?
By NullSubroutine on 8/12/2006 2:00:22 AM , Rating: 1
nope, its

iMoonshine


Gee, whodda thunk ?
By cornfedone on 8/12/06, Rating: -1
"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki