TexasCHLforum.com

Personally I don't agree with the drinking age being 21. At age 18 I was responsible enough to vote, drive a car, defend my country if called upon, but i'm not responsible for monitoring my alcohol intake. I know i'm probably in the minority, but that's how I feel. The only times I drank when i was under 21 was when i was with my parents. Even now, i'm smart enough to know if i'm gonna drink i'm not driving. It seems like common sense, but I guess that isn't so common these days.

There have been studies (I think commissioned by insurance companies) showing accident rates for those between 18 and 21 being significantly higher than those 21 and older.

That's enough to convince me that 21 should be the minimum drinking age.

When I was between those ages I too acted rather more mature than my contemporaries.(probably motivated by heavy responsibilities) However, some of my eighteen/nineteen/ + friends etc were absolute lunatics when drinking.

Abraham wrote:There have been studies (I think commissioned by insurance companies) showing accident rates for those between 18 and 21 being significantly higher than those 21 and older.

That's enough to convince me that 21 should be the minimum drinking age.

When I was between those ages I too acted rather more mature than my contemporaries.(probably motivated by heavy responsibilities) However, some of my eighteen/nineteen/ + friends etc were absolute lunatics when drinking.

Maybe increase the driving age to 21?

ajwakeboarder wrote:Personally I don't agree with the drinking age being 21. At age 18 I was responsible enough to vote, drive a car, defend my country if called upon, but i'm not responsible for monitoring my alcohol intake. I know i'm probably in the minority, but that's how I feel. The only times I drank when i was under 21 was when i was with my parents. Even now, i'm smart enough to know if i'm gonna drink i'm not driving. It seems like common sense, but I guess that isn't so common these days.

I understand, and I even agree on some level, but consider this: The military doesn't just turn teenagers loose with guns. It doesn't just send them into combat without giving them extensive training in how to survive it and still be effective in it. It doesn't allow medics/corpsmen to treat the injured without giving them extensive training. In other words, it just not just randomly send 18 year olds to die in battle for their nation.......not even at the height of WW2 did our military do that. The US Army alone has the following standards which apply to anyone between ages 18-21 (and everyone else, for that matter):

SOURCE

• Exam requirement. You must take and pass the ASVAB Armed Forces Qualifying Test. Each service has different standards for passing the exam. Is the underaged person who fails this test mature enough to be out drinking all night?)
• Medical Eligibility. You must be able to pass a military physical and be medically qualified for worldwide service. You also must meet Army height and weight standards. Is the underaged person who fails this test healthy enough to be out poisoning his system?)
• Drug History. You will be asked to answer the following questions in writing before you enlist Is the underaged person who struggles with drug use sober enough to be a responsible drinker?):
  
  • Have you ever used or experimented with marijuana?
  • Have you ever experimented with, used or possessed any illegal drug or narcotic?
  • Have you ever been a supplier or distributor of or a trafficker in marijuana, or other illegal drugs or narcotics?
  • Have you ever been treated or undergone rehabilitation for drug or alcohol abuse?
  • Have you consumed hemp seed oil or any products containing hemp seed oil in the last 45 days?
  Marijuana use alone is not necessarily disqualifying, depending upon the number of uses. You will be required to take a drug test before enlisting.
• Moral History. Convictions for any of the following offenses will make you ineligible for military service Is the underaged person who fails this test trustworthy enough to be allowed to drink booze?):
  
  • Aggravated assault
  • Bribery
  • Burglary
  • Carnal knowledge of, or indecent acts with, a child under 16
  • Draft evasion
  • Extortion
  • Kidnapping, abduction
  • Manslaughter or Murder
  • Perjury
  • Rape
  • Robbery
  Exceptions may be made in some cases where the crime was not committed as an adult. Convictions for other crimes require a waiver.
• Education. Generally speaking, you must be a high school graduate to enlist in the Army. They do accept some individuals with a GED or equivalent. Those individuals must have high scores on the ASVAB AFQT. Is the underaged person who is illiterate smart enough to be trusted with alcohol consumption when a free public education is available to all?)
• Dependents. You may not have more than two children if you are married. Single parents are not eligible for enlistment. If you are married to a military member and have children, you are only eligible to enlist if you obtain a special waiver. Ought the underaged person who has these issues to handle be escaping his responsibilities with alcohol?)
• Financial Qualifications. If you have any dependents, are 23 years of age or older, or have a bad credit history, you must successfully complete a financial qualifications check. Basically, the military looks at your debts and financial responsibilities and compares it to your future military income. If you won’t be able to meet your obligations on a military salary, you’re ineligible to enlist. Is the underaged person who cannot meet his financial obligations moral enough to be out drinking all night?)
• Residency. You must be a permanent resident of the United States to enlist in the Army. You’ll be asked to prove this by providing either a green card or a permanent resident visa and proof that you’ve established a permanent home in the country. If you’re hoping to become a military officer, you must be a U.S. citizen. Is the underaged person who cannot demonstrate that he even belongs in this country legally someone who ought to be able to buy booze at all?)

And that's just the Army. For all I know, the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force may have additional standards. That's a far sight different than simply anybody without qualification under 21 walking into a bar and ordering a beer. Now, maybe it would be acceptable for someone under 21 who has graduated bootcamp and is on active duty and living a squared away life to buy that beer—the same way that we issue CHLs in Texas to active duty military under the age of 21—buy I'm not convinced that the average 18 year old has enough sense to be sensible when drinking.

TAM, all good points, but let me counter with this...apparently there is no training to VOTE at 18...well, unless you were brought up "right!"

Jaguar wrote:

Abraham wrote:There have been studies (I think commissioned by insurance companies) showing accident rates for those between 18 and 21 being significantly higher than those 21 and older.

That's enough to convince me that 21 should be the minimum drinking age.

When I was between those ages I too acted rather more mature than my contemporaries.(probably motivated by heavy responsibilities) However, some of my eighteen/nineteen/ + friends etc were absolute lunatics when drinking.

Maybe increase the driving age to 21?

I've always been intrigued by the German setup. . .
The drinking age (beer and wine only) is 16.
The driving age is 18.

Likely many of the teens that binge when they first get access to alcohol get it out of their system before they have a car. There will always be the ones who indulge to excess in any setup, so those shouldn't factor in.

Culturally it's a lot different. Germans are much more likely to grow up with beer being accessible. . . by the time they're 18, it's not a big deal. . . there's less "stigma" or "coolness".

I'm not advocating the change simply because the way our cities are setup, moving the driving age to 18 would be a burden to a lot of suburban and rural families.

Still, it's an interesting thought. A 16 year old with no alcohol and a car can be much more dangerous than a 16 year old with no car and a beer. I'd also posit that a 16 year old with a drivers license is much more likely to access illegal alcohol than a 16 year old with a beer is likely to access an illegal vehicle.

PUCKER wrote:TAM, all good points, but let me counter with this...apparently there is no training to VOTE at 18...well, unless you were brought up "right!"

Don't get me started. . .

PUCKER wrote:TAM, all good points, but let me counter with this...apparently there is no training to VOTE at 18...well, unless you were brought up "right!"

Not very familiar with the public school system, are you. By the time a person reaches 18, he's spent 13 years being trained how to vote.

sjfcontrol wrote:

PUCKER wrote:TAM, all good points, but let me counter with this...apparently there is no training to VOTE at 18...well, unless you were brought up "right!"

Not very familiar with the public school system, are you. By the time a person reaches 18, he's spent 13 years being trained how to vote.

I guess I bucked the trend!

PUCKER wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

PUCKER wrote:TAM, all good points, but let me counter with this...apparently there is no training to VOTE at 18...well, unless you were brought up "right!"

Not very familiar with the public school system, are you. By the time a person reaches 18, he's spent 13 years being trained how to vote.

I guess I bucked the trend!

Depends on how old you are.

There are arguments both ways, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

PUCKER wrote:TAM, all good points, but let me counter with this...apparently there is no training to VOTE at 18...well, unless you were brought up "right!"

I beg to differ.... the teachers unions make sure you well know how to vote before you graduate high school...........and look where it's gotten us.

Jaguar wrote:

Abraham wrote:There have been studies (I think commissioned by insurance companies) showing accident rates for those between 18 and 21 being significantly higher than those 21 and older.

That's enough to convince me that 21 should be the minimum drinking age.

When I was between those ages I too acted rather more mature than my contemporaries.(probably motivated by heavy responsibilities) However, some of my eighteen/nineteen/ + friends etc were absolute lunatics when drinking.

Maybe increase the driving age to 21?

Sounds like a plan to me.

I wonder if TABC will revoke a license for misrepresenting the law?

jordanmills wrote:I wonder if TABC will revoke a license for misrepresenting the law?

For posting the wrong sign?

srothstein wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:So if TABC says that the signs are improperly posted & the Ren-fest management ignores them, is there still a penalty for carrying there?

Technically, the sign is irrelevant to us except if it is missing. The law makes it illegal to carry where TABC determines it to be a 51% location. This is with or without the sign. There is then a defense provided (a recent change IIRC) if a sign is not posted.

So, there is no penalty for ignoring a posted sign which is not in a location determined by TABC. There is a defense if the sign is not present (and it might be able to be stretched to improperly posted when present).

But the violations on posting improperly or incorrect signs are all on the store owner. TABC can even revoke their license, though that would be rare and extreme and very doubtful for this violation.