Pages

Sunday, December 1, 2019

Are Americans Really Inferior To Europeans?

One common objection to lowering the drinking age to 18 in the USA is that "Europeans can handle a lower drinking age, but Americans can't".  People say this all the time without realizing the irony of it all.  They are literally implying that Americans are inferior to Europeans (and Canadians, etc.), while these are usually the same people who love to shout that America is the "greatest country in the world", often in the same breath with a straight face.

Silly, right?  And when asked to elaborate, they will likely say that Americans don't know the meaning of moderation and are lacking in self-discipline, often citing our legendary high obesity rate as "proof".  But by that logic, we should bring back Prohibition for all ages, right?  After all, there is nothing magical about 21.  But we saw what a failure that was.  And by the same token, the 21 drinking age is the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition, and neither one led to moderation, in fact quite the opposite.  Most adults, including 18-20 year olds, will drink regardless.  Turning alcohol into a "forbidden fruit" makes it all the more enticing, and forcing it underground makes it far more dangerous than it has to be.  And infantilizing young adults will only lead them to be...less mature about it.  Who woulda thunk it?

And then of course is the "life is cheap over there" argument, which also does not hold water.  If life is so much cheaper in Europe, Canada, etc, why do they have universal healthcare, stronger social safety nets, generally better educational systems, higher life expectancies, and lower poverty rates than the USA?  That's because life is really NOT cheaper over there after all.  Again, who woulda thunk it?

And then there is the old chestnut that "we don't have the public transport infrastructure to handle young adult drinking like they do".  It is technically true that the USA is a car culture and our public transportation is inferior to most of Europe's, but the same is true for Canada, and they set their drinking age at 18 or 19 depending on the province.  Ditto for Australia and New Zealand, who both set it at 18, and there are still some parts of Europe, particularly areas of the UK, where you need a car to get around for the most part.  Besides, if our public transportation infrastructure cannot handle 18-20 year olds, they would be even less able to handle the much larger 21+ age group as well, and once again, all roads either lead to either Prohibiton for all or legal drinking for all adults, period.  If you give the ageists enough rope...

How about the idea that Americans are too ethnically and racially diverse to handle drinking at 18?  Not only is that, well, racist, but even if that dubious claim were true, it would also be an argument for Prohibition or greater authoritarianism in general.  Same goes for other specious arguments about Americans having less "social capital" and being too hyper-individualistic compared to other countries, as well as arguments about "affluenza" and "spoiled children", and also arguments about "family breakdown" and a "nation of semi-orphans".

Note that the typical "kids today" arguments often contradict one another.  And even if one were to concede that "kids today" are more infantilized compared to both previous generations as well as the rest of the world, which is debatable though it seems to have some merit, the solution is NOT to infantilize young adults even further still!  The road to serfdom is indeed paved with the ostensibly "good intentions" of "protecting" young people (from themselves), which is gradually expanded to include older and older age groups with every passing generation it seems.  And what better time than now for a U-turn?

And lest anyone trot out the "21 saves lives" argument, keep in mind that that has also been debunked as well by numerous studies, and most thoroughly and eloquently so by Miron and Tetelbaum (2009).  Even if it were true, surely the old joke about having a speed limit of 21 and a drinking age of 55 would save even more lives, and yet no sane person would propose such a thing.  Gee, I wonder why?  Funny how "if it saves one life, it's worth it" and "think of the children" seems to only apply when it's convenient for the dominant age group in society.

Let America be America again, and lower the drinking age to 18.  If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar.  'Nuff said.

QED

11 comments:

  1. Actually, it is that Americans are significantly more oppressive towards young people than Europeans are. The culture of oppression is what gives our nation one of its most distinct national characteristics.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've always liked Canada's lax approach to youth laws. Especially in Alberta. 18 for pretty much everything. Can vote, drink alcohol, marry, purchase weapons (with proper licensing of course), smoke tobacco and cannabis, can gamble, enter into contracts, drive without restriction. Pretty much you're treated like a full adult at 18 with no strings attached.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As it should be. Alberta is probably the best province now in that regard. Indeed, you are on precisely the same wavelength as I am, and I couldn't agree more.

      Delete
    2. Of course, I believe that people do mature at different rates and that there is no flip of a switch that makes someone ready to drink, drive, or to marry, or to consent to sex, etc. but I believe that if our society is going to set a hard/set line of adulthood of 18, then 18 should be the graduation point. I'm not opposed to introducing privileges before (i.e allowing 16-year-olds to drive, or work in factory jobs, or allowing 17-year-olds to enlist in the army) but when you're officially an adult that should be it if we are going to use arbitrary lines.

      Delete
    3. One interesting argument that's always brought up is brain maturation and that it isn't complete until age 25. How much of neuroscience do you think should be used to determine rights by age? especially when some mature slower or faster.

      Delete
    4. If anything, that outdated argument ignores the latest research since about 2010 showing that the brain continues developing well into the 30s, 40s, and perhaps beyond that. And it also develops faster in females relative to males. Thus, 25 is still very arbitrary. And while the brain continues developing after 18, by then it is at least no longer developing at a *fundamental* level anymore, and probably quite a bit earlier than that even. But of course ageists and authoritarians of any kind don't like inconvenient truths, and generally don't do nuance very well either.

      Delete
    5. Makes sense. I guess if we were basing adulthood just based off of cognitive abilities then by extension elderly should no longer get to enjoy the rights of being an adult either.

      Delete
    6. Indeed. Slopes are much slipperier than they appear, and adultism has a nasty habit of backfiring on adults.

      Delete
  3. And now in 2020, one can see the very same cliched chicken-and-egg argument is used to claim that Europeans can handle reopening their economies and societies from lockdown, but Americans somehow can't, because they can't handle freedom, because reasons. Or something. And that is also false. The Northeast, and in fact the northern half of the country (above the 35th parallel) in fact saw a classic European pattern with their epidemic curve, at least in terms of death rates, while essentially all of the increase in the summer was from the Sunbelt states south of the 35th parallel. That is exactly what Dr. Edgar Hope Simpson would have predicted for seasonal virus, in fact, and was also what happened with SARS in 2003 as well. Lower latitudes with warmer and humid weather and more sunlight simply get it later, lockdown or no lockdown. Thus, it is very misleading to lump together the northern and southern USA curves. And while the Northeast basically locked the barn door after the proverbial horse has bolted, the Midwest did so earlier in their curves, but really just ended up kicking the can down the road a bit, particularly Illinois. Kinda like the 21 drinking age does in regards to traffic deaths.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course, even if that pro-lockdown argument were true, it would only strengthen the idea that age is in fact irrelevant in regards to young people. If you give the authoritarians and/or ageists enough rope...

      Delete