Statement # 1:

The legal drinking age should be abolished.

This may sound odd coming from someone of legal drinking age. Those of us who have earned, through years of sobriety, our right to indulge are seldom willing to give up making our kids suffer the same initiation rite. Suffer it they do, and when that day comes that they (or their friends) reach the required age, they will have built up such a curiosity that even the severe nausea of a hangover won't keep them from going back.

Alcoholic beverages have been distilled and consumed by humans for thousands of years. It has traditionally been a child's parents who both introduced him to alcohol and taught him the merits of moderation. In modern times many governments, including our own, have taken that right away from parents.

Kids' first experiences with alcohol in our society are often in peer group settings planned specifically to exclude parental observation and counsel. This combination of uneducated consumption and no supervision often increases risk-taking behaviors, which can lead to problems such as vandalism, teen pregnancy, crime, personal injuries and traffic fatalities.

I'm not saying that dumping the drinking age will solve all of these problems. I am saying, however, that if parents could provide the first few experiences without fear of prosecution, they would be able to impart some knowledge of the drug's effects and the child's limits in its enjoyment. This would also provide opportunities for, as well as add weight to, their first-hand advice on avoiding its pitfalls. That might help prevent some of those alcohol-induced mistakes later on.

It is also my contention that it is better for a person to learn to handle his alcohol before learning to operate a motor vehicle. Which brings me to my next point.

Statement #2: The driving age should be raised to (at least) 18.

Just when I had all the kids on my side, I go and alienate them. Sorry, boys and girls.

We don't trust 16-year-olds in this country with the debatable power of a vote in our quasi-representational democracy. Why do we trust them with a 2000 lb. hunk of glass and steel capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph?

Where do 16-year-olds need to drive, anyway? Our taxes already pay for a bus to take them to school. Operating a bicycle is as easy as it will ever be in their entire lives. If their parents have enough money to be able to lend (or buy) them a car, then they certainly don't need to be out taking jobs away from welfare mothers and homeless people, and cheapening the labor market. Factor in the added pollution, congestion and noise caused by such needless traffic and the inanity of it becomes clearer.

But the main reason to raise the driving age is the appalling level of traffic fatalities among (and caused by) these younger drivers. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the risk of crash involvement per mile driven among drivers 16 to 19 years old is four times the risk among older drivers. 16-year-olds are three times more likely to crash than 18 - 19-year-olds. While teenagers make up 10% of the population, they comprise 15% of the traffic fatalities.

The institute also surveyed 1000 parents of 17-year-olds and found that the vast majority favored increased restrictions on young drivers. The state of Florida is actually quite progressive in this regard, being one of the first states to adopt a licensing program which places curfews on night driving, a restriction favored by 74% of parents surveyed. Other restrictions called for are a minimum period of supervised driving (90%), and a 0% blood alcohol content tolerance (97%).

Only 41% of parents favored raising the legal driving age, which, I guess, puts me in the minority. I'm sure it's not the first time.

Apparently, the survey didn't ask about abolishing the drinking age.

(To view these statistics and survey results go to the IIHS Web site.