I agree with Kapil Mishra, tourism minister of  Delhi government. He says drinking is everywhere. Fixing 25 age is far from ground reality. Those who want to drink even at a lower age will drink. Te fact that alcohol consumption is injurious to health and the choice for drinking or abstaining should be left to the concerned individual. Lowering the age bar or otherwise will be of no use.

restricting age for drinking not matters because if someone wants to drink, he will drink at any way whether he/she is from below age or above the age. If the government want to do something he should do for the betterment of the people. Like the government close all the alcohol and gutkha for life.

Banning of alcohol and gutkha will make the people more drawn towards alcohol and Gutkha.  Banning is not going to help in anyway. Awareness about the evils of alcohol and tobacco based products should be increased by the Government sincerely and effectively.

My personal opinion is that there should be a ban. 25 was better because young people do get into drinking and more so under peer pressure. If there is a ban, it may not be possible to stop drinking at young age completely but people would be weary, otherwise it is a free pass. Social drinking is a norm but the younger lot do not know where to draw a line and then they get into all sorts problems like drunken driving, misbehavior and so on. Although older people are also prone to such problems but after a certain age they are responsible for themselves whereas when they are young they just ruled by external influences.

It is not age that matters. It is selfdependancy that matters. As long as you are student and depend on parents, they will restrict and discipline you. But when you are employed, you will decide what to do, what to eat and drink. Age is irrelevant. I was employed at age of nineteen and posted in a field station. I began drionking in new environment. It is not age but my employment in field station that brought alcoholic drinks in my life. 

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

It is not age that matters. It is selfdependancy that matters. As long as you are student and depend on parents, they will restrict and discipline you. But when you are employed, you will decide what to do, what to eat and drink. Age is irrelevant. I was employed at age of nineteen and posted in a field station. I began drionking in new environment. It is not age but my employment in field station that brought alcoholic drinks in my life. 

I too got a job at the age of 22. There were no restrictions whatsoever on me. As you said, i started drinking only in the company of friends occasionally. Then after a period, I myself realized the importance of health and stopped drinking gradually. Awareness is important here. Even now there are no restrictions on me.

Governments can fix such matters on paper but the fact is a person can drink at any age and if he/she is not making/creating scene in public there is no problem. What any rule can do if a ten years old is drinking inside his room and no one catches him. 

If a 10 year old boy consumes alcohol i will not worry. I neither worry  nor amazed, his death is going to be in couple of years if not earlier.

rambabu wrote:

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

It is not age that matters. It is selfdependancy that matters. As long as you are student and depend on parents, they will restrict and discipline you. But when you are employed, you will decide what to do, what to eat and drink. Age is irrelevant. I was employed at age of nineteen and posted in a field station. I began drionking in new environment. It is not age but my employment in field station that brought alcoholic drinks in my life. 

I too got a job at the age of 22. There were no restrictions whatsoever on me. As you said, i started drinking only in the company of friends occasionally. Then after a period, I myself realized the importance of health and stopped drinking gradually. Awareness is important here. Even now there are no restrictions on me.

 

Ban is to legally prohibit. If there is no ban, there is no fear and everyone takes it as acceptable.I feel age is relevant. The young adults, when they join a job (field areas are highly prone to drinking because there is no family to worry about)they feel that they are free to do whatever they want. In addition they have money in hand and are influenced by peers. At that young age they don't have the maturity to understand what is right for them. They drink in company and in order to experience something new and also to show that they have attained adulthood while in reality they lack the maturity to understand where to stop and what consequences it may have. At 25 however, people are more mature to understand the consequences of their actions much better and are therefore able to control themselves to certain extent from overindulgence.So, even if they start drinking, it would be within limits.

Lopamudra wrote:

My personal opinion is that there should be a ban. 25 was better because young people do get into drinking and more so under peer pressure. If there is a ban, it may not be possible to stop drinking at young age completely but people would be weary, otherwise it is a free pass. Social drinking is a norm but the younger lot do not know where to draw a line and then they get into all sorts problems like drunken driving, misbehavior and so on. Although older people are also prone to such problems but after a certain age they are responsible for themselves whereas when they are young they just ruled by external influences.

 

Ban is no solution to any problem. There is a blanket ban on drinking in Gujarat but the drinks are available on demand (in black market) and I have seen minors boozing in every state. The need is to ban the alcohol at manufacturing level and tighten the role of watchdogs.