|
|
Post by Husky23 on Jun 6, 2005 5:24:55 GMT -8
I whole heartedly agree Merc…<br>
But that’s the crux of it, isn’t it? Even for the varying lines in the sand conservatives draw for governmental interference. It’s quite the juggling act to be sure – weighing the safety and welfare of society with ones individual liberties.
Seems it boils down to personal responsibility. Hence where liberals and I part significantly, while they seem to desire the “gov” to watch guard and play mom and dad with us. I prefer mom and dad to play mom and dad. But, ahhhhh…..what of those mom and dads that are irresponsible? So it goes on, government has to play mommy for those folks – so we all suffer the loss of our liberties.
|
|
|
|
Post by retire2005 on Jun 6, 2005 6:33:21 GMT -8
Are you ignoring the developmental differences that occur between 18 and 21? Put your emotions aside and look at it rationally. Experiencing violence is no more a quick trip to maturity than experiencing an orgasm is preparation for parenthood. As I said, no benefit and significant societal cost. No, I am not ignoring anything. But saying that all 18 years old have the same level of maturity is like saying all 18 year olds have the same I.Q. It just ain't so. I have a friend whose son just went to Iraq. He just turned 19. Before he went in service he was just a punk kid who gave his parents hell. Now, after being in the service for 8 months he is a totally different person. He is no longer a punk kid. He is a man. Emotion has nothing to do with the matter. It has to do with assuming that all 18 year olds have the same maturity level. Experiencing violence may not make you grow up, but it sure doesn't hurt. What does make you grow up is responsibility. The responsibility that comes from covering the backside of your fellow G.I.s. The responsibility that comes from knowing that there are certain things that are expected from you and you damn well better perform. The responsibility of knowing there are consequences for your actions. We assume that 18 year olds are mature enough to vote. If 18 year old military are not old enough to drink a beer, legally, then why would we want them to be able to have a say in our governmental processes? Do they, at the age of 18, have enough maturity to pick a senator, congressman or President? You cannot cherry pick what you think they should be allowed. Either they are old enough to marry without permission, vote, legally own property with a parent's signature, and buy a beer, or they are not. Don't want them to be able to drink? Then make 21 the mandatory age for all other activities. |
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Jun 6, 2005 14:29:21 GMT -8
I've heard that it used to be if you were active duty military that you could pretty much walk into any bar and buy a beer. That changed sometime in the 1980's and the U.S. started a program in which a 18 year old could voluntarily put himself in harms way for his country, but he could not have a beer. A Wisconsin lawmaker is seeking to change the law in that state. He's proposing to allow any servicemember at least 19 years of age residing in the state to consume alcohol. Any thoughts? www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_drink_060105,00.html The drinking age in general needs to be lowered to 18 in this country. How come America is the only country in the world with a 21 year drinking age but also has the biggest problem with it? I don't think kids dying on their 21st birthday is as big a deal in the UK as it is over here. Perhaps that is because all forms of drug education are swept away by retards like the people in MADD. Kids today have the idea that drugs are bad drilled into their head - they aren't taught how to responsibly use drugs. We as Americans must face the facts - kids under 21 have ALWAYS drank and they ALWAYS will in the future. We can either do something about this or we can continue to ignore reality and believe that the 21 year drinking age is actually working. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jun 6, 2005 17:25:09 GMT -8
101, are you against the idea of underage drinking for military everywhere, or just off base? If they are restricted to drinking on base it would be in a situation where any incidents would be under the control of the military. A bartender could be held more accountable for not cutting a person off at the right time. The shore patrol could keep watch over these folks and report or restrain drunks from driving. In this case I see it as "benefit for our troops and society" by offering a venue that perhaps keeps fewer troops off base when they drink, and less drunk driving by underage military folks. I am opposed to underage drinking, period. Please make your case for how reducing the drinking age for anyone benefits society. You have not yet done so. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jun 6, 2005 17:36:04 GMT -8
No, I am not ignoring anything. But saying that all 18 years old have the same level of maturity is like saying all 18 year olds have the same I.Q. It just ain't so. I have a friend whose son just went to Iraq. He just turned 19. Before he went in service he was just a punk kid who gave his parents hell. Now, after being in the service for 8 months he is a totally different person. He is no longer a punk kid. He is a man. Emotion has nothing to do with the matter. It has to do with assuming that all 18 year olds have the same maturity level. Experiencing violence may not make you grow up, but it sure doesn't hurt. What does make you grow up is responsibility. The responsibility that comes from covering the backside of your fellow G.I.s. The responsibility that comes from knowing that there are certain things that are expected from you and you damn well better perform. The responsibility of knowing there are consequences for your actions. We assume that 18 year olds are mature enough to vote. If 18 year old military are not old enough to drink a beer, legally, then why would we want them to be able to have a say in our governmental processes? Do they, at the age of 18, have enough maturity to pick a senator, congressman or President? You cannot cherry pick what you think they should be allowed. Either they are old enough to marry without permission, vote, legally own property with a parent's signature, and buy a beer, or they are not. Don't want them to be able to drink? Then make 21 the mandatory age for all other activities. If you are not ignoring those developmental differences, then please address them. One anecdotal example does not prove your point, Retire, and nothing in your description necessarily proves that the young trooper can drink responsibly. Your arguments about who can do whatever else at whatever age have no bearing whatsoever on an individuals ability to safely use a powerful mind altering, mood-altering drug, that impairs faculties, affects judgement, and reduces inhibitions. You cite marriage, signing a contract, owning property, and voting. None of these things has any relationship to drinking alcohol. None at all. And there is still no societal benefit for changing the existing law. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jun 6, 2005 17:46:46 GMT -8
Are you for making alcohol illegal for everyone? For now I'll stay out of the debate over alcohol being a mind-altering substance, and stick with our rights as citizens of a free country and maturity. Merc, where did i suggest that I'm in favor of making alcohol illegal for everyone? I hope you wouldn't dispute that alcohol is a mind-altering, mood-altering drug. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jun 6, 2005 18:00:43 GMT -8
"The drinking age in general needs to be lowered to 18 in this country. "
Why?
"Perhaps that is because all forms of drug education are swept away by retards like the people in MADD."
People in MADD are retards? Please explain.
"Kids today have the idea that drugs are bad drilled into their head"
Could that be because drugs ARE bad?
"they aren't taught how to responsibly use drugs. "
One of the more ludicrous statements I've heard anywhere. More appropriate to THC or the Democratic Underground. Where should this education begin, Middle School? Perhaps you should consider becoming a "Responsible Drug Use Educator" as an alternate career path.
"We as Americans must face the facts - kids under 21 have ALWAYS drank and they ALWAYS will in the future. We can either do something about this or we can continue to ignore reality and believe that the 21 year drinking age is actually working. "
All kids. Always. Always will. Statements in the absolute. Perhaps it is you who chooses to ignore reality when you assert that drugs are harmless.
In fact, I can remember a time about six months ago when you were advocating for the elimination of the minimum drinking age entirely. Guess we'd better start that responsible drug use training in kindergarten...
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Jun 6, 2005 18:16:22 GMT -8
"The drinking age in general needs to be lowered to 18 in this country. " Why? "Perhaps that is because all forms of drug education are swept away by retards like the people in MADD." People in MADD are retards? Please explain. "Kids today have the idea that drugs are bad drilled into their head" Could that be because drugs ARE bad? "they aren't taught how to responsibly use drugs. " One of the more ludicrous statements I've heard anywhere. More appropriate to THC or the Democratic Underground. Where should this education begin, Middle School? Perhaps you should consider becoming a "Responsible Drug Use Educator" as an alternate career path. "We as Americans must face the facts - kids under 21 have ALWAYS drank and they ALWAYS will in the future. We can either do something about this or we can continue to ignore reality and believe that the 21 year drinking age is actually working. " All kids. Always. Always will. Statements in the absolute. Perhaps it is you who chooses to ignore reality when you assert that drugs are harmless. In fact, I can remember a time about six months ago when you were advocating for the elimination of the minimum drinking age entirely. Guess we'd better start that responsible drug use training in kindergarten... Why should the drinking age be lowered? Because I don't know of a single person in between the ages of 18 and 21 who wants to drink but doesn't because of the law. No one follows the drinking age laws in this country and it's time to realize how ridiculous and Draconian they are. Organizations like MADD and DARE are stupid because they don't do anything. They simply tell children "drugs are bad." Never mind what drugs ACTUALLY do to you or giving them an objective insight into drugs. No, it's just the same old shit. That is why people die from abusing drugs - they don't know what they do to them. And programs like DARE are to blame. Drugs are bad when they are abused. In and of themselves they are for the most part harmless. "One of the more ludicrous statements I've heard anywhere. More appropriate to THC or the Democratic Underground. Where should this education begin, Middle School? Perhaps you should consider becoming a "Responsible Drug Use Educator" as an alternate career path." Or we can stick to your methods, which solves nothing. The fact that the majority of people in between the ages of 18 and 21 drink alcohol is evidence that your method is a failure. It's time for something new. "All kids. Always. Always will. Statements in the absolute. Perhaps it is you who chooses to ignore reality when you assert that drugs are harmless." I'm sorry, did I say something that wasn't true when I said that teenagers will ALWAYS drink? As for the drinking age, I'd support getting rid of it entirely. Until that point, it needs to be lowered to 18. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jun 6, 2005 19:27:28 GMT -8
"Why should the drinking age be lowered? Because I don't know of a single person in between the ages of 18 and 21 who wants to drink but doesn't because of the law. "
Perhaps that is because you hang around with drinkers. It's silly to assume that because you don't know them, they don't exist.
"No one follows the drinking age laws in this country..."
Excuse me? No one? Cite your sources, please.
"and it's time to realize how ridiculous and Draconian they are."
Why? Because you say so?
Organizations like MADD and DARE are stupid because they don't do anything. They simply tell children "drugs are bad." Never mind what drugs ACTUALLY do to you or giving them an objective insight into drugs. No, it's just the same old shit. That is why people die from abusing drugs - they don't know what they do to them. And programs like DARE are to blame.
Brilliant! It's MADD and DARE's fault that people die from abusing drugs? Can't be the drug's fault, Nosiree! Must be caused by something else...Spoken, Sir, like an addict.
"Drugs are bad when they are abused. In and of themselves they are for the most part harmless. "
Please convey your wealth of knowledge to the parents of the 15 year old who died in Belmont, CA last year after ingesting ONE tab of ecstasy, or the family members of the hundreds who die each year in alcohol-related crashes because someone under the influence was unable to distinguish the line between use and abuse. Harmless, my ass!
"One of the more ludicrous statements I've heard anywhere. More appropriate to THC or the Democratic Underground. Where should this education begin, Middle School? Perhaps you should consider becoming a "Responsible Drug Use Educator" as an alternate career path."
"Or we can stick to your methods, which solves nothing. The fact that the majority of people in between the ages of 18 and 21 drink alcohol is evidence that your method is a failure. It's time for something new."
You're going to hate this one because it will sound remarkably like your mother. Here goes, "If everyone lined up to jump off a bridge, would you do it too?" Because they are doing it means it's good?
"All kids. Always. Always will. Statements in the absolute. Perhaps it is you who chooses to ignore reality when you assert that drugs are harmless."
No comment?
"I'm sorry, did I say something that wasn't true when I said that teenagers will ALWAYS drink?"
Yes, the statement is untrue. Please consider supporting it with evidence or withdrawing it.
"As for the drinking age, I'd support getting rid of it entirely. Until that point, it needs to be lowered to 18. "
Which is exactly why you would be a bad choice to set national alcohol policy. That statement, in and of itself, demonstrates that you are insufficiently informed to be able to make a rational judgement on the matter.
Regards
|
|
|
|
Post by retire2005 on Jun 6, 2005 19:34:16 GMT -8
If you are not ignoring those developmental differences, then please address them. One anecdotal example does not prove your point, Retire, and nothing in your description necessarily proves that the young trooper can drink responsibly. Your arguments about who can do whatever else at whatever age have no bearing whatsoever on an individuals ability to safely use a powerful mind altering, mood-altering drug, that impairs faculties, affects judgement, and reduces inhibitions. You cite marriage, signing a contract, owning property, and voting. None of these things has any relationship to drinking alcohol. None at all. And there is still no societal benefit for changing the existing law. Ah, developmental differences; let's see. My dad was 6'4" when he was 15. Went to work as a hod carrier. A job where you had to be 18 to even get it. But times were tough for an Irish family in the Midwest, so he lied. At 18, I was married. I had a full time job, paid all my own bills, bought a car and never asked anyone for a damn dime that I didn't earn. On Fridays I would go with fellow employees and drink two beers before going home. Just two, that was my limit. But now you are going to say, "well, that was then, this is now" crap. No difference. If a kid of 18 has the maturity level to handle a beer, let him. My daughter married a 32 year old that didn't have enough maturity to buy a beer. He was still living at home, playing his money away and sucking on his mommie's teet. Do you honestly think that going in service doesn't mature someone of the age of 18? If so, you're nuts, IMHO. Get real. There is no sociatal benefit for letting kids get married at 18, and most, at 18, should not be driving. So you have a gritch about alcohol. So do I. My dad died two days before retirement because of a drunk driver. And that driver was 45 not some kid. Like I said before, you give no credit to 18 year olds in the service for growing up. When my brother joined the Navy at 17, the recruiter told my mom he would send away a boy, but would send home a man. He didn't lie. Don't talk about sociatal benefits. That is not really your arguement, just a smoke screen. |
|
|
|
Post by Merceditas on Jun 6, 2005 19:50:14 GMT -8
Merc, where did i suggest that I'm in favor of making alcohol illegal for everyone? I hope you wouldn't dispute that alcohol is a mind-altering, mood-altering drug. You didn't specifically say it, but it made me wonder where you stood when you said, "No one needs to drink. No benefit + significant societal cost = bad idea." I just wanted to be certain. |
|
|
|
Post by retire2005 on Jun 6, 2005 19:57:58 GMT -8
[quote author=101ABN link=board=USA&thread=1117952411&start=23#1 date=1118114848
Please convey your wealth of knowledge to the parents of the 15 year old who died in Belmont, CA last year after ingesting ONE tab of ecstasy, or the family members of the hundreds who die each year in alcohol-related crashes because someone under the influence was unable to distinguish the line between use and abuse. Harmless, my ass!
Regards
[/quote]
You want stats: here are the stats from 2003
TRAFFIC FATALITIES BY AGE AND HIGHEST BAC IN THE CRASH, 2003
0.01-0.07 BAC
16-20 437
21-24 318
25-44 434
35-44 385
0.08 or higher
16-20 1,845
21-24 2,109
25-34 3,155
35-44 3,125
It seems that the "kids" between the ages of 25-34 are the ones dying the most in alcohol related traffic accidents. Around the age 55 it goes down considerably.
So what do you want to do now? Raise the drinking age to 55? Or perhaps bring back prohibition?
|
|
|
|
Post by Husky23 on Jun 6, 2005 20:08:09 GMT -8
You want stats: here are the stats from 2003 TRAFFIC FATALITIES BY AGE AND HIGHEST BAC IN THE CRASH, 2003 0.01-0.07 BAC 16-20 437 21-24 318 25-44 434 35-44 385 0.08 or higher 16-20 1,845 21-24 2,109 25-34 3,155 35-44 3,125 It seems that the "kids" between the ages of 25-34 are the ones dying the most in alcohol related traffic accidents. Around the age 55 it goes down considerably. So what do you want to do now? Raise the drinking age to 55? Or perhaps bring back prohibition? Ya!!! Take license away from 25-34 then give em back when they become what the 'statictics' say they are responsible again. True government taking care of me. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jun 6, 2005 20:25:20 GMT -8
"Ah, developmental differences; let's see. My dad was 6'4" when he was 15. Went to work as a hod carrier. A job where you had to be 18 to even get it. But times were tough for an Irish family in the Midwest, so he lied. At 18, I was married. I had a full time job, paid all my own bills, bought a car and never asked anyone for a damn dime that I didn't earn. On Fridays I would go with fellow employees and drink two beers before going home. Just two, that was my limit."
Guess you missed it. One anecdotal example does not prove your point. If you want to ignore the differences maturity between an 18 YO and a 21 YO, you do so at the risk of absolute foolishness.
"But now you are going to say, "well, that was then, this is now" crap."
Gosh Golly Damn! WTF, are you now psychic? How in the hell do you presume to tell me what I'm going to say? Wanna rethink that one?
"No difference. If a kid of 18 has the maturity level to handle a beer, let him. "
And if he doesn't? How will you know?
"My daughter married a 32 year old that didn't have enough maturity to buy a beer. He was still living at home, playing his money away and sucking on his mommie's teet."
I'll leave this one alone. My guess is that she has had her trials as a result.
"Do you honestly think that going in service doesn't mature someone of the age of 18? If so, you're nuts, IMHO."
Not necessarily, in and of itself. No. Not at 18.
"Get real. There is no sociatal benefit for letting kids get married at 18, and most, at 18, should not be driving."
Friend, I'm as real as it gets. The law allows these things. The law doesn't allow 18 year olds to drink. Once again, they are NOT related. Not even to each other. It doesn't allow 18 year olds to drink and there are damned good reasons for that.
"So you have a gritch about alcohol."
I'm not sure what a "gritch" is. I'm sorry that you lost your father to a DUI crash. Does the drunk driver's age really make any difference?
"Like I said before, you give no credit to 18 year olds in the service for growing up. When my brother joined the Navy at 17, the recruiter told my mom he would send away a boy, but would send home a man. He didn't lie."
An 18 year old in the service will grow up. A 21 year old in the service will arguably be more grown up.
"Don't talk about sociatal benefits. That is not really your arguement, just a smoke screen."
Really, Karnak? Then please tell me what my argument is, Worshipful Psychic Master. I've made it several times now, yet rather than address it, you accuse me of deception... Oh, and while you're at it, please tell me why I would need a smoke screen. I have nothing to conceal. If I did, it would have been much easier to avoid engagement in this discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Jun 6, 2005 20:52:41 GMT -8
You want stats: here are the stats from 2003 TRAFFIC FATALITIES BY AGE AND HIGHEST BAC IN THE CRASH, 2003 0.01-0.07 BAC 16-20 437 21-24 318 25-44 434 35-44 385 0.08 or higher 16-20 1,845 21-24 2,109 25-34 3,155 35-44 3,125 It seems that the "kids" between the ages of 25-34 are the ones dying the most in alcohol related traffic accidents. Around the age 55 it goes down considerably. So what do you want to do now? Raise the drinking age to 55? Or perhaps bring back prohibition? Let's see, If I add the stats for .0.01-0.07 BAC and 0.08 or higher BAC, I get 2282 dead 16-20 year olds and 2427 dead 21-24 year olds. It's really difficult to compare these stats because the age ranges are different. ( 16-20 = 5 years, 21-24 = 4 years, 25-34 = 10 years, etc.) SO to bring the ranges into an alignment for comparison, you really have to consider the 16-24 as one group. Adding the total numbers in the 16-24 group, the totals now become 755 for < .08 BAC and 3954 for >.08% BAC or 4709 dead 16-24 year olds. Which pile of bodies is the highest? Who suggested raising the drinking age to 55? I'm not advocating raising it at all, simply maintaining it at 21. Prohibition?? Where the hell do you get this stuff? |
|
