Old enough to die, not old enough to drink?

[Husky23]

101ABN said:

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.

I'm not!

Benefit Society?

101 there's many a good argument for legislation our liberties for the 'benefit of society' -- I'm for personal responsiblity and accountabilty.

Gee - wonder who else thought of these simple concepts?

[dustdevil28]

I can't say I agree with your views on MADD and DARE James. It is important for kids to at least understand that drungs can cause them harm if abused. Some of those are life lasting.

Myself, heck I drank plenty from 18-21. As a result by the time I was 20 I was pretty casual about it and to this day I usually don't drink more than 2-3 beers unless it's a special occasion.

[dustdevil28]

101ABN said:

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.

101, consider the absolute certainty that many of today's youth, (military and civilian), drink alcohol anyway. Also consider that this is not that hard to achieve at all.

Now because the military gives rather harsh punishments for those caught drinking underage many of these kids will take their chances off base, than they are much more likly to get on the road in the hopes of making it home and not being caught. In this scenario they have a considerable chance to hurt somebody.

Now consider if we gave them the option of drinking at a bar on base. The options would open up considerably. At these bars they could be monitored much better than at some party out in town. If they got out of hand they aren't going anyway but a brig for the night. It can also be expected that they aren't going to be getting on the road in this condition. In this scenario the public may have been spared a wreck, someones life could have been spared as well.

This certainly would be a benefit to society. If it isn't, why not?

[retire2005]

101ABN said:

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?

Since the legal drinking age is 21, and since YOU are talking about under age (under 21) drinking, you cannot lump the two together. That is fixing the numbers to suit your arguement. Or perhaps we could have the study to include 11-20 year old so that your numbers would match.
What the numbers do show is that the most deaths occur in the age bracket of 25-34 years. Here is the surprising part of the study; the largest number of fatalities occured in the 16-20 year group (3,720) where there was NO alcohol involved. It drops down to about half (1,932) in the 21-24 year group. That would indicate that the 16-20 year age group by in large are just lousy drivers.
So..... would you restrict the driving age to 21 as well?
Also, the study shows that the number of fatalities that involved little alcohol (.01-.07) was the highest in the 16-20 year group (one to two beer) whereas the over .08 group (totally hammered) that showed the highest fatalities was the 25-34 year old bracket.
Yeah, kids (16-20) are getting killed in automobile wrecks, but not due to alcohol as much as the 25-34 year old group. It seems that being legal doesn't save your life.
Since your concern seems to be the saving of lives (which is admirable in the least), in order to control the amount of drunk drivers on the road, you would have to raise the drinking age to 55 since that is where the major brake in the study shows that the number of fatalities drop considerably. Or perhaps raise the driving age to 55. Or both.
You think it is alright to put an M-16 in an 18 year olds hand and trust that he will have enough maturity to use it properly, but you don't want that 18 year old to have the ability to buy a beer? Do you think that rifle is any less a weapon in the hands of an 18 year old than a car? You feel you have the right to ask an 18 year old to run the risk of coming home in a body bag but don't think he has the right to get hammered before he leaves for hazardous duty?
It is also a fact that underage kids have the most unprotected sex. How would you resolve that problem? You think they are old enough to serve their nation, but not old enough to get laid? And don't tell me about the dangers of drugs. Ever been to an HIV/AIDS ward? The fastest growing number of HIV/AIDS patients are underage kids. You can become clean and sober for the rest of your life; HIV/AIDS is permanent.
Since it is not the 16-20 year old group that is doing the most damage with alcohol, what do you suggest?

[retire2005]

[quote author=101ABN link=board=USA&thread=1117952411&start=28#1 date=1118118320

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.


"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?

"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.[/quote]

First: a "gritch" is between a grip and a bitch. Now you can say you learned something.

And yes, a soldier at 21 is more mature than a soldier at 18. So what do you want to do? Have a "maturity level" test before we give kids the right to ever drink?

Yes, the law allows 18 year olds to marry. Isn't that the real topic of this discussion? The passing of a LAW

[FightingFalcon]

"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, perhaps its because I go to college. I would love for you to find me someone under the age of 21 who wants to drink but doesn't because of the law. I honestly would love to see that.

"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."

It's the same reason that people get AIDS from not knowing how to properly use birth control. If a woman uses birth control (like the pill) you can still get AIDS!. Of course, some kids don't know this because birth control isn't allowed to be taught thanks to soccer moms. Same thing with drugs - kids don't know what alcohol and other drugs really do to you. While the kids are "at fault" for drinking, you have to realize that its been a part of American culture for pretty much our entire history. Kids under 21 will always drink - no matter what you say or believe. It's time to accept this fact and plan Drug Education around it.

"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!"

Drinking and driving is abusing alcohol. As for Ecstasy - the drug killed three people last year according to the Justice Department. How many did tobacco kill? Exactly.

"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?"

Yes, that does sound like a retarded comment that my mother would make.

"Yes, the statement is untrue. Please consider supporting it with evidence or withdrawing it."

I'm sorry - you honestly think that teenagers don't drink? When you were born, what age were you? Did you just skip from age 12 to 21?

[101ABN]

retire2005 said:

Since the legal drinking age is 21, and since YOU are talking about under age (under 21) drinking, you cannot lump the two together. That is fixing the numbers to suit your arguement. Or perhaps we could have the study to include 11-20 year old so that your numbers would match.
What the numbers do show is that the most deaths occur in the age bracket of 25-34 years. Here is the surprising part of the study; the largest number of fatalities occured in the 16-20 year group (3,720) where there was NO alcohol involved. It drops down to about half (1,932) in the 21-24 year group. That would indicate that the 16-20 year age group by in large are just lousy drivers.
So..... would you restrict the driving age to 21 as well?
Also, the study shows that the number of fatalities that involved little alcohol (.01-.07) was the highest in the 16-20 year group (one to two beer) whereas the over .08 group (totally hammered) that showed the highest fatalities was the 25-34 year old bracket.
Yeah, kids (16-20) are getting killed in automobile wrecks, but not due to alcohol as much as the 25-34 year old group. It seems that being legal doesn't save your life.
Since your concern seems to be the saving of lives (which is admirable in the least), in order to control the amount of drunk drivers on the road, you would have to raise the drinking age to 55 since that is where the major brake in the study shows that the number of fatalities drop considerably. Or perhaps raise the driving age to 55. Or both.
You think it is alright to put an M-16 in an 18 year olds hand and trust that he will have enough maturity to use it properly, but you don't want that 18 year old to have the ability to buy a beer? Do you think that rifle is any less a weapon in the hands of an 18 year old than a car? You feel you have the right to ask an 18 year old to run the risk of coming home in a body bag but don't think he has the right to get hammered before he leaves for hazardous duty?
It is also a fact that underage kids have the most unprotected sex. How would you resolve that problem? You think they are old enough to serve their nation, but not old enough to get laid? And don't tell me about the dangers of drugs. Ever been to an HIV/AIDS ward? The fastest growing number of HIV/AIDS patients are underage kids. You can become clean and sober for the rest of your life; HIV/AIDS is permanent.
Since it is not the 16-20 year old group that is doing the most damage with alcohol, what do you suggest?

Mark Twain said it best. "There are three types of lies, Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics."

Retire, you cannot equitably compare dissimilar age groups. I was merely trying to create parity in the spread. I don't thnk the dead kids would mind. If you want to disregard this effort then just focus on the 2000 or so dead 16-20 year olds and ask yourself if you're ok with that. If the answer is yes, we'll have no further discussion on the matter.

Secondly, as you may infer from the low BAC level stats, impairment does not magically begin at .08%. Modest impairment of some faculties necessafy for safe operation of a motor vehicle begin at BAC levels as low as .01%.

Now one assumption you make here is absolutely correct. 16-20 year olds are lousy drivers. They are also lousy drinkers, which is why I oppose changing the law.

You keep playing on the emotional context of "You think it is alright to put an M-16 in an 18 year olds hand and trust that he will have enough maturity to use it properly, but you don't want that 18 year old to have the ability to buy a beer?"

I expect him to use the M-16 under orders from his superiors a part of a discplined fighting unit, factors which do not exist in any drinking establishment I have ever known.

So, taking those feelgood "buy the GI a drink" emotions out of it; No, I don't want him to buy a beer. And I don't support changing the law to allow it.

Gosh, any thoughts on the increased risk of young people having unprotected sex when under the influence?

[retire2005]

101ABN said:

Mark Twain said it best. "There are three types of lies, Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics."

Retire, you cannot equitably compare dissimilar age groups. I was merely trying to create parity in the spread. I don't thnk the dead kids would mind. If you want to disregard this effort then just focus on the 2000 or so dead 16-20 year olds and ask yourself if you're ok with that. If the answer is yes, we'll have no further discussion on the matter.

Secondly, as you may infer from the low BAC level stats, impairment does not magically begin at .08%. Modest impairment of some faculties necessafy for safe operation of a motor vehicle begin at BAC levels as low as .01%.

Now one assumption you make here is absolutely correct. 16-20 year olds are lousy drivers. They are also lousy drinkers, which is why I oppose changing the law.

You keep playing on the emotional context of "You think it is alright to put an M-16 in an 18 year olds hand and trust that he will have enough maturity to use it properly, but you don't want that 18 year old to have the ability to buy a beer?"

I expect him to use the M-16 under orders from his superiors a part of a discplined fighting unit, factors which do not exist in any drinking establishment I have ever known.

So, taking those feelgood "buy the GI a drink" emotions out of it; No, I don't want him to buy a beer. And I don't support changing the law to allow it.

Gosh, any thoughts on the increased risk of young people having unprotected sex when under the influence?

You say I should not inject emotion in my post, but what are you doing with your "just focus on the 2000 dead" remark? Is that no playing to youri] emotions? Or do you want to tell me that statement was purely technical?

And yes, a 0.10 BAC level means you have had two beens in one hour, with a contributing factor being body weight. A 0.80 BAC level means you are hammered. It is more dangerous to be listening to loud music while driving, or to be on a cell phone, or to be eating a hamburger than a 0.10 BAC. And yes, teens are lousy drivers, so why arn't you railing to have the driving age changed to 21, or do you just want to ignore that teens have a higher rate of traffic fatalities due to their poor driving than to alcohol?

Ever been on patrol during war time? Do you think that 18 year old soldier stands and waits for a superior officer to give him the order to shoot at the enemy shooting at him? No, you expect the soldier to use his own good judgement. That is part of his training, the training that makes him more mature than the average 18 year old still living off Mommie.
Got any thoughts on the increased risk of young people over the age of 21 having unprotected sex when under the influence?
It really pisses me off that you seem to think that an 18 year old is mature enough to send into battle but you don't think they are old enough to buy a beer. And here is the bottom line; if a kid under the age of 21 wants to drink, they will. And if they have faced the devil and came home to tell about it, I will buy them one.

[101ABN]

No, perhaps its because I go to college. I would love for you to find me someone under the age of 21 who wants to drink but doesn't because of the law. I honestly would love to see that.

James, some people follow the law. Others thumb their noses at it. I guess you choose which one you do.

"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." - My statement still stands.

And, this just in...Now people get AIDS because of soccer moms and not because they're fucking around with each other outside of the bond of marriage or sharing needles.

I don't recall advocating tobacco use, either.

But will say this again "Drugs are generally harmless?" My Ass!

"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?"

"Yes, that does sound like a retarded comment that my mother would make."

Hey Cadet, FYI, Your mom is right. So am I

Gotta love it, man! Your mom and I are retarded. MADD and DARE make people do drugs and drink. Soccer moms cause AIDS. That's amazing!

"I'm sorry, did I say something that wasn't true when I said that teenagers will ALWAYS drink? "

Yes it's patently untrue when you make the statement in absolute.

Sorry James, EVERYBODY doesn't do it.

AIDS, Alcoholism and Addiction have one very special thing in common. They are preventable. They are prevented by not engaging in certain behaviors that lead to them. You can take that to the bank.

"When you were born, what age were you? Did you just skip from age 12 to 21? "

In the interest of civility, I'll just refrain fom answering this one, OK?

[101ABN]

battleborn said:

101, consider the absolute certainty that many of today's youth, (military and civilian), drink alcohol anyway. Also consider that this is not that hard to achieve at all.

Now because the military gives rather harsh punishments for those caught drinking underage many of these kids will take their chances off base, than they are much more likly to get on the road in the hopes of making it home and not being caught. In this scenario they have a considerable chance to hurt somebody.

Now consider if we gave them the option of drinking at a bar on base. The options would open up considerably. At these bars they could be monitored much better than at some party out in town. If they got out of hand they aren't going anyway but a brig for the night. It can also be expected that they aren't going to be getting on the road in this condition. In this scenario the public may have been spared a wreck, someones life could have been spared as well.

This certainly would be a benefit to society. If it isn't, why not?

Well, BB You do at make the most rational argument, but sorry, no cigar.

If they choose to break the law, so be it. There are consequences for such behavior. I'm not going to follow the permissive path by saying, "Well, they're going to do it anyway, so let's just make it easy."

Like I said to Retire, 18 year olds don't drink very well. I'm not going to support allowing them to do it.

I don't think anyone becomes a better soldier, (or student, or teacher or anything else) by drinking alcohol, or by using any other dangerous drug with a high potential for abuse. Thank God, neither does the military these days.

[101ABN]

"You say I should not inject emotion in my post, but what are you doing with your "just focus on the 2000 dead" remark? Is that no playing to youri] emotions? Or do you want to tell me that statement was purely technical?"

So may I assume by your answer that you are OK with the 2000?

And yes, a 0.10 BAC level means you have had two beens in one hour, with a contributing factor being body weight. A 0.80 BAC level means you are hammered. "

Actually, at .80%, you'd probably be dead. The highest known BAC level in that I am aware of was .44%. Typically any BAC above .20% indicates an extremely high tolerance usually indicating that the individual in question is a "problem drinker."

" It is more dangerous to be listening to loud music while driving, or to be on a cell phone, or to be eating a hamburger than a 0.10 BAC. "

That can be argued, but in many states, these behaviors are neither illegal nor age restricted. Driving with a .10% IS sufficiently impaired to be legally intoxicated. What's your point?

And yes, teens are lousy drivers, so why arn't you railing to have the driving age changed to 21, or do you just want to ignore that teens have a higher rate of traffic fatalities due to their poor driving than to alcohol?

Uh...Do you really think the two factors don't work together? I'm not advocating lowering the driving age to 13 either, which makes just about as much sense as lowering the drinking age.

"Ever been on patrol during war time?"

Yes, as a matter of fact. Have you?

The 18 year old soldier does not generally function as an isolated individual but as part of a trained and disciplined unit operating under rules of engagement and a chain of command. Not much at all like your average barroom. Also, with any luck at all, they are NOT operating under the influence of a mind-altering, mood altering drug. You see, combat's not really much like a party now, is it?

Got any thoughts on the increased risk of young people over the age of 21 having unprotected sex when under the influence? - Noted: Your absence of comment.

"It really pisses me off that you seem to think that an 18 year old is mature enough to send into battle but you don't think they are old enough to buy a beer."

To quote Old Ronnie, "Well, there you go again..."

Frankly, I don't care if it pisses you off or not. Clearly, you are unable to recognize that going into battle and drinking alcohol not only aren't the same thing, but also have no relationship to each other, not even a tangental one.

"And here is the bottom line; if a kid under the age of 21 wants to drink, they will. And if they have faced the devil and came home to tell about it, I will buy them one."

If that's the bottom line, then it begs a question. Why the drama? Why the insults and rhetoric? Just do it and hope the consequences aren't severe and pray you're not introducing them to a devil of a different stripe.

Although, what the hell, we all have our devils to face, don't we?

Regards

[retire2005]

101ABN said:

"You say I should not inject emotion in my post, but what are you doing with your "just focus on the 2000 dead" remark? Is that no playing to youri] emotions? Or do you want to tell me that statement was purely technical?"

So may I assume by your answer that you are OK with the 2000?

And yes, a 0.10 BAC level means you have had two beens in one hour, with a contributing factor being body weight. A 0.80 BAC level means you are hammered. "

Actually, at .80%, you'd probably be dead. The highest known BAC level in that I am aware of was .44%. Typically any BAC above .20% indicates an extremely high tolerance usually indicating that the individual in question is a "problem drinker."

" It is more dangerous to be listening to loud music while driving, or to be on a cell phone, or to be eating a hamburger than a 0.10 BAC. "

That can be argued, but in many states, these behaviors are neither illegal nor age restricted. Driving with a .10% IS sufficiently impaired to be legally intoxicated. What's your point?

And yes, teens are lousy drivers, so why arn't you railing to have the driving age changed to 21, or do you just want to ignore that teens have a higher rate of traffic fatalities due to their poor driving than to alcohol?

Uh...Do you really think the two factors don't work together? I'm not advocating lowering the driving age to 13 either, which makes just about as much sense as lowering the drinking age.

"Ever been on patrol during war time?"

Yes, as a matter of fact. Have you?

The 18 year old soldier does not generally function as an isolated individual but as part of a trained and disciplined unit operating under rules of engagement and a chain of command. Not much at all like your average barroom. Also, with any luck at all, they are NOT operating under the influence of a mind-altering, mood altering drug. You see, combat's not really much like a party now, is it?

Got any thoughts on the increased risk of young people over the age of 21 having unprotected sex when under the influence? - Noted: Your absence of comment.

"It really pisses me off that you seem to think that an 18 year old is mature enough to send into battle but you don't think they are old enough to buy a beer."

To quote Old Ronnie, "Well, there you go again..."

Frankly, I don't care if it pisses you off or not. Clearly, you are unable to recognize that going into battle and drinking alcohol not only aren't the same thing, but also have no relationship to each other, not even a tangental one.

"And here is the bottom line; if a kid under the age of 21 wants to drink, they will. And if they have faced the devil and came home to tell about it, I will buy them one."

If that's the bottom line, then it begs a question. Why the drama? Why the insults and rhetoric? Just do it and hope the consequences aren't severe and pray you're not introducing them to a devil of a different stripe.

Although, what the hell, we all have our devils to face, don't we?

Regards

OK, so it was late and my fingers did not work very well. The stats should have been 0.01 and 0.08 respectively. But of course, you would not pick up on that because you could use my error to further your point. What you do not acknowledge is that 18 year old have more accidents due to lack of driving skills than to alcohol.
No one asked you to advocate lowering the driving age to 13. That is not the issue here. The issue here is lowering the drinking age for military only to 18. No where did I say I thought the driving age should be lowered to 13. But also, you do not advocate raising the driving age to 21, when you seem to think that a young person majically reaches some level of maturity. If more kids are dying because of poor driving skills than they are because of alcohol, why arn't you?

Am I OK with 2,000 dead children because of alcohol? No, but I am also not OK with the thousands who are dead because of AIDS. Or the hundreds of thousands who will have to live with their decision to have an abortion somewhere down the road because it is legal and will propably get cancer because of it. But I don't hear you screaming about underage sex. A hangover goes away, but AIDS is forever.
You are trying to put all 18 year old in a catagory that says they are not mature enough to handle alcohol. Are you alright with them dying in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or do you want to raise the legal age to join the military to that majical age of 21?
Your arguement is that soldiers drinking at the age of 18 has no sociatal benefits. What social benefits is there at losing a leg/arm/life as an 18 year old soldier? You want them to defend your rights, yet you want to give the less than what you have.
We do not agree on this issue. I believe if you are old enough to die for your nation you should have the rights of any other citizen who is an adult. If not, then we should quit sending children to war. We should quit allowing children to marry or to vote. If they are so immature as to not be able to handle drinking they definately are too immature to be married, voting, having children or any of the other things that go along with adulthood.
Mark Twain also said that you could dam the river and change it's course but it will one day return to it's natural path.
And about insults, I don't think referring to me as a liar, was a compliment. But then, it is obvious we have different standards and view points. And whether you like it or not, mine are just as valid as yours.

[101ABN]

OK, Retire...

I'm growing a bit weary of this but I'll give a detailed response tonight.

One thing first.

Where the hell do you get off asserting I called you a liar?

Go back and read the texts. I believe it was you who accused me of using a"smokescreen" for some hidden agenda.

[retire2005]

101ABN said:

OK, Retire...

I'm growing a bit weary of this but I'll give a detailed response tonight.

One thing first.

Where the hell do you get off asserting I called you a liar?

Go back and read the texts. I believe it was you who accused me of using a"smokescreen" for some hidden agenda.

Oh, please, do tell me that your Mark Twain quote was not aimed at me.
And what is the matter 101, are you too immature to know the difference between a LIE and a SMOKESCREEN?
A bit touchy this morning, are you? Well, go have another cup of coffee, watch reruns of Beaver Cleaver and chill.

[101ABN]

retire2005 said:

Oh, please, do tell me that your Mark Twain quote was not aimed at me.
And what is the matter 101, are you too immature to know the difference between a LIE and a SMOKESCREEN?
A bit touchy this morning, are you? Well, go have another cup of coffee, watch reruns of Beaver Cleaver and chill.

Oh please, Retire, do tell me that you're not too obtuse to recognize the Twain quote as a reference to the fact that statistics in and of themselves can be interpreted to "prove" any point you wish.

So who's a bit touchy? Get a psychological dictionary and look up projection. Your overly dramatic and emotional responses are pretty suspect, filled as they are with self-righteous, inappropriately directed anger.

Smokescreens and lies are both forms of deception. OR are you too invested in your own drama to see the similarity.

You've brought in numerous strawman arguments involving combat, marriage, driving abilities, unprotected sex and AIDS, none of which address the developmental state of an 18 year old brain to manage the effects of intoxicants.

One correction: Your .08%/.80% typo is actually a fairly common error. Nonetheless, .08% is not "hammered" either. It's merely the legal threshhold at which one is deemed to be too impaired for safe operation of a motor vehicle. There, now you can say you've learned something.

Two key points:

I asked if you had any thoughts on the increased risk of young people having unprotected sex when under the influence? Do you?

You asked me if I had ever been on patrol in wartime. I answered you and asked the same question of you. Let me qualify my answer. Yes. As a rifleman, a grenadier, a machine gunner, a fire team leader and a squad leader. Now, I'll ask you again, because you ignored the question the first time. Have you? If the answer is anything but "yes," you had no fucking business bringing it up.

Retire, until your last smartass remark, I was inclined to simply suggest that we agree to disagree but since it's now clear to me any rational discussion of this issue is well beyond your knowledge base, I think I'll just disengage.