Old enough to die, not old enough to drink?

[retire2005]

101ABN said:

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.

To begin with, Samuel Clemmons was a simple man. He had a simple way of looking at life. So don't give me your diatribe about Mark Twain. You seem to know so little of river people.

#1) The increased risk of STDs being contracted by kids under the influence of alcohol that are below the age of 21 is not greater or no less that than someone over the age of 21 who practices the same behaviour. So there is your answer.

#2) My military career, or the lack of it, is none of your damn business. I might have told you but since you want to make it an issue, stuff it.

#3) Insulting my intellect only shows the lack of yours.

This discussion is over.

[101ABN]

"To begin with, Samuel Clemmons was a simple man. He had a simple way of looking at life. So don't give me your diatribe about Mark Twain. You seem to know so little of river people."

Would that be Samuel Clemens, Genius? I guess I know at least as much about river people as you do about substance abuse. Or diatribes.

"#1) The increased risk of STDs being contracted by kids under the influence of alcohol that are below the age of 21 is not greater or no less that than someone over the age of 21 who practices the same behaviour. So there is your answer."

SAFE answer but you missed the point entirely. No surprise here.

"#2) My military career, or the lack of it, is none of your damn business. I might have told you but since you want to make it an issue, stuff it."

As I thought, a REMF, at best.

BTW, who brought combat experience up in the first place, dickweed?

"#3) Insulting my intellect only shows the lack of yours."

The comment was about your knowledge base, not your intellect.

"This discussion is over."

For once, Retire, you are correct. Bravo! You have learned something.

Now don't go away mad...

[dustdevil28]

admin said:

"To begin with, Samuel Clemmons was a simple man. He had a simple way of looking at life. So don't give me your diatribe about Mark Twain. You seem to know so little of river people."

Would that be Samuel Clemens, Genius? I guess I know at least as much about river people as you do about substance abuse. Or diatribes.

"#1) The increased risk of STDs being contracted by kids under the influence of alcohol that are below the age of 21 is not greater or no less that than someone over the age of 21 who practices the same behaviour. So there is your answer."

SAFE answer but you missed the point entirely. No surprise here.

"#2) My military career, or the lack of it, is none of your damn business. I might have told you but since you want to make it an issue, stuff it."

As I thought, a REMF, at best.

BTW, who brought combat experience up in the first place, dickweed?

"#3) Insulting my intellect only shows the lack of yours."

The comment was about your knowledge base, not your intellect.

"This discussion is over."

For once, Retire, you are correct. Bravo! You have learned something.

Now don't go away mad...

Well I see this discussion deteriated a good bit.

101 I still see a known location where drunk kids are hanging out as a easier way to keep them off the road than to have them get drunk at some unknown barreks room.

Someone's life may have just been saved if we allowed this and I'd think that be the goal right?

[LorSpi]

Well I see this discussion deteriorated a good bit.

101 I still see a known location where drunk kids are hanging out as a easier way to keep them off the road than to have them get drunk at some unknown barracks room.

Someone's life may have just been saved if we allowed this and I'd think that be the goal right?

This is called babysitting folks who can't follow orders.

The military is about discipline and following orders. If folks who haven't reached the legal drinking age think that the rules shouldn't apply to them - and God only knows there is no shortage of 19 year olds who think the rules were written for the other guy - then maybe it would be better all round if they found a job flipping burgers.

There is no shortage of information about all the bad stuff associated with drinking and drinking by those under 26 years. Drinking, driving, sex - these are actions that can have life long consequences. Insurance rates - the ultimate number crunchers there - reflect this. Why don't you spend a little time researching the number of people killed and families destroyed by underage drivers in just your area.

Here's where the age difference comes in. We watched friends get drunk and killed themselves in drunk driving accidents when we were that age. Then when we got older, we watched our younger siblings' friends get drunk and kill themselves in car accidents. Then we got families and watched friends and maybe their babies get killed when some teenager and his friends, drunk , slammed into their vehicles and destroyed and crippled really good folks. Then comes the day when we have to let our own kids start driving knowing that even if we have taught them well, their friends could easily be the ones who get drunk and slam into their cars, crippling or killing them. That's an awful lot of bodies.

Now - addressing the well we're special because we're in the military nonsense. It was very common for those as young as high schoolers (had to be 16) and young sailors to work in the volunteer fire department and rescue squad where I grew up. It was a great way to socialize, there was extensive training - not only buildings to burn donated by local wanting to rebuild, but training all over the country for LNG fires, fires in nuclear power plants, oil refinery fires, and other types. The young guys were not only part of the team but thoroughly mentored. When my dad was chief, it seemed we always had a sailor or a local teen sleeping over, eating dinner or just hanging around. There were many serious incidents - this was not easy for them. My own brother had the experience of recognizing the ring he had given the 13 year old sister of his girlfriend on the hand of an otherwise unidentifiable body at the scene of a car accident where he was the first respondent. Her brother had been drunk and driving.

All of this - and you think these guys would NOT drink and drive. Guess what? 19 and you think you're frigging invincible. One of the local kids who had been in the fire department since he was 16 got bored only the way 20 year olds get bored had a few drinks - and totaled his car. They pulled him out alive. I saw him right after and on again , off again for years after. He was never quite right. He never got his health back. This kid could have done anything. He was valued by his friends and admired by those older than he was. But he thought it couldn't happen to him.

Those laws came into being for a reason. There are plenty of ways to get around them if all you are talking about is a couple of beers with friends. But give an exception to a 19 year old because he's wearing a uniform? Why not just give him a pistol with one round in it and tell him to go play Russian roulette?

[Husky23]

This is called babysitting folks who can't follow orders.

What do you think of the perception: “If an individual is treated like a kid, they begin behaving like one as well.”

Lord knows, as you have presented, that 18 to 26 is chalk full of dangers; the statistics indicate so, the insurance companies indicate so, and the head stones in the cemeteries indicate so. Here on one hand the legal system proudly touts “You are an adult!!” - Hell, the USG thinks their old enough to be planted in one of our national cemeteries. Then, that very same system goes about and places restrictions to ‘adult’ behavior – in this case consumption of alcohol. So, it’s kinda like – “WTF over”? You see the contradiction don’t you Lor?

Should, possibly the adult recognized ‘legal’ age be changed to align better with behaviors and maturity understood and recognized as ‘adult’?

Not that I don’t necessarily agree with you – but these are very real contradictions that young folks “feel” and are rebelliously acted upon. And that rebellion in and of itself indicates a lack of ‘adult’ maturity.

But, my experience, with young members of the military is what I indicated above: “treat em like kids and they’ll behave like kids.”

[LorSpi]

husky23 said:

This is called babysitting folks who can't follow orders.

What do you think of the perception: “If an individual is treated like a kid, they begin behaving like one as well.”

Lord knows, as you have presented, that 18 to 26 is chalk full of dangers; the statistics indicate so, the insurance companies indicate so, and the head stones in the cemeteries indicate so. Here on one hand the legal system proudly touts “You are an adult!!” - Hell, the USG thinks their old enough to be planted in one of our national cemeteries. Then, that very same system goes about and places restrictions to ‘adult’ behavior – in this case consumption of alcohol. So, it’s kinda like – “WTF over”? You see the contradiction don’t you Lor?

Should, possibly the adult recognized ‘legal’ age be changed to align better with behaviors and maturity understood and recognized as ‘adult’?

Not that I don’t necessarily agree with you – but these are very real contradictions that young folks “feel” and are rebelliously acted upon. And that rebellion in and of itself indicates a lack of ‘adult’ maturity.

But, my experience, with young members of the military is what I indicated above: “treat em like kids and they’ll behave like kids.”

Wasn't it the Greeks who banished teenage boys from society - sent them abroad as soldiers. The ones who manged to survive until their 20s were welcomed backed as heroes - and adult members of society.

I did this very same argument with my father - if you're old enough to die for your country yadda yadda yadda. His reply - only 18 year olds are arrogant enough to go out there and charge a machine gun nest and think he'd survive. Doesn't mean he's got the common sense to come out of the rain. Quite the opposite. That's why they get the benefits afterwards. For using all that craziness in service to their country.

Okay. I don't buy into that fully but he did have a point. And 17 year olds - hell 15 and 14 year olds - are being tried in court as adults. We are talking a serious mix message here.

One: I don't see the problem with low level beer and wine consumption for 16 year olds.

Two: I don't SEE low level consumption of beer and wine bt 16 year olds. I see binging. We got some fundamental problems in our society about the way teenagers view drinking.

Young men especially are prone to self destructive behavior. We know that. That's why they conscript 18 year olds. They still are children in our society. They don't have jobs, families or pay taxes. The idea is to grab them before those commitments. But the very thing that makes them attractive as potential cannon fodder (sorry about that expression - it's for emphasis only), is the very reason that they are using the little brain and have yet to make the transition to big brain.

Now - there are plenty of really good young men and women out there acting fairly responsibly. But those aren't the ones wanting to be exempt from drinking laws. They can have the occassional drink with friends without the necessity to engage in puking contests. Because that is what is happening - kids drinking themselves not only blind but to death. Poisoned by alcohol.

The rebellion is good. And part of the biology. And Lord love 'em, it's the first step to adulthood. But they're not there yet. And better to have them pissing and moaning about not being able to drink themselves senseless than moaning in the wreckage of car that has just slammed into a van with a family and slaughtered them. The "I'm so sorry" that follows isn't enough. Isn't acceptable. We've heard it too many times.

I see the contadiction. I threw myself into that fight when I was that age. My daughter went through her formative years in countries where legal drinking started at 18. It was a joke that she spent her 21st birthday in Paris. She said it's no fun turning 21 when a country where you can drink at 18. She didn't have those artificial barriers. But she did see school mates get into real trouble and kids die because of alcohol. Shall we discuss that 19 year old in Aruba. She went in a car with strangers in a foreign country?! THIS was a mature smart girl? Yeah - a mature smart 19 year old with a few drinks in her.

As I look at it now - there isn't a line where one crosses: child today, adult tomorrow. It takes years as one acqures more privileges. 21 year olds can't rent a car. You have to be 26 (exception USAA rents cars to 21 one year olds but it specializing in military). Military service? Well - what the hell else are they doing at that age anyway? That hit home when I was in Peru. Young men - boys really - were joining the military at 14 and 15 years. Big stink because of the whole children soldiers thing. But the bottom line - by the time they were 18, their lives were set in stone. Married, families. The military was their one shot at training and making their lives better.

Too many things point at bad things happening when 18 year old have the right to drink. Decisions have been made. For a reason. Quite frankly - I think it far more important that an 18 year old have sex than a drink before he dies. Doing a rank order of things that really matter.

[Husky23]

I see the contradiction.

But I sensed, by your numerous posts, how you fancy presenting dispassionate cold impersonal statistics, generated data models, and so forth. Government decision making at it’s best. So it’s good to see you appreciate the subjective, psychological mixture as well.

And I agree regarding the extreme mixed-messages young adult get bombarded with these days.

Glad I don't have to do it again.

[101ABN]

admin said:

Maybe the slogan should be "Old enough to die in Iraq, Old enough to splatter yourself all over the highways, taking a few innocents with you."

Anyone who thinks there isn't a significant difference in the maturity level of an 18 year old and a twenty-one year old is grossly misinformed. Additionally, there are issues with brain physiology that need to be considered as the brain is still a work in progress at age 18.

When drinking ages were lowered to match the voting ages back in the 70's there was an immediate spike in alcohol related deaths involving 18-21 year olds, mostly males. This caused many states to raise the minimum age back to 21 until the Feds got involved. ('84?)

I understand the feelings related to wanting the troops to be able to partake in adult refreshment. The reality is that although millions of Americans enjoy alcohol responsibly, it is still the most dangerous and most abused drug in our society.

There is no benefit to lowering the drinking age, except to the brewers, distillers and distributors of alcoholic beverages. No benefit and significant societal cost.

Sounds like a bad idea to me.

Posted again because I'm too lazy to retype it.

I recognize the perception that may occur among young people that somehow it is unfair to allow what is allowed at 18, but not to allow alcohol.

I would suggest that one of the first great lessons that must be learned in order to claim maturity is the realization that life is, in fact, unfair.

There is research a'plenty on why 21 is the standard for legal drinking.

One of my favorite reasons is this. Alcohol affects judgement, already not the strong suit of many 18-21 year olds, not because they are bad, or stupid but because they aren't THERE yet. Their brains are still developing and their life experience is limited.

Critical consequence-oriented cognitive thinking skills AND emotional maturity are also very much under development.

The vast body of evidence that exists suggests those who delay onset of drinking until 21 have significantly fewer alcohol related problems later in life as well.

And, sorry folks, I don't buy the argument "They're doing it anyway," as a reason to dismantle societal standards. Anyone who believes that is a good idea need only to look at the cultural wreckage left by the permissiveness of the '60s and '70s.

[LorSpi]

Somehow "it's for your own good" is not what a 20 year old who knows everything wants to hear. And the appropriate response? Tough.

Why?

Because.

[retire05]

admin said:

admin said:

There is research a'plenty on why 21 is the standard for legal drinking.

And yet, according to the statistics posted on the MADD web site, it is the over 21 year old age groups that have the most fatalities while under the influence.

Yes, the 18-21 age group has fatalities, but the persentage of alcohol related fatalities is less than the older groups.

So now what would you do? Have a minimum age requirement of 21 for driver's licenses?

The statistics produced by MADD belie your arguement that under 21 has more accidents due to alcohol.

[Husky23]

lorspi said:

Somehow "it's for your own good" is not what a 20 year old who knows everything wants to hear. And the appropriate response? Tough.

Why?

Because.

Yeppers – that crap don’t wash.

It was never a satisfactory answer for me either, from parents or the military. I’ve caught myself uttering cutoff phrases like that a few times to my kids, usually out of impatience or they break my concentration - and later regret it. But, by and large I really try and walk them through my rational.

“Daddy, can I go/do such and such?”

“Lesse, I’m not thinking that’s a good idea right now…and here’s why…”

We’ll walk through it, presenting each’s position, and the majority of the time they end up coming to the same conclusion I have. Then there are those occasions that they will present their case, and I end up going along with it.

“Alright baby, you sold me - (Here’s a little more rope).”

I haven’t yet had to witness my 16 year old storm up to her room, slamming the door, hollering: “Ohhhh, I hate you!” Blaa blaa blaa.

Dunno, maybe that’s still forth coming.

[101ABN]

retire05 said:

admin said:

There is research a'plenty on why 21 is the standard for legal drinking.

And yet, according to the statistics posted on the MADD web site, it is the over 21 year old age groups that have the most fatalities while under the influence.

Yes, the 18-21 age group has fatalities, but the persentage of alcohol related fatalities is less than the older groups.

So now what would you do? Have a minimum age requirement of 21 for driver's licenses?

The statistics produced by MADD belie your arguement that under 21 has more accidents due to alcohol.

Ye Gawds, Retire!

We've already been through that argument. You cannot compare dissimilar age spreads! 4 years v. 9 years as though they are apples and apples. They're NOT!

The best comparison you can make is by the fatalities PER the number of licensed drivers in the group. When you do that, you get twice the fatalities in the 16-20 group. IF you're going to cite statistics, for God's sake learn how to read and compare them.

Now before you go accusing me of manipulating the numbers to support my argument, get this. I don't have to do that. The numbers themselves are sufficient IF you know how to read them.

Retire, I respect you as an individual but I have to tell you that Your knowledge on this subject is minimal at best.

I don't hear you arguing "Rotary Wing flight dynamics" with Husky, "Macro-economics and capitalism in emerging nations" with Peck, or the "Properties of Pigments in Colloidal Suspension" with Toejam. SO why the hell are you busting my balls on issues related to minor consumption of alcohol and drugs? I've been in the field for damn near twenty years. I've been an expert witness in CA Juvenile and Superior Courts on this and related topics more times than I can recall.

I know what the fuck I'm talking about. And I've said nothing here that isn't supported by SOLID science.

Let me say it agan. IF you're going to cite AOD statistics to me, you'd better damned well learn to analyze them or risk appearing the fool.

Now, please...give it a rest.

[Husky23]

Alright 101,

I won’t, and don’t argue with the data and statistics – not one iota. It’s all addressed; we know the dangers and ages – yes?
It has also been brought out that the governmental system while intending to protect young adults and those innocents that may be caught up in their actions, for the best overall intended safety of society, the government has created, in that well meaning effort, conflicting and contradictory positions. Specifically regarding “adulthood”, and the liberties, responsibilities associated with it.
Now, I acknowledge, the following deliberation is not backed by statistics, and/or hard core numerical data – but none the less the psychology of it is powerful enough.
There is a serious contradictory aspect to the application of laws, and notions of adulthood, and the young adults not only see it, they very much “feel” it – rejecting and rebelling the contradictions and the apparent hypocrisy.
And – they ain’t wrong.
Kids are decreed by law as “adults” at the ripe age of 18; voting, driving, self decision, individuality, off to college, no more umbrella or Mom and Pop, I’m independent, hell even Uncle Sugar thinks their good enough to take a bullet – they are by all legal counts an adult! Well, maybe not – ya, we want your young ass vote, we want your idealistic drive and invincibility, but…..your age group had displayed some serious self destructive tendencies – so no alcohol for you.

I’m thinking, a means should be reached to bridge that gap of reality of behavior and legal and the reality of semi-maturity. I’m not sure of the solution – but the current – “That’s the fucking law, I don’t care if you get it or not.” doesn’t really cut the mustard, and kids will continue to fight it – not until they can put it all together. And, if they can not, then we, I believe, should make these laws the least contradictory as possible, until they can puzzle the pieces together.

Then they can go through the same shit with their kids

[101ABN]

I’m thinking, a means should be reached to bridge that gap of reality of behavior and legal and the reality of semi-maturity. I’m not sure of the solution.

The means is education. Much as you reason with your own kids. You give them the information, the knowledge and the data.

"That's the why of it, son. " (How you feel about it is up to you.)

There's a great opportunity to teach an object lesson here, mainly that the law exists for damn good reasons that may not feel "fair."

They may not like it, but my guess is, that by age 21, they'll get over it.

[retire05]

[Ye Gawds, Retire!

We've already been through that argument. You cannot compare dissimilar age spreads! 4 years v. 9 years as though they are apples and apples. They're NOT!

The best comparison you can make is by the fatalities PER the number of licensed drivers in the group. When you do that, you get twice the fatalities in the 16-20 group. IF you're going to cite statistics, for God's sake learn how to read and compare them.

Now before you go accusing me of manipulating the numbers to support my argument, get this. I don't have to do that. The numbers themselves are sufficient IF you know how to read them.

Retire, I respect you as an individual but I have to tell you that Your knowledge on this subject is minimal at best.}
Well, now, I guess I should defer to your superior knowledge?

{I don't hear you arguing "Rotary Wing flight dynamics" with Husky, "Macro-economics and capitalism in emerging nations" with Peck, or the "Properties of Pigments in Colloidal Suspension" with Toejam. SO why the hell are you busting my balls on issues related to minor consumption of alcohol and drugs? I've been in the field for damn near twenty years. I've been an expert witness in CA Juvenile and Superior Courts on this and related topics more times than I can recall. ]

Ah, there is the answer. YOU are an expert. Gee, was this tread about "Properties of Pigmens in Colloidal Suspension"? Did I miss something? Now, since you have no idea what I do, or what I may or may not be an "expert" in, then you are assuming that you know more than me, right?

[I know what the fuck I'm talking about. And I've said nothing here that isn't supported by SOLID science.

Let me say it agan. IF you're going to cite AOD statistics to me, you'd better damned well learn to analyze them or risk appearing the fool.

Now, please...give it a rest.]

Seems to me since you are the one using four letter words you are the one needing the rest.


[/quote]