America's Legal Drinking Age

[Tolo]

I don't know if this is the right forum but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/9109/large20photosalcoholqb0.jpg

How do you feel about the legal drinking age in the United States? Is 21 too old to let people legally purchase and drink alcohol? Do you feel that it is fair that an 18 year can enlist in the military and risk their lives for the country but not be able to drink alcohol?

I'd like to hear what DD thinks about this because there's usually a good discussion on topics here.

[Killroy]

Personally, I wish alcohol was illegal. Even though I was one of the underage drinkers, and have done my fare share of porcelain god worshipping, now having a kid of my own has forced me to take a look at things in a different light, and from a different perspective.

But let's not stray to the drug topic and try to stick with the question Tolo has asked. Is 21 a fair drinking age, and should it be lowered. To that question I say that it should stay as it is. There is a reason why 21 was picked.

21 was picked because of studies done with alcohol and animals. Particularly when the brain was in it's learning\growing phase. Studies showed that alcohol abuse during this time severely hampered learning capabilities (http://www.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagename=brainBriefings_youngBrainsOnAlc ohol#fullsize) and could permanently damage the brain's ability to so. So, the general consensus at the time was that by the age of 21, a humans brain, for the most part, has past that particular phase of growth and the use of alcohol was not as big of an issue (in regards to stunting).

Do I believe or agree with this? Well, I didn't see all the studies, but it sounds pretty logical to me. A simple Google search on alcohol abuse and the brain pulls up more than enough studies and research (including the one I linked above) to read through and all with the main theme of alcohol abuse does some nasty shit to a brain that is still developing.

Secondly, people who start using alcohol at a young age have an increased likelihood of developing drinking problems.

And finally, since everyone seems to love stats, in the early 70's (where I remember only having to be 18) a number of states lowered their drinking age from 21 to 18. In many of these states, research documented a significant increase in highway deaths of the teens affected by these laws. So, in the early 1980's a movement began to raise the drinking age back to 21 (in which I remember being PISSED). The states that moved the age back up to 21 found that teenage deaths in fatal car crashes dropped up to 28%.

In 1982 when the many of the states had minimum drinking ages of 18, 55% of all fatal crashes involving youth drivers involved alcohol. Since then, the alcohol-related traffic fatality rate is half of that.

Most of this last info came from the MADD site, but they also list their sources. But I don't need the info. It just makes since. And for those of you who want to bring up the fact that other countries have their age at 18, consider that the most of these countries do not have a society in which almost every teenager has a car, and uses it daily. Also, the UK is now having residents attempting to get this age raised because of things like:

Alcohol-related conditions such as liver disease have doubled in less than a decade, to 262,844 a year
The number of people taken to Accident & Emergency with alcohol-related injuries has also doubled to 148,477 a year
Excessive drinking by young people has seen a 20% rise in hospital admissions in England over the last five yearsBut no matter what your position is here in the States, opposition to the 21 age limit is not only small, but unlikely to change any time soon as any state that lowers the drinking age would lose 10% of its federal highway funding. :)

[brokenandtwisted]

Nice post Morbid! It was informative...and I've nothing to say.

[Tolo]

I knew and agreed with what you posted Morbid. The problem I have is, why is it okay for an 18 year old to get sent into war and possibly end up dead but it isn't okay for an 18 year to drink because of what you mentioned. Surely, anyone that is shot in the head or blown up isn't going to have a chance to completely develop or reach that stage of growth.

I just feel that if you're able to die in a war, you should be able to drink alcohol and be given the same rights as anyone of age.

[brokenandtwisted]

I knew and agreed with what you posted Morbid. The problem I have is, why is it okay for an 18 year old to get sent into war and possibly end up dead but it isn't okay for an 18 year to drink because of what you mentioned. Surely, anyone that is shot in the head or blown up isn't going to have a chance to completely develop or reach that stage of growth.

I just feel that if you're able to die in a war, you should be able to drink alcohol and be given the same rights as anyone of age.

Well, perhaps the age to enroll into the military should be 21...

[Killroy]

I knew and agreed with what you posted Morbid. The problem I have is, why is it okay for an 18 year old to get sent into war and possibly end up dead but it isn't okay for an 18 year to drink because of what you mentioned. Surely, anyone that is shot in the head or blown up isn't going to have a chance to completely develop or reach that stage of growth.

I just feel that if you're able to die in a war, you should be able to drink alcohol and be given the same rights as anyone of age.

Well, perhaps the age to enroll into the military should be 21...

Or just do what the Marines did, and lower the drinking age (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/05/marine_alcohol_070511/).

In any event, an 18 year old kid cannot drive worth shit. Period. Statistics show this over and over again. Drunk 18-year-olds are even worse.

Or we could raise enlistment age AND voting age AND getting your drivers license all to 21. Would you agree with that, Tolo?

[brokenandtwisted]

I don't understand though...who set these standards? It seems awkward and jumpy...everything here is straight 18-19 and there's little variation.

[Killroy]

I don't understand though...who set these standards? It seems awkward and jumpy...everything here is straight 18-19 and there's little variation.

Well, the drinking age was discussed already, but voting is 18, enlisting in the military is 18, to buy cigarettes is also 18, and if I am not mistaken, the average age to drive (not counting a learners permit) is 18 as well, but that can vary state-to-state.

[Tolo]

Or just do what the Marines did, and lower the drinking age (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/05/marine_alcohol_070511/).

In any event, an 18 year old kid cannot drive worth shit. Period. Statistics show this over and over again. Drunk 18-year-olds are even worse.

Or we could raise enlistment age AND voting age AND getting your drivers license all to 21. Would you agree with that, Tolo?

That's all fine and dandy that they can drink on base and other places while they are on active duty but what about when they aren't serving? I feel like they should be given the same right in and out of the military. It sounds really cheap or cheesy I guess but "they earned" their freedom.

I agree 18 year olds can't drive for shit. Trust me! In any case, people shouldn't be driving drunk at all. 18, 21, or 45...There's no excuse for it.


I'd be for raising enlistment or at least lowering the drinking age all around for those that served in the military. If you can fire a gun and possibly kill someone, yoiu should be able to handle a Budweiser.

I don't think the problem with the drivers is the actual age but the training and test. The tests for the local DMV are a joke. Basically 4 right turns and a parking job. That's it. You don't go on the freeway or shit. I really don't think that's a great way to test a person's driving skills.

[Killroy]

I guess my point is that your argument is simply a "it's not fair" type of argument on why you should be able to drink at 18 rather than any arguments against all the statistics on why an 18-year-old should not be able to.

[Tolo]

I'm not arguing that 18 year olds shouldn't be able to drink all the way. I'm not trying to ignore that statistics of 18 year olds...If it seems that way. I'm more on the side of bringing the enlistment age up to 21. It just sounds really unbalanced to be able to fight for a country when you don't have the same rights as someone who is 21. Eighteen year old are still developing, so they shouldn't be able to drink but being killed in war completely stops the development of the same person.

I'm probably repeating myself. :)

[AnalBreeze]

It's a good point but it's also an old one...
I'd like those 18 year olds that are fighting for our safety,
not to be drunk while they are doin' it!
Most of those who argue that point have never even considered joining the forces!

[Tolo]

You're probably being sarcastic? haha...But it's okay for the 21 year olds to be drunk? :p

I've never considered joining the military, no. This isn't me trying to whine because I can't legally buy alcohol because I can get it anyway. But I think those who are in the service or have served should be able to purchase it legally.

I know it's an old point but I feel like there hasn't been any big debate on here like old times. :)

[AnalBreeze]

yes, I was being sarcastic. I didn't mean anything by it!
I just think most kids now days abuse pretty much everything "given" to them!
They expect it, it's their right! bullshit, try workin' for something!
If you can't tell... I have spoiled Step kids! ;)

[Doc]

I've never considered joining the military, no. This isn't me trying to whine because I can't legally buy alcohol because I can get it anyway.

Frankly this is the main reason why changing the drinking age won't really matter. If kids want booze, it isn't really that hard to get. I just spent a week at the beach with five guys all under 21 who managed to get three handles of liquor, and several cases of beer with almost no trouble. Sure the law deters underage kids from buying alcohol, but I'm not sure that it deters anyone from consuming it. In my time as a teenager I've yet to meet anyone who said no to a beer because "it was illegal."

[swivel]

My personal theory for why the drinking age is higher than the enlistment age:

Having an enlistment age of 18 makes perfect sense because most recruits come straight out of highschool looking to take advantage of the GI bill, get some training and world experience, serve the minimum time, and let Uncle Sam put them through further schooling. Raising the age would punish, not protect these youth. Many (my step-brother included) have lied about being a year older to get into the military after graduating a year early.

These are people that WANT to be in the military. Anti-war morons and alcoholic assholes always pose the "die for their country" conundrum as if nobody wants to be in the military and these kids are being drafted against their will. Raising the age is punishing the free will of others to satisfy one's own subjective code... a recipe for totalitarian intolerance.

So, why is the drinking age different? Because there are a lot of kids still in highschool that are 18 years of age. Having a drinking age of 18 means that every punk that got held back a year is going to spend some time in highschool with the means of providing juice for the rest of his hooligans. Who are driving for the first time. And feel invincible. And influence all of the kids younger than them. 21 is a good number because it separates the non-drinking highschool crowd from the heavily-drinking college crowd.

I know, I know, we all remember drinking in highschool. But if you think back, you have TONS of more memories of struggling to score booze and failing than you do of actually sitting around and drinking. You always had to rely on that loser pedophile college student that was dating the really hot Junior who thought she had a catch. And those guys are notoriously unreliable.


Besides, the argument that the two numbers should be the same just can't be made. Why should they agree with one another? For aesthetic purposes? They are for different things. It isn't like women get to drink at 18 and men at 21, we are talking about graduation age vs. maturity age. And most recruits don't get to see action at age 18, even during Vietnam most troops weren't this young. So the argument of "dying for their country" is vacuous for that reason as well.


Concluding: This argument is just posed by one of three kinds of people:
1. Alcoholics who are recruiting more fucking losers for their side
2. Anti-war fascists who need to FORCE others to live by their subjective moral guidelines
3. People who can't remember their own phone number and therefore want fewer legal ages to have to memorize

[CPL CHUD]

I want more alcoholic losers on my side.

[swivel]

I want more alcoholic losers on my side.

They aren't as much fun as alcoholic fucking losers.

[CPL CHUD]

They aren't as much fun as alcoholic fucking losers.

That'd be nice to have as well.

[gprime]

In fairness, Swivel does raise some good points. Raising the age of service to match that of drinking poses an unjust burden on those who would typically enter after high school with the goal of earning money for college. But, it would seem that his ultimate conclusion is that the drinking age ought to be kept at 21. And that is something I strongly disagree with.

True, for another month I'm still 17, so it might well be the case that my age is influencing my stance here. But I don't believe that to be the case.

To me, the idea of a drinking age of 21 seems pointless. Yes, military service and the right to intoxicate oneself are very different. But it still seems to me completely obscene that a person is entitled to go to war, to vote in an election, or to purchase tobacco products, before they can legally obtain booze. Two of those three carry major life-threatening risks in the same way that drinking does.

Swivel made the point of being able to supply booze to minors. Now, I personally don't drink. But if I so desired, I could obtain some within a matter of hours at the most. It is readily available to those of us still in high school. In many cases, parents buy it for their kids. And it only becomes easier at college. For example, the school I'm attending is a wet campus, and therefore allows booze. Naturally, this translates to a fair bit of it being on campus, making it easy to come by. On top of that, many of the nearby bars don't card.

A raised age is only asking for trouble. Let us be honest for a moment and admit, that for younger people, the main draw of such intoxicants is their illegality. And, because it is illegal, and therefore theoretically harder to get, they are more likely to take advantage or their rare opportunity to drink that they'll binge, taking in a very dangerous quantity of the stuff.

Beyond that, we'd be well served to look at the rest of the world. Virtually every country where it is not banned has a lower drinking age than in the United States. Some, such as Mexico, have virtually no drinking laws. Other, more developed nations, such as France and Japan, take a much more laid back approach. And as a consequence, the reduced stigma in its use makes it less appealing to abuse, leading to fewer alcohol inspired problems.

And, I think we should be mindful of why the age currently stands at 21. It is not federal law that mandates it, but rather that highway money won't be given to states whose minimum age is below that.

---
I'd also suggest that you all take a look at the following related site: http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/index.html

[Killroy]

In fairness, Swivel does raise some good points. Raising the age of service to match that of drinking poses an unjust burden on those who would typically enter after high school with the goal of earning money for college. But, it would seem that his ultimate conclusion is that the drinking age ought to be kept at 21. And that is something I strongly disagree with.

True, for another month I'm still 17, so it might well be the case that my age is influencing my stance here. But I don't believe that to be the case.

To me, the idea of a drinking age of 21 seems pointless. Yes, military service and the right to intoxicate oneself are very different. But it still seems to me completely obscene that a person is entitled to go to war, to vote in an election, or to purchase tobacco products, before they can legally obtain booze. Two of those three carry major life-threatening risks in the same way that drinking does.

Swivel made the point of being able to supply booze to minors. Now, I personally don't drink. But if I so desired, I could obtain some within a matter of hours at the most. It is readily available to those of us still in high school. In many cases, parents buy it for their kids. And it only becomes easier at college. For example, the school I'm attending is a wet campus, and therefore allows booze. Naturally, this translates to a fair bit of it being on campus, making it easy to come by. On top of that, many of the nearby bars don't card.

A raised age is only asking for trouble. Let us be honest for a moment and admit, that for younger people, the main draw of such intoxicants is their illegality. And, because it is illegal, and therefore theoretically harder to get, they are more likely to take advantage or their rare opportunity to drink that they'll binge, taking in a very dangerous quantity of the stuff.

Beyond that, we'd be well served to look at the rest of the world. Virtually every country where it is not banned has a lower drinking age than in the United States. Some, such as Mexico, have virtually no drinking laws. Other, more developed nations, such as France and Japan, take a much more laid back approach. And as a consequence, the reduced stigma in its use makes it less appealing to abuse, leading to fewer alcohol inspired problems.

And, I think we should be mindful of why the age currently stands at 21. It is not federal law that mandates it, but rather that highway money won't be given to states whose minimum age is below that.

---
I'd also suggest that you all take a look at the following related site: http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/index.html

Why the age was set to 21 has already been posted and makes perfect sense. You can compare our age to other countries as well, but your statement of everything being ok in those countries is off the mark. The two "laid-back" countries you mentioned are experiencing a back-lash a bit different from ours in regards to health issues and the cost associated with them.

France is paying a lot of money towards alcohol abuse and one study showed that 75% of the French population consult a GP at least once every year. Out of that 75%, 5% of GP’s patients are classified as alcohol dependent. They are paying over 1% of the GNP because of alcoholism.

Japan had not done a nationwide survey of alcoholism until 2003 (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/member/member.html?nn20030731a4.htm). This was brought on after a noticeable increase in the number of alcoholics and worsening cases of drunken driving and sudden deaths after binge drinking.

So, just their culture is different from ours, doesn't mean they do not suffer the same effect. In fact, some will argue that these effects are actually starting earlier and why the UK has groups starting to try and get the age raised because of the numbers I posted earlier in this thread.

This doesn't even touch on the US car culture and that almost every teenager in the United States drives.

But the real matter is that I, and others, don't care to much how ridiculous it seems, or if it is "fair". An 18-year-old in the service is not a danger to the society it is serving. A drunk 18-year-old behind the wheel is. The raised age is not pointless at all and the numbers were already posted and easily accessed that prove it. Many lives were saved because of the age limit being raised. Like it or not, raising the age of drinking decreased teen driving fatalities. There is more to the legal drinking age than protecting the person who choses to drink alcohol.

The age is fine were it is at, and thank *deity* it wont be changing any time soon. In fact, I think the only new changes you will be seeing in any near future is the UK getting their drinking age raised.

[swivel]

Kids in Mexico can't afford a single beer, much less a case or keg. That's why they are sober and no laws are needed.

The argument can be better made that ALL alcohol should be illegal, rather than more legal by lowering the legal age.

I propose a plan whereby we raise the drinking age one year every four years. It would be like the Olympics, the Pres. election, a leap year, or the World Cup. That way, in a mere 80 years, the drinking age would be 41 and we would have gradual prohibition.

Drinking is stupid. The people that do it are stupid. It leads to rape, unwanted pregnancies, road deaths, lowered grades, spousal battery, child abuse and neglect, poor financial decisions. It makes it difficult for many people to hold down jobs, it makes people check out of society to live on the streets, it does nothing but harm and the only fucking good in the world that it does is make people feel good for a little bit. Give them an excuse to act like assholes.

What a ridiculous bullshit thing to argue for. "Hey, this shit wrecks society, BUT IT FEELS REAL NICE FOR A FEW HOURS, WOOO-HOOO! Let's get MORE PEOPLE involved!!"

Fuck that. Let's make the shit illegal. And not the way prohibition went, but the way we are attacking cigarettes with guilt-trips, bans on advertising, HUGE taxes, informative commercials, social pressure, etc...

[Killroy]

Everything

I cannot get behind banning alcohol, 'cause I am one of the idiots who likes to drink it. I just want the age to stay were it is, in fact, get it to 25. I mean, if you find yourself addicted to any drug past the age of 25, your kind of an idiot.

[gprime]

But the real matter is that I, and others, don't care to much how ridiculous it seems, or if it is "fair". An 18-year-old in the service is not a danger to the society it is serving. A drunk 18-year-old behind the wheel is. The raised age is not pointless at all and the numbers were already posted and easily accessed that prove it. Many lives were saved because of the age limit being raised. Like it or not, raising the age of drinking decreased teen driving fatalities. There is more to the legal drinking age than protecting the person who choses to drink alcohol.

Drunk 18-year-olds behind the wheel are a danger? Silly me. I was under the impression that drunk drivers in general were dangerous. And for that matter, a large percentage of sober drivers too.

Now, you make a claim that, were it true, might make a valid case for a drinking age of 21. You suggest that it has reduced fatalities. But this is patently false. The Asch and Levy study from Journal of Policy Analysis and Management has yet to be refuted in the 20 years since it was first published. It established that the death rate did not drop in the dramatic fashion we were led to believe, as it merely shifted the deaths into a higher age bracket to match the increased drinking age.

I think former Middleburry President John M. McCardell Jr put it quite well: To lawmakers: the 21-year-old drinking age is bad social policy and terrible law. It is astonishing that college students have thus far acquiesced in so egregious an abridgment of the age of majority. Unfortunately, this acquiescence has taken the form of binge drinking. Campuses have become, depending on the enthusiasm of local law enforcement, either arms of the law or havens from the law. Neither state is desirable. State legislators, many of whom will admit the law is bad, are held hostage by the denial of federal highway funds if they reduce the drinking age. Our latter-day prohibitionists have driven drinking behind closed doors and underground. This is the hard lesson of prohibition that each generation must relearn. No college president will say that drinking has become less of a problem in the years since the age was raised. Would we expect a student who has been denied access to oil paint to graduate with an ability to paint a portrait in oil? Colleges should be given the chance to educate students, who in all other respects are adults, in the appropriate use of alcohol, within campus boundaries and out in the open.
And please - hold your fire about drunken driving. I am a charter member of Presidents Against Drunk Driving. This has nothing to do with drunken driving. If it did, we'd raise the driving age to 21. That would surely solve the problem.


Kids in Mexico can't afford a single beer, much less a case or keg. That's why they are sober and no laws are needed.

The argument can be better made that ALL alcohol should be illegal, rather than more legal by lowering the legal age.

I propose a plan whereby we raise the drinking age one year every four years. It would be like the Olympics, the Pres. election, a leap year, or the World Cup. That way, in a mere 80 years, the drinking age would be 41 and we would have gradual prohibition.

Drinking is stupid. The people that do it are stupid. It leads to rape, unwanted pregnancies, road deaths, lowered grades, spousal battery, child abuse and neglect, poor financial decisions. It makes it difficult for many people to hold down jobs, it makes people check out of society to live on the streets, it does nothing but harm and the only fucking good in the world that it does is make people feel good for a little bit. Give them an excuse to act like assholes.

What a ridiculous bullshit thing to argue for. "Hey, this shit wrecks society, BUT IT FEELS REAL NICE FOR A FEW HOURS, WOOO-HOOO! Let's get MORE PEOPLE involved!!"

Fuck that. Let's make the shit illegal. And not the way prohibition went, but the way we are attacking cigarettes with guilt-trips, bans on advertising, HUGE taxes, informative commercials, social pressure, etc...

Suppose what you said about Mexican kids is entirely true, and applies to all of the nation's youth, as it clearly does not. There are many other countries where the young can afford alcohol, and are legally allowed to purchase it, including Poland and Portugal. Beyond that, several other developed nations that would qualify as our peers, among them Austria, Belgium, and Italy, have 16 as the age at which one is legally allowed to use alcohol.

Now, as interesting as your theory for banning alcohol may be, it certainly is not okay. All the causes you mention would exist, and in many people do, without the presence of alcohol. Moreover, the drawbacks of it do not make you or I any more entitled to outlaw it. I agree that drinking is stupid, and it isn't something I care to do. But that doesn't make the notion of further infringing upon individual liberty any less offensive.

[swivel]

Now, as interesting as your theory for banning alcohol may be, it certainly is not okay. All the causes you mention would exist, and in many people do, without the presence of alcohol. Moreover, the drawbacks of it do not make you or I any more entitled to outlaw it. I agree that drinking is stupid, and it isn't something I care to do. But that doesn't make the notion of further infringing upon individual liberty any less offensive.
[/LEFT]
[/LEFT]

So, sex with animals should be legal as well? Because some people say it feels good.

What about dog-fighting? The animals seem to enjoy doing it. Some people enjoy it. Why should we impinge upon the liberty of individuals to do stupid and dangerous shit when they have so much fun?

I suppose cocaine and heroine should be legalized, right? According to your arguments, the answer is "yes", and the legal age should be... oh... 16. Why should you be allowed to drive, and not be allowed to shoot-up?

Your liberty argument is vacuous, laws are designed to protect society at large, not to artificially restrict the rights of individuals. Alcohol damages society in dozens of ways, it should be illegal. Future generations will look back at us and shake their heads in dismay and disgust the same way we look back at slave-owners. You fuckers are on the wrong side of morality and decency, but your weakness is so great that you not only cling to your addictions, you attempt to justify them with poor logic.


And Killroy reminds me of Thomas Jefferson. One of those weak-minded hypocrites who owns slaves, but knows that slavery is a bad thing.

[brokenandtwisted]

Kids in Mexico can't afford a single beer, much less a case or keg. That's why they are sober and no laws are needed.

The argument can be better made that ALL alcohol should be illegal, rather than more legal by lowering the legal age.

I propose a plan whereby we raise the drinking age one year every four years. It would be like the Olympics, the Pres. election, a leap year, or the World Cup. That way, in a mere 80 years, the drinking age would be 41 and we would have gradual prohibition.

Drinking is stupid. The people that do it are stupid. It leads to rape, unwanted pregnancies, road deaths, lowered grades, spousal battery, child abuse and neglect, poor financial decisions. It makes it difficult for many people to hold down jobs, it makes people check out of society to live on the streets, it does nothing but harm and the only fucking good in the world that it does is make people feel good for a little bit. Give them an excuse to act like assholes.

What a ridiculous bullshit thing to argue for. "Hey, this shit wrecks society, BUT IT FEELS REAL NICE FOR A FEW HOURS, WOOO-HOOO! Let's get MORE PEOPLE involved!!"

Fuck that. Let's make the shit illegal. And not the way prohibition went, but the way we are attacking cigarettes with guilt-trips, bans on advertising, HUGE taxes, informative commercials, social pressure, etc...

Prohibition wouldn't work. It didn't in the twenties and most of the smuggling has evolved into the shit we have now...

But! I believe we should not allow women to drive vans...yeah, I'm bashing my gender. :lol: Seriously they cannot even drive them...end the off-topic rant...

[brokenandtwisted]

So, sex with animals should be legal as well? Because some people say it feels good.

What about dog-fighting? The animals seem to enjoy doing it. Some people enjoy it. Why should we impinge upon the liberty of individuals to do stupid and dangerous shit when they have so much fun?

I suppose cocaine and heroine should be legalized, right? According to your arguments, the answer is "yes", and the legal age should be... oh... 16. Why should you be allowed to drive, and not be allowed to shoot-up?

Your liberty argument is vacuous, laws are designed to protect society at large, not to artificially restrict the rights of individuals. Alcohol damages society in dozens of ways, it should be illegal. Future generations will look back at us and shake their heads in dismay and disgust the same way we look back at slave-owners. You fuckers are on the wrong side of morality and decency, but your weakness is so great that you not only cling to your addictions, you attempt to justify them with poor logic.


And Killroy reminds me of Thomas Jefferson. One of those weak-minded hypocrites who owns slaves, but knows that slavery is a bad thing.

Your argument is illogical...I see your side yet I don't agree. Consuming alcohol is not immoral by society's standards whereas everything else you listed is (more notable, paragraphs one, two and three). One cannot change what is classified as moral within society...as it will undoubtedly cause uproar (logically) and would never be effective in a democratic society. Organized crime would rocket and the War on Drugs (although some say it already has been) would be rendered useless...

[gprime]

So, sex with animals should be legal as well? Because some people say it feels good.

What about dog-fighting? The animals seem to enjoy doing it. Some people enjoy it. Why should we impinge upon the liberty of individuals to do stupid and dangerous shit when they have so much fun?

I suppose cocaine and heroine should be legalized, right? According to your arguments, the answer is "yes", and the legal age should be... oh... 16. Why should you be allowed to drive, and not be allowed to shoot-up?

Your liberty argument is vacuous, laws are designed to protect society at large, not to artificially restrict the rights of individuals. Alcohol damages society in dozens of ways, it should be illegal. Future generations will look back at us and shake their heads in dismay and disgust the same way we look back at slave-owners. You fuckers are on the wrong side of morality and decency, but your weakness is so great that you not only cling to your addictions, you attempt to justify them with poor logic.


And Killroy reminds me of Thomas Jefferson. One of those weak-minded hypocrites who owns slaves, but knows that slavery is a bad thing.

Regardless of any personal feelings I might have regarding the aforementioned policies, I would indeed support the legalization of all of the above. The revokation of rights from society at large due to the ineptitude of a portion of it is utterly absurd.

You justify the ban by pointing out the intentions of such prohibitions. But that doesn't make it right. I'd have to agree with HL Mencken, who said he "The worst government is the most moral." Whatever the intent, the law is not an appropriate one. Society still functions with the presence of alcohol. It isn't as though by keeping it around we're ensuring the end of civilization.

In the end you discuss a supposed addiction those of us disagreeing with you have. That is patently untrue. To be addicted, would one not have to use the substance in question? I don't drink, and don't want to. But I object to your proposal because I believe in individuals being empowered to make their own choices, including the wrong one.

[Killroy]

And Killroy reminds me of Thomas Jefferson. One of those weak-minded hypocrites who owns slaves, but knows that slavery is a bad thing.

And your usually intelligent responses have degenerated and your analogy is dumb.

There are responsible drinkers. What an adult does in the privacy in their own home, or in the company of other adults is their business. You may want to pass judgment on other adults and making them conform to how you feel they should live, but I am a firm believe in adults making their own decisions as long as they are not hurting anyone else. Let them drink themselves to death for all I care. You surprise me in that by your ideas, you are no different than the fundamentalist Christians who also think they know what's best for me and want to keep me from watching or doing things they do not agree with.

My point is merely to not make it easier or seemingly acceptable, for anyone under the age of 21 to drink. I can understand if there was some kind of an agenda, but anyone who actually thinks that letting people drink earlier would have no negative effects, or no effects at all, is clearly dis-illusioned.

The majority of your quote from John M. McCardell Jr was a retort to college binge drinking. His throwaway comment about underage drunk driving was ridiculous and shows how out of touch he must be with the youth of America considering how much the majority of cities rely on cars for transportation. PADD or not, I saw no statistics behind his statement.

[I am Legend]

wow, what a weird debate.

21 is a good age limit.

as an ex-servicemember who was stationed in Germany, i have seen what the effects are of letting 18 year olds fresh out of whatever drink indiscriminately. its not good. stupid teenagers are stupid teenagers no matter where they live.

as for me, call it what you want, but ill drink as much or as little as i like. after all, we cant all be brain surgeons can we? the world needs good-ole-boys too ya know.not to even mention the fact that im sure swivel has a bad habit or 2 himself. everyone does, so drop the high-horse antics , eh.

and if you dont like it ill get drunk and whup yer azz! yeeeeee-hawwwwwwwwwww

[Killroy]

Oh, unlike the gentlemen gprime quoted, here are some facts:
Motor vehicle crashes remain the number one cause of death among youth ages 15-20. There were 7,460 youth motor vehicle deaths in 2005. (This includes both drivers and passengers.)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/AvailInf.html)
Twenty-eight percent (28%) of 15- to 20-year-old drivers who were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2005 had been drinking.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/AvailInf.html)
Hope that may clear up some of the reasons why I am happy with shit drivers not being shit-faced. Again, nothing is perfect and you will never stop under-age drinking or drunk driving from all ages, but you gotta start somewhere. Stiffer punishments for those caught driving drunk and keeping the age where it is at are both good ways of doing it. I am actually shocked anyone argues differently or thinks those numbers above would not change, or get better, if the age limit was lowered.

[gprime]

Oh, unlike the gentlemen gprime quoted, here are some facts:
Motor vehicle crashes remain the number one cause of death among youth ages 15-20. There were 7,460 youth motor vehicle deaths in 2005. (This includes both drivers and passengers.)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/AvailInf.html)
Twenty-eight percent (28%) of 15- to 20-year-old drivers who were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2005 had been drinking.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/AvailInf.html)Hope that may clear up some of the reasons why I am happy with shit drivers not being shit-faced. Again, nothing is perfect and you will never stop under-age drinking or drunk driving from all ages, but you gotta start somewhere. Stiffer punishments for those caught driving drunk and keeping the age where it is at are both good ways of doing it. I am actually shocked anyone argues differently or thinks those numbers above would not change, or get better, if the age limit was lowered.

Undoubtedly we need to hold drunk drivers accountable and work to reduce the frequency with which alcohol related accidents occur. But the solution isn't to have a higher drinking age. As was previously established, those laws actually do very little to inhibit the acquisition of alcohol by minors. If drunk driving is the concern, then impose much stiffer penalties. If, for example, driving drunk earned a person 25 years in prison, who here doesn't think the numbers would drop dramatically?

[Killroy]

Undoubtedly we need to hold drunk drivers accountable and work to reduce the frequency with which alcohol related accidents occur. But the solution isn't to have a higher drinking age. As was previously established, those laws actually do very little to inhibit the acquisition of alcohol by minors. If drunk driving is the concern, then impose much stiffer penalties. If, for example, driving drunk earned a person 25 years in prison, who here doesn't think the numbers would drop dramatically?

No doubt. Stiffer punishments that were actually carried out would do a lot to help curb the problem. But I never said the solution was a higher drinking age, I am stating that it is part of it. Adding your "driving drunk earned a person 25 years in prison" scenario into the mix would be another part. I agree that it is not as simple as finding a magic number to set the age to for legally drinking, but letting younger people get to it even earlier, legally, surely isn't gonna help.

[Tolo]

Alright! Heated debate. :)

[swivel]

There's no way I can debate this issue with Killroy and Gprime until they get off the sauce.

gprime, the fact that you would legalize heroine, beastiality, and coacaine robs you of any credibility here. You seem to think that anarchy is the result of ultimate freedom, but the opposite is true. Anarchy is the result of no freedoms. Humans, when given the free choice, choose to live in a societal collection governed by rules which protect them from the morons-run-amock. These rules only restrict the ability for other people to take away the freedoms of others. Here's how that works:

We restrict the ability for someone to rape another person, since the rapist is the one taking away a freedom, we do good, not harm, by restricting their freedom.

We so the same with murderers. In an anarchic state, we grant them the freedom to kill with impunity. This allows them the "freedom" to take away all freedoms from another person. In a moral state, we do not grant this freedom.

In a free state, we expect people to choose to live in a society where they can safely drive on the road. To gaurantee this safety, we make drinking and driving illegal. Again, the suspension of one freedom is a way of gauranteeing that the freedoms of others are maintained.

Here's the problem: Drinking doesn't just make driving unsafe for the rest of us, drinking makes EVERYTHING unsafe for the rest of us. Drunk people are more likely to get in a fight with other people. Drunk people are more likely to rape other people (enormously so). Drunk people are more likely to shoot other people. Drunk people are more likely to hit their husband, wife, or kids. Drunk people are more likely to gamble away money they can't afford to lose.

Drunk people do things that they regret when they are sober. It makes them a person that they don't want to be. But alcohol is addictive, so by letting them sample it legally, we foster a large population of people who rob everyone else of their freedoms. This is very bad, and a complete breakdown of a moral society.

You seem to think that personal freedoms should always be maintained, but you are confused about how this works in reality. Granting people the freedom to rob other people of their freedoms works contrary to your aims. By your own arguments, you should be against alcohol as strongly as I am. The fact that you are not can only mean that you, like Killroy, are at least somewhat addicted to that immoral liquid and have to justify your lack of self-control with pseudo-philosophical bullshit.

[gprime]

Swivel, of course living in society brings with it certain expectations, such as not murdering or raping somebody. The underlying premise of what society itself inherently is designed to prevent are those actions which, if done, would infringe upon the life or property rights of another. Again, acts such as murder qualify, whereas the use of alcohol does not. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the government to ban it, as you are suggesting.

I know this is hard for your to appreciate, but disagreeing with you is not tantamount to supporting anarchy. Obviously some law and order must be present. But banning alcohol crosses the line, and is totalitarian in nature. Yes, abuse of it has the potential to cause harm. But so too does abuse of a car, electricity, knives, or virtually anything else you can think of. Much like all the aforementioned items, alcohol is not devoid of positives. So, to prevent a person from benefiting from it, as they clearly can, is absurd.

And, once again, I will point out that I do not drink, nor do I have any interest in doing so. It is possible to not support something while still respecting its right to exist.

[swivel]

You are ignoring probability. You seem to think that law is an alloy/disallow choice, when this clearly isn't the case.

Drinking alcohol raises the probability of bad things happening. Should probability be taken under consideration while protecting society? Of course.

For instance, it is illegal to own a swimming pool without proper fencing around the pool. What is the fencing there for? To keep the neighbor's kids from stumbling into the pool and drowning. But why should we have to put up a fence, if the neighbor's kids are trespassing? Because it has been determined that some privately-owned structures are what we now call "attractive nuisances". These are objects which are both appealing and dangerous to the point of GREATLY increasing the probability that someone will be hurt. If you own one of these things, you have to guard against the stupidity of others!

Seems unfair, right? Wrong. It is very fair. Let's use argumentum absurdium for a moment. Imagine that we put candybars along the edge of our property and rig these candy-bars with a death-trap. It is our land, and we are not going to go near these candy-bars, and nobody else should be trespassing. Hell, we even put a no-tresspassing sign on every single tree on our land. And, of course, this would be highly illegal. The candy-bars are so enticing to others, that they can not be held FULLY responsible for the weakness that gets them into trouble. We are safe-guarding against the raised probability of something bad happening, even when the danger is created by the action of others.

Even a drunken fool can see that this well-established precedent of "attractive nuisance" is perfectly analogous to alcohol, pot, cocaine, heroine, etc... We do not get to rely on free will and living with the consequences of other people's poor decisions. If we did, pools wouldn't need fences and we wouldn't have speed limits. Everybody do what you will, and we'll deal with the results AFTER the bad shit has already happened.

Alcohol attracts people and then it causes harm to themselves and the rest of society. The only good thing it provides is a momentary feeling of "goodness". Can we get any more hedonistic than this bullshit? Our justification for wrecking the lives and health of millions is a little feel-nice? How immature, lame, selfish, childish, risky, fucked-up can you get?

Make the shit illegal gradually and using the same social pressures that have caused millions of people to stop smoking (myself included). Do not ever criminalize drinking, and stop criminalizing other drug use when it is done at home, in privacy. Make the shit hard to come by, and throw the book at anyone caught doing the shit in public, or coupled with any other crime or violation. But for fuck's sake, why do we have places that you have to go and DRIVE to in order to get smashed? And why does everyone socialize (and mate) while acting like retards?

[gprime]

In theory, what you're suggesting is fine. But the issue I have with it, is that it assumes the notion of "attractive nuisances" is a valid one, and should be enforced at is currently is. Government should protect people from each other, not from their own stupidity. So just as it ought not apply in the examples you cited, it should similarly be irrelevant with respect to alcohol.

As for the good it does, I'm not speaking of the emotional impact. Current scientific evidence suggests that moderate levels of consumption of select alcohol, such as red wine, is good for the heart. I would think that alone should prevent it from being banned, even if we ignored the freedom argument.

You concluding point isn't a bad one per say. But again, one should always err on the side of liberty.

[I am Legend]

a fact of life is that people always have and always will like to get fucked up, and no matter what you do that wont change. just because its a bad thing doesnt mean we should do away with it. the same arguments could be made about porn or pork ribs. stiffer penalties are the answer. not banning the stuff outright. that wont do much good anyway. just someone else trying to throw their personal issues onto my life it what that is.

[CPL CHUD]

When I drink I stay home and watch movies. The only person I'm harming is myself, therefore I am not infringing on the rights of others, therefore the right to consume alcohol should not be taken away from me.

[swivel]

When I drink I stay home and watch movies. The only person I'm harming is myself, therefore I am not infringing on the rights of others, therefore the right to consume alcohol should not be taken away from me.

Which is why I said it shouldn't be criminalized or enforced within the home.

[CPL CHUD]

Which is why I said it shouldn't be criminalized or enforced within the home.

Yes, we agree. I dislike the bar atmosphere anyways, most of the beer I consider good I can purchase in a grocery store for half the price, and bars are breeding grounds for bad tempers, swollen egos, and rudeness. Working as a bouncer for a year has made me never want to step foot in a bar and become on of the idiots I used to have to drag out.

[brokenandtwisted]

Thought I'd throw this in...

School mourns seniors killed on way to party
Four boys died; 42 cans of beer were scattered around car after crash

PERRIS, Calif. - A high school that recently held a drunken driving awareness campaign that included a mock memorial service prepared for a real one Friday for four seniors killed on a beach trip days before graduation.

Witnesses told troopers that the boys waved beer cans from a car window as they passed a busload of classmates. State police said the car was apparently racing another vehicle at up to 100 mph when it swerved off Interstate 15 and hit a tree.

Two buses came upon the scene moments after the crash, and the class trip was abandoned.

"Everybody recognized the car," said Viviane Macias, 18, who was aboard one of the buses and was friends with one of the boys. "People started text-messaging and calling each other about what happened."

Grief counselors were at Perris High School, and a memorial service was set for Friday in the gym. Graduation was still on for Saturday.

The teens had decided to take a private car instead of riding school buses on the Wednesday trip to Mission Beach in San Diego, about 70 miles south.

Driver was 17

Pablo Ruiz, 18, Javier Aguayo, 17, and Anthony O'Neil, 17, died at the scene. Jose Espinosa, 18, who was thrown from the car with Ruiz, died the next day at a hospital.

Forty-two opened and unopened cans were found scattered around the crash site, said Tom Kerns, a spokesman for the California Highway Patrol.

Kerns said one of the 17-year-olds was at the wheel but declined to identify him. The San Diego County medical examiner will determine whether the driver had been drinking.

Just last month, the highway patrol, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and others held a two-day program at the school in Perris, a fast-growing community in Riverside County about 70 miles southeast of Los Angeles, to warn students of the dangers of drinking and driving. Student volunteers portrayed drivers and victims of simulated deadly crashes and there was a mock memorial for the dead.

"Teens feel like they are invincible," said Jonathan Greenberg, superintendent of the Perris Union High School District. "I'm sure there will be lessons learned from this, but right now they're grieving too much."

One planned to be Marine
Since the crash, students have scrawled messages on memorial banners, and a corner of campus has become a shrine with candles and flowers and photographs of the victims.

"It hurts not having them around," said 18-year-old Larry Belmontes.

Classmates remembered the four as well-liked, outgoing and fun-loving. Ruiz was on the wrestling team and had planned to join the Marines, while Aguayo was handy with cars.

Friends said O'Neil, known as "Cash," was a prankster who liked to take risks.

Students were trying to figure out how to pay tribute to them.

"Instead of throwing our caps into the air, we're thinking about roses," Macias said. "I think the guys would like that."

Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18982253/)

[gprime]

Bt, a similar incident happened at my school a few weeks ago. And while it makes for a great anecdote in a MADD advertisement, it doesn't change the reality of the situation. The mistakes of one moron should not dictate the laws for the rest of us.

[swivel]

Bt, a similar incident happened at my school a few weeks ago. And while it makes for a great anecdote in a MADD advertisement, it doesn't change the reality of the situation. The mistakes of one moron should not dictate the laws for the rest of us.

How is it "one moron" when a similar incident happened at your school a few weeks ago?

I had two very close friends die my senior year in two separate accidents weeks apart. Both where driving drunk.

I just asked my wife, and she knew three people that died while she was in highschool. Driving drunk.

How many anecdotes do you need before there is a pattern? The bigots that denied that AIDS was a problem used the same argument that you are using. Everyone knew someone who had contracted AIDS, and the bigots said, "Anecdotal". The problem got worse while we were ignoring it.

The only reason we have such an awareness of breast cancer is because of anecdotes. Many more men die of colon cancer each year, but everyone talks about breast cancer, so that is where the money and policy go.

Face it, gprime, before people turn 30 or so, they have very poor risk-analysis mechanisms. This is a biological fact. If we don't take biology into account when setting social policy, we are asking for trouble. Science tells us that people under the age of 25 need to be told what to do for their own good. And science is right.

When I think back about some of the stupid shit I did when I was younger, it makes me wish someone had a tighter leash on me. And I have yet to meet anyone over 30 that doesn't agree with me 100% on this. We all feel lucky to have survived our youth, where too much freedom + poor risk analysis nearly got us killed a dozen times over. And look at how many anecdotes we have for the unlucky ones that never lived to feel this delayed fear.

I know it sounds condescending, but in 10 years your chemistry will be different, you will have more experience to think back on, and you will be arguing my side of this position against someone just like the person you are today. That isn't meant as a put-down, it is just a fact of life. Our hormones are what cause us to keep repeating this cycle of generational tensions.

[alizardsbet]

Europe is more lenient on drinking, and strickter on driving. they have better public transit. developing countries such as india have some of the highest traffic accidents around. your people who deliver and publish the reports dont let their analysis stand up to a review of their peers. you are being lied to, and i dont think have all the facts. i dont have all the facts.

http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/statistics/statistics.htm

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/controversies/1098894305.html

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/AlcoholFactsAndFiction.html

thats what i have found so far, and i could probably find more, as well as you could find any link to argue your case. all i am saying is that we give our gov't too much power to make decisions that should be a personal responsiblity and not a burden of the general public. why not instead actually have more difficult driving tests? driving shouldnt be a right. besides i've kinda always hated the idea of "oh we will make an exception to the drinking age for you if you join the military." "be one of us." i dont think we should look as having the privelage to drink be a reward for putting your life in harms way to serve your country. that only further adds to the stigma of drinking.

i was raised in a rather dinamic home. on one side i had a drunk father, who was a habitual DUI, and spent quite some time in jail for violating his paroll, and couldn't keep a job, and wrecked more beautiful cars than i care to think of. as were his brothers dead beat drunks. on the otherside of the dime, my grandmother has never drank, is adamantly against it, and will lecture me if i so much as make a joke about it. i have been drinking on and off sense i was 15, my mother providing if i asked, as well as her boyfriend, and any older friends i cared to make the request to. hell! i am still friends with the wine and spirits store owner who would sell to me knowing damn well i was underage and at a discount. i might have done stupid things, i still do. however my life is mine to endanger, and i wont have no stinkin govt offical of MADD tell me otherwise.

my suggestion to this seeming stupidity that we must save everyone from is put the information out there. people are going to do things regardless of what measures you try to take to prevent it. at least if you know, and dont have to worry about what someone might be trying to get away with, and you know people would rather commit murder than get caught, at least then you can take measures to protect yourself. if they want to remove themselves from our gene pool in doing something stupid, let me be the first to applaud them.

an example of this would be binge drinking. this seems to be an epicdemic that is taking over our poor abused country. well lets see, why is that? is it becuz kids can get boos whenever however they want? they certainly seem to, but if that were so they could drink at a leisurely pace, as many times as they want, there isnt such a rush. however that is not the case, is it? no, in the spirit of the moment, you take what you can as much as you can as fast as you can, becuz then the moment is gone. i had a friend once describe her habit of drinking to me, she is still underage. she puts away a hefty amount, i have watched, but generally she is confined to someones house, is sleeping over, and the boos is genreally gone before the night is up, well becuz she drank it all. she may seem to be an alcoholic, becuz of the quanity she drinks when its available, but how often do such golden opportunities arrise? not as often as some of you party busters would like to think. yah sure she does it more now that she is in college, but then she doesnt hit the bottle as hard as she use to either. there might be a party every friday or saturday night somewhere in town, but lets consider... how often are you invited? do you want to go to the event? aren't there other activities that young people engage in?

driving drunk is a pet peeve of mine. i hate it, and dont like anyone that does it. personally, i have no problem with shooting someone who attempts it, whether they injure someone or not. consider it self defense.

[swivel]

Great post. ^^^

[Athena]

Age of Consent legislation...One of my favorite debates. :)

From my perspective, it all comes down to one question: Do you believe it is the government's duty to save you from yourself?

If your answer is yes, it makes sense for AoC laws to be high. You believe that your government has the responsibility to step in and try to stop you from exercising poor judgment, even going so far as to punish you when you make a bad decision. Sound like anything else in your life? I don't know about you, but that sounds an awful lot like my parents.

Numbers are completely irrelevant regarding this particular topic. After all, there are lies, DAMN lies, and then....there are statistics. Having engaged in this particular debate a number of times, I know one thing to be true: Unless you are a statician, the numbers are useless. Unless you are able to analyze the methods by which the numbers were collected, they mean nothing. These statistics in particular are notoriously misrepresented on both sides of the issue.

That being said, it is my belief that it should be a philisophical argument to begin with.

Here in the U.S., we've got this brilliant thing called personal freedom. Some might argue that personal freedom is, in fact, the very cornerstone of our society. In the name of public safety, however, these freedoms have been slowly whittled away. Some want to protect us from terrorism, others want to protect the children, others yet intend to save us from our own bad decision making. You may agree with some and not others, but know that they are all birds of a feather. All the motivations are noble, but we all know what they say about good intentions.

What is the criteria for a 21 year drinking age? Killroy would have you believe that it's science. We set the age at 21 instead of 18 because those three years provide the brain necessary time to develop...Right? Is it mentioned in any of those sources he lists that the brain doesn't stop developing until the age of 25, that the most intense growth occurs between 14-18, and that rate of brain development is as individual and inconsistant as a teenager grows tall? The fact is, the science behind brain development is VERY unreliable...Certainly not reliable enough to be the sole inspiration for legislation.

It's not. Morality plays a role in a LOT of legislation. It's no secret that the "moral majority" doesn't like drinking. So what do they do? They propose heavy regulation and then patch together some science to fill in the gaps. After all, people won't disagree with science, right? Well, unless, of course, it contradicts the bible, which is another subject entirely. That being said, I can name a few things the moral majority does this to: "violent" video games, any sort of drug use and homosexuality come to mind.

Just as it makes sense to you as a parent to keep the AoC of drinking high because of (insert debatable science here), it makes sense for some other parents to advocate banning the sale of violent video games to minors because of (insert debatable science here) or to toughen sentencing for marijuana possession because of (insert debatable science here) or to keep gays from adopting kids because of (insert debatable science here). Don't think you're different than them - you'd be fooling yourself.

Back to that thing called personal freedom I mentioned earlier - We, as a society, have determined that you are legally responsible for yourself come your 18th birthday. That shouldn't come with any strings attached! You should have the freedom to do whatever it is you'd like and, so long as you don't hurt anyone else, you should be free from punishment. Why? Because the more we tell people they need to be protected from themselves by enacting legislation intended to do just that...the more they're going to start believing it. With freedom comes responsibility. Just because some don't exercise responsibility, we shouldn't all lose freedom.

Viva la responsabilidad personal! :)

[Athena]

driving drunk is a pet peeve of mine. i hate it, and dont like anyone that does it. personally, i have no problem with shooting someone who attempts it, whether they injure someone or not. consider it self defense.

:eek:

Now, that's a disturbing statement. I was with you, buddy...Right up until that point.

I hate drunk driving as well. I'm the kind of person who takes keys when you come to my house. Don't like it? Drink elsewhere.

Still, to advocate shooting someone who attempts to do something that *might* (but is unlikely to) hurt people on self defense? That rather draconian perspective is painfully devoid of reason.

Let's apply that logic to everything. Fair is fair, right? Speeding contributes to more fatality accidents than alcohol does. Shall we shoot speeders on the off chance they might crash and kill someone? How about gun owners? Simply owning a gun makes someone more dangerous than the next guy...Shall we off them as well? Do you automatically favor small dogs over pitbulls, rottweilers, german shepherds and chows as the result of their dangerous potential? What about over-worked pilots? Do they deserve to die?

You are the keeper of your own credibility. Making extreme or exaggerated statements to prove a point detracts from that credibility.

[I am Legend]

i did notice this when i lived in Germany:

1. almost everybody was a full-blown drunk

2. sex was not viewed as bad like it is in america (porn Tv after 9 pm)

3. public transportation was cheap and easy to get (like american women.............:eek: )

4. seemed like almost no-one drove drunk, germans are pretty harsh on drinking (or bicycling) while drunk.(um, except for the american servicemen..............weird, eh)

perhaps with harsher penalties and more readily availible public transportation, america would see a decline in drunk driving.

[alizardsbet]

:eek:

Now, that's a disturbing statement. I was with you, buddy...Right up until that point.

yes it is.

:eek: Still, to advocate shooting someone who attempts to do something that *might* (but is unlikely to) hurt people on self defense? That rather draconian perspective is painfully devoid of reason. .

yes it is. i was taking an extreme pt of view, cause i seriously doubt anyone else would advocate my highlighted opinion, so as to emphasize what to me seems an extreme exercise of power by our gov't.

:eek: Let's apply that logic to everything. Fair is fair, right? Speeding contributes to more fatality accidents than alcohol does. Shall we shoot speeders on the off chance they might crash and kill someone? How about gun owners? Simply owning a gun makes someone more dangerous than the next guy...Shall we off them as well? Do you automatically favor small dogs over pitbulls, rottweilers, german shepherds and chows as the result of their dangerous potential? What about over-worked pilots? Do they deserve to die?.

this only highlights my personal belief that laws are outdated and can be twisted if you have a well versed lawyer to do the talking. again another extreme that further exagerates what is reasonable.

:eek: You are the keeper of your own credibility. Making extreme or exaggerated statements to prove a point detracts from that credibility.

i am well aware of my credibility which is next to nothing. i would have responded earlier to this, had i known about it, and been quite chargined at your reproach. i dont believe that words should be all that credible to begin with, but actions. you will note the differences between advocating and saying i would not get all squishy uncomfortable if someone were to say do any of the things i have suggested or you here would make plausible.