18th Birthday

[Jaymee_]

So, it's your 18th birthday.. you can vote, join the service, and buy cigs.. you're finally an adult! But wait, you still can't buy beer?.. hmmm.


Happy Birthday Scuba!

[steve12]

Who was Scuba again...? Gig?

[Cuathon]

oh yeah. vote and serve, but not drink. i love our laws.

[Jeffery]

So, it's your 18th birthday.. you can vote, join the service, and buy cigs.. you're finally an adult! But wait, you still can't buy beer?.. hmmm.


Happy Birthday Scuba!
Not to mention you can get sexy with old geezers without sending them to jail.

[Unforgottner]

Jeff is hitting on Gig! :eek:

[Jaymee_]

Who was Scuba again...? Gig?

Yes Bubba.

Not to mention you can get sexy with old geezers without sending them to jail.

Jeff's right.. you're not jail bait anymore! You can gamble as well.. (wait, do you have to be 21 to gamble? I can't remember) but you still can't buy beer. Anyone else see a problem with being able to die for your country.. but you can't legally consume alcohol in it?

[mantis33]

Jay is forcing me to tell you happy birthday. ;)

[pils]

18?
Really?

I gaged you at around 16 or 17. Don't take that the wrong way, but meh.
Happy Birthday buddy. :)

[mantis33]

What do you guage me at?

[Jaymee_]

/laugh

Uni negged me for making a thread about being 18.. cuz I mentioned Scuba's birthday.

[pils]

What do you guage me at?

Somewhere between 14-16....

[steve12]

I think Tits is 18-19. Happy B-Day Gig!

[Excaliber]

I think Tits is 18-19. Happy B-Day Gig!

Not a chance!

He is my twin brother actually... and so is Wizzy... he is my triplet brother...

[The AIDS Virus]

/laugh

Uni negged me for making a thread about being 18.. cuz I mentioned Scuba's birthday.

Lmao.

[_Thunder_]

Me - 18 - in april?

[uniquinous]

/laugh

Uni negged me for making a thread about being 18.. cuz I mentioned Scuba's birthday.

I neg just about everyone who makes individual threads for birthdays. If you want to honestly claim this thread is about the US laws regulating minors vs adults, you sure haven't actually said anything about it. Ya know, that opinion thing helps, otherwise you're just mimicking Tom Green. Anyone else remember his show, where he used to walk down the street with a megaphone stating the obvious?
"YOU ARE WEARING A BLUE SHIRT"
"YOU ARE CARRYING A PLASTIC BAG"
"THIS GUY IS REALLY UGLY"
"YOU CAN BUY PORN AT AGE 18"
And then he'd cut to a scene of him sucking milk directly out of cow utters, and hope it captured the short attention span of american teenagers.

So, if this wasn't a birthday thread (which seemed to have fooled me and everyone answering with "happy birthday"), then it's a poorly done topic thread, which says absolutely nothing we didn't already know about turning 18, and where you felt you should publicly anounce that I negged you.

If you have an opinion about the laws, I'd love to hear it. Until then, no complaining about my neg.

[The AIDS Virus]

Gig, go buy a Playboy.

[Excaliber]

I can buy beer, and cigarettes at the age of 16. Welcome to Denmark :)

I don't want either of those things... I want hawtpocketz!

[_Darkness_]

9 days.

[Hugh Junit]

So, it's your 18th birthday.. you can vote, join the service, and buy cigs.. you're finally an adult! But wait, you still can't buy beer?.. hmmm.


Happy Birthday Scuba!

Maybe this is just a birthday thread, but I have a question.
Lots of people complain about the inconsistency of these American laws. Judging by what you wrote here, I'll assume you're one of those people.
If it was entirely up to you, would you raise the legal age for voting, buying tobacco and military enrollment to 21, or would you lower the legal drinking age to 18?
Or would you leave age requirements as they are now.
It's crunch time, Jaymee. Your word is law and will go into effect immediately following your decision.
High school students will no longer be able to pursue a miltary career directly following graduation, depending on your decision. An option for so many thousands will immediately vanish. Or maybe high school seniors across the country will be able to legally purchase all the alchohol they want. Imagine the problems that might add to an education system already fighting an uphill battle in many ways. A twenty year old will not be allowed to vote, whether he/she is a college student, parent, father or mother, or a union member faced with issues that may effect his job.
But if you choose not to change any law, then it's going to be hard to complain about them in the future. Right?
Time to choose. What would you do?
Anyone is free to answer this, by the way.
:)

[Wizzy`]

I would lower the drinking age to 18, because most 18 year olds drink either way..
It wouldn't make much of a difference.

[Wizzy`]

I neg just about everyone who makes individual threads for birthdays. If you want to honestly claim this thread is about the US laws regulating minors vs adults, you sure haven't actually said anything about it. Ya know, that opinion thing helps, otherwise you're just mimicking Tom Green. Anyone else remember his show, where he used to walk down the street with a megaphone stating the obvious?
"YOU ARE WEARING A BLUE SHIRT"
"YOU ARE CARRYING A PLASTIC BAG"
"THIS GUY IS REALLY UGLY"
"YOU CAN BUY PORN AT AGE 18"
And then he'd cut to a scene of him sucking milk directly out of cow utters, and hope it captured the short attention span of american teenagers.

So, if this wasn't a birthday thread (which seemed to have fooled me and everyone answering with "happy birthday"), then it's a poorly done topic thread, which says absolutely nothing we didn't already know about turning 18, and where you felt you should publicly anounce that I negged you.

If you have an opinion about the laws, I'd love to hear it. Until then, no complaining about my neg.

Calm down, shit. (double pun!) :p


srsly though.
She made a birthday thread, but also made a thread inquiring the drinking age and tobacco/military age..She wanted to discuss this topic, but also say happy birthday to a friend. At least, that's how I see it.
Is that bad?

[uniquinous]

not at all. it's why i negged her instead of posting publicly. but, she seemed to want an explanation, so i gave her one.

if it's a birthday thread, then she's just like any other noob who comes on and makes birthday threads. no big deal (tho still gets a neg)

if it's about a topic to discuss which she said nothing about, I'd like her to say something, as hugh is getting at.

i'm quite calm.

[Wizzy`]

I didn't know you had to be a noob to make a birthday thread?

[Excaliber]

Maybe this is just a birthday thread, but I have a question.
Lots of people complain about the inconsistency of these American laws. Judging by what you wrote here, I'll assume you're one of those people.
If it was entirely up to you, would you raise the legal age for voting, buying tobacco and military enrollment to 21, or would you lower the legal drinking age to 18?
Or would you leave age requirements as they are now.
It's crunch time, Jaymee. Your word is law and will go into effect immediately following your decision.
High school students will no longer be able to pursue a miltary career directly following graduation, depending on your decision. An option for so many thousands will immediately vanish. Or maybe high school seniors across the country will be able to legally purchase all the alchohol they want. Imagine the problems that might add to an education system already fighting an uphill battle in many ways. A twenty year old will not be allowed to vote, whether he/she is a college student, parent, father or mother, or a union member faced with issues that may effect his job.
But if you choose not to change any law, then it's going to be hard to complain about them in the future. Right?
Time to choose. What would you do?
Anyone is free to answer this, by the way.
:)

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Hugh Junit again."

Why is reputation capitalized?

[uniquinous]

I didn't know you had to be a noob to make a birthday thread?

It's one of the 12 signs of noobhood

[mantis33]

I'm 18. I just like to act immature on the forums. :p

[Wizzy`]

It's one of the 12 signs of noobhood

yeah..
i don't think so.

[Jaymee_]

Maybe this is just a birthday thread, but I have a question.
Lots of people complain about the inconsistency of these American laws. Judging by what you wrote here, I'll assume you're one of those people.
If it was entirely up to you, would you raise the legal age for voting, buying tobacco and military enrollment to 21, or would you lower the legal drinking age to 18?
Or would you leave age requirements as they are now.
It's crunch time, Jaymee. Your word is law and will go into effect immediately following your decision.
High school students will no longer be able to pursue a miltary career directly following graduation, depending on your decision. An option for so many thousands will immediately vanish. Or maybe high school seniors across the country will be able to legally purchase all the alchohol they want. Imagine the problems that might add to an education system already fighting an uphill battle in many ways. A twenty year old will not be allowed to vote, whether he/she is a college student, parent, father or mother, or a union member faced with issues that may effect his job.
But if you choose not to change any law, then it's going to be hard to complain about them in the future. Right?
Time to choose. What would you do?
Anyone is free to answer this, by the way.
:)

Thank you for taking my bait. : )

Yes, if it were my decision, I would lower the drinking age to 18. I think if you are mature enough to join the service and be considered an adult, you should be old enough to take responsibility for drinking.

I also think the legal system should be harder on DUIs. Not every 18 year old is going to be a responsible drinker.. but neither is every 21 year old. Crap, I know 40 year olds who drink and drive, or otherwise drink irresponsibily.

Gonna be a good talk.. looking forward to it.

Uni, when you figure out you are not God around here and stop telling people what to do.. that's gonna be an awesome day.

[SPAWN]

I was once told why you have to be 21 to buy alcohol. It is because not all the braincells in a person are formed yet, until they reach about age 20. The government chose 21, because of the people whose braincells grow slow.

Anyways, Happy Birthday Gig.

[pils]

So you masked a discussion about drinking, and the idea that the laws should be changed, with "Happy Birthday Gig."
Seems kinda inconsiderate towards gig, who was probably under the impression you cared, until now, and seems kinda silly to NOT just be straightforward with your intentions for making a thread.

But regardles. What does age have to do with DUIs?
I thought if you drink and drive, and get caught, you get a DUI... Since when does age matter?

[Jaymee_]

So, it's your 18th birthday.. you can vote, join the service, and buy cigs.. you're finally an adult! But wait, you still can't buy beer?.. hmmm.


Happy Birthday Scuba!

Am I seriously the only one who noticed that Scuba's birthday was mentioned -after- I brought up the things you can/can't do when you turn 18?

Scuba knows I love him. I could have not said anything about his birthday at all. I posted in our clan thread to him and I said it here. It was worth a neg to tell him happy birthday in this thread whether y'all like it or not.

[Jaymee_]

I was once told why you have to be 21 to buy alcohol. It is because not all the braincells in a person are formed yet, until they reach about age 20. The government chose 21, because of the people whose braincells grow slow.

Anyways, Happy Birthday Gig.

I am curious as to why the age of drinking is so high.. when it's ok to do everything else at 18.

[Poop Slinger]

Maybe this is just a birthday thread, but I have a question.
Lots of people complain about the inconsistency of these American laws. Judging by what you wrote here, I'll assume you're one of those people.
If it was entirely up to you, would you raise the legal age for voting, buying tobacco and military enrollment to 21, or would you lower the legal drinking age to 18?
Or would you leave age requirements as they are now.
It's crunch time, Jaymee. Your word is law and will go into effect immediately following your decision.
High school students will no longer be able to pursue a miltary career directly following graduation, depending on your decision. An option for so many thousands will immediately vanish. Or maybe high school seniors across the country will be able to legally purchase all the alchohol they want. Imagine the problems that might add to an education system already fighting an uphill battle in many ways. A twenty year old will not be allowed to vote, whether he/she is a college student, parent, father or mother, or a union member faced with issues that may effect his job.
But if you choose not to change any law, then it's going to be hard to complain about them in the future. Right?
Time to choose. What would you do?
Anyone is free to answer this, by the way.
:)

I'll take a stab at this lovely topic..

Damnit why does Jaymee get to make the laws... :mad: If it were a perfect society.. People could buy alcohol and tobacco at age 11. Drive cars at 14. and vote, Gamble, and join the military at 16. And be required by law to have a job by 18.. or be forced into the military.. or prostution. Now.. Back to the most important topic at hand. Porn. Should be 16 and older.. as well as those allowed to be filmed in it.

Also.. you shouldn't have to be a certain age to run for congress, or a house position. If you can get the funding or the backing.. anyone willing to sit in a chair all day.. and make paper airplanes.. or go golfing.. or take a few bong hits with your local lobbists.. should be able to hold office and run for president.


And while we are at it.. text message voting for 2008!

[gigolojlo gl]

I'll take a stan at this lovely topic..

Damnit why does Jaymee get to make the laws... :mad: If it were a perfect society.. People could buy alcohol and tobacco at age 11. Drive cars at 14. and vote, Gamble, and join the military at 16. And be required by law to have a job by 18.. or be forced into the military.. or prostution. Now.. Back to the most important topic at hand. Porn. Should be 16 and older.. as well as those allowed to be filmed in it.

Also.. you shouldn't have to be a certain age to run for congress, or a house position. If you can get the funding or the backing.. anyone willing to sit in a chair all day.. and make paper airplanes.. or go golfing.. or take a few bong hits with your local lobbists.. should be able to hold office and run for president.


And while we are at it.. text message voting for 2008!

Don't wish me "Happy Birthday" or anything! We're so over.

[Poop Slinger]

Our lord god and master UNI said it couldn't be a happy birthday thread gig.. but if you read between the lines its says Happy Birthday Gig.. I owe you some hooters.. :)

[Jaymee_]

Our lord god and master UNI said it couldn't be a happy birthday thread gig.. but if you read between the lines its says Happy Birthday Gig.. I owe you some hooters.. :)

You owe me some Hooters as well my dear.

[gigolojlo gl]

You owe me some Hooters as well my dear.

You can come with us :).

[uniquinous]

Thank you for taking my bait. : )

Yes, if it were my decision, I would lower the drinking age to 18. I think if you are mature enough to join the service and be considered an adult, you should be old enough to take responsibility for drinking.

I also think the legal system should be harder on DUIs. Not every 18 year old is going to be a responsible drinker.. but neither is every 21 year old. Crap, I know 40 year olds who drink and drive, or otherwise drink irresponsibily.

Gonna be a good talk.. looking forward to it.

Uni, when you figure out you are not God around here and stop telling people what to do.. that's gonna be an awesome day.I'm not telling you what to do, I'ma just call you on something stupid, that's all. By all means, continue doing it.

But let's face it, hugh didn't take any bait, he said the same thing as I did: if you're gonna make a thread, say something. Now what you said in the post I just quoted could have easily just been placed as the first post in this thread, starting a good thread and a solid discussion. But that wasn't how you started the thread. You provided no clear reason for this thread at all, which is why eveyone thought it was a birthday thread until I spoke up, and then you reverted it back to "it's a thread on age rules", at which time Hugh called you for not actually *saying* anything about what we all already know... Then you covered by saying he took your bait, when you could have just outright made a good thread from the start...

I like the restrictions as they are. Not everything needs to come at the same time. Furthermore, there's that unspoken problem of illegality of age related laws. You set the drinking age to 18, and 16 year olds will think they're close enough. I mean, it happens with everthing. 15 year olds believe they ought to get into R rated movies already and drive, 16 year olds think they should be able to by pr0n.

[Jeffery]

I don;t agree with the restrictions.

When you are old enough to go out and die for your country, you should be old enough to come back and drink a beer.
Your reference to 16 year olds does not work. They ALREADY think they are old enough to drink. And many of them do. The difference between 18 and 21 does not affect the number of kids who drink.

[Hugh Junit]

Thank you for taking my bait. : )

Yes, if it were my decision, I would lower the drinking age to 18. I think if you are mature enough to join the service and be considered an adult, you should be old enough to take responsibility for drinking.

I also think the legal system should be harder on DUIs. Not every 18 year old is going to be a responsible drinker.. but neither is every 21 year old. Crap, I know 40 year olds who drink and drive, or otherwise drink irresponsibily.


It's certainly not a new argument. I have no idea how many times I've heard people complain about these age requirement laws, and I understand that there are inconsistencies. But my question is this.
What good could possibly come from lowering the legal drinking age in this country to 18?
In order to argue in favor of something like a major law change, I'd say it's reasonable to ask the person proposing the change to provide at least one reason why the proposed change might improve the current system. So I'm asking.
How would allowing 18 year olds, people still in high school and still living with their parents, to legally purchase alcohol improve any single aspect of American society? How would it improve the life of even one single teenager? How would it improve one single family, or one single school?
Better yet, how could you deny that it would drastically increase teen drinking, or drastically increase the amount of alcohol-related accidents involving teenagers?
How would it make being a parent of a teenager easier, or a teacher, or a police officer, or, for that matter, an 18 year old?
I'm not dabating other age requirements. I'm responding to your statement. You said that you would change the legal drinking age in America to 18. In order to say this, you must think that this change is a necessary and positive idea.
Tell me why.

[Jaymee_]

This conversation made my day.. : )

Xerent (3:46:56 PM): When you're 18, you're considered an adult.
Xerent (3:47:10 PM): You can make desicions, like die for your country, and smoke.
JayLoves (3:47:02 PM): yes, I know
JayLoves (3:47:34 PM): Today is Gig's birthday
JayLoves (3:52:34 PM): I was talking to him and started thinking about all the things you can do when turning 18.. but yet you can't drink legally. So, I made a thread to talk about it. At the end of the first post I said Happy birthday to Gig.. Uni neggs me and tells me not to make birthday threads. It was not supossed to be a birthday thread in the first place. That's all I wanted to say.. now please continue with your point : )
Xerent (3:53:30 PM): In my reasoning.
Xerent (3:53:58 PM): You cannot drink until later because it affects your peronality, and future desicions you are then legally able to make.
Xerent (3:54:21 PM): There's something to be said about deciding to join the army, and deciding to join the army while drunk.
JayLoves (3:54:23 PM): Ok, but how does that change anything when kids are drinking at 18 anyways
Xerent (3:55:03 PM): It doesn't.
JayLoves (3:54:47 PM): You are the only person I have ever met in my life who was not drinking and or doing drugs at age 18
Xerent (3:55:20 PM): However.
Xerent (3:55:34 PM): That means no one else is liable.
Xerent (3:55:45 PM): Which is an important thing to have in america.
JayLoves (3:55:30 PM): No one else would be liable anyways
JayLoves (3:55:47 PM): Do you blame the bartender when a 40 yr old kills someone drunk driving?
JayLoves (3:55:55 PM): No, you blame the drunk 40 yr old
Xerent (3:56:14 PM): No.
Xerent (3:56:29 PM): However, I applaud the bartender for making the kid drive home.
Xerent (3:56:32 PM): err
Xerent (3:56:35 PM): Not drive home ~~
JayLoves (3:56:55 PM): huh
JayLoves (3:57:07 PM): Oh, ok
JayLoves (3:57:22 PM): Well, me too.. but that doesn't change anything
Xerent (3:58:01 PM): The reasoning is sound
JayLoves (3:57:52 PM): You're old enough to sign a contract but not drink.. just don't sound right to me
Xerent (3:58:14 PM): Why do we ban people when they just come back on differnet usernames anyways?
Xerent (3:58:22 PM): Why do we take showers when we get dirty the next day?
JayLoves (3:58:29 PM): Umm, because we want to
JayLoves (3:58:33 PM): We are taught to
JayLoves (3:59:05 PM): Banning people.. I don't know. That's a different discussion
Xerent (3:59:28 PM): Why do we do all the self defeating things we do?
JayLoves (3:59:30 PM): Because we are taught to
Xerent (4:00:02 PM): The real answer is no one knows.
JayLoves (3:59:52 PM): Why make your bed when your gonna mess it up the next night.. because your mother said to when you were young
JayLoves (4:00:08 PM): You were taught that it's the right thing to do
Xerent (4:00:36 PM): What makes it right?
Xerent (4:00:41 PM): Why would it be wrong in the first place?
JayLoves (4:00:29 PM): Personal judgement
Xerent (4:00:58 PM): personal judgement is not right and wrong.
Xerent (4:01:02 PM): It's preferred and unpreferred.
JayLoves (4:00:54 PM): I for one, do not make my bed, nor do I ask my children to.
Xerent (4:01:24 PM): That's neither right no wrong.
Xerent (4:01:29 PM): It's just what it is.
JayLoves (4:01:23 PM): Ok, so I prefer for 18 yr olds to be able to drink.. it's not gonna change anything
Xerent (4:02:11 PM): Yes it does.
Xerent (4:02:27 PM): When your kids are 18, and they drink, you're going to accept it, and not blow up at them.
Xerent (4:02:45 PM): In turn, that will encourage them that it's ok to drink at 18, and the cycle continues.
JayLoves (4:02:33 PM): I'm going to hold them responsible for their actions
Xerent (4:03:07 PM): Are you going to punish them if they drink a beer at 18?
JayLoves (4:03:01 PM): If they get drunk and get in trouble.. well, they knew the consequences at age 18 the same as they'll know it at age 21
JayLoves (4:03:05 PM): No
Xerent (4:03:33 PM): Ok.
Xerent (4:03:41 PM): So that tells your kids it's ok to drink at 18.
Xerent (4:04:00 PM): Your law circumvents that of the goverment, and your kids will drink at an earlier age than those of stricter parents.
JayLoves (4:03:45 PM): By my standards.. not legally
Xerent (4:04:02 PM): That changes something.
JayLoves (4:03:51 PM): No
JayLoves (4:03:58 PM): My parents were VERY strick
JayLoves (4:03:59 PM): t
JayLoves (4:04:04 PM): I was drinking at age 12
Xerent (4:04:28 PM): I'm talking statistically.
JayLoves (4:04:42 PM): I'm talking real life.. not numbers of total strangers that may or maynot be really true in the first place
Xerent (4:05:34 PM): I told you the reasoning in real life.
JayLoves (4:06:19 PM): You said the stricter you are as a parent.. the better behaved your children will be. Is that not what you said in a nut shell?
Xerent (4:06:55 PM): No
JayLoves (4:06:46 PM): It has been my experience from myself and those around me.. the stricter the parent, the worse the child behaves
Xerent (4:07:17 PM): I said parents strict about thier children drinking will generally have more children who do not drink before 21
JayLoves (4:07:13 PM): Hun
JayLoves (4:07:18 PM): Not in my world
Xerent (4:07:44 PM): I'm not talking about you.
Xerent (4:07:49 PM): I'm talking statistically.
JayLoves(4:07:43 PM): If you haven't drank by Jr high.. you're a geek and no one likes you to begin with
JayLoves(4:07:55 PM): I am part of statistics dear. I'm a person too
Xerent (4:08:20 PM): Right.
Xerent (4:08:44 PM): So, lets say that 98 children out of 100 drink that have normal parents.
Xerent (4:08:52 PM): Stricter parents have 97 out of 100 drink.
Xerent (4:09:15 PM): Statistically speaking, you're one of those 97, and stricter parents have fewer children who drink before 21
JayLoves (4:09:07 PM): /laugh
JayLoves (4:09:20 PM): One person.. I love these conversations
JayLoves (4:09:24 PM): ^^
JayLoves (4:10:01 PM): I've never met anyone who hadn't drank alcohol by age 13
JayLoves (4:10:23 PM): I've never met anyone who hasn't smoked pot by age 15
Xerent (4:11:13 PM): I know many friends who did not drink before 21, or haven't smoked pot at all.
JayLoves (4:11:09 PM): Yes, but you're not from (edited out for privacy)
JayLoves (4:11:32 PM): Farmland right? ^^
Xerent (4:11:59 PM): Yea, I get it.
Xerent (4:12:04 PM): But my point stands.
JayLoves (4:11:53 PM): As does mine
Xerent (4:12:20 PM): What's your point?
JayLoves (4:12:04 PM): As far as I'm concearned anyways
JayLoves (4:12:28 PM): Kids are gonna do it anyways.. it should be legal and they should be held responsible for it
JayLoves (4:12:40 PM): I shouldn't say kids.. at 18 they are not kids
Xerent (4:13:34 PM): So change the law.
JayLoves (4:13:24 PM): : )
JayLoves (4:13:48 PM): Thank you for having an intelligent conversation with me.. been a long time
Xerent (4:14:21 PM): I still have no idea what we were talking about. ^_^
JayLoves (4:14:10 PM): /laugh
Xerent (4:14:34 PM): In my mind, the drinking age is like the speed limit.
Xerent (4:14:46 PM): No cop is going to pull you over for doing 60
Xerent (4:14:50 PM): in a 55
Xerent (4:14:55 PM): But they have to say a number.
Xerent (4:15:02 PM): so they say 55
Xerent (4:15:04 PM): Or 21
JayLoves (4:15:00 PM): Why -that- number though
JayLoves (4:15:11 PM): What made them decide 21 was the age
Xerent (4:15:31 PM): And a couple of high horse soccer moms whine and complain about it.
JayLoves (4:15:23 PM): hey now..
Xerent (4:15:47 PM): So everyone agrees that 21 should be the age to shut them up.
Xerent (4:15:49 PM): And then they leave.
Xerent (4:15:57 PM): And everyone goes in the back room to drink and laugh about it.


It's certainly not a new argument. I have no idea how many times I've heard people complain about these age requirement laws, and I understand that there are inconsistencies. But my question is this.
What good could possibly come from lowering the legal drinking age in this country to 18?
In order to argue in favor of something like a major law change, I'd say it's reasonable to ask the person proposing the change to provide at least one reason why the proposed change might improve the current system. So I'm asking.
How would allowing 18 year olds, people still in high school and still living with their parents, to legally purchase alcohol improve any single aspect of American society? How would it improve the life of even one single teenager? How would it improve one single family, or one single school?
Better yet, how could you deny that it would drastically increase teen drinking, or drastically increase the amount of alcohol-related accidents involving teenagers?
How would it make being a parent of a teenager easier, or a teacher, or a police officer, or, for that matter, an 18 year old?
I'm not dabating other age requirements. I'm responding to your statement. You said that you would change the legal drinking age in America to 18. In order to say this, you must think that this change is a necessary and positive idea.
Tell me why.

Hun, I'm not arguing anything.. I just want to know why 21 was chosen as the legal age.

I said I'd change the legal age because in my mind it made sense that if you can do all those other things.. why not drink. Now I'm reconsidering. You make a lot of very good points though.. gave me something to think about.

[Hugh Junit]

The difference between 18 and 21 does not affect the number of kids who drink.

Of course it would, because of the simple fact that many 18 year olds are still in high school.
If half the seniors in every high school in America were suddenly able legally buy alcohol, then alcohol would be vastly more accesible and available to teens under the age of 18. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

[Jaymee_]

Of course it would, because of the simple fact that many 18 year olds are still in high school.
If half the seniors in every high school in America were suddenly able legally buy alcohol, then alcohol would be vastly more accesible and available to teens under the age of 18. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

I graduated when I was 17 years old. I really don't think the accessiblitiy of alcohol for minors would change that much.. at least not where I'm from anyways.

[phoenixofflames]

jay(4:10:01 PM): I've never met anyone who hadn't drank alcohol by age 13

This I don't agree with. Although i have had alcohol before 13, and many of the people i know do, there have been a HELL of a lot of nerds that i've met who are terrified at the IDEA of that.


Jay(4:10:23 PM): I've never met anyone who hasn't smoked pot by age 15


I've never smoked pot, but i can't break your statement because i'm only 14..

[Anarchy_United]

The drinking age is 21 because no one beside the president in the decision making part of the goverment ever had a social life in high school.

[Hugh Junit]

I graduated when I was 17 years old. I really don't think the accessiblitiy of alcohol for minors would change that much.. at least not where I'm from anyways.

My birthday is in November, so I was 18 for most of my senior year.
I'm sure there were plenty of 18 year olds in your senior class, just like there were plenty of 17 year olds in mine. That's why I used the term "half the seniors" in my example.
And I don't know how you can think this wouldn't make alcohol more easily available to minors. I honestly don't.

[Jaymee_]

This I don't agree with. Although i have had alcohol before 13, and many of the people i know do, there have been a HELL of a lot of nerds that i've met who are terrified at the IDEA of that.




I've never smoked pot, but i can't break your statement because i'm only 14..

I was talking about the people I've met. Yes, I know you online, but I've never met you. Where I live.. smoking bud and drinking is common to be done in Jr high or sooner.


Hugh, when I was 13 years old.. if I wanted to get a fifth, all I had to do was wait till the local gas station was nearing closing and walk in and buy what I wanted. If kids want it.. they will find a way to get it. It doesn't matter what the legal drinking age is.

[Excaliber]

I agree with Xerent and Hugh 100%...

@ Jaymee_ just because you ( and apparently "everyone you know") lack/s a sense of right and wrong doesn't mean that the rest of us do...

The only time I have ever had alcohol was very recently when my parents let me try a Mike's Hard Lemonade and made me drink 2 glasses of water afterward because it was an extremely hot day and they didn't want me to get sick...

I know plenty of people who do drugs and I am fully aware of the consequences of doing them. I have never tried ANY drug and never will...

If alcohol suddenly ceased to exist I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep...

I agree with Xerent on the fact that lowering the drinking age would do nothing for people...

Are you just saying that since people do these illegal things anyway we should just not try to stop them?

I am not saying that I will net drink when I am old enough to... I will probably go out the night I turn 21 and get wasted just because I can...

I just simply have no problem obeying simple laws...

If I lived in the UK where drinking is legal at a younger age I probably would drink just because it would be legal...

[Jaymee_]

I agree with Xerent and Hugh 100%...

@ Jaymee_ just because you ( and apparently "everyone you know") lack/s a sense of right and wrong doesn't mean that the rest of us do...

The only time I have ever had alcohol was very recently when my parents let me try a Mike's Hard Lemonade and made me drink 2 glasses of water afterward because it was an extremely hot day and they didn't want me to get sick...

I know plenty of people who do drugs and I am fully aware of the consequences of doing them. I have never tried ANY drug and never will...

If alcohol suddenly ceased to exist I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep...

I agree with Xerent on the fact that lowering the drinking age would do nothing for people...

Are you just saying that since people do these illegal things anyway we should just not try to stop them?

I am not saying that I will net drink when I am old enough to... I will probably go out the night I turn 21 and get wasted just because I can...

I just simply have no problem obeying simple laws...

If I lived in the UK where drinking is legal at a younger age I probably would drink just because it would be legal...

Read the whole thread.. not just one post. Just because you're a goodie-goodie, (which I respect) does not mean the rest of -this- country is.

Someone once told me I was sheltered because I have never really left the area I grew up in.. maybe he was right.

[Excaliber]

Read the whole thread.. not just one post. Just because you're a goodie-goodie, (which I respect) does not mean the rest of -this- country is.

Someone once told me I was sheltered because I have never really left the area I grew up in.. maybe he was right.

I have read the whole thread... Thank you for assuming otherwise...

Just because I chose to obey simple laws doesn't make me a goodie goodie...

I would call it morally straight...

[Lonely Tylenol]

Jeff's right.. you're not jail bait anymore! You can gamble as well.. (wait, do you have to be 21 to gamble? I can't remember) but you still can't buy beer. Anyone else see a problem with being able to die for your country.. but you can't legally consume alcohol in it?

You can gamble legally at age 18.

Tee-wenty-nine days to go.

Too bad I can't afford a gambling binge in Vegas regardless...

:dry:

JayLoves (4:10:01 PM): I've never met anyone who hadn't drank alcohol by age 13
JayLoves (4:10:23 PM): I've never met anyone who hasn't smoked pot by age 15

:huh:

[Hatchet Warrior]

So, it's your 18th birthday.. you can vote, join the service, and buy cigs.. you're finally an adult! But wait, you still can't buy beer?.. hmmm.


Happy Birthday Scuba!

Well, if you get recruited into the army/navy/marines/air force, you can actually drink. On my bus trip back to my house in Wyo, I was talking to a guy from the navy who has been in for a year and is 18 now. He said you can drink as long as you don't cause a major problem.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well, if you get recruited into the army/navy/marines/air force, you can actually drink. On my bus trip back to my house in Wyo, I was talking to a guy from the navy who has been in for a year and is 18 now. He said you can drink as long as you don't cause a major problem.

But what about us conscientious ... Uh... Canadians?

[mantis33]

Whoah whoah whoah Jay!

I am 18. I have never been drunk (yet) and I would certainly never even CONSIDER drugs. So now you know of two people.

*high fives Xer*

I can't believe I just did that. :p

*washes hands*

[Lonely Tylenol]

Whoah whoah whoah Jay!

I am 18. I have never been drunk (yet) and I would certainly never even CONSIDER drugs. So now you know of two people.

Three, if you count me as a person, and that's a stretch. :p

Unless I was the first.

Hokai, technically I'm also only 17, 11 months and change.

[ko71991]

I don't get why smoking age is 18 while drinking age is 21.

When smoking can get you addicted and cause cancer, while alchohol isn't addicting, and doesn't cause cancer.

Drinking can result in drunk driving, but smoking kills people around you slowly with 2nd-hand smoke.. >_>

[Lonely Tylenol]

[COLOR="YellowGreen"]I don't get why smoking age is 18 while drinking age is 21.

When smoking can get you addicted and cause cancer, while alchohol isn't addicting, and doesn't cause cancer.

You don't think alcohol can cause some form of addiction, like, say, alcoholism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism)?

[ko71991]

You don't think alcohol can cause some form of addiction, like, say, alcoholism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism)?

Eh, w/e. >_>

I still think smoking cigarretes is nasty though. And the legal age limits should be switched.

[Jaymee_]

I've never met you people! Damn, is that fact really that hard to grasp? Xer and I were talking about personal experience verses statistics of unknown people. Sorry I grew up in an area that has nothing to offer so people find ways to entertain themselves.. I really do hate where I live.

LT, I didn't say anything about being drunk.. I said having a drink. There is a difference.

I still think it's not entirely fair for 18 to be legal for so much but not drinking.. although I do agree with Hugh on the school thing. If you're still in high school.. meh, I'm not sure it's cool to be drinking. Still thinking about it though.

[Lonely Tylenol]

LT, I didn't say anything about being drunk.. I said having a drink. There is a difference.

The same applies.

I can't wait until I can piss all my money away at a poker table, though. Gambling may be my vice, but it's a damned good one to have. (Edit: Provided you're good at it! :p)

[gigolojlo gl]

Alcoholism is a disease! Alcoholics are powerless! It takes a miracle to cure it... like the Virgin Mary bleeding out of her ass (South Park reference).

[Unforgottner]

That one was on last night.
'DEY DOOK OUR 'OBS!

[***Duo***]

The drinking age being set at 21 simply helps condition our mind to not obey the law, or think it is important.
It's a fairly silly move on the governments part--they just don't want to own up to it.


-Duo

[pils]

Jay, you need to think beyond the tiny world you live in, and grew up in, to be able to place any credibility behind your arguements...
Granted I haven't read the last two pages, but all I have seen from you are "Hun, when I was growing up everyone was drinking by 13." OR, "Dear, when I was growing up everyone was smoking pot."

No one cares what happened in your life, you have to view this from a perspective in which EVERYONE can be included... Not just you, and your little hometown.

Gig, you ruined it when you felt the necessity to tell people the reference was from south park. :p

[Excaliber]

Jay, you need to think beyond the tiny world you live in, and grew up in, to be able to place any credibility behind your arguements...
Granted I haven't read the last two pages, but all I have seen from you are "Hun, when I was growing up everyone was drinking by 13." OR, "Dear, when I was growing up everyone was smoking pot."

No one cares what happened in your life, you have to view this from a perspective in which EVERYONE can be included... Not just you, and your little hometown.

Gig, you ruined it when you felt the necessity to tell people the reference was from south park. :p

Exactly.

[Wisher]

Hehe, smoking is banned in Illinois starting 2008. And now you have to have like 3x the hours you normally would have to have before getting your drivers license :X.

[BaxVarlet]

Those under 21 put too much emphasis on drinking.

[Jaymee_]

Jay, you need to think beyond the tiny world you live in, and grew up in, to be able to place any credibility behind your arguements...
Granted I haven't read the last two pages, but all I have seen from you are "Hun, when I was growing up everyone was drinking by 13." OR, "Dear, when I was growing up everyone was smoking pot."

No one cares what happened in your life, you have to view this from a perspective in which EVERYONE can be included... Not just you, and your little hometown.

Gig, you ruined it when you felt the necessity to tell people the reference was from south park. :p

I typed a long ass reply to this but forums went down and I'm not rewriting it.

[Excaliber]

Those under 21 put too much emphasis on drinking.

I agree... And I am not even close to 21...

[Jeffery]

Those under 21 put too much emphasis on drinking.
And those over 21 put too much emphasis on drinking. It's not a billion dollar industry for nothing. ;)

[BaxVarlet]

And those over 21 put too much emphasis on drinking. It's not a billion dollar industry for nothing. ;)

Touche.

[Ignition]

19 is better. Sure lat year I could vote and bang old chicks, but that was all. Canada has it all strait now I can buy smokes and boos.

[Jeffery]

19 is better. Sure lat year I could vote and bang old chicks, but that was all. Canada has it all strait now I can buy smokes and boos.
And with universal health care, you can go to the VD clinic afterwards.

[uniquinous]

Wow - you just complained to everyone about my lil neg, eh? Let it go, srsly.

As for the topic at hand - the reasoning presented is illogical. I actually get it a lot in game "but he cursed how come you didn't kick him too?" Well, doesn't matter what that kid over there is doing wrong, doesn't make it any less wrong, and it certainly shouldn't give anyone else a sense of entitlement to do the same.

So it's similar logic you're presenting now: "Well you get to do everything else at 18 so you should be able to do this too." Well, no. As several other people have pointed out, you need to give good reason *why* that act in and of itself, independant of everything else, is beneficial at 18, and you have yet to provide a single reason for it. You say you can buy pr0n, and that all the losers of your area do it, and that anyone who doesn't is a "goodie-goodie", but you're not saying why it's good. Heck, come to my neck of the woods, you'll find certain neighborhoods are big into IV drugs. Does that mean it should be legalized throughout the country at age 18? Of course not.

So, again I'll ask, along with Hugh and many others: why 18?

[pils]

I typed a long ass reply to this but forums went down and I'm not rewriting it.

Well then those words go unchallenged and you admit that I am right?
Good enough for me.

[Jeffery]

So, again I'll ask, along with Hugh and many others: why 18?

Why 18?? Because 18 is the established "adult" age in the US.

Here is a question for you: Why 21 to drink?

Is there anything to prove that a 21 year old is more responsible than an 18 year old when it comes to drinking? At 21 are you able to hold your liquor better? At 21 can you drive your car while drunk better? At 21 are you a better person?

Age 18 is the age established as the time you enter adulthood, and become responsible for your actions. If you think people under 21 are not respobsible enough for that, why not petition the government to change the legal age to become an adult to 21 for all responsibilities?

[Hugh Junit]

Why 18?? Because 18 is the established "adult" age in the US.

Here is a question for you: Why 21 to drink?


I think it's because of the potential harm that irresponsible drinking can cause to people other than just the person doing the drinking, primarily with driving. Drinking and driving is a huge problem in this country, and maybe the mentality is that people who have only been driving for a couple of years shouldn't be able to legally throw a half gallon of Vodka in the trunk.
Of course they still do, but we're talking about a law that I believe is trying to keep young people, and all people, safer.
I also keep going back to the fact that many 18 year olds are still in high school, side by side with many under age teens.
As far as why 21, well, you could ask that about any age requirement they set. Alcohol is not an illegal substance ( anymore ) but can be an extremely devastaing one of used in excess or irresponsibly. Not just devastating to the user ( like tobacco ) but to others as well.
Countless thousands have been killed on the road by drunk drivers. Thousands of people have commited life-altering bad decisions while under the influence. The potential for danger is the difference, I think.
I don't think smoking while driving has claimed too many innocent lives.

[Jeffery]

I think it's because of the potential harm that irresponsible drinking can cause to people other than just the person doing the drinking, primarily with driving. Drinking and driving is a huge problem in this country, and maybe the mentality is that people who have only been driving for a couple of years shouldn't be able to legally throw a half gallon of Vodka in the trunk.
Of course they still do, but we're talking about a law that I believe is trying to keep young people, and all people, safer.
I also keep going back to the fact that many 18 year olds are still in high school, side by side with many under age teens.
As far as why 21, well, you could ask that about any age requirement they set. Alcohol is not an illegal substance ( anymore ) but can be an extremely devastaing one of used in excess or irresponsibly. Not just devastating to the user ( like tobacco ) but to others as well.
Countless thousands have been killed on the road by drunk drivers. Thousands of people have commited life-altering bad decisions while under the influence. The potential for danger is the difference, I think.
I don't think smoking while driving has claimed too many innocent lives.
And do you have evidence to support your claim that people drinking and driving under 21 is more deadly than those over 21?

Drinking age is 21, and yet kids under 18 still drink, and die. That has not been stopped. In fact, compare states with an 18 year drinking age with those of a 21 year drinking afge and the statistics show no difference.

[Anarchy_United]

At age 18 I would probably have to end my tradition of trick-or-treating in July.

[steve12]

There are more people over age 18 than people over 21, obviously. Thus, even though people under 21 break the law, they are subject to get in trouble and probably are aware of that. With a law, it causes less people to do it, while if the law was age 18, people would do it without care and be in more danger. But I'm not referring to statistics, just to common sense.

[Hugh Junit]

And do you have evidence to support your claim that people drinking and driving under 21 is more deadly than those over 21?


No, I don't. But, like I said, I believe it's a law that is trying to keep young people, and all people, safer. I don't think statisitical evidence is needed to understand the intent of the age restriction.
And I didn't say it was "more deadly". A drunk 21 year old is just age dangerous behind the wheel as a drunk 18 year old. But, by making the legal drinking age 21, instead of 18, it's reasonable to believe that there will be fewer drunk 18 year olds behind the wheel. It's less available. Less accessible.
I believe that is at least the mentality.
Look, the question is what age should someone be allowed to buy a legal, but mind-altering, substance? It doesn't necessarily have to go hand-in-hand with voting or smoking cigarrettes, or being a legal adult. It's a seperate issue. There was a time when it wasn't even legal to drink in this country, regardless of age. It wasn't a birth right. An age limit was decided on, and made into law.
What exactly is the reason it should be changed? Are there teenagers picketing outside of liquor stores? Are 18 year old seniors conducting sit-ins at high schools, complaining about beer not being available at the cafeteria? Are we experiencing a dangerous drop off in teen drinking?

[steve12]

No, I don't. But, like I said, I believe it's a law that is trying to keep young people, and all people, safer. I don't think statisitical evidence is needed to understand the intent of the age restriction.
And I didn't say it was "more deadly". A drunk 21 year old is just age dangerous behind the wheel as a drunk 18 year old. But, by making the legal drinking age 21, instead of 18, it's reasonable to believe that there will be fewer drunk 18 year olds behind the wheel. It's less available. Less accessible.
I believe that is at least the mentality.
Look, the question is what age should someone be allowed to buy a legal, but mind-altering, substance? It doesn't necessarily have to go hand-in-hand with voting or smoking cigarrettes, or being a legal adult. It's a seperate issue. There was a time when it wasn't even legal to drink in this country, regardless of age. It wasn't a birth right. An age limit was decided on, and made into law.
What exactly is the reason it should be changed? Are there teenagers picketing outside of liquor stores? Are 18 year old seniors conducting sit-ins at high schools, complaining about beer not being available at the cafeteria? Are we experiencing a dangerous drop off in teen drinking?

Agreed. That's what I was trying to get at.

[Jaymee_]

Why 18?? Because 18 is the established "adult" age in the US.

Here is a question for you: Why 21 to drink?

Is there anything to prove that a 21 year old is more responsible than an 18 year old when it comes to drinking? At 21 are you able to hold your liquor better? At 21 can you drive your car while drunk better? At 21 are you a better person?

Age 18 is the age established as the time you enter adulthood, and become responsible for your actions. If you think people under 21 are not respobsible enough for that, why not petition the government to change the legal age to become an adult to 21 for all responsibilities?

My point exactly.

[Jeffery]

There are more people over age 18 than people over 21, obviously. Thus, even though people under 21 break the law, they are subject to get in trouble and probably are aware of that. With a law, it causes less people to do it, while if the law was age 18, people would do it without care and be in more danger. But I'm not referring to statistics, just to common sense.
There are more people over 18 than over 21???

Are you drunk right now?? Seriously.



And Hugh. The 18 year old forced to hide the fact that they are drinking is far more likely to binge drink at parties, then drive home. Why drive home? Because that are not supposed to be drinking in the first place.

So you think there should be arbitrary ages set to decide when poeple can do things??

Fine, how about you have to be 27 before you can skydive? Less people skydiving would mean less people dying from accidents while skydiving, right??

How about you have to be 32 before you can have a kid? I mean, all those young people having kids is what leads to troubled youth, right? Restrict that and you have less trouble. Hell, you'kk even save lives.


Since you seem to think an 18 year okd is not responsible enough to make decisions about drinking, why should they be old enough to drive either? I mean, take away everyone under 25's right to drive and you will save lives, right?



18 IS the legal age in the US to be an adult. If you think they shouldn;t be an adult at that age, then take away all responsibilities and rights as an adult until whatever magical age would be "right". You think an 18 year old is so irresponsible, then please, tell me what age is right? When should a kid become an adult. Because every argument you made is about them not being old enougn to be responsible.

[mushroom_girl]

I know that where I live, the law is that you have to be 19 to buy cigarettes.

I view it in stages:
1-17=kid
18=adult
19=more of an adult
21=super adult!

In my mind, you're an adult when you're ready to face the responsibilities of adulthood (jobs, college, military, voting, etc.) This age is 18 in this country. Since there is no way to prove who is more mature than someone else really, there has to be set ages.

18 is considered responsible enough to vote, join the military, and drive. Yet you can't buy cigarettes because you could pass them on to underaged kids easily.
19 you're just as responsible, but it's not as easy to pass cigarettes on to high school kids and younger.
21 you're in the last years of college, you're really about to enter the "real world." I dunno, I guess this is the age at which you're supposed to be absolutely mature and ready for the rest of your life outside of school.

I see where they're going with the different ages, but if we just made everything accessible at 18 then there is truly an age to be an adult. I think the age for drinking and smoking should be the same age that someone can join the military and vote, no matter what age that is.

[Excaliber]

In my state you can buy tobacco products at 18...

I thought it was a national law... not a state one...:confused:

[Scorpionz]

In Aussie land everything comes to us at age 18.

Where I live we get our driver licences at 15 and a bit. :)

[Jaymee_]

In my state you can buy tobacco products at 18...

I thought it was a national law... not a state one...:confused:

It is a federal law. I think Liz is a tad confused. : )

[Excaliber]

That's what I thought... and I am pretty sure that she lives in the U.S. too...

[Jeffery]

It is a federal law. I think Liz is a tad confused. : )
There are several states with varying laws. The federal law sets a "minimum" standard which it requires states to follow. (although, a state can choose to not follow that standard, and face federal sanction)

Wisconsin passed a law in the early 1990's that made it illegal for anyone under 18 to even have tobacco products on them. Several other states followed.

As Liz said, some communities have passed laws requiring you to be 19 before buying tobacco. This is usually done on a city or county level though.

[Hatchet Warrior]

As Liz said, some communities have passed laws requiring you to be 19 before buying tobacco. This is usually done on a city or county level though.

Actually, this is a state call. Utah is one of the states that have this law. You have to be 19 to buy tobacco, but if you're 18, you can have up to 5 cigs on you at a time.

[Zoticus]

Ha, nice thread Jaymee.

I cannot wait til my 18th birthday, there will be a party, beer, and the girls. My parents are even supplying the liquor.

[HorNeT]

So, it's your 18th birthday.. you can vote, join the service, and buy cigs.. you're finally an adult! But wait, you still can't buy beer?.. hmmm.


Happy Birthday Scuba!

Actually, I just read an article about this earlier..

I probably should have finished it before I posted this. I'm pretty useless.

[uniquinous]

Jeffery (and jaymee just agreeing with him but not saying anything)-

You seem to have this mindset there there is one age where all responsibilities should be bestowed upon "adult". I reject this notion. When growing up, children are constantly given more and more responsibilities, gradually over time. It's quite common for parents to say "you're getting older now, you need to take out the trash" or "you're getting older now, you need to learn to do your own laundry". Here are a bunch of other things which don't come at age 18, or any other specific age for that matter:
-driving
-voting
-mowing the lawn for the family
-helping to look after younger siblings
-feeding/walking the dog
-bringing in money to help with family expenses
-bathing oneself
-dressing oneself

So why is it, when most other milestones in life don't necessarily correspond to a single age, do you feel this set should? I personally am glad that the legal age of drinking is offset from the legal age to drive. The point is, people are *more* responsible as they get older. So when, then, do we find a happy medium? I agree with Hugh: after high school. High school seniors are side by side with the 13 year old freshman, and legalizing drinking in high school isn't a move in the right direction. Experiment in college, on a nice safe campus, where driving doesn't take place - I have no problem with that.

So yes, it's more maturity, more knowledge of the rights and wrongs, and less likelihood of drunken joyrides, imo.

[HorNeT]

imo, if you're responaible enough to make your own decision to join the military and fight for your country, you are mature enough to drink.

So, let's all join the military and get wasssttedd.

[Zoticus]

I'm seriously thinking about joining the military. I have always wanted to since I was a little boy, playing with my toy guns. I really really want to be a scout sniper.

[Hatchet Warrior]

Join the marines, better training

[Zoticus]

Oh maybe I should be more specific. I would not join anything but the marines, making friends for life.

[mushroom_girl]

It is a federal law. I think Liz is a tad confused. : )
Nah, there are signs everywhere "TOBACCO: 19 or over...WE CARD!"
So, let's all join the military and get wasssttedd.
Nothing better than a drunk guy in a tank. :p

[HorNeT]

Nothing better than a drunk guy in a tank. :p

So fun it's almost dangerous!

[gryph89]

Nah, there are signs everywhere "TOBACCO: 19 or over...WE CARD!"

Nothing better than a drunk guy in a tank. :p

That's why we all go to the Indian stores. They don't care here in Bayonne.

[Hatchet Warrior]

Nah, there are signs everywhere "TOBACCO: 19 or over...WE CARD!"

Nothing better than a drunk guy in a tank. :p

you're not really allowed to drink in a war zone.

Even before then, you have to go through training where you aren't allowed to do anything until you graduate.

[Zoticus]

Nothing better than a drunk guy in a tank. :p

What kind of guys do you think are in our tanks now? :p

[steve12]

There are more people over 18 than over 21???

Are you drunk right now?? Seriously.




Get your head out of your ass, Jeff.

YES, there are more people over age 18 than over age 21. (People over age 21 are still over 18, to make it simpler for you). Are you drunk right now? Seriously. ;)


I still side with my and Hugh's opinion on this.

[uniquinous]

imo, if you're responaible enough to make your own decision to join the military and fight for your country, you are mature enough to drink.

So, let's all join the military and get wasssttedd.

why? This seems to be a common mindset... Why is it that if you're willing to fight for your country you are suddenly of the mental capacity to drink? Fighting is feral and part of human nature. The law just says "we won't let you do it legally until you're 18. Even still, as long as it's away from high schoolers, I don't mind as much. But really, why is it that dying for one's country should come with a 6-pack?

[Hatchet Warrior]

why? This seems to be a common mindset... Why is it that if you're willing to fight for your country you are suddenly of the mental capacity to drink? Fighting is feral and part of human nature. The law just says "we won't let you do it legally until you're 18. Even still, as long as it's away from high schoolers, I don't mind as much. But really, why is it that dying for one's country should come with a 6-pack?

Most have this mindset because they believe if they were to die in battle, that they should be able to drink before so.

[Jeffery]

Get your head out of your ass, Jeff.

YES, there are more people over age 18 than over age 21. (People over age 21 are still over 18, to make it simpler for you). Are you drunk right now? Seriously. ;)


I still side with my and Hugh's opinion on this.
Yes, but when grouping people by age, once you hit 21 you are no longer in the underage grouping when discussing drinking rights.

So, if you bothered to actually follow the discussion, refering to the group of "over 18" means those of legal adult hood, but still too young to legally drink, whilest those over 21 are of age to drink.

But again, you'd have to be able to have a semiu intelligent point beyond "i agree with blahblah" to be involved in such a conversation.


And Uniq, the reasoning is quite sane. If you are of sound mind enough to be able to decide to join the military, how are not of sound mind enough to decide when and where to engage in social activities?
You can kill a person legally, but you can;t drink a beer. You can blow up an entire family with a grenade, but are not ready to decide when to have one or two beers after work. You can drive a tank, but you can;t decide to go out with some friends and celebrate coming home from Iraq alive by having a couple of Buds with your buds.

In 46 states and DC you are no longer a minor at age 18. With the responsibilities of being an adult should come the rights of being an adult.


Now, rights/no rights aside, there is a growing number of groups looking at how making it illegal to drink actually increases high-risk drinking, especially among the college and high-school age persons.
More people die at illegally thrown parties than sitting in a bar. Why? Because the atmosphere of the illegal parties tend to encourage binge drinking, with no control such as a bouncer or bartender cutting a person off.

If you look into countries that have a much more relaxed drinking atmosphere, you will see a much slower rate of severe alcoholism in the youth. Why? Because it is not a social goal to become a raging drunk by sophomore year like it is here in the US.


Now, you want to talk about stopping drinking and driving? Fine. I'm all for actually enforcing the laws we have against that, and even tightening them up. There was a 16 year old girl who killed her friend while driving drunk here. Know what she got???

Nothing. The "traumatic experience" was enough for her. Go after people who break the law by drinking and driving. But don;t stop legal adults from being able to have a glass of wine with dinner.

BTW, I think I should include one small fact about myself. I do not drink. At all. Never have. Never will. I CHOOSE to not do so, but fully support the right of others to do so responsibly.

[Tama Drummer]

If you can legally drink alcohol when your 21, why not pot too? Or heroin? I'm not trying to start a "legalize pot" rant,legalizepotbut the whole "If you can do this, why can't you do this?" argument could have so many possibilites. Not saying I agree with all of it, but that itself isn't always a good reason for something to be OK.

Anyway, I do think it's kind of silly though. Tonightm for example, we played a a show at a bar. We're all 17-19 (me being the only one under 18), but even though they're concidered adults, the rest of the guys still needed to have a "parental guardian" to be able to be there and play.

[steve12]

Yes, but when grouping people by age, once you hit 21 you are no longer in the underage grouping when discussing drinking rights.

So, if you bothered to actually follow the discussion, refering to the group of "over 18" means those of legal adult hood, but still too young to legally drink, whilest those over 21 are of age to drink.


No... the people above 21 could cause harm to others as well by drinking. People 18 and above would just add to the chaos, and making it legal for people 18 and older to drink would make it even worse. Not to mention, perhaps the underaged drinking would spread to some 17-year olds. No matter how you put it, if you lowered the drinking age, more people would be able to drink, adding to danger to the equation.

Again, people over 21 still count. Why? Because they can drink.

[uniquinous]

And Uniq, the reasoning is quite sane. If you are of sound mind enough to be able to decide to join the military, how are not of sound mind enough to decide when and where to engage in social activities?
You can kill a person legally, but you can;t drink a beer. You can blow up an entire family with a grenade, but are not ready to decide when to have one or two beers after work. You can drive a tank, but you can;t decide to go out with some friends and celebrate coming home from Iraq alive by having a couple of Buds with your buds.Hld on a minute there. The army doesn't issue the order "just go around killing whoever you want, wherever you want it". These kids are 18 and taking orders. They have the intelligence of battle-experienced generals. You don't see soldiers on the battlefield stopping to think about the moral implications of their attack - they just follow orders. In fact, I think the army shows it's quite clear that newbies at age 18 have zero decision making ability. Furthermore, when such newbies do climb the ranks at a young age, it is because they have demonstrated their responsibility and good reasoning, NOT because they happen to be a certain age. So, sure, they can make the decision to join the armed forces, but that's pretty much the last and only decision they make for a while. Otherwise, they completely rely on the decision making abilities of people much older and experienced then them.

In 46 states and DC you are no longer a minor at age 18. With the responsibilities of being an adult should come the rights of being an adult. In most states, a divorced father needs to pay childsupport past the age of 18. It comes at no surprise to me that so many states elect the cutoff of childsupport to be.... you guessed it.... 21.

So let me use your reasoning. "If this act of security and responsibility happens at 21+, I think the drinking age should be 21 (or greater) as well." (take note, I'm happy with the drinking age a bit lower, so long as it's not in high schools, but I'm sure by now you see the fallacy of that type of logic)


More people die at illegally thrown parties than sitting in a bar. Why? Because the atmosphere of the illegal parties tend to encourage binge drinking, with no control such as a bouncer or bartender cutting a person off.But the question then turns to: Will legalizing alcohol at a younger age lower such home-thrown parties, or will it decrease those and increase the bar scene? I would strongly guess that it would increase *both*. So, yes, you'd see all the teenagers who are absolutely responsible enough with alcohol, as well as all the teenagers who are too dumb to say 'when'.

If you look into countries that have a much more relaxed drinking atmosphere, you will see a much slower rate of severe alcoholism in the youth. Why? Because it is not a social goal to become a raging drunk by sophomore year like it is here in the US.I don't think we can be compared to other countries at this time. Americans are too arrogant, to self-centered, and have quite a number of other qualities which sets us apart from others very strongly. As I said, some kids are responsible enough, others aren't. The same goes for countries as well.


There was a 16 year old girl who killed her friend while driving drunk here. Know what she got???

Nothing. The "traumatic experience" was enough for her. Yeah I agree that's crap. But... let's not legalize drinking earlier for that... let's just do a better job of law enforcement.

[HorNeT]

why? This seems to be a common mindset... Why is it that if you're willing to fight for your country you are suddenly of the mental capacity to drink? Fighting is feral and part of human nature. The law just says "we won't let you do it legally until you're 18. Even still, as long as it's away from high schoolers, I don't mind as much. But really, why is it that dying for one's country should come with a 6-pack?

Honestly, just like every other teenager, I don't have a real opinion on whether it'd be right or not, but I'd like to see it happen since I'm 16.

[Jeffery]

No... the people above 21 could cause harm to others as well by drinking. People 18 and above would just add to the chaos, and making it legal for people 18 and older to drink would make it even worse. Not to mention, perhaps the underaged drinking would spread to some 17-year olds. No matter how you put it, if you lowered the drinking age, more people would be able to drink, adding to danger to the equation.

Again, people over 21 still count. Why? Because they can drink.
But whether or not they can harm someone does not come into play. The question of under21 compared to over 21 sets these two groups completely apart for this discussion because it is a discussion on legal drinking age. The "over 18" group are not legally able to drink while those "over 21" can. This means that those in the "over 21" group ARE NOT part of the "over 18" group. Why? Because those in the "over 18" group CAN NOT LEGALLY DRINK.

Now, if you are still unable to differentiate between the groups, tahnk you. You proved my point about your ability to think clearly.

[Jeffery]

Hld on a minute there. The army doesn't issue the order "just go around killing whoever you want, wherever you want it". These kids are 18 and taking orders. They have the intelligence of battle-experienced generals. You don't see soldiers on the battlefield stopping to think about the moral implications of their attack - they just follow orders. In fact, I think the army shows it's quite clear that newbies at age 18 have zero decision making ability. Furthermore, when such newbies do climb the ranks at a young age, it is because they have demonstrated their responsibility and good reasoning, NOT because they happen to be a certain age. So, sure, they can make the decision to join the armed forces, but that's pretty much the last and only decision they make for a while. Otherwise, they completely rely on the decision making abilities of people much older and experienced then them.
Actually, the soldier DOES still make the decision whether or not to shoot specific argets. And if you think a soldier is a mindless killing ,achine who will have no after-thought to killing a person then you REALLY need to join the armed forces and see how wrong you are. I have known MANY people in the armed forces that fought in war/combat zones. And yes, they have had to kill people. And YES, it affected them greatly. Soldiers are not mindless killing machines. Unless you live in a Ray Bradbury book.

In most states, a divorced father needs to pay childsupport past the age of 18. It comes at no surprise to me that so many states elect the cutoff of childsupport to be.... you guessed it.... 21.
I'd like to see your stats on "most states", since this qualifies as at least 26 states, and I have never seen statistics that claim 26 or more states require post-18 payments. So please, prove your claim. And how long after 18 are we talking?

So let me use your reasoning. "If this act of security and responsibility happens at 21+, I think the drinking age should be 21 (or greater) as well." (take note, I'm happy with the drinking age a bit lower, so long as it's not in high schools, but I'm sure by now you see the fallacy of that type of logic)
Are you saying just because the drinking age would be 18, kids would be drinking in school???
It is a FACT that kids drink underage. The 21 to buy doesn;t seem to have stopped that. So your claim that an older drinking age cuts down on younger drinking is a falsehood. Highschool parties still happen. Underage drinking still happens.
Maybe if facists raised the drinking age to 50 it would stop kids form drinking, eh?

But the question then turns to: Will legalizing alcohol at a younger age lower such home-thrown parties, or will it decrease those and increase the bar scene? I would strongly guess that it would increase *both*. So, yes, you'd see all the teenagers who are absolutely responsible enough with alcohol, as well as all the teenagers who are too dumb to say 'when'.
Yes, the higher drinking age made the "house party" a larger scene. In town here there is a direct connection between times when they crack down on underage drinking in the bars, and when the number and size of the hosue parties increase. And with that increase in house parties there is a direct connection on the number of problems and arrests that occur in those locations.

I don't think we can be compared to other countries at this time. Americans are too arrogant, to self-centered, and have quite a number of other qualities which sets us apart from others very strongly. As I said, some kids are responsible enough, others aren't. The same goes for countries as well.
You are an arogant American if you claim America can never be compared to any other country just because "it is America".


Yeah I agree that's crap. But... let's not legalize drinking earlier for that... let's just do a better job of law enforcement.

And law enforcement is one of the biggest advocates against abolishing the pre-21 prohibition. Why? Because they have better things to do than have to deal with a legal adult drinking a legal substance.

[Hugh Junit]

I understand that there is an inconsistency between the legal drinking age and the age when we are considered legal adults in this country. I get it.
Beyond the personal opinions and possible reasons I've given in my other posts, I don't know why the legal drinking age was set at 21, or why 18 was the decided age when Americans are to be considered legal adults. I also don't know why the legal driving age was set at 16, or the age to be able to legally rent a car was set at 25. I don't know why the legal age to run for president is 35. I've read these ages of initiation were decided on based on different factors like risk vs. benefit, but I don't know.
But I don't have a problem with these age restrictions. These laws have been established, and our country and culture has grown accustomed to them. These few differences in ages of initiation don't keep me up at night. I don't view them as injustices in our system that must be corrected.
I can at least recognize the possibility that lowering the legal drinking age in this country may have negative effects on our society. Maybe not, but I can acknowledge that it's a realistic possibility.
On the other hand, I can't realistically imagine that lowering the drinking will produce anything positive in our culture. This too is a matter of opinion, but that's mine.
So, for that reason, I don't think the law should be changed

[Jeffery]

If you only support a law becayue it "might" help, then why not ban all weapons of any kind. not only from owenership but from even being made and sold, make all alcohol, tobbaco aqnd other substances completely illegal, and pass a law saying all cars can be built to go no mote then 55 miles per hour.

And why not also sterilize all mothers on welfare. Also, far too many people drown every year, so making swiming illegal as well. That will save lives.

Also, since people are beaten and killed every year over clothign they wear or don;t wear, why not pass a national law mandating the wearing of a uniform at all times. I mean, if everyone is dresses exactly the same, lives will be saved.

And wow, talking about cars. Too many people die on the highways. So lets just make private ownership of cars illegal. I mean, if everyone rode the buss there would be less accidents, no? Again, lives saved.

[steve12]

But whether or not they can harm someone does not come into play. The question of under21 compared to over 21 sets these two groups completely apart for this discussion because it is a discussion on legal drinking age. The "over 18" group are not legally able to drink while those "over 21" can. This means that those in the "over 21" group ARE NOT part of the "over 18" group. Why? Because those in the "over 18" group CAN NOT LEGALLY DRINK.

Now, if you are still unable to differentiate between the groups, tahnk you. You proved my point about your ability to think clearly.

What the heck are you talking about? People 18 and older, but still under age 21 are currently not allowed to drink. You are against this. People over 21 are allowed to drink. I am not the one confusing these two groups, so don't try to say I am when you thought that people who were older than 21 weren't over 18 as well earlier.

So, you think people over 18 should be able to drink. I said that this wouldn't be safe because it would allow for a greater chance of more people getting behind the wheel while drunk. Obviously even though it is against the law right now people under 21 still do this, but ALLOWING people under age 21 to drink means that more of them will do it simply because the won't get in trouble for. This leads to a greater chance for people to cause harm to others.


Now I realize you will have an argument for my opinion. But, quit it with the witty remarks attached to end of every paragraph you send in my direction. Seriously. Earlier I said I agree with Hugh's and MY opinion simply because our opinions seem to be the same on this matter, so I do have an opinion. You don't seem to get this and/or are trying to twist everything around to make yourself think only you are right and everyone against you are idiots. Read what we are writing, and try not to pick apart everything on the way we word it, because if you can't get what I'm sayin you must lack common sense. /witty remark (Yeah, I won't be doing that anymore, but I felt it was necessary to keep up with yours).

[Jeffery]

What the heck are you talking about? People 18 and older, but still under age 21 are currently not allowed to drink. You are against this. People over 21 are allowed to drink. I am not the one confusing these two groups, so don't try to say I am when you thought that people who were older than 21 weren't over 18 as well earlier.

So, you think people over 18 should be able to drink. I said that this wouldn't be safe because it would allow for a greater chance of more people getting behind the wheel while drunk. Obviously even though it is against the law right now people under 21 still do this, but ALLOWING people under age 21 to drink means that more of them will do it simply because the won't get in trouble for. This leads to a greater chance for people to cause harm to others.


Now I realize you will have an argument for my opinion. But, quit it with the witty remarks attached to end of every paragraph you send in my direction. Seriously. Earlier I said I agree with Hugh's and MY opinion simply because our opinions seem to be the same on this matter, so I do have an opinion. You don't seem to get this and/or are trying to twist everything around to make yourself think only you are right and everyone against you are idiots. Read what we are writing, and try not to pick apart everything on the way we word it, because if you can't get what I'm sayin you must lack common sense. /witty remark (Yeah, I won't be doing that anymore, but I felt it was necessary to keep up with yours).
You claimed that when discussing the two groupshere specifically, that there are more in the "over18" which for the purposes of this discussion was 18-20 year olds that those "over21" which is anyone age 21-1000.

Those are the groups we are discussing. And no, everyone in group "over21" does not qualify for "over18", because the "over18" group was specifically made up of those who are of legal adult age, but not legal drinking age. This means no one over the age of 20 is included.


So no, there are NOT more people in the younger groups. Unless you're retarted.

[steve12]

Here you go about something I said earlier again. Apparantly I worded it incorrectly or something.

Currently, people over 21 can drink.

If the law changed, then people over 18 could drink.
Therefore, more people would be allowed to drink, making this a larger drinking population. Age 21 would have no effect on anything if this was so.


Because more people would be allowed to drink, there would be danger, but you didn't even comment on what I said in my last post. And I'm not retarded. Read what I'm writing.

[Excaliber]

Steve was talking about the two age groups as follows:
18-up
21-up
He was saying that there are more people 18-up than age 20-up.

He made it very clear as to what he was talking about.

I don't know what you thought you read.

This is a further explanation of what he was saying if you still don't understand.

NOW:
Ages 21-up are legally allowed to drink.

IF THE LEGAL DRINKING AGE WAS CHANGED IN THE FUTURE:
Ages 18-up would be allowed to drink.

There are more people that fall into the age 18-up than age 21-up.
For the terms in which Steve was talking the age group doesn't end at 21, both are infinite.

[steve12]

Holy cow, thank you. I didn't know if I was sounding like a fool or not.

[Excaliber]

Holy cow, thank you. I didn't know if I was sounding like a fool or not.

I understood what you meant from the first post...

Jeff was just talking about the 18-up age group as an 18-21 age group.

[Jeffery]

The discussion was those legal to drink versus those not legal to drink

That makes it two seperate groups, not one seperate and one inclusive.

[Excaliber]

The discussion was those legal to drink versus those not legal to drink

That makes it two seperate groups, not one seperate and one inclusive.

And the terms of what Steve was discussing were different.

[Jeffery]

And the terms of what Steve was discussing were different.
Which had nothing to do with the discussion, which is what I poinbted out.

[HorNeT]

Here you go about something I said earlier again. Apparantly I worded it incorrectly or something.

Currently, people over 21 can drink.

If the law changed, then people over 18 could drink.
Therefore, more people would be allowed to drink, making this a larger drinking population. Age 21 would have no effect on anything if this was so.


Because more people would be allowed to drink, there would be danger, but you didn't even comment on what I said in my last post. And I'm not retarded. Read what I'm writing.

Dude, you're not good at wording your ideas. You make no sense.

[steve12]

Whatever. Some people completely understand it and some do not. It's something in the water.

[HorNeT]

Whatever. Some people completely understand it and some do not. It's something in the water.

Well, here's what I see wrong with your opinion.

Lowering the drinking age wouldn't change the amount of 16-21 year olds drinking, many/most do it illegally.

[Tama Drummer]

Might increase the amount of even younger kids drinking though.

[Jeffery]

Might increase the amount of even younger kids drinking though.
Kids in junior high are already drinking. Do you really think that went down when they raised the drinking age?

[Tama Drummer]

Yes.

But I don't know... "raised the drinking age?" When was this?

[Zoticus]

Dude, you're not good at wording your ideas. You make no sense.

Dude, can you read? :rolleyes:

[Excaliber]

Dude, can you read? :rolleyes:

Nicely put.

[Jeffery]

Yes.

But I don't know... "raised the drinking age?" When was this?
Federal act of 1984 forced all states to raise the drinking age to 21, or face federal sanctions.

[steve12]

Well, here's what I see wrong with your opinion.

Lowering the drinking age wouldn't change the amount of 16-21 year olds drinking, many/most do it illegally.

True, but lowering the drinking age would allow people who don't break these rules to drink without getting in trouble. You can't doubt that a decent amount of people would drink under 21 if they were allowed, while they wouldn't want to do it illegally.

[Jeffery]

True, but lowering the drinking age would allow people who don't break these rules to drink without getting in trouble. You can't doubt that a decent amount of people would drink under 21 if they were allowed, while they wouldn't want to do it illegally.
Actually, there would be an increase in responsible drinking, and a decrease in dangerous binge drinking.

[steve12]

It's obvious more people would drink, because it would be considered legal. Although there also would be a lot of responsibe drinking, a lot of it could still lead to drinking and driving and/or other dangerous actions, so why have it? You don't know for sure that people who don't want to go against the law would be sure to drink responsibly upon their first try.

[Jeffery]

It's obvious more people would drink, because it would be considered legal. Although there also would be a lot of responsibe drinking, a lot of it could still lead to drinking and driving and/or other dangerous actions, so why have it? You don't know for sure that people who don't want to go against the law would be sure to drink responsibly upon their first try.
Again, you want to punish people for things they have not done.

Why don;t we just throw you in jail, so that you won;t rob a bank next week? Wait, you mean YOU weren;t going to rob a bank next week? Well, you might have. So we should lock you up.

[steve12]

What..? This has nothing to do with punishing people, Jeff. This has to do with preventing accidents or dangerous situations beforehand using the law. Of coarse people will get in trouble, but only if they break the law.

[HorNeT]

Not changing the legal age will prevent absolutely nothing. Under-aged drinking will continue. Teenagers will go to illegal parties, get completely hammered, and since they are doing it illegally, they won't call a parent or be responsible because they know they will get in trouble, and that will result in death/drinking and driving. It will change absolutely nothing.
If you lower the drinking age, we will be less likely to drive drunk or do something stupid from not wanting to get in trouble. That's my opinion.

[Hugh Junit]

If you only support a law becayue it "might" help, then why not ban all weapons of any kind. not only from owenership but from even being made and sold, make all alcohol, tobbaco aqnd other substances completely illegal, and pass a law saying all cars can be built to go no mote then 55 miles per hour.

And why not also sterilize all mothers on welfare. Also, far too many people drown every year, so making swiming illegal as well. That will save lives.

Also, since people are beaten and killed every year over clothign they wear or don;t wear, why not pass a national law mandating the wearing of a uniform at all times. I mean, if everyone is dresses exactly the same, lives will be saved.

And wow, talking about cars. Too many people die on the highways. So lets just make private ownership of cars illegal. I mean, if everyone rode the buss there would be less accidents, no? Again, lives saved.


You can make up all the ridiculous and completely irrelevant examples you want. There's no end to the amount of material, but I'm not suggesting creating or changing any law.
I'm not talking about adding, ammending or resetting anything. I'm not talking about skydiving, or sterilization, and mandated uniforms, or banning cars. You can talk about those things all you want. I stated my opinion about a law that is already currently in place, and my opinion is that I see no good reason to change that law.
That doesn't mean I'd support any of the ideas you suggested. I wouldn't.
I know you have a really hard time dealing with the inconsistencies of these ages of initiation. My advice is to write your congress. If you see inconsistencies in my logic or opinions, I don't know what else I can possibly tell you. My opinion on this issue is not going to change.

[Wizzy`]

Yeah! Go Hugh!

hug-h

<.<hehee


I apologize for this post, I know it is completely spam, but I just wanted to post..I was bored, had nothing to do..So now I dedicate this post to Hugh Junit. Thank you Hugh, for making this post happen.



pc+1

[Jeffery]

What..? This has nothing to do with punishing people, Jeff. This has to do with preventing accidents or dangerous situations beforehand using the law. Of coarse people will get in trouble, but only if they break the law.
You've stated the law is there to stop people from doing something. By punishing people, we stop them from breaking the law. So if we lock you up, you won;t break thelaw by robbing a bank. If you did rob a bank, ou might even shoot someone. So by locking you up, we just saved a life.

[uniquinous]

i really gotta agree with hugh here - jeffery you're making some rather ridiculous and far-stretched claims from the logic being presented.

[quote=uniquinous and jeffery].
Actually, the soldier DOES still make the decision whether or not to shoot specific argets. And if you think a soldier is a mindless killing ,achine who will have no after-thought to killing a person then you REALLY need to join the armed forces and see how wrong you are. I have known MANY people in the armed forces that fought in war/combat zones. And yes, they have had to kill people. And YES, it affected them greatly. Soldiers are not mindless killing machines. Unless you live in a Ray Bradbury book.It affects them? You mean in a good way, right? Cuz, if blindly following orders affected an 18 year old in a bad way, that would seem to suggest that they're not quite of the age or mental capacity to really be doing those things, right? No, you either misunderstood what I said, or blatantly misused it. There aren't too many soldiers who stop and think "do I really wanna kill this person", and then not fire, when their enemy is in their sights. That gets friends killed. Once the decision to join the army is made, there are few choices after that. It has nothing to do with the after-thought (which, btw, only further proves my point), it has to do with the before-thought, which is non-existant. The army doesn't tell the new 18 year old troops to devise their own plans. They don't let them anywhere near decision making options - they leave that to older and more experienced soldiers (not by much, mind you, but they certainly aren't 18). I'm saying we should do the same for alcohol.

I'd like to see your stats on "most states", since this qualifies as at least 26 states, and I have never seen statistics that claim 26 or more states require post-18 payments. So please, prove your claim. And how long after 18 are we talking?http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/educate.htm
I lost count somewhere after 30 states. Note how many specifically state 21. Note how many state "out of high school" (the exact claim that both Hugh and I are making... away from high school).

It is a FACT that kids drink underage. The 21 to buy doesn;t seem to have stopped that. So your claim that an older drinking age cuts down on younger drinking is a falsehood. Highschool parties still happen. Underage drinking still happens.
Maybe if facists raised the drinking age to 50 it would stop kids form drinking, eh?You're getting good at poorly stretching my points. How do you think those kids get the alcohol in the first place? Round my parts, the majority is from enablers: older friends or siblings who are willing to buy the alcohol. Let's face it, it's not that impossible to know someone over 21 - not common, but not impossible. Now, let's bring the age to 18. Suddenly every 13 year old freshman knows an enabler. Sure, underage drinking is gonna happen. Now, the qustion is: how much?

Yes, the higher drinking age made the "house party" a larger scene. In town here there is a direct connection between times when they crack down on underage drinking in the bars, and when the number and size of the hosue parties increase. And with that increase in house parties there is a direct connection on the number of problems and arrests that occur in those locations.Wait wait wait. You're claiming that, since certain kids couldn't fake it at the bar anymore by paying for alcohol for themselves, they're gonna spend tons of money to throw house parties for all their irresponsible friends? You live in an interesting neighborhood. OK, lemme just assume for a moment that that's true. You think lowering the age is gonna slow the house parties? I'd argue it would increase both bar drinking and the house parties. I mean, think about it: why sit at a bar with one or two friends when you could have a whole freakin kegger at home? :rolleyes:

You are an arogant American if you claim America can never be compared to any other country just because "it is America".I think that's the 4th time you completed screwed my meaning, but I lost count. I claim that in *this* particular field, you can't compare America to other countries. You similarly can't compare in regards to issues such as gay rights, obesity, or armed forces. You *can* compare it in regards to many other things. This ignorant all-or-none find-the-extreme illogical bullshit you're throwing is slightly amusing, but it's actually making me begin to question your intellect jeffery. I mean, I had thought you were smart but... gruff.... but now... after claiming hugh wants to steralize lower class women, and that I want to raise the drinking age to 50, I'm beginning to wonder...

[steve12]

You've stated the law is there to stop people from doing something. By punishing people, we stop them from breaking the law. So if we lock you up, you won;t break thelaw by robbing a bank. If you did rob a bank, ou might even shoot someone. So by locking you up, we just saved a life.

I'm pretty much fed up with explaining simple things to you. It's really obvious what I'm trying to say, and no, it has nothing to do with punishing people BEFOREHAND (unless you consider a law punishing people from drinking until they reach a certain age). You can't even follow the conversation; you are just picking a little bit out of each of my posts and arguing against that with something totally irrelevant. I suggest you stop doing that.

[Jeffery]

I'm pretty much fed up with explaining simple things to you. It's really obvious what I'm trying to say, and no, it has nothing to do with punishing people BEFOREHAND (unless you consider a law punishing people from drinking until they reach a certain age). You can't even follow the conversation; you are just picking a little bit out of each of my posts and arguing against that with something totally irrelevant. I suggest you stop doing that.
Keeping a legal adult from drinking is punishing them beforehand.

You are stopping them from the right to drink a legal substance by stating they will automatically break the law and drink and drive. You are punishing an entire portion of the public based upon the crimes of very very few.

If your only justification for passing and maintaining a law is that is MIGHT save a life, then you should support any and all laws that might save lives. And locking people up before they could commit a crime would definitely save lives.

[steve12]

Explain to me why the drinking age should be lowered then.


I do not want to lock people up before they do something. Preventing them from drinking saves them from many other possible crimes other than drinking and driving. Preventing them from drinking until they are 21 is not locking them up. As someone pointed out before, should people be able to smoke weed as wellonce they are a legal adult?

You seem to want people to do as they please, so I take it you do not support laws which are passed and maintained for the safety of others (you call this "locking them up", or "punishing them").

[Jeffery]

i really gotta agree with hugh here - jeffery you're making some rather ridiculous and far-stretched claims from the logic being presented.

[QUOTE=Jeffery;1253919]It affects them? You mean in a good way, right? Cuz, if blindly following orders affected an 18 year old in a bad way, that would seem to suggest that they're not quite of the age or mental capacity to really be doing those things, right? No, you either misunderstood what I said, or blatantly misused it. There aren't too many soldiers who stop and think "do I really wanna kill this person", and then not fire, when their enemy is in their sights. That gets friends killed. Once the decision to join the army is made, there are few choices after that. It has nothing to do with the after-thought (which, btw, only further proves my point), it has to do with the before-thought, which is non-existant. The army doesn't tell the new 18 year old troops to devise their own plans. They don't let them anywhere near decision making options - they leave that to older and more experienced soldiers (not by much, mind you, but they certainly aren't 18). I'm saying we should do the same for alcohol.
Soldiers are never in a position where they have no choices. Every action they take is a result of a choice they make. Even whether or not to pull the trigger IS a decision they have to make. And some even choose not to do so. Especially, in the current Iraq situation, where there a lot of the time is no clear cut answer whether or not the person in your site IS an enemy.
And, once that soldier is home, there is long lasting effects on the soldier and their psyche. The choices they did make while over there often stay on their mind for years, and for some, a lifetime.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/educate.htm
I lost count somewhere after 30 states. Note how many specifically state 21. Note how many state "out of high school" (the exact claim that both Hugh and I are making... away from high school).
Actually, most of those states have laws stopping at 18, or "19 if still in school". very very few have it set to 21. (DC does, but age of adulthood for everything is 21) In fact, counting those that mention 21, only 4 hold adulthood at 21. Others do ALLOW for orders to continue until 20-23 based upon college enrollment.

I hardly qualify 4 cases as "most" based upon 51 cases.

You're getting good at poorly stretching my points. How do you think those kids get the alcohol in the first place? Round my parts, the majority is from enablers: older friends or siblings who are willing to buy the alcohol. Let's face it, it's not that impossible to know someone over 21 - not common, but not impossible. Now, let's bring the age to 18. Suddenly every 13 year old freshman knows an enabler. Sure, underage drinking is gonna happen. Now, the qustion is: how much?
Since the freshmen are already drinking, I'd say they already know an enabler.

Wait wait wait. You're claiming that, since certain kids couldn't fake it at the bar anymore by paying for alcohol for themselves, they're gonna spend tons of money to throw house parties for all their irresponsible friends? You live in an interesting neighborhood. OK, lemme just assume for a moment that that's true. You think lowering the age is gonna slow the house parties? I'd argue it would increase both bar drinking and the house parties. I mean, think about it: why sit at a bar with one or two friends when you could have a whole freakin kegge