To do so would be “profiling” which has been deemed out of bounds.

Actually, perpetrator profiling is absolutely necessary for efficient law enforcement. If the guy who assaulted you is over six feet tall, you automatically eliminate all the women and short men from the list of possible suspects. It just makes sense. The PC Nazis have demonized profiling by making it a racial issue, which is just them playing the race card.
They would be lost without it.

MZ: So, teenage drinking is a reward?

Let’s not conflate the issues. I am not advocating binge drinking or drinking on the job. I myself don’t care to drink all that much and oftentimes had to be cajoled into it by other members of my team or platoon. But to many young troops beer is a positive thing.

More to my point is the freedom to comport oneself as a fully-fledged adult in recognition for the voluntary decision to serve the country at risk of life or limb.

Think about it.

Private First Class Johnny Rico, for example, steps into boot camp on his 18th birthday.

Six months later he is assigned to a Mobile Infantry Battalion Landing Team and gets promoted to Lance Corporal.

Three months later his unit gets deployed.

Within 40 days from his deployment he sees first combat.

He serves an overseas combat tour of 12 months and is involuntarily extended due to the needs of the service by an additional 3 months.

At the end of his tour he is rotated back stateside and is given shore leave.

He goes to a local restaurant and orders some wine with his pasta, or a beer to go with his steak.

QUESTION:

Is it right that we say, no you’re not adult enough to drink ?

I say Johhny’s earned the right to be acknowledged as a fully grown adult. Something a majority of 18-21′s have not.

I think it is a small price to offer in exchange for putting one’s life on the line for the country. Especially so when they are giving up so many other rights as a condition of their service.

Well, we’re seeing all manner of argumentation here.

Let’s focus on the quid pro quo of military service and acknowledging that that service deserves an acknowledgment that the 18-to-21 year old has, by his or her affirmative act, take on life and limb-threatening activities in the service of the nation. They are taking on a grave responsibility and should well be granted the honor others, who are not exposed to the close supervision, regimentation and inculcation of military values those in the service are.

Normally, I agree with my colleagues R108 and Nieman, but I have to disagree with them here.

First off, noone, least of all me, advocates operating a Mk-19 or Aegis system while under the influence. Frankly that is reductio ad absurdum (a ridiculous argument)

We are talking about sitting down at a bar or in the E-Club or NCO Club and yes, even the O-Club on leave, liberty, and certainly while off duty.

Anyone who has served knows that there are very stringent penalties for showing up on the job under the influence.

Hell, it was not uncommon for troops to be charged under Article 15 or Nonjudicial Punishment for allowing themselves to get sunburned or otherwise injured, as that made them unfit for duty. One officer termed a particularly bad case of sunburn as damage to government property. When you think of it, it wasn’t far from the truth.

And in the case of Vietnam, morale and discipline had deteriorated to such an extent that many troops would get stoned before going out on patrol. For some it was the simple desire to get stoned and for others, an escape from the inhuman levels of stress of unremitting combat.

Again, I am not advocating drinking on the job, not for the military and not for civilians.

Secondly, insofar as civilian 18-to-21 year olds, I need more information. Has the increased drinking age made kids and their potential car-targets safer? If so, leave well enough alone.

And it is true. Overseas, youths and even children can have wine or beer. But the culture is different and getting drunk is frowned upon. For the most part, in the European context as I have seen it, the kids might enjoy a small glass of wine along with the adults with the pasta, or cheese or fruit.

Certainly there were the drinking-to-get-drunk festivals such as Karnival or Oktoberfest, but oddly enough, I saw very few children in those sort of venues. Perhaps it’s a function of closer parental supervision or inculcation of values, I don’t know.

I’m of the age where I don’t have to worry about getting carded nor do I have to worry that the armed forces would take me.

Still I’m going to use the “If an 18 year old can sign up for the armed forces then they shouldn’t be treated like children.”

It’s not a personal agenda thing for me (never actually was as I could drink at 19) but it is a sign of respect in that part of the argument.

I dunno.

I think some of you folks are missing something.

Military service, particularly in combat arms where even in peacetime folks get killed due to the inherent dangerousness of their jobs and the tools of their trade, entails a rite of passage. This is something rarely encountered in civilian life at such a tender (or near tender) age. I would venture to guess that only young police recruits might have a similar claim to acknowledgment as a full adult.

Keep in mind that I don’t advocate 18-to-21 year olds (hereinafter “18-21′s” ) getting falling down drunk, and certainly not being under the influence while on the job.

My focus is this: these 18-21′s have taken an affirmative step that most of their fellow young adults have not. They have given up a great deal of their freedoms and have vowed to risk their lives when asked to that others might live in safety and freedom.

That means something.

In return, it is very little to ask that the country they serve acknowledge them as a full adult. It’s a minor quid pro quo

Moreover, I reiterate, an 18-21 in the military lives in a far more regimented environment than a free 18-21. To serve means you go through a Basic Training course, essentially 8 to 13 to 22 weeks of square-bashing, psychological and physical conditioning. It’s regimentation at such an intensity that it far outstrips anything most kids have been subjected to at home.

Then, Advanced training, usually several weeks or even exceeding a year. During that time the trainee is subject to constant supervision, regimentation and inspection.

Once the trained enlistee reports to his or her unit, there continues to be regimentation and ever-present discipline.

So the conditions that exist for military 18-21′s is very different from the kid who has graduated from high school but know lives over the garage or in the basement.

More importantly, and with increasing frequency, a military 18-21 is being asked to brave enemy fire. You grow up fast in a war zone and 12 months, as anyone who served a hitch in the Nam or the recent war zones can tell you.

The least we can do is to acknowledge that these 18-21′s are taking on the full responsibilities of adults, exceeding those many over-21′s will ever face.

The least we can do is quit calling them boys and acknowledging them as men.

What was reeeeeeally a kick in the teeth was when the woman who was responsible for my sisters condition was allowed to drive again!

Pull their license for life then and charge them with a felony for driving without a license.

Gentlemen,

FYI, the drinking age was 18 way back when. Both when I served and when I attended college. Yes, I saw a lot of drinking at both places. But we managed to muddle through with all that unfettered freedom.

One of the happiest moments in memory was attending a day-time kegger, with a tall cold beer in one hand and a fat stogey in the other, staring down the barrel of a rock band’s wall of sound as they blasted out some of the best guitar licks I’d ever grooved to.

No harm came to small animals, children or anyone else for that matter. I might have had a screaming headache and bedspins afterwards, but that was the extend of the damage.

Thus I distinctly remember freedom that I had, which is now denied an entire class of Americans. I don’t think dispensing with the freedom of others should be taken lightly.

Also: My scenario involved the assumption that an 18-21 carrying military ID made Johhny Rico’s request legal.

Also, if you saw stoned soldiers, again, my guess the UCMJ and any Unit SOP will have something to say about that, thus the legality of being stoned in combat (illegally in all scenarios) is pretty much a non sequitur, and is a far cry different for the simple legal act of ordering a beer while on liberty, now isn’t it?

But if you are going to be singularly focused on getting stoned in combat and abusing drugs, versus providing for an exemption from the under-21 alcohol prohibition for those who serve, well then I can’t help you.

We are obviously just arguing past each other.

I know Whistler, give your kid a bomb and tell him you expect him to handle it responsibly.

Only very small bombs. He’s working up from firecrackers.

So give them drugs and booze and it will make them more mature? Encourage families of hard drinking, drug addict parents to teach their kids maturity by getting them responsibily stoned and/or drunk at home and in their cribs, play room or throwing up in the toilet?

I don’t doubt that’s happening but since it’s already illegal I don’t think the laws are doing anything to stop the serious stupidity. On the other hand they are stopping responsible parents from teaching kids how to consume alcohol.

You’re anecdote about the night you were out with your Marine buddies is case in point. Do you think kids should learn to drink from other kids or do you think they should learn what it’s like at home?

Cute, nice issue avoidance

LOL. I catch you chastising someone for what you did and you can’t see it.

Too funny!

we have minimized the negative impact of alcohol on this age group for good reason, alcohol being illegal they did not indulge at all or indulged less frequently

I disagree. Kids are still drinking. Building contempt for the law isn’t a good thing.

Cut them off from the liquor stores and they’ll buy it from the guy on the corner that’s selling drugs.

You are one of the reasons this law is good, you were incapable of restraining your base impulses, you were a criminal and you needed all the help possible to help you grow up before you killed someone by expressing your freedom at the expense of others.

In case you weren’t paying attention I was drinking legally in Minnesota and illegally (occasionally) in North Dakota. The law didn’t help me be responsible because I live in a border city.

Turns out I didn’t need any help handling it even though I was by your standards a child.

On the other hand the drunk that once killed my favorite land yacht was in his 50′s. Ban 50 year olds I say. (I escaped unharmed and complained to the cops about taking so long to arrive. (They were in the lane next to me)).

I would guess that more people under 21 drink today (percentage wise) than all people drank in the 1930′s.

Don’t you think permissiveness and lack of supervision is the cause?

Exactly, they’re just babies anyway. They shouldn’t be allowed to war without their mommies. Dad needs to help them sign contracts and such.

(This was my second attempt.)

I almost missed this:

your acceptance of homosexual marriage,

I am not in favor of homosexual marriage. I never have advocated or stated that.

On the other hand I have said that homosexual behavior shouldn’t get state sanction (nor state endorsement).

You also mentioned drugs. I’ve said that I favor decriminalization of marijuana, not any other drug. If a drug is found to be in the alcohol level (as is marijuana I believe (never tried it)) then it should be legal. What I mean if a responsible person can use it recreationally and function in society than I don’t think we should stop them from doing what they choose.

It’s interesting that you bring that up because all three come under the same umbrella for me. I am cynical and jealous of state action and power. We have to be very careful what power we give the government over us. Going too far with the nanny state has negative consequences. (For example has the meth problem been midwifed by the higher drinking age? Rural kids used to drink beer. Maybe that has nothing to do with the drinking age but we should always question government)

Harry’s got a point, but I don’t think we assume that a person is going to misbehave just because they belong to a group.

We don’t assume, we predict based on statistics. See above.

So if a certain demographic group was more likely (a prediction based on statistics) to commit crimes then we should lock them up or otherwise treat them differently. (such as no right to keep and bear arms?).

I don’t agree with that either.

One thing the laws have really effed up is that it is illegal as far as I know to serve a glass of wine to a teenager at a family gathering. I guess it’s better to learn to drink in the gutter I guess.

Joel your middle link regarding girls gone wild concerned a 22 or 23 year old. Did you have a point?

Can’t answer that can you?

Now having a beer on your free time is equated with being drunk while driving a tank.

OH MY

Was it better than if you had been with your friends, eating nachos without the beer?

Yes, of course it is subjective but it was a good time. Usually after studying a buddy and I would head out to Bonzers for a schooner or two.

The military recognizes that handling weapons and discharging military duties should not be done while drinking alcohol

Who in the world has tried to claim otherwise?

Nice extreme response! That is the problem with most debates, the issues morph out of all recognition.

Well Neiman you did characterize my position as leading to 5 year olds buying liquor.

Raising the drinking age to 65 would save even more people.

As a benefit those in my age bracket might actually even not drink because of the law.

Treating an adult in every way (but one) as a child is rather stupid as well.

Actually, the decision is to allow the experts(doctors) to do what is necessary.

So parents should have no rights about making health care decisions about their children? We should have faceless bureaucrats do it?

Since college kids are continuously defaulting on their credit and student loans, and we can’t seem to trust them with something much less life-threatening like money, how do you propose to argue that we should trust them with alcohol and cars?

Some do have problems paying their loans. Then again many adults over the age of 21 also have that problem.

Many adults over the age of 21 also have problems with alcohol.

By your reasoning we should just ban everything because some people can’t handle it.

But I will tell you one thing, your average 18 year old in the military is no more able to drink responsibly than the average 18 year old college student. There is binge drinking in the barracks all the time. Either the age should be lowered for all or it should be kept where it is and the argument about being able to drink because you can go to war is a red herring.

I wouldn’t say the war chant is a red herring. If someone can die for their country, they can surely drink. We let 16 year olds drive, and 18 year olds vote. An irresponsible 16 year old driver is far more dangerous than a young drinker (not behind the wheel of a car). Yet we don’t point out the inexperience of kids to keep them from driving…or voting.

The basic problem with that is…you never have any experience with anything until you try it. With most people, a session or two with violent vomiting, then a massive hang over the next day is enough to teach them to drink in moderation. Those who don’t learn…aren’t going to. Their age is not the factor.

There shouldn’t be a drinking age imo. Let parents decide, with the bare minimum of assistance of the state when their child can drink. Once the child is old enough to do the basic other things: get an appartment, get married, go to war, etc…then the choice should become theirs.

In contrast, teenage drinking has only negative consequences

I disagree. The drinking age in Minnesota was 19 when I was 19. So “ahem” I drank legally *ahem* when I was a teenager. I didn’t find negative consequences outweighing the positive aspects.

I know what you’re thinking. Forget it. I was so geeky I couldn’t even get laid by drunk chicks.

Kids can attend public school at around the age of six; does that mean they should be able to start drinking at that age?

So parents should have no rights about making health care decisions about their children? We should have faceless bureaucrats do it?

Not what I said at all. The parents give permission because they have responsibility for their child. This has nothing to do with teenage drinking, btw.

Non sequitur; who else would make those decisions

Perhaps the government should control that too?
After all, the teens don’t have the experience to make those decisions on their own….right?

I agree wholeheartedly. Forty years ago when I was in the military the drinking age was 18. In fact, you could do just about anything at 18 because you were considered an adult. Since then, egged on by those who thought that young lives should not be wasted (i.e. killed in alcohol related deaths), a campaign to protect our kids against the evils of drink was launched. In North Dakota, officials saw it as a way of keeping alcohol out of the hands of high schoolers. And off she went! Bar owners were being prosecuted if Johnny drank too much; sororities and fraternities were being shut down (Colleges should be protecting our kids, for the money they are being paid.) Parents refused to send their kids to schools where the drinking age was under 21.
Driven by a society where no one is responsible for his actions, parents abdicated their roles as teachers and disciplinarians. Young men and women over 18 are still being called kids.
I feel that we should lower the drinking age to 18. Let’s start raising responsible adults. Teach them to drink responsibly from an early age. Getting drunk may be fun. But, it’s not something you want to build your reputation on.

Think of what the statistics would be like then?

Whistler and Robert,

You’re both off-topic. The issue here is whether or not 18 year olds are mature enough to trust with alcohol and cars, not whether they are they are mature enough to trust with other decisions.

The fact of the matter is, statistics show that raising the drinking age saves lives. Period. That’s it.

Now Whistler likes to ask questions, so I’ll pose him one (just to show how disingenuous argument by question is):

Since college kids are continuously defaulting on their credit and student loans, and we can’t seem to trust them with something much less life-threatening like money, how do you propose to argue that we should trust them with alcohol and cars?

Rob,

As Chris quite aptly pointed out, the “they can die for our country but they can’t drink” argument makes no sense. One has nothing to do with the other. We don’t reward our professional soldiers with alcohol, we reward them with a paycheck and student aid.

No matter what you say, teenage drinking is not right.

According to you.
But it seems strange that a person can Marry at 16 & vote at 18.
A person can dispense drugs in a pharmacy at 18 or enlist to protect this Land at 17/18.
A person can legally pilot an aircraft at 16 or legally enter into a binding contract at 18.
At 18, a person can work in hazardous occupation or have risque pictures published.
But you think it’s wrong to allow them a drink of alcohol?

I think that once you’re 18 and graduated from high school it is ok. So I must say that I disagree, although respectfully so.

I think the behavior of those drinkers shows it’s not right, but I’m willing to have it put to a vote.

Perhaps the government should control that too? Maybe you think so, but I don’t. It is not accurate to say that “the govt” is enforcing the drinking age; that is a straw man. It is really the citizens who have voted for representatives who follow their wishes, and this is something you don’t seem to realize.
After all, the teens don’t have the experience to make those decisions on their own….right? Actually, the decision is to allow the experts(doctors) to do what is necessary. It isn’t a medical decision; it’s a decision to allow a minor child to be treated. It doesn’t require expertise.

No, it isn’t; the doctors make the medical decision, and ask the parents’(of any age) permission to treat their child

Ha!
THe parent, in this case a teenager, must overlook the general health of the minor child.
When that health level drops to a certain level, they have the authority,ney..responsibility, to seek further health assistance.
THat is a medical decision.
And fundementalists that refuse to get help at an appropriate time are usually charged with failing to get medical treatment.

Actually, the decision is to allow the experts(doctors) to do what is necessary. It isn’t a medical decision; it’s a decision to allow a minor child to be treated. It doesn’t require expertise.
.
.
.Really?
THe decision of allowing a minor child to be treated is, in effect, a medical decision.
.
..
But, typical to your general lack of honest debating skills, you want to start with a word twisting & nit-picking statement.

That shows a given level of maturity is assumed.

Not necessarily; it simply means that it is generally recognized as the right of parents to speak for their children; there is no assumption of competency, just responsibility. If a parent is legally determined to be not capable of being responsible(chronic alcoholism is one possible reason, btw), then, and only then, does the State take over, after trying to find competent relatives first.
Again, this has nothing to do with teenage drinking.
Where’s that list of positive aspects of teenage drinking? Even one would be nice.

Another thing I don’t like about the neo-prohibition…

It’s not any sort of prohibition. It’s sensible regulation. Big difference, but don’t let that stop your hyperbole.

Now you’re just being ignorant. No, I was illustrating the silliness of making a judgment based only on age, by giving a silly example.
Please show your path to such a conclusion. It was a question, not a “conclusion”.

I think ignoring the consequences of teenage drinking here is irresponsible. Again, please name the positive benefits of teenage drinking.

We’re talking about state action here, not private parties doing what they want with their own money.

Nope. We’re talking about behavior that has no negative consequences here(inheriting money), and therefore has no need for laws governing it.
In contrast, teenage drinking has only negative consequences, and is therefore a subject that the voters want to see regulated by law. Apples and oranges.
My point is that a judgment based on age alone, without considering the consequences, is just silly.

I think we were talking about the ability of 18 year olds to make their own decisions.

Wouldn’t that depend on the consequences of those particular decisions? I say let the voters decide.

The idea behind the 21 year old drinking age is that people are not sufficiently mature to handle alcohol until they are 21.

I am not making any judgment about whether this is true or not, I suspect it may not be.

But I will tell you one thing, your average 18 year old in the military is no more able to drink responsibly than the average 18 year old college student. There is binge drinking in the barracks all the time. Either the age should be lowered for all or it should be kept where it is and the argument about being able to drink because you can go to war is a red herring.

By your reasoning we should just ban everything because some people can’t handle it.

Not really; the real reasoning is that children aren’t ready to handle adult responsibilities, so why be stupid?

Yea, and maybe if I brew my dog a cup of coffee every morning, he’ll put on a tie and go to work in my stead.

My dog likes his coffee sweet with a bit of cream. I don’t know what’s wrong with him.

If you can vote, join the military (which requires an important decision with serious consequences!), and go to jail based on your own choices at 18, you should also be able to make decisions about alcohol consumption.

Once you drink too much, all the rest goes out the window, no matter what age you are; why start so young being stupid?

In fact my view of it would be you have to be an high school graduate and 18 years old to be considered an adult. That’s probably adding complexity to the situation that won’t happen.

Based on what rational? What information do you have that tells you an average 18-year-old has from graduation day until the day after sufficient maturity? Most of them are just leaving home, maybe, and are still transitioning into adulthood and you want to complicate that by giving them legal access alcohol? Still, it is all about arguing about which age, moving the line; but without any idea why such movement is in their best interests. Once you move that line, moving down again is even easier and down further is easier still and moving it back up virtually impossible. So, rather than accept what has worked for decades, you are willing to open that age limit door and others wanting no age limits are poised to punch that door down and for good.

I have seen it over and over again, once you open the door to easier access to once prohibited behavior, the path downward is at warp speed until no limits on human behavior exists at all and no evil thing we can imagine in our hearts is denied us and that society falls. That is what you are advocating and that to the peril of our future generations. Why can’t you leave it alone if it is working?

Whistle, I think she wasn’t supposed to be able to drive at first. AND then she got around it by a judge allowing her to drive to work? As far as I was concerned she should have been forced to walk. AND IF she got tired of walking? She could run!

Either way. The main point (to my mind) is that we did treat kids more maturely before we raised the drinking age. What did they do? They killed each other, themselves, and innocent adults in DUI collisions. The federal drinking age law was passed as a result, and it has been successful in lowering DUI related deaths. So it’s not a problem that needs fixing.

Maybe kids are immature because we treat them as immature.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to keep the responsible young adults from alcohol while irresponsible adults young and not so young are out there chugging away all the time.

That you may think, but statistics prove you wrong.

I personally don’t believe that anything that can only hurt the user should be regulated, but alcohol isn’t one of those things (innocent people get hurt). Since regulation is necessary, the regulation needs to be reasonable. 21 is reasonable because it seems that’s where you begin to see diminishing returns (meaning, if you raise past 21, you won’t get results as good as when we got by raising from 18 to 21). That’s what I meant by “reasonable.”

Whistler: You are probably never going to agree with me or Robert108 or others on this subject; but Robert108 brought up one point I wish you would more seriously consider, if a 21-year-old age limit has worked well for decades without any undue or unreasonable or unconstitutional burden upon this age group, wouldn’t wisdom dicate that it is better to leave it alone and choose another area to attack big government social engineering?

Most of us are rightly suspicious of big government and social engineering, we must resist that trend; but does this really seem the right battlefield for that war, when it is the safety of our young adults and those whose lives they might impact that is at stake?

Should we force those parents to give the money at 18?

I think the comparison would be to force people to set up all trusts to only pay out when the recipients are 25. We’re talking about state action here, not private parties doing what they want with their own money.

The fallacy you’re dealing with is that there is no average person.

Nonsense! In dealing with statistics, we establish “mean” values, in mathematics, a value that is intermediate between other values, e.g. an average or expected value, in this case it would represent an average person in a group.

It is fascinating that you are now arguing graphs and statistics, anything to weasel the data to support no age limits on drugs or alcohol. You are usually, except when it gets to drug use and alcohol consumption and your acceptance of homosexual marriage, a reasonable, rational person; and even though you know damn well that establishing a drinking age has influenced innumerable young adults over many decades to refrain from alcohol consumption, which has to have resulted in a lowering of lives lost, limbs lost and other negative effects of underage drinking, you seem willing to go to any lengths to eliminate any age requirement for alcohol consumption. That is your right, but you are, IMO, on a very slippery and damn dangerous slope that will expose our young adults and their innocent victims to great danger, all to be stylish, politically correct and to be seen by your fellows to be tolerant, a most damnable state of being.

but that for the greater good of the ‘average’ young adult and the world they would impact,

The fallacy you’re dealing with is that there is no average person.

Each person is an individual, not a member of a group to be discriminated against because of characteristics of that group

To do so would be “profiling” which has been deemed out of bounds.

That’s probably adding complexity to the situation that won’t happen.

THe complexity would be the homeschoolers & GED seekers….along with those that were not able to finish school.

Zsa Zsa, my very dear, much loved friend:

There is a great deal of wisdom and true compassion in your comments. However, it was with the Wisdom of a more mature and more Judeo-Christian generation that, it seemed to them even after young people went off to college or war, the average person needed the limits of the law to help them during those first few years of emancipation as young adults. This was not saying none of them could deal with these new freedoms, but that for the greater good of the ‘average’ young adult and the world they would impact, 21 years of age seemed to give them the best chance at survival.

If we change it to 18 that is wholly arbitrary, why not 17 or 16 or younger, as many here suggest, having no age limits at all. So, maybe it gets down to either no age limits at all or argue about which age is best. Since 21 has seemed to best protect young adults for many decades, doesn’t wisdom suggest we leave it alone? Shouldn’t we err on the side of giving our young people the best chance at life?

They can’t bring back prohibition like it was in the 20′s.

Another straw man. No one is trying to do any such thing. It is the duty of responsible adults to let teenagers know the difference between right and wrong. No matter what you say, teenage drinking is not right.

Cute, nice issue avoidance by changing the subject and making the subject less clear. It is always better to just ignore thoughful points of others to get the focus off the main issue, Very, liberal of you!

Speaking of dodging, why don’t you tell what the legal drinking age was when you were 18?
You spout that it’s bad for teens to drink & it ruins things into a downward spiral.
However, you seem VERY sold on yourself…a self that was around for 18 year old drinking ability.
THe hypocracy in your apple crate sermons is laughable.

Rob,

I don’t know what kind of evidence they have that argues for lowering the drinking age, but I know that there is substantial evidence showing a marked decrease in drunk driving deaths since the drinking age was raised.

I think that this is one of those issues that otherwise very intelligent small-government thinkers can’t wrap their minds around because they lack the capacity for subtle analysis.

DUI deaths are a Federal issue. There is no “exit option” because people often MUST drive through several states to get somewhere. I am glad that the federal government made the roads slightly safer for me and my family and, frankly, I don’t care if it makes college kids more prone to drinking themselves to death in their dorm rooms.

Well now you’re back on-topic Robert.

Whistler,

By your reasoning we should just ban everything because some people can’t handle it.

No, by my reasoning we set some reasonable standards. 18 for driving and enrolling in the military but 21 for drinking seems reasonable to me. In fact, considering the maturity of the asshats I went to college with, I would raise the drinking age a few more years.

I think kids are getting less and less mature because their parents are too busy fighting for their right to drink at a younger age to just focus on raising them well. My humble opinion.

TW: It seems your advocacy for lowering the drinking age is primarily philosophical, while for some of us, regulating teenage drinking is more of a practical matter.

Nacho and beer are just so yummy and good together! Mmmmm…

What I mean if a responsible person can use it recreationally and function in society than I don’t think we should stop them from doing what they choose.

Why add another legal intoxicant to the mix? The ones we have already do a lot of damage.

It’s not “hypocrisy” to learn things as you grow older, and to modify your values and behaviors according to that learning.
When I was growing up, the drinking age was 21, but I felt that I could start drinking earlier than that. I was wrong then, and am now glad that I didn’t get societal permission to start drinking at an earlier age.

I don’t drink much, but when I do I don’t consider it bad.

What’s the good part about teenage drinking(the subject here, btw)?

Of course that doesn’t make it right.

It doesn’t make it wrong, either. BTW, it’s a well-known fact that laws only work with law-abiding people. That doesn’t mean we can have a safe society by getting rid of laws against destructive behavior.

Sadly, Wisdom has not fallen upon this generation in the smallest degree, what has befallen them is a desire, under the false, malicious and evil guise of Freedom from government regulation, is a desire to cast off all restraints on perverse human behavior, even for those among us that are least emotionally prepared to make responsible decisions and to understand the consequences of their actions. Even people calling themselves Christians are falling under the spell of freedom to get drunk and stoned, all for states rights of course.

The soldier that is given to excess of alcohol and drugs like marijuana can cause their own injury or death or worse cause these things for innocent human beings fighting beside them. Unfortunately, “sorry” does not bring back a life, a lost limb or a lifetime of suffering for the victim or their family. The same applies to civilian youth, trying to live up to their wild images dying from alcohol poisoning, doing something reckless for fun that cause death and mayhem, all because of lost inhibitions caused by alcohol or drugs.

But, by all means let us cast off the wisdom of an earlier, some say greater generation, wherein they have tried to set reasonable age limits, to give our young people a chance to gain sufficient maturity to make responsible decisions. The loss of life, limb, the terrible emotional and financial costs will accrue, an awful price for our children to pay so Whistler and others may be stylish; and soon many here can look back at the dead and mangled bodies and be proud they made sure children of all ages had unfettered access to all the drugs and alcohol they wanted. I am sure they will be so proud of their casting another generation of their own descendents under the bus of political correctness.

What kind of love is this?

Reb Tex, That is not a bad idea! I really believe the problem is the drinking and driving laws. Not the drinking age. I hope the DUI laws have become more harsh than they were in the early 80′s, when my sister had her entire life changed forever? What was reeeeeeally a kick in the teeth was when the woman who was responsible for my sisters condition was allowed to drive again!

We are talking about sitting down at a bar or in the E-Club or NCO Club and yes, even the O-Club on leave, liberty, and certainly while off duty.

This is certainly reasonable, and if everyone behaved in this manner, drinking would not be the societal problem it is.

My point was that saying military service somehow qualifies or entitles a younger person to drink is specious, and even the military doesn’t make that equivalence.

I guess my view is that drinking is not a positive thing, and so regarding it as a privilege or reward for certain actions seems incongruous.

Now having a beer on your free time is equated with being drunk while driving a tank.

That is a mischaracterization unworthy of you, TW. You know I didn’t say that at all. The military doesn’t want drunk teenagers handling their equipment, either. Nice try.

Or more seriously because it’s not right to punish people for the failures of others.

So, not being able to get drunk and stupid until the age of 21 is punishment? Or is it like getting “punished” with a baby?

Prevention is always a much better road to travel than the actual burden of consequences. However, having said that, drinking at any age requires responsibility.

In 2007, 2.8 million college students drove a car while under the influence of alcohol.

The total cost attributable to the consequences of underage drinking was $73.7 billion per year in 2007 dollars.

This is $5.9 billion in medical costs, $15.2 billion in work loss and other resource costs, and $52.6 billion in lost quality of life.

In 2007, the U.S. Surgeon General estimates that approximately 7,000 persons under age 21 die from alcohol-related injuries involving underage drinking each year.

I’m solidly in Move_Zig’s corner on this one! Any 18 year old who joins the military and thereby assumes the risk of giving his/her life in service to the nation, should be accorded the right to drink on his/her free time.

Well, I am not! You probably, as I know I would not have, waded through all the comments above, wherein I related my own military experiences to demonstrate that wearing a uniform or risking ones life is not a justification for drinking. In fact in war zones like Vietnam or Iraq-Afghanistan, where the enemy does not wear uniforms, they strap bombs to innocent people or suicide bombers and the troops walk among them, they need to be alert every second for their own welfare and that of their brothers fighting with them, whether they are numbed by alcohol, marijuana or just suffering from a bad hangover, these soldiers put their own lives and the lives of others at risk by consuming alcohol illegally.

Young soldiers, like their civilian counterparts are in transition to emanicpation as adults, part way between juvenile behavior and adult conduct; and the current law, despite Whistler’s protestations to the contrary, does not cause any unreasonable or unconstitutional burden upon these transitional adults, none whatsoever. So, for the safety of these transitional adults and those whose lives they may impact while drunk, I say it has worked for many decades, leave it alone.

I think having beer or nacho’s with a friends is a positive thing. I did it legally and illegally when I was in my teens.

You are one of the reasons this law is good, you were incapable of restraining your base impulses, you were a criminal and you needed all the help possible to help you grow up before you killed someone by expressing your freedom at the expense of others.

I guess it’s better to learn to drink in the gutter I guess.

That’s also illegal, and can actually be enforced. How many arrests and convictions are there for serving a glass of wine to a teenager at a family gathering? Straw man.

I am of the belief that 18 years old Is old enough to drink beer or wine. As long as 18 year olds are aware of drinking & driving laws and that drinking and driving don’t mix. Many of you know my sister was injured by a drunk driver and suffered brain damage. The drunk driver she encountered was well over the age of 18 and had previous DUI’s. She also was back on the road again quite soon! Sometimes I wonder if DUI offenders would be required to see individuals who have been harmed by drunk drivers if they would change their behavior towards drinking?

I might be going out on a limb here, but I’d guess that r108 is motivating such responses by grossly mischaracterizing everyone’s position, as he usually does.

You’re doing your usual mischaracterizing of what I say, Sparkie. Got any answers yet?

You can’t be adult enough to decide if you can serve in the military, but not adult enough to decide if you want to have a beer/nachos with friends. It doesn’t make logical sense.

Were you ever in the military? Were you in combat? If you had, you would or should realize that these young people are mostly in transition from being juveniles to young adults. When in the military, especially in combat, there is a need for discipline, they teach these young people how to start growing up and facing the hard realities of warfare and that includes even those in support roles. If these people are adults, why are they treated like undisciplined juveniles when they enter basic training and then have to demontrate maturation by their actions or still be treated like the juveniles they still are? How about, because few of them are really adults yet, they are in transition, they need the tough discipline that their parents failed to give them, if they are to survive combat or do their job responsibily to support those in combat!

Soldiers can get alcohol and how they get it and how they use it helps define whether or not they are growing up or just acting like kids without adult supervision. The soldier that cannot control his base impulses is a danger to himself and other soldiers in combat, so they too need a few more years of limitations after enlisting before they are allowed to buy alcohol, in hopes that by then most of them have grown the hell up.

Robert108:

Still no facts from you; just angry personal attack, with no underlying truth. Pathetic. Are you an angerholic?

I have been getting this crap this from this guy for weeks. He is absolutely unable to debate the facts or present any rational arguements. I said it was hate, but you are more correct, it is an out of control anger issue. He is angry at anyone that disagrees with his point of view!

Move_Zig:
I have said it every way possible, especially about the military and the nonsense about old enough to fight old enbough to drink argument. While as someelse mentioned there are some older recruits that does not mean they are more mature, while some are, for the most part they too have not yet faced their adult responsibilities. The military treats them as half-men and half-juveniles, they work damn hard to try and get them to grow up and this discipline with some exceptions within a year or two produces a person more on the young adult side of the equation than a juvenile and guess what, they are approaching the legal age for drinking. Civilians do not have this discipline and I would suggest that age limits are more important for them because they will remain juveniles longer.

Having served and in Vietnam, starting at 17 years-of-age, I speak from some personal experience as to this transitional phase of life in the military and the wisdom of keeping the drinking age where it is today. I hope they leave it alone for the safety and maturation of these transitional young adults!

In the early 90′s Camp Del’Mar had an Enlisted Club and the drinking age for Military personal was 18. Nothing but trouble!!! We are a professional military and any distraction takes away from the mission. Changing the drinking age for military personal would be just that, A DISTRACTION.

Any GOOD NCO knows what is appropriate.

I have noticed that when someone disagrees with you, you seem to get angry, and then you turn to insult.
It’s only human.

Really?
Lessee…you fail at every turn to face facts that are provided at your request.
You can’t debate. You don’t have that ability.
You argue.
There’s a distinct difference.

Because the burden falls on a small minority.

The burden? Is that like being punished with a child?

Somehow, a law against a bad thing(underage drinking) has become a burden?

Maybe if young people learned how to drink responsibly under the supervision of adults they wouldn’t go so crazy the first time they move away from home.

That’s just good parenting; it has nothing to do with laws at all. Too bad leftie social policies are so detrimental to good parenting…
As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Teenage drinking can’t be fixed by legislation, and especially not by legislation that approves it. Why not let the voters decide?

Like I said before… if kids want to drink, they’re going to find the alcohol. Many have older siblings or other family members that are willing to buy it for them. And I have even witnessed kids waiting outside of liquor stores and getting strangers to buy it for them.

My kids talk openly with my husband and I and (thank goodness) both of our children seem to be aware of the dangers of drunk driving and getting in the car with anyone who has been drinking (including us ). They should be aware… we lecture them constantly.

The responsibility for drinking is not equivalent to other responsibilities, which should be obvious to anyone.

By whose definition? Who gets to decide this? Doctors prescribe pain meds to 18 year olds. We trust them to use them responsibly. Going under the knife (surgery) requires you be 18 to sign the paperwork. You can own a gun at 18. There are many more examples… I’m honestly not trying to be difficult. I just truly struggle to see the difference.

You bring up a “fact”, then, when cornered, you try to flip-flop? Havn’t you castigated democrats for that very thing?
.

The only fact I brought up is that there is no law regulating the age of being able to receive a trust fund, because there is no need for such a law. There is a reason for regulating underage drinking, though, which is why we have such regulation. It’s more than just age, again; it’s about the outcome.

A teen is making a medical decision.

Wrong again; in your hypothetical, a teen parent is taking responsibility for what happens to his or her child. The medical decision is made by the doctor or doctors.
In any event, none of this makes teenage drinking any less stupid, dangerous or destructive.

Zero. Though I hardly think one needs a history of military service to think that 18-year-olds who are old enough to fight are old enough to have a beer.

If it were only “a beer”. In todays Marine Corps, the regulations regarding alcohol are even more restricting than civilial laws. Atleast in my Bn. Rank has something to do with it. If you are not 21, you cannot drink at all. If you are 21 but are not an NCO, only a 6 pack is allowed in your barracks. If you are a NCO you can have more than a sixer. And no hard liquor is allowed in the barracks at all. If you are off post I guess you can do what the hell you want if you are 21. But keep in mind that the tolerance for an alcohol related incidence is zero. DUI’s are a career killer. Why is it like this? Because we are a professional military. If we had 18 year old privates running around in bars we would have some issues. I would be a shitty leader if I would let my 18 year old Marines drink and ruin their career. Even the most responsible drinker slip up somewhere. Why risk it?
Maybe if you been there and done that you would understand.

Experience with something CAN affect the way you think about a certain issue. Just like our presidental canidates, right Rob?

Hannitized and Dragon: Thanks! After 3 1/2 years, the pain does not go away, the least thing can bring it back.

Hannitized: I don’t understand why you choose to deliberately mischaracterize what I have said, I have never called them kids. I have carefully chosen terms like transitional young adults, half-juvenile and half-adults, growing from one stage into the other. They are not kids, they are not children, they are physically young adults, but still struggling with juvenile judgments and emotions. In that regard, having been there, I have suggested that age restrictions play a vital role in allowing them time to grow and make more mature decisions absent mind altering subtstances. You and others may disagree, but can you say that my position is dishonest, punitive or trying to spoil the fun of others, or can you understand that I honestly feel this is for their safety and the safety of others they may impact?

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with either their age or with teenage drinking.

Au contraire, mon fraire!
A teen is making a medical decision.
Of course, because it defeats your lame contention, you’ll refuse to accept it.

Whistler,

We don’t assume, we predict based on statistics. See above.

Try reading the entire post

Despite the fact many here having served in the military and combat do not advocate for lowering the drinking age, just because these young people are old enough to die in war, it makes no difference to those that want more drunk young people on the streets no matter the costs.

What a pompass sack of shit you are.
To say that this discussion splits between those that don’t want to lower the drinking age AND those that want drunken teens in the street is patently false.
I now understand how you got such twisted views of your “religion”

One thing I believe strongly about is that every person needs to learn there are consequences for their own actions. No matter their age. Even a 2 year old has to learn there are consequences for their actions. All too often people try to blame everyone but themselves for their actions. Drinking and driving doesn’t mix no matter what age. DUI is a irresponsible, inconsiderate, dangerous criminal act that endangers everyone. Employers have the right to fire employee’s for drinking on the job. I am sure the military reserves that right too.

Pilgrim, Carrick, Rob,

The difference you and others here absolutely refuse to acknowledge, for reasons that I will never understand is that MOST 18-21 year-old soldiers are away from home for the first time, they are still partly juveniles mentally and emotionally, under military discipline they mature at different rates and the extra time wherein booze is not as easily available is invaluable time for them to learn and grow and become men.

Can you guys please explain to my why republicans are able to label our soldiers as kids, but not the liberals?

Thank you Nieman for confirming what we already knew, and for some strange reason you pretend we don’t, that may kids serving in the military are exactly that.

Sorry about your son. That is heart wrenching and I am sorry for your loss.

To ask for parity for the least of the Citizens isn’t a bad thing.
The “do as I say & not as I do/did” causes rebellion at the very least.

MZ: So, teenage drinking is a reward?

DUI laws need to be much tougher.

Sometimes I wonder if DUI offenders would be required to see individuals who have been harmed by drunk drivers if they would change their behavior towards drinking?

I think they should move DUI into a violent crime class. That would make a 3 time DUI person face a 3-strike Law & permanently remove that person from society.
THere is absolutely no reason to drive when affected.

I disagree, if you’re mature enough to decide to join the military with the dangers and responsibilities entailed, but they’re just kids that need self appointed nannies to decide what they can do on their time off.

Even changing the terms of the argument to load it up in your favor still doesn’t make the equivalence valid.

…self appointed nannies to decide what they can do on their time off…

C’mon, TW; you’re better than that! It’s not even a true description of what the situation is.

Again, why increase the pool of potential drunk drivers with the most impulsive segment of the population?

Rob, how many years did you serve in the military?

Well that’s what the Mother’s against drunk drivers (the neo prohibitionists) have always struck me as.

A citizens’ group of concerned mothers? Just a bit hyperbolic, I think. If you don’t want citizens to organize and advocate their position on an issue, what would you permit?

We don’t assume, we predict based on statistics.

Very funny! If you could really “predict based on statistics”, then things would always continue in the same direction, but human beings don’t really act like that.
Better to study people than statistics about people, if you really want to make accurate predictions.

I say Johhny’s earned the right to be acknowledged as a fully grown adult [And get drunk like everyone else]. Something a majority of 18-21′s have not.

I think it is a small price to offer in exchange for putting one’s life on the line for the country [Ah yes, they fought fore the right to come home and get righteusly drunk like real grown-ups!}. Especially so when they are giving up so many other rights [Voluntarily!]as a condition of their service.

Well, I fought beside stoned, alcoholic soldiers, using mind altering substances to give them courage and I never witnessed their being better soldiers or leaders. When they got home, with rare exceptions, they were just damn drunks or drug addicts or in many other ways failed as real adults. The ones that grew up first, were never stoned or drunk in the field were the ones that were real leaders, often getting killed because of the potheads and drunks fighting with them. The difference you and others here absolutely refuse to acknowledge, for reasons that I will never understand is that MOST 18-21 year-old soldiers are away from home for the first time, they are still partly juveniles mentally and emotionally, under military discipline they mature at different rates and the extra time wherein booze is not as easily available is invaluable time for them to learn and grow and become men. Yes, become men, changing from juveniles step by step until they become men. By the time the majority have become men, they are legally able to drink and to do so not as juveniles, but men.

108: If 18 year-olds are old enough to wear the uniform and die in it, then they are old enough to vote and old enough to drink.

I disagree with those equivalences; a great many adults don’t have the ability to handle alcohol responsibly. Why get them started younger?

Neiman, my friend: Let me be more sussinct. I come home every day to a lovely house that I own; I want for nothing. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of young Americans between the ages of 18 and 21 are risking their lives every day in terrible places that you and I would not go, to protect my fat ass and those of the rest of us who sit here spouting off every day and night.

If those kids are good enough to wear the uniform and face the ultimate sacrifice for me and thee, then they are good enough to have the freedom to drink alcohol, period.

Whistler
After sifting through the Laws of North Dakota concerning the legal consumption/possession age, I see a chink in the armour.
All the “underage” ofender has to do is seek medical treatment within 12 hours of getting caught.
That prevents them from being charged.
Section 05-02-06 Prohibitions for individuals under 21 years of age – penalty – exceptions
.
After comparing this Law with those of other states, it seems rather restrictive.

Let’s stop screwing around and admit that tougher DUI laws would take care of that problem. Today, I could be drunk out of my mind and cause a vehicle accident killing the other driver. I would be charged with reckless driving, negligent homicide and the DUI would be a misdemeanor. Like the unfortunate case of Zsa Zsa’s sister, the driver would be allowed to continue to drive. No matter what, we can’t deny the driver his livelihood. It is time for 3 strikes you’re out. As far as binge drinking goes, if the idiot drinks himself to death sin loi (as they say in Viet Nam). We are too informed today to not be aware of the dangers of over consumption. It’s all about individual responsibility.

DBO: Drinking is not necessary to live, prosper, or be happy and healthy. As a matter of fact, it might be logically considered to be a barrier to all the above. It’s strictly a choice, not a necessity, and requires a level of responsibility, as such. Not valid equivalences at all.
Just because a law isn’t enforced perfectly, it’s not a reason to eliminate it. That’s also a flawed argument.
These laws and the police are actually supporting parents to help keep their children off of alcohol. Don’t throw that away for no reason.

He goes to a local restaurant and orders some wine with his pasta, or a beer to go with his steak.

Even though he knows it’s against the law. Why isn’t his responsibility to know that?
I think this is an emotional argument, not a practical one.

The truth is other countries that don’t stigmatize alcohol as much seem to have less problem with alcohol. I think lowering the age for beer and wine would be a way to have a pilot project in which we can test if lowering the drinking age for everything has an effect.

See — this is what happens when the preview function doesn’t work.

Runon sentences.

Sheez!

If those kids are good enough to wear the uniform and face the ultimate sacrifice for me and thee, then they are good enough to have the freedom to drink alcohol, period.

Go to a military installation invite the minors serving to your home and throw them a party. Make sure their NCO’s and CO’s get the notice and ask for their feedback. I am sure the First Sgt, Sgt Major, Co. Co, and Bn Co will be thrilled to deal with the distractions. Don’t forget to let them know how you feel about them being good enough to drink alcohol.

There are few if any issues left, about which reasonable people can reason together. The truth is there is no reason at all why the drinking age should be lowered, it does not inflict an unreasonable burden on anyone, it is not a mad liberal government taking away anyones rights, engaging in social engineering or in any manner acting like the bogeyman Nanny State. While these things can be real in other contexts, it is absent here, this involves common sense age limits for these part adult – part juvenile, young adults in transition and imposing a reasonable age limit for buying and consuming alcohol, which by its nature has to slow down the frequency of purchases and use.

Despite the fact many here having served in the military and combat do not advocate for lowering the drinking age, just because these young people are old enough to die in war, it makes no difference to those that want more drunk young people on the streets no matter the costs. Not one of the advocates of the lower drinking age have demonstrated, IMO, the slightest interest in whether or not these limits might increase the safety of these transitional adults and those whose lives they might impact while drunk, they only advance a mindless mantra of ‘lower the drinking age,’ and let the devil take the hindmost.

Zsa Zsa is right about tougher DUI laws.

Whistler: I my opinion, you simply do not in any way, shape, manner or form understand what immaturity means: lacking the wisdom or emotional development usually associated with adults, young, and not fully grown or developed.

So, no matter how many times you toss back a few beers with your children, from ages of toddler to college years, it will have nothing to do with their maturity, nothing. Maturity comes with age and accumulated life experiences, it is not imposed, it does not grow in the beer yeast or marijuana leaves; and we do not need them getting those experiences while drunk or stoned at home with drunken mommy and daddy. I had to as a young man learn to resist temptation and handle such things responsibly or I would die, either on the road or in some stinking rice paddie in Vietnam. Being a good drinker, able to consume more booze like my buddies would never have given my that maturity. My parents could not impose it, it came with passing years.

We have learned that on average sufficient maturity arrives around 21 years of age to allow people to make responsible, mature decisions that for the most part will occur.

MZ.. I, too remember the 18/21 age limits for beer/wine and 21 for spirits. The age is arbitraty. How about 19 or 20 or 19 1/2? ??

If they can do that, they can drink.

False equivalence. Drinking is not an entitlement.

These are adults we’re discussing!! 18 is an adult… they are not children.

Not true. The entire point is that society recognizes that it’s just foolish and destructive for teens to be drinking at will.
This is about good sense, not entitlement.

The letterhead:

108: If 18 year-olds are old enough to wear the uniform and die in it, then they are old enough to vote and old enough to drink.

If they are not, then let’s keep them out of military service.

“teen-age drinking” is a typical debater’s ploy to shift the target for purposes of strengthening one’s argument. Words have meaning. You knew exactly what you were doing.

And, like driving, drinking is a legal privilage granted by the state.

In the case of 18 year-olds in the military, it should be granted.

but they’re able to handle guns, grenades,bombs, planes, ships, tanks, and the possible loss of life and limb.

If they can do that, they can drink.

Merely reality.

If that’s your reality, what are you doing about it? Don’t you think permissiveness and lack of supervision is the cause? If so, why would you want more permissiveness and less supervision? Wouldn’t that make the problem worse?

Most do.

That still doesn’t make teenagers more able to handle alcohol.

Pu-Lease! I lived in Las Vegas for 9 years. I have seen many, many examples of people OVER 21 acting like idiots. Does that mean all people should be kept out of bars because of those folks?

This topic always gets alot of attention doesnt it.

PParets has got it right IMO. In a free society, you must accept a certain amount of risk. There is no freedon without risk. Its stupid and futile to tell an 18 year old that they are adults in every way except this, especially when they are willing put themselves on the line for the very people who are denying them the same rights as every other adult. If you think your 18 year old should not drink, then by all means try to influence your 18, 19, or 20 year old not to drink. You may succeed and you may not. The point is that these young adults have to accept the same responsibility as older adults, so they should be allowed the same freedoms. Hold them to the same standards, no leeway cuz they are young and dumb, but let them live by the same rules as everyone else. To say otherwise may be safer to society, but its not moral, and its hypocritical.

bobert108, your not a real conservative. You are a neo-con. Your values are subject to your personal whims. Expediency is more important than being a hypocrite to you. Fear guides your positions. Fear mankes you a hy

Sounds like you are very anti-drinking which would slant your view on the entire arguement. I have read all of the posts and there are several in which you sound very negative about alcohol in general.

Secondly… I didn’t see a question in the post that contained links. “Oh, really?” doesn’t require a response from an adult. Sounds like something my niece would say… And she’s 8.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sILSrOyLpmo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQzlWpgovJg&feature=related

I can link many more. I don’t think you can argue that just because these people are being stupid that they are children.

Regarding teenage drinking as some kind of a “reward” is just plain stupid.

I can’t think of any other case where an 18 year old isn’t treated as an adult aside from alcohol. I’m not saying there isn’t something, but it must be rare.

Voting.

We don’t need to ask the government (whether or not 51% of the people want it or not) if we can go out and have a cocktail.

I thought it was obvious that if teenagers always drank responsibly, there would be no necessity for such laws. Unfortunately, that’s not the case, and the 18-20 age group is much more likely to act irresponsibly(even without drinking alcohol) then any other group. Thus the law.
You guys want to sell the fiction that someone just made this stuff up to interfere with “freedom”, and you know that’s bullshit. We don’t want that age group to be able to drink at will because of what generally happens when they do.
I have a college town a few miles away from me that furnishes thousands of examples of this almost every night of the week, and especially on Friday and Saturday nights.
Lots of teenagers, minimal supervision, money of their own, and legendary drunkenness and other destructive behavior.
That’s the real world.

More projection from the weird little groupie stalker, I see.
Par for the course.

Neiman, That is so sad! I have a friend who went to vietnam and came back addicted to heroin. He fortunately has gotten off the drugs and is a born again christian.

I just think it’s a stupid idea.

What you mean is that “it scares you”. Your a scared little boy with an inferiority complex. Thats why you want to control everything and everyone. Your just scared of everything. Hence the 23000 posts on a blog. Nothing going on heh? Too bad for you bobert108. You should take a vacation, see the sights, get to know what the real world is all about. I know, we should call the Dog Whisperer for you. He can rehabilitate you so your more acceptable and less of an asshole. All you need is a little training. He could teach you to get up out of your nasty old chair and go shit in the toilet instead of all over yourself and others. OH, I keep forgetting, one of your favorite passtimes is shitting down other peoples lungs. Nitwit.

Secondly… I didn’t see a question in the post that contained links.

No link was necessary; it was a straight out question about increasing permissiveness and decreasing supervision.

Got an answer?

I’m against drinking for children because of the bad outcomes due to it. Why doesn’t that make sense to you?

DBO: Consider this scenario; with teenage drinking legal, any of your teenagers and their friends can simply buy alcohol, drive somewhere away from parental supervision, and drink to their hearts’ content, then drive home, or wherever. Do you consider that a wise move?

Adults should; kids should be protected.

Exactly the point! 18=adult Just ask anyone in the justice system…

I can link many more. I don’t think you can argue that just because these people are being stupid that they are children.
OregonGirl on August 28, 2008 at 04:18 pm

Spoken like a true immature 18 year old.

I wish I were 18 again. LOL Well, maybe 21… that is the point of this thread. And I fail to see how my comment was immature… ?? Want to enlighten me please?

I see my ordnance landed right on target. Keep squealing, weird little groupie stalker!

If you want to endanger those young people and the rest of society in that way, it’s on your head

Freedom means risk. Your logic is flawed. Your willing to send these same young adults off to get their asses shot off, but wont allow them a drink? Does that mean that the fact that they are endangered protecting your sorry ass is on your head? You would ask them to protect you, yet tell them not to enjoy the same freedoms you have. What a hypocrite! Seems to me these young adults are just cannon fodder to you. Its ok to get shot up or killed in the service of your countrymen, but DONT DRINK!!! Sounds like a muslim cleric to me. bobert might be scared of you when your drink. He might feel afraid, and bobert is all about how he FEELS. Scared little bobert with his authoritarian nanny state liberal feel better while denying reality mentality. What a joke you are. You should get a dictionary and look up some of the words you throw around. You might learn something.

I guess you need to keep lying about what I said to make your “argument”, pp.

He thinks you lie cuz he defines words any way he likes, then expects everyone else to define them the same way. Insecure children do this all the time. So does bobert108.

In Robert108′s defense, At one point he said he would be willing to bring it to a vote. His feelings on teenage drinking is not exactly a control issue. He just feels strongly about teenagers use of alcohol. Is it really necessary to try to attack him personally?

These are adults we’re discussing!! 18 is an adult… OregonGirl on August 28, 2008 at 03:35 pm

OH really?

MTV Jackass

Girls Gone Wild

Viva La Bam Tv Show

I would enjoy personally attacking bobert108 all night, but unlike bobert, I have a life to go home to. Have fun bobert, but dont forget to take your medication.

r108
you are calling zig-zag, whistler, and the lot lefties?

No, just the lefties; you know who you are. Sorry I had to tell you that! Maybe you should get those cerebral hemorrhoids removed.

Zsa Zsa: No one is attacking 108 personally. That’s a favorite ploy of his. If you challenge anything he says, he shifts that immediately to a charge that you are attacking him personally.

Throughout this thread he has attempted to shift the discussion from 18 year-old legal adults to ‘teen-agers’ in general, and then finally to ‘children’.

That’s a clever debate move, but it’s not valid.

To have pointed that out – as I did – is not a personal attack.

A pesonal attack would have consisted of words and phrases like, “you’re lying”, “moron”, “leftie”; none of which I used.

ZZ: Like Ann Coulter, I know I’m doing my job when leftie heads start exploding from the simple truth. The volume of squealing from the lefties on this thread is deafening, so I know I have done my job.
Thanks! I don’t require agreement, like they do; I just require an argument with some content.

Like Ann Coulter, I know I’m doing my job when leftie heads start exploding from the simple truth.

bobert108 thinks that anyone who disagrees is a “lefty”. As if no other person on the planet can disagree with him without being a “lefty” Its a denial mechanism through and through.
Reference my earlier post concerning bobert108′s true colors. He is a neo-con. A liberal who hates liberals. The great thing about bobert108 is that he doesnt know it. Thats what makes him so vulnerable. He is obtuse about his own soul. He is the worst kind of hypocrite, someone who hates thier own kind.

You lie again

bobert108′s favorite line. He has used it at least 10000+ times to deflect from his own responibility for what others think if him. He is just a poor little victim of all the bad people in the world.

I have two teenage boys at home and if you don’t think there are a lot of drunk teenagers now, you are mistaken

You are clearly mistaken; I did’nt say that; I said more drunk teenagers.

To reiterate one more time… my opinion is that if 18 is an adult by nearly all standards of our society, then decisions about alcohol should be held to the same standard.

The responsibility for drinking is not equivalent to other responsibilities, which should be obvious to anyone.

You say I’m wrong to characterize your position as parenting, but that’s exactly what it is.

Your opinion, though wrong, is noted. I’m not the one who described the kind of man he likes. No projection involved; your words speak for you.

As far as elitism is concerned, I’m not a self-styled “philosopher” – that would be you. You also pose as an intellectual, but can’t comprehend Dennis Miller’s cerebral humor. You are quite obvious.

I’m quite used to their childishness by now. When they hear the truth, they start squealing. I know they would make a logical argument, if they had one.

This is what he always says when others disagree with him. Its a denial mechanism. He thinks is not responsible for the way people see him, he is just a victim…a little victim who cant find his way home to mommy.

Is this a personal attack on bobert108?

bobert108 is like a liberal who hates liberals. He is like a homosexual who hates other homosexuals, yet rails against them in an irrational way. Conflicted in so many ways is poor bobert108. He says liberal things all the time, yet doesnt believe that he is one. He thinks he is a conservative, but he is a neo-con. A neocon is a liberal without the compassion or the prinipals of a conservative. A neo-con is a liberal who hates liberals. Can you trust a person like this? Can you take them seriously? I say no you cannot.
Ok, was this a personal attack on bobert108? I hope so. Either way, bobert108 is a nitwit(personal attack for sure).

If an 18 year-old has the courage to risk his life for this country, then he has the right to quaff a brew!

Simple as that.

No consideration of the arguments of others pro or con, that is how you feel so to hell with all the rest? Well, you have that right, doesn’t seem terribly intelligent a way to approach the subject, but okay!

That’s fine Nieman,

I think we can agree to disagree on this without getting wrapped around the axel.

Sometimes you have to pick your fights.

This isn’t one I’m greatly invested in.

Semper Fi, Bro

BUT I still admire his strength in standing up for what he believes.

Give it time, you will find him more and more repugnant as you get to know him.

I say again; if you want to change something, you have to give good reasons for that change.

I disagree it’s up to the people who propose controlling the population to continue to make the case that their social engineering is desirable.

To date I’ve seen a bogus graph that might support the notion or it might not.

You are trying to broaden your hypothesis to imply that we are talking about 13 to 17 year-olds.

Robert’s also lumping 20 year olds in with the teens.

if a 21-year-old age limit has worked well for decades without any undue or unreasonable or unconstitutional burden upon this age group,

Well it hasn’t bothered me either since it was changed after I growed up. Of course that doesn’t make it right.

The only reason why it’s not being an undue burden is because next to NOBODY pays attention to it when they’re under 21.

bobert still doesnt know what a groupie is. He thinks an antagonist is a groupie. I dont want to fuck you bobert, Im not a fan, and I dont follow you around. You just happen to be the one who posts soooooo much (almost 23000 and counting) that you cant be avoided. You deserve everything you get nitwit. Get a life why dontcha. Try being productive for once instead of showing your ass every time you put fingers to the board.

Is it really necessary to try to attack him personally?

It’s all they have, ZZ! I’m quite used to their childishness by now. When they hear the truth, they start squealing. I know they would make a logical argument, if they had one.

Am I supposed to be zig zag? HA!

OregonGirl: I notice you didn’t answer the question…

I have traveled extensively in Europe. I think a few things might skew the variables that would be worth considering. First, Europe was urbanized long before the US and a higher % of Europeans live in cities. Second, the US has many more cars than Europe does, for people who live in rural areas and those in the burbs/cities. I think these considerations may affect the perceived societal differences, as opposed to merely values alone.

That said, it’s foolish to make laws one cannot enforce. Its an affront to the very point of having laws. Preventing young people from drinking is near to impossible and making the activity illegal only provides more allure to the teen mind. On the other hand, preventing people from driving drunk is a somewhat more plausibly enforced and reasonable law. Drunk drivers are not only 16-21 year olds, and any drunk driver is a dangerous driver. One cannot reasonably argue that older people make better drunk drivers and therefore the age minimum is rational. Any drunk driver is a dangerous driver.

Who in the world has tried to claim otherwise?

I might be going out on a limb here, but I’d guess that r108 is motivating such responses by grossly mischaracterizing everyone’s position, as he usually does.

I’m not the one who described the kind of man he likes. No projection involved; your words speak for you.

I said

I like to talk to grouchy old men

and you know it. The homosexuality is simply you projecting. You can’t get homo love out of your mind. It’s okay. I don’t hate you for it. The inner conflict and self hatred you experience must be pretty tough. Seek help.

I’m not a self-styled “philosopher”

Neither am I.

BTW, your argument against me being smart is pretty funny. As if Dennis Miller is some kind of litmus test for smarts. Heh.

Now call your argument a simple truth. Heh.

Am I supposed to be zig zag? HA!

No, that’s what I’ve taken to calling meth-and-cocaine addicted Move_Zig in response to the druggie epithets he uses on me.

No offense meant, Zsa Zsa.

Although, because you disagree with polpotbert108, that automatically makes you a lefty. How’s it feel.

r108
Oh right. You are bringing the pain to the lefties by arguing for parenting policies.

Uh huh.

Rob, how many years did you serve in the military?

Zero. Though I hardly think one needs a history of military service to think that 18-year-olds who are old enough to fight are old enough to have a beer.

Next thing you know they’ll be
telling them about contraception.