Drinking age

Superfreak said:
I say give them a beer... they are going to get it anyway. Find another way to curb the drunken driving.
Click to expand...

I think, maybe, we should lower the age to 19, and give out "alcohol licenses" to those below 21, and have a set of strict rules they have to follow or else get it revoked immediately. For instance, anyone caught with a BAC of .02% or more while driving automatically gets it taken away (along with their drivers licenense itself). Or anyone caught consuming, for instance, maybe 5-7 or more drinks at a time.
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
about time for Rob to jump in in support of drunken driving ;)
Click to expand...

Oh. I'll take his place on this one:

Why are you people so discriminatory against drunken drivers. Its not like all of kill people on the road. Sober people get into accidents and quite frankly I drive better when I'm drunk. Why shouldn't I be allowed to drive drunk if I'm not breaking any laws?
 
LadyT said:
I don't think anyone under 21 should be allowed to be deployed to a war zone and I do think you should have to get parental consent to enlist before your 21.
Click to expand...

Honestly... I don't think could've even won world war II like that. Able bodies young men are obviously a very important part of the military.

And what about those people who don't even know their former parents or guardians anymore?
 
LadyT said:
Oh. I'll take his place on this one:

Why are you people so discriminatory against drunken drivers. Its not like all of kill people on the road. Sober people get into accidents and quite frankly I drive better when I'm drunk. Why shouldn't I be allowed to drive drunk if I'm not breaking any laws?
Click to expand...

25% of driving accidents are caused by drunk drivers. Therefore, you're less likely to cause an accident whenever you're drunk.
 
Socrtease said:
The real question her is whether or not a fundamental right is being violated. Drinking alcohol is not, anywhere I have looked, considered a fundamental right. So I would think the only argument you might come up with as to why there should be no distinction is equal protection. If you are 18 years old you are an adult as is someone that is 118 years old. So you are both similarly situated in that you are adults. So why can the 118 year old drink and the 18 year old can't. On it's face it is disparate treatments. So that being said you next have to look at the governments interest in curtailing that privilege for 18 year olds and NOT 118 year olds or any other adult >21 years of age. The states interest is safety. Any study you read shows that the problem with young people when they drink is their existent biological limitations in decision making are further complicated and reduced by the introduction of alcohol. (There are lots of good studies that show that the frontal cortex, and the frontal lobes in general are not fully developed until we are in our mid 20's) So alcohol consumption not being a fundamental right the state just has to show an interest in protecting the safety of its citizens and therefore a drinking age of 21 is perfectly permissible.
Click to expand...

Careful....

I made the same points:

-Its not a fundamental right; like employment or voting are.
-Since its not a fundamental right, it is subject to regulation, based on the public interest.

And I got called a tool and a stupid moron for making those observations. ;)
 
Cypress said:
Careful....

I made the same points:

-Its not a fundamental right; like employment or voting are.
-Since its not a fundamental right, it is subject to regulation, based on the public interest.

And I got called a tool and a stupid moron for making those observations. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. I really do think the federal mandate is a bit to broad in itself though, per Sandra Day O'Conner's argument. Drinking under 21 and highway funding are not strongly enough correlated to justify the law.
 
Watermark said:
25% of driving accidents are caused by drunk drivers. Therefore, you're less likely to cause an accident whenever you're drunk.
Click to expand...
Yet studies show that only 10% of the drivers are drunk. This means that per-capita you are far more likely to get in an accident if you are drunk.
 
LadyT said:
Oh. I'll take his place on this one:

Why are you people so discriminatory against drunken drivers. Its not like all of kill people on the road. Sober people get into accidents and quite frankly I drive better when I'm drunk. Why shouldn't I be allowed to drive drunk if I'm not breaking any laws?
Click to expand...

Good job, you have it down pat.
 
Damocles said:
Yet studies show that only 10% of the drivers are drunk. This means that per-capita you are far more likely to get in an accident if you are drunk.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Yeah. The statement was meant to be a funny non-sequitor, Damo. Of course drunk drivers cause more accidents per capita.
 
Watermark said:
Honestly... I don't think could've even won world war II like that. Able bodies young men are obviously a very important part of the military.

And what about those people who don't even know their former parents or guardians anymore?
Click to expand...

The same thing that would happen to them at the age of 17, it would be up to the state to decide whether they were competent enough and mature enough to make that decision.
 
Watermark said:
It would seriously cripple our military, Darla. There's no way we could fight a serious war with only people above 21. Honestly, that's really a lot more important than the drinking age.
Click to expand...

We could have an even bigger army if we dropped the legal age to 16, would that make it right? I understand what you are saying, but if you really think about it, and we never do because "that's just the way it is, and always has been", is an 18 year old really equipped to fight in a war?
 
Darla said:
We could have an even bigger army if we dropped the legal age to 16, would that make it right? I understand what you are saying, but if you really think about it, and we never do because "that's just the way it is, and always has been", is an 18 year old really equipped to fight in a war?
Click to expand...

If it's our nation on the line, Darla, yes, we are.
 
Darla said:
We could have an even bigger army if we dropped the legal age to 16, would that make it right? I understand what you are saying, but if you really think about it, and we never do because "that's just the way it is, and always has been", is an 18 year old really equipped to fight in a war?
Click to expand...
Absolutely yes an 18 year old is really equipped to fight in a war. He has better reaction times, hand eye coordiation, physical stamina and strength, especially after having gone through basic training. On the battlefield, decisons about who to shoot are easy to make. You shoot at thems that shoots at you. 18 year olds are not left to their own devices in the streets of Iraq. There are Non Commissioned Officers and Officers with the experience and knowledge to make the hard calls there. If we forbid service until 21, in an all voluntary army you would lose recruits, who would decide to do other things in those intervening years and our military would suffer for it. While I am greatly opposed to the piss poor way our fighting men and women are being utilized now, I am a supporter of a strong and capable military and that means 18 year old soldiers sailors airmen and marines.
 
I'd be okay with a zero tolerance rule for people under 21 i.e. if you drink and you register a .01 you get your license yanked. The real problem isn't them drinking, its them drinking and driving. I'd support tougher DUI punishments for people in that age bracket.
 
I think .02 would be better... you could get .01, honestly, from swallowing your listerine, or taking cough syrup. But you would've had to of taken a shot of something to get it to .02 or above.

But most state's already have such zero tolerance rules anyway.
 
Socrtease said:
Absolutely yes an 18 year old is really equipped to fight in a war. He has better reaction times, hand eye coordiation, physical stamina and strength, especially after having gone through basic training. On the battlefield, decisons about who to shoot are easy to make. You shoot at thems that shoots at you. 18 year olds are not left to their own devices in the streets of Iraq. There are Non Commissioned Officers and Officers with the experience and knowledge to make the hard calls there. If we forbid service until 21, in an all voluntary army you would lose recruits, who would decide to do other things in those intervening years and our military would suffer for it. While I am greatly opposed to the piss poor way our fighting men and women are being utilized now, I am a supporter of a strong and capable military and that means 18 year old soldiers sailors airmen and marines.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing whether or not they are physically capable. The question that needs to be asked is whether or not they are mentally and emotionally mature enough to make sound decisions, like whether or not they really want to join the military. If we have deemed people at age to not be mature enough to handle alchohol and driving, what makes that same group of individuals so equipped to be shipped off to a war zone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top