Drinking age

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.

Which is how it should be... you punish those that drink and drive and not everyone who happens to be a certain age.
 
Why not go one further and require one in every car?

heh

That's the kicker isn't it? Zealots will take it as an excuse to do exactly what you say. I'm just trying to come up with ways to cut down on youth drinking and driving in a more specific way than just banning all drinking in that age group.
 
Why not go one further and require one in every car?
YOu maybe jesting, but our legislators here in NM where trying to pass a law to do just that. Thanks to some calmer heads it did not pass but Richardson was going to sign it. THat was because the people that have the Interlock businesses donated mightly to Richardson's re-election campaign
 
heh

That's the kicker isn't it? Zealots will take it as an excuse to do exactly what you say. I'm just trying to come up with ways to cut down on youth drinking and driving in a more specific way than just banning all drinking in that age group.

Actually, I was quite serious. Would it hurt anyone anymore than say putting on a seatbelt?
 
Heck, I don't like sending 18 year old kids to die for oil companies, in foreign lands. That's why I vote for candidates who won't do that.

But, alcohol, and employment are VERY different things. Access to, and choice of, Employment is a fundamental human right: That whole life, liberty, and happiness thing that those wise men wrote about. Alcohol isn't even in that ball park.

If an 18 year old kid want to get a job in the army or national guard - to pay for college, support her or his baby; whatever - I'm not going to deny them that right.
 
Thinking about it, though, is there really any more complete measure to stop drunk driving? It would certainly cut down fatalties. Maybe even 10,000 a year or more. The only thing required would be for people to put there mouths to a little nozzle.
 
The other way you could REALLY cut down on DWI's is by having a really good nationwide pubic transportation system. Works in Germany, but then again American's are so attached to their cars. They would never take the bus or streetcars to get drunk. And toppers would scream to the heavens if the government paid for that kind of infrastructure.
 
I agree.............

Easy soloution raise the age for all items to 21.

This is how it was with me when growing up...I was in the military at 19 and was not that concerned about drinking as we could buy 3.5 beer at the military clubs...I was a happy camper! Kids need to have a goal and the 21 goal was a good start..kids need to be kids!;)
 
Last edited:
YOu maybe jesting, but our legislators here in NM where trying to pass a law to do just that. Thanks to some calmer heads it did not pass but Richardson was going to sign it. THat was because the people that have the Interlock businesses donated mightly to Richardson's re-election campaign

Outside of the the bribe issue...

What is the difference between installing one in every vehicle vs. having a restriction based on age? Driving is not a fundamental right. Why not restrict THAT rather than the drinking? Would that not also fall under the "for public safety" guidlines? Is that any different than having seat belt laws?
 
Thinking about it, though, is there really any more complete measure to stop drunk driving? It would certainly cut down fatalties. Maybe even 10,000 a year or more. The only thing required would be for people to put there mouths to a little nozzle.

Of course the downside is that some blond women might be in their cars for a while.... expecting some result from the blowing.
 
Right...........

The other way you could REALLY cut down on DWI's is by having a really good nationwide pubic transportation system. Works in Germany, but then again American's are so attached to their cars. They would never take the bus or streetcars to get drunk. And toppers would scream to the heavens if the government paid for that kind of infrastructure.


Not well traveled are ya?...Kids in Germany can drink beer in clubs/Guesthouses at sixteen( along with age of consent rights)...and alot of em drive...doh!
 
Outside of the the bribe issue...

What is the difference between installing one in every vehicle vs. having a restriction based on age? Driving is not a fundamental right. Why not restrict THAT rather than the drinking? Would that not also fall under the "for public safety" guidlines? Is that any different than having seat belt laws?

I'd rather have a little interlock device in my car than just not be able to drink at all. And if that's what it requires to get a majority on board with me, it's perfectly acceptable. The device isn't a big deal anyway.

The only problem I have with it is the ones that require you to do periodic breath tests while you're driving. Taking your eyes off the road even to do that is very dangerous, and vehicles with the devices installed actually have higher crash rates because of that.
 
The other way you could REALLY cut down on DWI's is by having a really good nationwide pubic transportation system. Works in Germany, but then again American's are so attached to their cars. They would never take the bus or streetcars to get drunk. And toppers would scream to the heavens if the government paid for that kind of infrastructure.

The main problem in America would be population density. I could see a major public transport system in, for instance, the northeast, but out in the mountain regions it'd just be crazy.
 
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?
If they aren't then we shouldn't allow them to vote either.
 
I think the voting age was lowered because it was kind of unethical to only draft 18-21 year olds only, who are the only people who can't vote.

One thing I worry about in putting the military age up to 21 will do is encourage people to deny 18 year olds the chance to participate in government, possibly discouraging them from ever going out to vote.
 
I think the voting age was lowered because it was kind of unethical to only draft 18-21 year olds only, who are the only people who can't vote.

One thing I worry about in putting the military age up to 21 will do is encourage people to deny 18 year olds the chance to participate in government, possibly discouraging them from ever going out to vote.
Well, if the argument is that they aren't wise enough to make choices for their own lives why would we allow them to make choices for other's lives?
 
Is the US (or parts of it) the only country in the world to have such a draconian legal age for consuming booze?

Just think, if you lowered it to 18 then you might become as good at drinking as us or the Irish. Cheers.

LOL... well some of us didnt pay much attintion to that law, i've had plenty of practice.

i would give oyu a run for your money!!!:tongout:
 
Not necessarily.
Your argument was that they weren't wise enough to make such decisions for themselves, if they are not wise enough for that they certainly are not wise enough to make decisions that will effect me.
 
Nah.............

Your argument was that they weren't wise enough to make such decisions for themselves, if they are not wise enough for that they certainly are not wise enough to make decisions that will effect me.



at nineteen I was old enough to kick ass,drink beer,vote and fight for my country....WWII ring a bell..nothing changes except politics...you joined at seventeen or so ya said..what was your experience based on reality?
 
Back
Top