Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/30/08 09:40 PM, poxpower wrote: Haha it's funny, you're saying americans are too stupid to drink responsibly so that's why we have to ban drinking till the age of 21. And not just any americans, college americans, the elite.

Did I stutter?

Plus, by that reasoning, people not in College should get to drink while people in college shouldn't?

... where the hell did I say or imply such a thing and what does it have to do with this conversation?

Right, your family can't control themselves, so let's punish everyone else.

Have you ever watched someone die from Cirrhosis of the Liver? Have you ever known someone who went to sleep drunk and never woke up because they choked on their own vomit in their sleep? Have you ever known someone to get so drunk that they look back on the shitty live they've lived that they go out and hang themselves from the nearest railroad trestle they can find?

And you want to sit there and tell me there's nothing wrong with giving minors alcohol in this country, when the studies have clearly shown that underage drinking leads to alcoholism later in life?

You're the worst kind of human being, pox.

And drowning.. people need a permit to swim now.

Appeal to Ridicule/Straw Man, which seems to be a favorite tactic of yours when you can't find something to actually refute someone's point with.

I'm not trying to convince 'lawmakers"

Oh that's right, you're trying to convince me, because I actually have the ability to write the law.

At 4/30/08 10:06 PM, Proteas wrote:

Did I stutter?

So then you couldn't possibly be ok with the idea of them voting and driving at that age, cause holy shit if you think they're too stupid to drink, they must be miles away from operating a motor vehicle or choosing candidates to represent ideas they haven't had any classes about yet.

... where the hell did I say or imply such a thing and what does it have to do with this conversation?

Well if you blame the frat mentality, hence the college environment for them drinking badly, so then if they were out of that environment, you could presume they would drink responsibly.
So then why punish them by making ALL kids not drink till 21 if you're so ready to blame the college mentality for it?
haha of course that's pretty hard to enforce anyways.

Have you ever watched someone die from Cirrhosis of the Liver? Have you ever known someone who went to sleep drunk and never woke up because they choked on their own vomit in their sleep? Have you ever known someone to get so drunk that they look back on the shitty live they've lived that they go out and hang themselves from the nearest railroad trestle they can find?

Nope.
Did you ever see someone burn alive? It must be pretty cool.

when the studies have clearly shown that underage drinking leads to alcoholism later in life?

How can you prove that those people weren't gonna be alcoholics anyways? It seems pretty obvious what kind of home a kid lives in when he gets his hand on liquor at the age of 15 and is alcoholic by the time he's old enough to vote.
I knew a kid who was trying to quit smoking when he was 8. Bad parents much?

Broken families create alcoholics and people with no discipline, not beer. Smart people drink beer like smart people no matter when you make them start. Tired of dumbshits blaming their abuse on substance instead of themselves. Boo hoo I'm on welfare yet I MUST SMOKE.

I knew idiots like that at a job I had. They made like 10 bucks an hour and went to a bar to gamble and smoke during their lunchbreaks. Yeah, smoking and drinking made them like that... oh wait no, they were dumbasses.

Appeal to Ridicule/Straw Man

You just don't want to accept you want to pass laws that punish people because of something that happened to you.

Oh that's right, you're trying to convince me, because I actually have the ability to write the law.

You can vote, can't you?

I always wondered how much those laws are actually respected in the US. You know, aside from what i see in the movies. Do they serve/sell it to minors in night clubs, grocerie stores, cafes, the 7/11 and such? And is an ID always necessary?

Here you can get it from the age at which you are verbaly able to ask for it, basically a four year old could buy it, hell you can brew it in your own garden for all that the authorities care. I drank wine in small doses on celebrations since i was 7 or 8 and got drunk when i was 14. But i guess thats fairly common in eastern europe anyway...

On a side note drinking from a young age actually works since it is usually introduced by the adults who know shit about drinking, not some retard friends who attemp to guzzle down a whole bottle of some hard drink and wind up in the hospital. In fact its not even that common for kids to drink in public here or just for the sake of getting drunk, when just about every bar or club is serving it at decent prices. Kids from 16-18 are common to drink beer in parks and such, but its barely even noticable, as i have yet to meet anyone who got seariously drunk, let alone ended up at the hospital from beer.

Honestly, this issue is a great thing to think about hypothetically, but one must consider the realistic ramifications of lowering the age. As soon as the age was lowered, all of the 18 and 19 year olds who had been drinking surreptitiously would all get hammered in a fit of legal binge drinking, just because they could. I truly believe that the nations college campuses would descend into a state of chaos. Eventually it would all even out, but the damage would be significant.
I say that it should be maintained, just because it is such a standard in our lives that so suddenly have it changed would disasterous.

At 4/30/08 09:31 PM, Proteas wrote:
You're on crack, pure and simple.

We the people not we the military people.

At 4/30/08 10:31 PM, poxpower wrote: So then you couldn't possibly be ok with the idea of them voting and driving at that age

American voters in that age group have the least voter turnout per election, they aren't voting anyway.

Well if you blame the frat mentality, hence the college environment for them drinking badly, so then if they were out of that environment, you could presume they would drink responsibly.

"Frat mentality" is just the easiest term to describe the mentality that surrounds the mythos of alcohol in the United States, it doesn't limited to people of college age in college setting. We all know or have known of people MILES away from college getting plastered out of their minds under the age of 18, and I don't like the idea of giving someone that irresponsible the ability to freely go out and buy alcohol.

You just don't want to accept you want to pass laws that punish people because of something that happened to you.

Who said I didn't want to accept that fact? I've seen what alcohol abuse leads to, it's not pretty and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

What I want to know is why you want to intentionally alter a law that you know has a greater potential for doing harm than it does good.

You can vote, can't you?

I can only vote on that which is presented to me, I can't write laws. You must have me confused with... a lawmaker.

At 5/1/08 12:57 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: We the people not we the military people.

That's not what your bumper sticker slogan implies.

At 5/1/08 04:47 PM, Proteas wrote: American voters in that age group have the least voter turnout per election, they aren't voting anyway.

So let's take it away. I mean, most young people don't become alcoholics or drunk drivers or die from it, so... let's make sure no one gets the right.

"Frat mentality" is just the easiest term to describe the mentality that surrounds the mythos of alcohol in the United States, it doesn't limited to people of college age in college setting.

At any rate, the alcohol ban came way waaaaaaay before the frat mentality, so you can't use that to justify said ban.

Who said I didn't want to accept that fact? I've seen what alcohol abuse leads to, it's not pretty and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

Well they do it to themselves.

What I want to know is why you want to intentionally alter a law that you know has a greater potential for doing harm than it does good.

Ok let's do it this way:
Let's say that 100 years ago, a religious group banned chocolate because it's FROM THE DEVIL ( same situation with alcohol, religious people banned it because it was immoral and lead to debauchery ).
So ok, now chocolate is banned.

Chocolate tastes great, but has no real health benefits. There's no reason to eat it, in fact the less chocolate there is around, the less obese people there will be.

Now, try and give me arguments to legalize chocolate again.

I can only vote on that which is presented to me, I can't write laws. You must have me confused with... a lawmaker.

Someone elects the people who make laws.

At 5/1/08 07:52 PM, poxpower wrote: So let's take it away. I mean, most young people don't become alcoholics or drunk drivers or die from it, so... let's make sure no one gets the right.

What are you on?

At any rate, the alcohol ban came way waaaaaaay before the frat mentality, so you can't use that to justify said ban.

I'm not supporting a "ban," I'm supporting a continued restriction, there is a difference, you're not getting away with trying to group me in with a bunch of religious zealots in order to destroy the credibility of my simply because you're not able to address my points.... AGAIN.

Well they do it to themselves.

And that justifies you're viewpoint on the matter? They do it to themselves anyway, why not make it easier for them to do it?

Ok let's do it this way:

No, I'm not playing you're games. You're the one trying to convince me that yours is the correct point of view, I'm not arguing your points for you and I'm not going to put up with this bait and switch bullshit from you again. Either argue your point or concede it.

Someone elects the people who make laws.

Someone who coincidentally isn't going to elect anyone who supports said measure, even IF they stood a chance at getting on the ballot to begin with.

At 5/1/08 10:49 PM, Proteas wrote: I'm not supporting a "ban," I'm supporting a continued restriction,

If you're under 21, you're banned from getting it.
Call it what you want, but you are legally allowed precisely 0 ounces of it.

And that justifies you're viewpoint on the matter? They do it to themselves anyway, why not make it easier for them to do it?

It's the price of freedom.
Some people are ready to even die for it. Humans are generally scared of freedom, of choices. Wouldn't it be great if, in your life, there was this mentor who could tell you everything you should do, eat, read, watch etc, knowing he was right?

Anyways, freedom is very important. Even freedom of stupid things like smoking.

No, I'm not playing you're games. You're the one trying to convince me that yours is the correct point of view, I'm not arguing your points for you and I'm not going to put up with this bait and switch bullshit from you again. Either argue your point or concede it.

You're asking me to give you a reason that can't possibly exist and using that to justify something that was firt restricted for bad reasons.

Of course I can't give 'good reasons' ( besides freedom but I guess that's not a good reason ) to unrestrict alcohol. Alcohol has no benefit whatsoever other than being enjoyable to drink.
Like chocolate, like pot, like roallercoasters, like motorcycles, like fly-fishing, like rafting, like skiing, like swimming in the ocean etc.

Think about it.
What if we banned motorcycles. No one can argue it's LESS dangerous to drive a car. It costs less insurance, less, money, it's more comfortable, seats more people, quieter, has radio...
So in the event that motorcycles were banned, what argument could anyone possibly ever have to unban them?

That's what you're asking I give you.

At 5/1/08 04:47 PM, Proteas wrote:
That's not what your bumper sticker slogan implies.

Wah.

If you're still talking abaout my first post, I was only halfway serious.

It's like. I can sign up to shoot guns and shit, I can vote, I can smoke tobacco. Why is alcohol different?

It just seems like a random number.

At 5/1/08 11:45 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: It's like. I can sign up to shoot guns and shit, I can vote, I can smoke tobacco. Why is alcohol different?

If you produce valid military ID, you will be served alcohol.

It just seems like a random number.

That's because alcohol is special. It helped man survive in dark times, but has morphed through time, like everything else that is natural. It is only fair that alcohol be given reverence for it's past services, but also acknowledged for what it is and does in the modern world.

Is that really asking so much? The driving, smoking and gambling age should all be 20-21, if age were any indicator of competence. Kids shouldn't drink alcohol, it fucks them up.

When do kids learn responsibility?

At 5/2/08 12:22 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:
When do kids learn responsibility?

When does anyone?

I know adults that aren't responsible.

At 5/2/08 12:23 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 5/2/08 12:22 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:
When do kids learn responsibility?

When does anyone?

When responsible people take the reins and start teaching the different levels to kids.

An irresponsible adult is still a kid, in case you aren't capable of discerning between the two.

I know adults that aren't responsible.

Sounds like a kid.

Are you helping them, or are you just a perverted acquaintance, or are you in the same boat?

Part of being responsible is helping others do the same.

Well my mistake I thought you were using the terms to describe age, because that's what the topic was about...

But yeah I agree with you.

And no, I'm not in league with old drunks lol speaking in general terms on that note.

At 5/2/08 12:22 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Is that really asking so much? The driving, smoking and gambling age should all be 20-21, if age were any indicator of competence.

See, that's my point.
Why single out alcohol?
??
Everywhere else, the age for adult things all stays bunched together, but then in the states, alcohol is bumped to 21 for no apparent reason other that irrational fear.

I'm not sure about 18...but at least 19 cause waiting till 21...that jsut encourages underage drinking basically lol so the lower the drinking age the less crime if you think about it....Up here in canada the drinking age is 18 in Quebec and 19 everywhere else....but some tools are trying to raise the age in Ontario to i think 21 which is bullshit...but w/e hopfully it all works out for the best

Cheers!

When your considered an adult then you should be allowed to do whatever you want. If some people think you should be only allowed to drink at age 21 then you shouldn't be considered an adult until then. Its quite stupid saying that "We think your old enough to be considered and adult, your free to make your own choices we feel your responsible enough to do so. But your not allowed to drink yet we can't trust you to make a responsible decision were only doing it for your own good."
If a youth is going to become a problemed drinker its got nothing to do with how old they are allowed to drink. Also whats the age your allowed to smoke in America?

At 5/2/08 12:50 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/2/08 12:22 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Is that really asking so much? The driving, smoking and gambling age should all be 20-21, if age were any indicator of competence.

See, that's my point.
Why single out alcohol?

It's special?

Societally, the Germans accept alcohol, it's part of their culture, has been for centuries. You're allowed beer at 16, though German children younger than 16 regularly consume it, often responsibly. Hard liquor, however, requires age 18 and proof of age. This system makes sense for Germans, since alcohol is culturally accepted, and also generally unabused in terms of overdose and/or drunk driving.

The federal government has chosen 21 in recognition of the allure and danger alcoholic misuse presents. State-by-state, the ages without federal regulation range from 16 to 21. Some counties are even 'dry', where the sale of alcohol is probihited throughout the county under penalty of law. Is this wrong, or does it accurately reflect the wide range of alcoholic uses, from fun recreational social aide to drunk driving with a .32.

We actually tried to ban it all out, based solely on the harm it's abusers wrought on society. The only reason that failed was because it was a failing idea. The idea that age 21 is a proper compromise in recognition of the benefits, due to a 21 year old's mere exposure to the adult world for the 3 years after 18, and 2 after 16.

Who buys alcohol for minors? Three types of people: bums in need of a quick buck, friends who find ways around the system, or parents who'd like their children to be exposed to alcohol proper.

With legal age 21, prosecution of booze-law breakers usually stick, as the defendants 'knew better'.

??
Everywhere else, the age for adult things all stays bunched together, but then in the states, alcohol is bumped to 21 for no apparent reason other that irrational fear.

Fear, or obligation?

Were the government to reduce the legal age without a fantastic reason, and teenage drinking deaths, teenage buyers purchasing for ever-younger teens and other shenanigans rose through the roof.. would you still call it an irrational fear?

At 5/1/08 11:34 PM, poxpower wrote: Anyways, freedom is very important. Even freedom of stupid things like smoking.

How's is granting minors the right to do themselves greater harm than good a right that people are willing to fight and die for?

That's what you're asking I give you.

No, it's not, I'm asking you to act like a reasonable adult and defend your viewpoint on the matter and all you've managed to do is make vague allusions to jingoistic delusions of grandeur and defeatist attitudes on the matter. You have no justifiable stance on this issue, much less anything you can use to convince someone else of your viewpoint. At this point you're no better than some six year old going "NUH UH!!!"

At 5/2/08 07:18 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

It's special?

Everything is special.
You can tack on that one extra thing onto anything to make it 'special' and then pretend like it's a valid argument.
Wow, smoking is special. Driving is special.
Yeah really convincing.

and also generally unabused in terms of overdose and/or drunk driving.

"This is understandable when you realize that a German driver's license costs about $1500-2000, after a minimum of 25-45 hours of professional instruction plus 12 hours of theory, and such a license is good for life."

http://www.german-way.com/driving.html

No shit. Here, we practically give licenses away. Any mentally retarded moron with one arm and an IQ passably higher than a snail can get behind the wheel of a hummer at the age of 16, no less.

Here in canada, driving classes cost like 500 bucks, you don't have to have theory classes before taking the practical courses and it's only like 10 hours or so. And you don't even really need it, it just helps you get your license faster. Anyone can take the pratical test if they pass the theory once and it's really REALLY easy. You can go online and answer test questions for practice and they are the same as the actual exam.

If the school system was like that, EVERYONE would get As.

I find it pathetic that people would be ready to blame alcohol when there's just about the same level of drunk drivers in the 16-34 age range anyways. Kids are notoriously bad drivers.

As for their culture, all I know is that germans, people from Australia, the United Kingdom etc. are mean drunks, just like americans. They have the same mentality about alcohol: drink beers and shots of liquor till you get rip-roaring drunk and then go fight and get into trouble.

It's not the same in places like France or Italy ( so I'm told ). They drink alcohol more often but more casualy, i.e. they don't binge-drink.

That's what I hear. At any rate, us americans aren't worse than the germans :O

Some counties are even 'dry', where the sale of alcohol is probihited throughout the county under penalty of law. Is this wrong, or does

Those countries are usually Islamic countries.
Take a guess as to what I think about their banning of things. I don't know of any first-world country where alcohol is currently banned.

Fear, or obligation?

Seeing as you guys are the only one and your culture isn't as different as you try to pretend, I'd say you're the laughing stock of everyone else in the world ( again ).

would you still call it an irrational fear?

again the same argument for security at the expense of freedom.
It's always very seductive but a bad one at the root. Everyone is afraid of having freedom and of others having freedom when it comes to dangerous stuff like guns, cars, alcohol, drugs, knives and even lesser things like some sports, school bullying etc.
No one wants to be the victim of some horrible accident when those things are involved. But, though shit, it's the nature of life. If you can't control yourself, fuck you.

And let me remind you that I think the penalty for drunk driving should be REALLY, REALLY SEVERE.

At 5/2/08 11:03 AM, Proteas wrote:

How's is granting minors the right to do themselves greater harm than good a right that people are willing to fight and die for?

How are 18 year olds minors?

That's what you're asking I give you.

No, it's not, I'm asking you to act like a reasonable adult and defend your viewpoint on the matter

No, you have to fucking realize you're asking me an impossible proof, one that you yourlself could NEVER, EVER give.
YOu haven't even tried, you just keep on the attack.

Try it, you'll see exactly what I mean. Here, gambling is now illegal for anyone under 21, try to find arguments to bring it back down to 18.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. There are NONE. It's stupid to ask me to give them and act like I can't because I am 'immature" or whatever crap.

Why is 18 not old enough to do all these things and 21 the right age? Or would you all rather you couldn't vote under 40?

Like, I think 18 is a fine age to act like an adult. Your parents want you out by that time.

At 5/2/08 11:55 AM, poxpower wrote: How are 18 year olds minors?

Was I somehow mistaken in the beleif that you wanted the drinking age lowered beyond 18?

No, you have to fucking realize you're asking me an impossible proof, one that you yourlself could NEVER, EVER give.

No, it's not impossible. I've given you all the reasons why I think it shouldn't be lowered, along with evidence to back up said point of view, and all I'm asking is for you to do the same and you have as yet to do so.

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. There are NONE. It's stupid to ask me to give them and act like I can't because I am 'immature" or whatever crap.

Then guess what? You have a viewpoint that is indefensible, and as such cannot be seriously expect anyone to take said viewpoint seriously.

Seriously man, we need to lower the drinking level. If you followed the link above, you will notice that we are the ONLY country in the whole freaking world with a 21+ drinking law. As the person who made this original post said, the youth of america finds it intriguing and it looks cool, so they want to do it younger and younger, and If we followed the footsteps of our friends in Europe, and lowered the drinking age, then not only would we reduce the accidents and overdrinking with minors, but we could slowly introduce them to achohol earlier, so they don't just drown their system with it later because they weren't given enough earlier. So I for one am for an 18+ drinking age.

Pox the reason they can't ban alcahol for those ages is because prohibition in general didn't work, plus, drinking restriction bubbles [you can't drink between the ages of] Would probably fail as well.

There is really only one other measure that can be taken as opposed to raising the drinking age; and it requires a different mentality of the human race.

If we ever get to a point where the overwhelming majority of people are atheists, we can return to regarding humans as beasts of burden and lives as 'Cells with thoughts'. I really, honestly, have no problem with the idea of executing people who got into car crashes with DWI's. I can Guarantee you that the number of alcahol related driving incidents would tank; they're lives are worthless if they can do nothing but damage the order of society for their own personal benefit.

Hey, the Christians did it too at one point, and crime rates were VERY low.

Doing this would be the most freedom oriented legislation possible; because the only other way to deter teens from drinking is Quasi-brain washing education about that sort of thing, or completely destroying the pop culture industry to a more conformist traditionalist style.

Personally, i prefer execution.

I am in full support of lowering the drinking age below 21. I would like it to be 18, but I am aware that means alcohol would be available in highschools. Not only that, but teachers and students would be drinking together in bars, creating awkward situations for both. That being said I would be fine with a drinking age of 19. Out of highschools but still in the hands of the adults, who are considered adults at 18 years of age.

But looking at this situation realistically I think there is some validity to an argument that immediately lowering the drinking age to 18 would cause binge drinking and a huge increase in minor drinkers. It would most likely happen, but for the same reason it happens to 21 year olds who can now drink. Alcohol, the Forbidden Fruit of America, would immediately be free for consumption.

To realistically lower the drinking age without causing problems would require a complete overhaul of how this country teaches about alcohol, drugs, sex, tobacco, and anything else "bad". America for the most part teaches it's youth that abstinence and avoidance of everything "bad" is the best way to live life. In doing so this creates the Forbidden Fruit of whatever is being taught against, whether it be sex or alcohol.

What needs to happen is a change in teaching. Abstinence education doesn't work very well. I know this from personal experience. After hearing about the evils of drugs for ten or more years, you get sick of it. You want to try the Forbidden Fruit to see if it's really so bad. Some have the sense to do it maturely and responsibley but others will be fools and binge on it.

Moderation should be taught if nothing else. Almost anything "bad" for you can be done in moderation. Drinking in moderation can keep you safe and healthy. Eating chocolate in moderation gives you joy and helps you remain healthy as long as you eat right and excercise too. Playing video games for a little bit in between homework and chilling with friends time won't make you a social outcast who lives in a basement his/her whole life. If moderation is taught in highschool, as well as teaching when to know your limits, which takes personal practice, than irresponsable drinking habbits would be lowered. That doesn't mean people won't go to a party and get wasted once in their life, but it means everytime they drink they won't get wasted and have the potential of killing themselves either by alcohol poisoning or drunk driving.

A realistic plan for lowering the drinking age should be a five to ten year period of curriculum change in schools across the country. Teaching responsibility and moderation instead of, "IT'S EVIL!!!". Then do some type of study to see if it's working. Underage drinking will still continue during this period, know one can deny that. But look to see if the new generation of drinkers are having less problems with alcohol than the previous generation.

Next lower the drinking age to 19. Study it. See if it works. Continue moderation teaching. If over the course of ten to twenty years things get worse, then obviously American culture can not handle a lower drinking age. But nothing is to stop America from changing into a culture of moderation and responsibility rather than fear of the Forbidden Fruit. This teaching will go farther than alcohol too. It may even spread to helping the obesity problem America is having these days.

In response to arguments that most 18 year olds won't join the military and use the argument of "Im old enough to die, Im old enough to drink" just for their own purposes, consider this. In America, an 18 year old must register with the armed services just in case our government decides it needs the draft again. This means, theoretically, right out of highschool I can be drafted to fight. If this happens, I deserve to be able to drink before I go off and risk my life.
Chances are this will never happen, but it's something that must be considered.

... is it just me, or are the only folk's calling for the age to be lowered Canadians and U.S. minors?

At 5/2/08 12:18 PM, Proteas wrote: Was I somehow mistaken in the beleif that you wanted the drinking age lowered beyond 18?

Apparently.
If you want to make all adults things 25, fine, that makes sense. If you want to make it 14 ( like in Islamist countries ) fine.
But don't spread it around in a weird way.

Man I felt like a moron going in the states while we were all 21 and my friend was 20. We come from Canada and now he has to sit out on the drinking while we get to? It's just a really weird situation.

There clearly are no good arguments for choosing what age you want to set alcohol at. Anywhere in the 16-25 range could work. So if you pick one, pick the same one for everything.

Then guess what? You have a viewpoint that is indefensible, and as such cannot be seriously expect anyone to take said viewpoint seriously.

You're making a logical mistake akin to asking me to prove a negative.
YOu have no arguments as to why it should be exactly 21 years old. All you have is that it kills young people, and stat show it goes all the way to 34.
Why not 34? Why not 22?
There's no reasons to pick any random number and you can't give such a reason yet you ask that I give one as to why we should pick 18 instead of 21.

Well why not 23 instead of 21? Why not 20? Why not 30?
You can't answer.

At 5/2/08 11:55 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/2/08 07:18 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

It's special?

Everything is special.

Great rebuttel. I guess you aren't familiar with alcohol, at all.

You can tack on that one extra thing onto anything to make it 'special' and then pretend like it's a valid argument.
Wow, smoking is special. Driving is special.
Yeah really convincing.

Adulthood is special, too, pox.

and also generally unabused in terms of overdose and/or drunk driving.

"This is understandable when you realize that a German driver's license costs about $1500-2000, after a minimum of 25-45 hours of professional instruction plus 12 hours of theory, and such a license is good for life."

And it can be revoked for life too, if you abuse it.

If the school system was like that, EVERYONE would get As.

Do you enjoy going on tangents?

I find it pathetic that people would be ready to blame alcohol when there's just about the same level of drunk drivers in the 16-34 age range anyways. Kids are notoriously bad drivers.

So we should make it legal for them to consume in the 16-20 range? Sounds like you're arguing against your own addled argument.

As for their culture, all I know is that germans, people from Australia, the United Kingdom etc. are mean drunks, just like americans.

You're just a pussy, trust me.

They have the same mentality about alcohol: drink beers and shots of liquor till you get rip-roaring drunk and then go fight and get into trouble.

That's true of a few troubled individuals, yes. Others just get rip-roaring drunk and die.

It's not the same in places like France or Italy ( so I'm told ). They drink alcohol more often but more casualy, i.e. they don't binge-drink.

You mean it's socially accepted, like what I originally claimed?

That's what I hear. At any rate, us americans aren't worse than the germans :O

No, we're different. It's like soveriegnty and stuff.

Some counties are even 'dry', where the sale of alcohol is probihited throughout the county under penalty of law. Is this wrong, or does

Those countries are usually Islamic countries.

Counties, dunderhead.

Take a guess as to what I think about their banning of things. I don't know of any first-world country where alcohol is currently banned.

?

Fear, or obligation?

Seeing as you guys are the only one and your culture isn't as different as you try to pretend, I'd say you're the laughing stock of everyone else in the world ( again ).

Yeah, we feel bad because other countries laugh at our legal drinking age.

You come off stupider and stupider every time I read a post of yours.

would you still call it an irrational fear?

again the same argument for security at the expense of freedom.

So, yes. Great.

And let me remind you that I think the penalty for drunk driving should be REALLY, REALLY SEVERE.

...why?

At 5/2/08 06:15 PM, dirtshake wrote: I am in full support of lowering the drinking age below 21. I would like it to be 18, but I am aware that means alcohol would be available in highschools. Not only that, but teachers and students would be drinking together in bars, creating awkward situations for both. That being said I would be fine with a drinking age of 19. Out of highschools but still in the hands of the adults, who are considered adults at 18 years of age.

Considering one of my friends came to school about as wasted as a junk yard today, I'd consider it available in high schools right now, wouldn't you? Besides, you can stay back twice in my school district before they send you over to the special program to graduate, so there's 19 year olds in abundance. Booze, yay!

But looking at this situation realistically I think there is some validity to an argument that immediately lowering the drinking age to 18 would cause binge drinking and a huge increase in minor drinkers. It would most likely happen, but for the same reason it happens to 21 year olds who can now drink. Alcohol, the Forbidden Fruit of America, would immediately be free for consumption.

How about the health classes start teaching about moderation instead of just NO IT'S WRONG! All the time. They do the same fucking when teaching about sex, I remember this one powerpoint we watched, the last slide was just a blue background with the word ABSTINENCE on it in huge ass letters.

To realistically lower the drinking age without causing problems would require a complete overhaul of how this country teaches about alcohol, drugs, sex, tobacco, and anything else "bad". America for the most part teaches it's youth that abstinence and avoidance of everything "bad" is the best way to live life. In doing so this creates the Forbidden Fruit of whatever is being taught against, whether it be sex or alcohol.

Which will never happen because that simply makes too much sense, and sense goes against everything the public school system believes in.

What needs to happen is a change in teaching. Abstinence education doesn't work very well. I know this from personal experience. After hearing about the evils of drugs for ten or more years, you get sick of it. You want to try the Forbidden Fruit to see if it's really so bad. Some have the sense to do it maturely and responsibley but others will be fools and binge on it.

See above.

Moderation should be taught if nothing else. Almost anything "bad" for you can be done in moderation. Drinking in moderation can keep you safe and healthy. Eating chocolate in moderation gives you joy and helps you remain healthy as long as you eat right and excercise too. Playing video games for a little bit in between homework and chilling with friends time won't make you a social outcast who lives in a basement his/her whole life. If moderation is taught in highschool, as well as teaching when to know your limits, which takes personal practice, than irresponsable drinking habbits would be lowered. That doesn't mean people won't go to a party and get wasted once in their life, but it means everytime they drink they won't get wasted and have the potential of killing themselves either by alcohol poisoning or drunk driving.

Hey my parents have been letting me have a full beer or a few ever since I was about fourteen, and before that they let me have at the very least sips every now and then. They made damn sure that I knew that while alcohol could be cool and the drinking age was 21, that alcohol really isn't a big deal. I do agree with you, but there's always going to be dumbasses in the world.

A realistic plan for lowering the drinking age should be a five to ten year period of curriculum change in schools across the country. Teaching responsibility and moderation instead of, "IT'S EVIL!!!". Then do some type of study to see if it's working. Underage drinking will still continue during this period, know one can deny that. But look to see if the new generation of drinkers are having less problems with alcohol than the previous generation.

More then likely they will have less problems, considering schools never teach about moderation right now, and most people like giving school the finger every chance they get.

Next lower the drinking age to 19. Study it. See if it works. Continue moderation teaching. If over the course of ten to twenty years things get worse, then obviously American culture can not handle a lower drinking age. But nothing is to stop America from changing into a culture of moderation and responsibility rather than fear of the Forbidden Fruit. This teaching will go farther than alcohol too. It may even spread to helping the obesity problem America is having these days.

Huzzah, less fat kids and less parents bitching about how mcdonald's makes their children fat!

In response to arguments that most 18 year olds won't join the military and use the argument of "Im old enough to die, Im old enough to drink" just for their own purposes, consider this. In America, an 18 year old must register with the armed services just in case our government decides it needs the draft again. This means, theoretically, right out of highschool I can be drafted to fight. If this happens, I deserve to be able to drink before I go off and risk my life.
Chances are this will never happen, but it's something that must be considered.

Let's put it this way, if I get drafted, I'm bringing a full keg not of Heineken or Guinness, but of Maker's Mark, Captain Morgan, or Jack Daniel's.

I don't even think that you need to make it as convuluted as that. THe reason for age restrictions on alcohol is not just about the damage that it can do to the body, but more about the damage that binge drinking does to the body.

France have avoided binge drinking by making drinking a cultural aspect, rather than a youth culture aspect. I think the whole world should follow suit.