Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/2/08 07:31 PM, poxpower wrote:

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

Why does it have to be all values above and below 21?

even if 21 is an inappropriate number, if there is no appropriate number, then what is the fuss?. Let it be 21 instead of other equally inapropriate numbers such as 75, 3.14, 216, 14, 25, 35, 49, and so on, so forth.

___________________________________

And another thing.. Since the point of lowering the drinking age is also to keep alcohol out of school. Even if the drinking age was lowered, you still shouldn't be drinking; except for one thing, you would STILL BE DRINKING.

So screw the fact that the law is bad, i'm angrier at the fact that implying such is almost admitting to breaking the law, and if not breaking the law, legalizing a behaviour that will lead to your endangerment of others; that really pisses me off.

At 5/2/08 09:44 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

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

So what makes alcohol special? Does it give me superpowers?
What does that mean "alcohol is speci

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

So why don't we do that instead of keeping the alcohol to 21? Why not both while we're at it?

So we should make it legal for them to consume in the 16-20 range?

Specifically, the 18-20 range.
Plus how does trying to turn the question back on me diminish the fact that you got proven wrong right there saying that kids were especially prone to drunk driving and blabla.
own up son.

You're just a pussy, trust me.

Drinking contest?
K well I would say I can drink 10-12 beers in a night. Based on every definition of excessive/binge-drinking that is legally used, that's abuse. I'm canadian and every student apartment I ever went in had a stack of beer cases in it.

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.

Er you said that the entire german culture was about drinking so that made them more responsible. That's more than "a few troubled individuals" last time I checked.

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.

Different how? They're just as bad drinkers as Americans, if not worse.

Counties, dunderhead.

Well they are usually catholic, which is the same deal.
Or mormons. Whatever, those places are under the influence of some irrational religious bullshit shenanigan.

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

Yes, be proud to be laughed at. Nothing is wrong with you guys, it's just EVERYONE ELSE.
DAMN YOU, METRIC SYSTEM, WE KNOW WHAT'S WHAT.

So, yes. Great.

Why don't you wear a helmet everywhere you go? I can't think of any argument that you could make about a helmet increasing your risk of accident.
Man, I'm a genius, I will pass a law that forces people to wear helmets!

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

...why?

Because it's impossibly irresponsible and needs to be discouraged without taking everyone's right to enjoy alcohol intelligently.

At 5/2/08 10:16 PM, ZeroAsALimit wrote:

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.

Aw but then binge-drinking would be lame.
FUCKING FRENCHIES ALWAYS TRYING TO MAKE US LOOK STUPID.

At 5/2/08 10:20 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 5/2/08 07:31 PM, poxpower wrote:

Why does it have to be all values above and below 21?

No reason other than synching all the "adult" things.
By the time you're 21, you're in college and possibly living alone. It's pretty stupid to not be able to drink but be able to go get a gun and shoot someone or drive a Hummer into a concrete pillar. Here's a list of cool things you can do when you're 19-20 and living alone in college:

- Take a roadtrip to mexico
- Buy a chainsaw and attach it to a shotgun ( awesome )
- Stab a guy with a knife and be tried as an adult ( laaaaaaame )
- Operate heavy machinery at a construction site
- Vote for Mayor
- Subscribe to "She Loves the Horse Dick.com" with your real name and info
- Own a credit card
- Be the legal guardian of a kid
- Prostitute yourself ( in Nevada at least )

add to it as much as you want.

OH BUT HOLD ON THERE SON, ARE YOU TRYING TO DRINK THAT KEYSTONE LITE? GIMME YOUR ID!

High school is over when you're 19 in the states, that's a suitable social cutting point for "adulthood" I would think, so make it 19, like in Ontario. We're done by the time we're 18 here in Quebec, so it's 18.
It just makes sense.

The government is not your mommy.

Limiting any form of consuming things, on a personal level. Is ridiculous.

If people have problems in that area it's a medical problem. Making it a legal problem wastes money.

The purchase of alcohol would go WAY up if they lowered it I bet. money = good for the economy

I Say they do change it because if your are 18 you are allowed to go to war. Soldier- Im 18, im going to war for this country and im going to sacrifice my life but i cant drink bear? TEH FUX?!?!

At 4/30/08 04:59 AM, Black487 wrote:

First point: What makes Switzerland's 14 year olds and Germany's 16 year olds more mature than the United States 18-20 year olds?

Yes, i agree. did you know that germany doesn't allow you to drive until you're 21? i think this is a good idea, teach them how to moderate themselves before teaching them how to drive. i think its a good idea, but that may just be because i can't drive yet.

Yeah but i think they should lower it. They let you risk your life and you cant drink some beer? Common seriously.

At 5/2/08 10:41 PM, poxpower wrote: It just makes sense.

It also makes sense that Canada and the U.S. are still two very different cultures, and that applying one cultural standard to another country will not have the same results there as it will here, and you're not even attempting to address the issue of what will actually happen here if such a thing were to happen.

At 5/3/08 11:46 AM, Proteas wrote: It also makes sense that Canada and the U.S. are still two very different cultures

How so? They seem to be on about an equal level.

At 5/3/08 11:46 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 5/2/08 10:41 PM, poxpower wrote: It just makes sense.

It also makes sense that Canada and the U.S. are still two very different cultures, and that applying one cultural standard to another country will not have the same results there as it will here, and you're not even attempting to address the issue of what will actually happen here if such a thing were to happen.

People will buy more alcohol?

Kids will drink at home legally with their rents instead of sneaking about?

At 5/2/08 10:41 PM, poxpower wrote:

High school is over when you're 19 in the states, that's a suitable social cutting point for "adulthood" I would think, so make it 19, like in Ontario. We're done by the time we're 18 here in Quebec, so it's 18.
It just makes sense.

Adulthood is relative to the life expectancy, in my opinion unless you are someone of great character the age of 21 is still to low to drink; but anything higher becomes obsurd. There is no way to win, no way to stop, and giving people the right to drink only makes you fair but doesn't have any hope at saving lives of people who fall victim to incompitence.

At 5/3/08 11:57 AM, hippl5 wrote: How so? They seem to be on about an equal level.

In that Canada has had a lower-than-21-drinking age now for quite some time, and it's not seen as a big deal. Whereas here in the states we still have the age 21 drinking age limit and alcohol IS seen as a big deal. Arbitrarily lowering that age to match other countries does not take this into account, and relying on a generation of "parents" to the right thing by their kids when it comes to alcohol is overly optimistic at best.

They already have it illegally. Again needlessly making it a legal problem and wasting money.

I completely agree lots ofpeople aren't responsible, but you shouldn't waste money on them.

At 5/3/08 11:46 AM, Proteas wrote:

It also makes sense that Canada and the U.S. are still two very different cultures, and that applying one cultural standard to another country will not have the same results there as it will here, and you're not even attempting to address the issue of what will actually happen here if such a thing were to happen.

What are you talking about? English canadians are cut from the exact same mold as just about every american. There's nothing more similar to the average american than the average canadian. You couldn't tell them apart if you tried.

At 5/3/08 12:19 PM, Proteas wrote:

In that Canada has had a lower-than-21-drinking age now for quite some time, and it's not seen as a big deal. Whereas here in the states we still have the age 21 drinking age limit and alcohol IS seen as a big deal.

Welcome to circular logicville.
"Well we're different cause our drinking age is higher so we can't lower it because we're different because it's higher, you see? "

Somehow, 21 year old americans act like 21 year old canadians, but 18-20 year old americans would go OUT OF CONTROOOOOOOOL!

p.s. way to dodge my last post entirely. Still waiting for your arguments on why we should lower tha age of chocolate consumption to 18. OOPS YOU CAN'T.

At 5/2/08 10:41 PM, poxpower wrote:

High school is over when you're 19 in the states, that's a suitable social cutting point for "adulthood" I would think, so make it 19, like in Ontario. We're done by the time we're 18 here in Quebec, so it's 18.
It just makes sense.

Actually, most people here finish school at age 18 too.

I'd just like to say this.

Poxpower = Badass.

I had this exact same debate with Proteas a couple of months ago, but it didn't feel like I really got my point across.

Now however, I'm happily content with simply pointing at all of Pox's post in this thread and say, yeah, pretty much that. I completely and utterly agree with him.

Thanks Pox. You're awesome dude.

well it really doesn't matter what the drinking age is people will still find ways to get alcohol whether they steal it have someone buy it for them or someone just gives it to them. but I think we should leave the drinking age right where it is.

At 5/3/08 01:12 PM, poxpower wrote: "Well we're different cause our drinking age is higher so we can't lower it because we're different because it's higher, you see? "

Our drinking age is higher and there is a "forbidden fruit" ethos surrounding alcohol, whereas in Canada it is a lower age and there is no such ethos. That's a cultural difference, that's what I've been saying, that's what you have been wholesale IGNORING time and time again Pox.

You are trying to legislate a cultural shift that actually needs to start in the home, not the legislature, and this whole thought process runs counter to the idea put forth by some here that "government has no right to involve itself in the private lives of the citizens."

Circular logic my hairy white ass.

Still waiting for your arguments on why we should lower tha age of chocolate consumption to 18. OOPS YOU CAN'T.

I'm not arguing your points for you, get over yourself.

At 5/4/08 09:19 PM, Proteas wrote:

Our drinking age is higher and there is a "forbidden fruit" ethos surrounding alcohol,
whereas in Canada it is a lower age and there is no such ethos. That's a cultural difference, that's what I've been saying, that's what you have been wholesale IGNORING time and time again Pox.

Er you just pretty much said it's anything BUT cultural haha.
"It's a forbidden fruit because it's banned till 21 because it's a forbidden fruit" is your reasoning here...

You are trying to legislate a cultural shift that actually needs to start in the home, not the legislature, and this whole thought process runs counter to the idea put forth by some here that "government has no right to involve itself in the private lives of the citizens."

How on earth could kids from 18-20 ever learn to drink moderately WHEN ALCOHOL IS ILLEGAL FOR THEM???
You're asking that they do something impossible and THEN you'll agree to lower the age. Plus you can't even claim it since the entire current generation has been raised under this "21 and over" rule hence you'd never know if kids 18-20 could moderate themselves.
YOu'll NEVER know.

You'll keep it banned simply out of fear.

Still waiting for your arguments on why we should lower the age of chocolate consumption to 18. OOPS YOU CAN'T.

I'm not arguing your points for you, get over yourself.

So basically you know you're asking an impossible and meaningless proof.

At 4/30/08 04:59 AM, Black487 wrote: Common arguments (and for good reason) are if someone is legally old enough to have the following responsibilities: Die for your country, be forced to register for the national draft, pay taxes, hold jury duty, sign legally binding documents, get married, own a home, elect our representatives, adopt a child, and be held accountable for your actions, one should be old enough to have a beer after doing them.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. If someone is old enough to die for their country, they should be old enough to drink alcohol.

I can't really relate to this properly, though, as I'm canadian and we can drink at 18 up here.

Sorry neighbours... come up here maybe?

At 5/4/08 11:34 PM, poxpower wrote: "It's a forbidden fruit because it's banned till 21 because it's a forbidden fruit" is your reasoning here...

Drop off the last portion of "because it's a forbidden fruit" line and you'll have my logic on the matter right.

How on earth could kids from 18-20 ever learn to drink moderately WHEN ALCOHOL IS ILLEGAL FOR THEM???

If parents would do their job and treat alcohol as no big thing, then teens could learn alcohol moderation in a safe and supervised environment, and then legislation aimed at lowering the age of consumption might stand a chance.

What you intend to do is legislate the matter and take parents out of the equation, then let the kids figure out their own behavior toward alcohol on their own.

YOu'll NEVER know.

And your argument basically consists of "YOU PUSSY! LOWER IT AND LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS, THEIR ADULTS AFTERALL!" What benefit to society does that have? What incentive is there?

So basically you know you're asking an impossible and meaningless proof.

If you're not going to waste your time arguing your own points, why should I waste my time arguing them for you?

It doesn't say much about your point, now does it?

Why not just do away with the age limit altogether?

Most people are responsible enough.

At 5/5/08 10:36 PM, MattBlackguard wrote: Why not just do away with the age limit altogether?

Most people are responsible enough.

Doing away with the age limit would solve some problems, but it would probably introduce even more.

If we were to provide equal access to alcohol for everyone, we would have - literally - kids running around drunk, at least part of the time. If a lot of adults can't handle themselves when they're drinking, who's to say that significantly less experienced kids will do much better?

And I'm not totally sure, but I have a feeling that introducing alcohol to minors could have some adverse health effects... If kids drank alcohol like they do juice and pop and whatever else they drink, their livers would kill them for it, metaphorically.

At 5/5/08 10:31 PM, Proteas wrote:

Drop off the last portion of "because it's a forbidden fruit" line and you'll have my logic on the matter right.

So alcohol is just a forbidden fruit specifically in the geographical borders of the United States, which has an alcohol culture quite similar to Canada, Great Britain, Australia etc. except for ONE SINGLE THING: it's banned for anyone under 21... for "cultural" reasons.

yes, of course.

If parents would do their job and treat alcohol as no big thing, then teens could learn alcohol moderation in a safe and supervised environment, and then legislation aimed at lowering the age of consumption might stand a chance.

Let's see... how do parents express that alcohol is a big deal... hmmm
OH, RIGHT, THEY FORBID KIDS FROM DRINKING IT... hmm why again? OH YEAH, IT'S NOT LEGAL.

Maybe if the country would stop pretending like drinking alcohol will lead us all to ruin, then you guys could learn.

Yeah that's a pretty bold thing to ask "ok we're making this illegal and forbidden, so please teach your kids that it's not a big deal at all... move along, nothing to see here... alcohol is just "normal" that's why it's banned for everyone under 21"

And your argument basically consists of "YOU PUSSY! LOWER IT AND LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS, THEIR ADULTS AFTERALL!"

Yeah, nothing happened in every other place who did it. You just want to find some bogus reasons why somehow americans are too stupid to drink moderately.

At 4/30/08 07:12 PM, Proteas wrote:

That's the best you can come up with? Risk creating a new generation of alcoholics because you want 18 to 20 year olds the ability to drink without hiding it?

Lame.

Yes, and it's a damn good enough reason.

The burden of proof rests on those arguing to increas level of bureaucratic control over peoples lives. It's not OUR job to prove why the government SHOULDN'T step on me.

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

Have you ever watched someone die from Cirrhosis of the Liver?

Yes.

And he was over 21, blowing your entire argument to shit.

At 5/6/08 12:54 AM, poxpower wrote: yes, of course.

The forbidden fruit mentality stems from the fact that alcohol is restricted for people under 21. I thought I made that clear.

You know what, I want to say something insanely simple and see how much a field day you have with twisting it around on me.

The sky is sometimes blue.

GO!

Yeah that's a pretty bold thing to ask "ok we're making this illegal and forbidden, so please teach your kids that it's not a big deal at all... move along, nothing to see here... alcohol is just "normal" that's why it's banned for everyone under 21"

That's what my folks did with me. I had access to beer, whiskey, rum, tequila, gin, drink mixes and bartending books since as far back as I can remember, but it was never made a big deal of in my house therefore I don't see it as a big deal now. However, having seen what it CAN do to people in excess amounts, I don't particularly like the idea of minors who weren't raised in such a laisez-fair environment and DO see it as a big deal having free access to it.

Yeah, nothing happened in every other place who did it. You just want to find some bogus reasons why somehow americans are too stupid to drink moderately.

.... weren't you the one ranting about how stupid Americans are in general in the religious discussion we had last week?

And now you want me to believe that you honestly think Americans responsible enough to adopt European standards when it comes to alcohol?

At 5/6/08 05:13 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Yes, and it's a damn good enough reason.

I don't think so. Convince me otherwise.

The burden of proof rests on those arguing to increas level of bureaucratic control over peoples lives. It's not OUR job to prove why the government SHOULDN'T step on me.

I'm not arguing to increase anything, just that the status quo remain as such. Your job is to convince me and people like me that the status quo should be changed to favor those under 18.

At 5/6/08 05:17 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: And he was over 21, blowing your entire argument to shit.

Of course he was, Cirrohsis is the end result of years of regular abuse that is tied into alcohol addiction, addiction which you are arguing in favor of creating by allowing the age to be lowered.

What's you're point again?

And I have as yet to see anyone address MY point about Canadians and minors being the only proponents of such legislation on here, much less the fact that a recent Gallup Poll showed that 77% of those over 21 vehemntly appose lowering the drinking age to the point that they wish to increase the penalties for such activities?

At 5/6/08 09:26 PM, Proteas wrote:

The forbidden fruit mentality stems from the fact that alcohol is restricted for people under 21. I thought I made that clear.

Yes, I GET IT, that's why I'm telling you it's stupid to ask for them to FIRST stop thinking it's a forbidden fruit to THEN lower the age, if your entire argument is that it's a "forbidden fruit" BECAUSE of the restriction.

complete circular logic :O

I believe in God because the bible says he's real and I believe the bible because it was written by God.

That's what my folks did with me. I had access to beer, whiskey, rum, tequila, gin, drink mixes and bartending books since as far back as I can remember, but it was never made a big deal of in my house therefore I don't see it as a big deal now.

So basically your parents were breaking the law and you think that's great that the only way for people to ever learn about something before it's legalized is to break the law.

.... weren't you the one ranting about how stupid Americans are in general in the religious discussion we had last week?

Yes indeed. They're hella stupid for believing that bullshit, but it's a separate field of mind than drinking.
People grasp drinking. It's easy to understand. "Faith" is something you need a triple-digit IQ to realize is stupid apparently.

Even monkeys know how to drink: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnXQk5EGx Ko

And now you want me to believe that you honestly think Americans responsible enough to adopt European standards when it comes to alcohol?

The average IQ in europe is pretty much the same as in the U.S., I don't see how they're any smarter when it comes to drinking. In some parts they do in in excess like Americans, in some other parts they don't, yet everywhere it's legal under 18 and you don't see anyone making a fuss about it.

At 5/6/08 05:17 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

Of course he was, Cirrohsis is the end result of years of regular abuse that is tied into alcohol addiction, addiction which you are arguing in favor of creating by allowing the age to be lowered.

So why is smoking not pushed back to 21? If you're going to use the health card, I don't see any reason why not.

p.s. the majority of people who take polls are over 21.

At 5/6/08 09:26 PM, Proteas wrote:

I don't think so. Convince me otherwise.

Convince me that the government SHOULDN'T force you to become a Christian.

I'm not arguing to increase anything, just that the status quo remain as such. Your job is to convince me and people like me that the status quo should be changed to favor those under 18.

Telling legal adults they cannot drink is "stepping on them".

Of course he was, Cirrohsis is the end result of years of regular abuse that is tied into alcohol addiction, addiction which you are arguing in favor of creating by allowing the age to be lowered.
What's you're point again?

My point is that you just made a completely irrelevent point. If Cirrohsis happens at old age, using it as evidence that minors shouldn't drink is completely bullshit.

In other words, you're "minors shouldn't drink" arguments is a thinly veiled attempt at making a prohibitionist "no one should drink" argument.

And I have as yet to see anyone address MY point about Canadians and minors being the only proponents of such legislation on here, much less the fact that a recent Gallup Poll showed that 77% of those over 21 vehemntly appose lowering the drinking age to the point that they wish to increase the penalties for such activities?

And nearly 100 percent of proponents of womans sufferage had vaginas. Your point?

I have only read bits of this thread, so don't bite my head off if this has already been said.

I'm 18 and I live in Australia where the legal drinking age is 18.

I enjoy the occasional drink with mates, and I like to think I'm fairly responsible about it.

The problem is that not everybody is responsible. It's all well and good to have a law in place, but it doesn't change an attitude or a culture, unless it's backed up by better monitoring by law enforcement and harsher punishment. Even then, all you really do is push the shit underground.

From my experience, my peers were largely unaffected by the legal drinking age here. They were more affected by the culture, their family and friends. The culture of drinking in Australia at least, is more prescriptive and influential than law. In this way, the issue cannot be solved by any change to the law. Therefore, I can't see the point of the US lowering their legal drinking age.

If you want to fix the problem, understand it first. The law can't fix everything. A different solution is required for this problem. I wouldn't know the first thing about changing a culture, but I do know that law has a minimal effect when it comes down to it.