Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/12/08 11:55 AM, Proteas wrote:

I am for the continuation of the status quo, I am not calling for further restrictions and I am not calling for drinking to become unacceptable.

bwa bwa bwaaaaaaaaa
" Why keep the age at 21? Why not raise it? What's your rationale there?

Considering that alcoholism runs in my family and I've seen what it does to people, I'm all for raising it."

Neo-Prohibitionists tend to place primary responsibility on the cultural environment rather than the drinker for alcohol abuse. The analogy is that we don't blame fish for dying in a polluted stream.

You got me there.

But beyond all this, you've forgotten one thing.... the fact that I DRINK, something no prohibitionist believes in doing.

"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."

See, that was confusing. Coupled with everything else you said, it sounded like you grew up with tons of alcohol around but decided not to drink it.

Anyway.
B33R

At 5/12/08 12:12 PM, poxpower wrote: Considering that alcoholism runs in my family and I've seen what it does to people, I'm all for raising it."

All for it =/= calling for it to be raised.

See, that was confusing. Coupled with everything else you said, it sounded like you grew up with tons of alcohol around but decided not to drink it.

What's so confusing about it? I clarified the fact that there was no deviant element to it as it wasn't made a big deal of in my house... we had it, my folks imbibed in it, the end. I drink now because I enjoy getting a buzz, the end.

You on the other hand have this weird habit of taking someone's opinion and using it to mis-attribute qualities about that person that have absolutely NOTHING to do with what was actually said as a straw man tactic of debate. Two weeks ago you tried lumping me into the same group as religious fundamentalists for believing in God, now you're trying to lump in into the same group as neo-prohibitionists because I don't favor lowering the age of consumption.

If you don't have anything to say to me, fine, grow up and quit making personal attacks.

At 5/12/08 01:14 PM, Proteas wrote:

All for it =/= calling for it to be raised.

Well this is a frickin' internet debate, not the senate. I can't "call" for it to be lower, I just am "all for it".
whatever, word games.

What's so confusing about it? I clarified

You never actually mentionned that you drank anything at any time and you kept making pokes at people who drink for being the ones trying to lower it, especially people from Canada who are drinkers and people under 21 in the states. Then you go on to say about how you know these tragic horrible stories about alcohol abuse.
I know a couple people who don't drink because it's in their family and they're afraid to turn into alcoholics, so you can understand why I assumed what I assumed.

Anyways, sorry.

So, what do you propose we do to change the culture? How is that going to happen? I say that if you lower the age to 18, it will set in by itself. You disagree, so then what could be done to educate people now with the vision of lowering the age at some point in the future?

So, what do you propose we do to change the culture?

You shouldn't try to do anything. You'd end up pushing so many people to disagree with whatever opinion you're currently holding that nothing at all would happen, except maybe encourage more American backlash at snobby Canadians who think the U.S. culture needs to be changed, or should be changed to better suit a socialist pseudo-nation.

How is that going to happen? I say that if you lower the age to 18, it will set in by itself.

In Minnesota, the Freedom to Breathe Act effectively outlawed smoking in privately owned establishments.

What on God's green earth makes you believe we're ever going to lower the age by three years? Are you high?

You disagree, so then what could be done to educate people now with the vision of lowering the age at some point in the future?

Let people freely leave our borders to expose themselves to Canadian, Mexican, European or Arabian cultures, and indulge there.

It's so easy a cavepox could do it.

At 5/12/08 12:05 PM, poxpower wrote:

See that's why I told you the study doesn't really show anything new or that would suggest lowering the age. You don't understand cause/effect.

It showed cause and effect WITHIN territories. The ones on children were either strictly US or strictly Britain. I think one has another European country, I'm not sure though. But the studies were not conducted throughout the world; they used only samples from one country.

Look, WE ALL KNOW THAT ALCOHOL IS BAD IN EXCESS.
No one is disputing it. No one.
But it's HELLA STUPID to restrict it because some people abuse it. Fear-mongering. Paranoia. Safety Hysteria.
Ever hear of these?

You listed 4 reasons that can be incorporated into terms that mean something. You also didn't list lack of productivity, which I'm adding.

Ok I'll give you with with the number of reptiles and one with how many people watch "American Idol". WOW USEFUL.

So everyone who under performed as an alcoholic, and those who are more prone to alcoholism when exposed to alcohol at a younger age also watch American Idol and <insert pox's case here>. Great, every study is null.

You're 21 now?

I'm a world traveller, I drink when it's legal only.

Well I raised the point because you were trying to show that hard drugs were banned FOR GOOD REASON, and so alcohol should be heavily restricted, I mean since those drugs are banned FOR SUCH GOOD REASONS, right?

The reason it was banned in Briatin, maybe. The amount of people admitted into psychiatric wards in America from heroin was staggering.

Heroin in 1950 was consumed by almost NO ONE. It cost A LOT OF MONEY and was REALLY RARE.
Heroin today is wide-spread, costs almost nothing compared to then, is purer and controlled by crime.

Heroin in the 20s was widely used as morphine. It was stopped after it was shown to have ill-effects on users.

War on drugs = poopoo

I agree. You've probably heard me say this before about decriminalizing most drugs, but still keeping it illegal. (Up fines but no jail time)

Restricting alcohol is just another branch of this useless fear-mongering tactic by the governements of the world to try and babysit people who are genetically predisposed to get drunk and high NO MATTER WHAT LAWS ARE IN PLACE.

Maybe they have a bad reason but maybe it's a good thing. How about you going on a trick-or-treat adventure where all you want is candy, but end up killing satan? Your reason wasn't to triumph over evil, you just wanted candy for your own self-interest. But as a result, hell is no more. You like that one?

Dear lord you're starting to base arguments on a non-existing data chart with non-existing causal relations to alcohol and you feel smug for it?

HOLD UP THERE. What have ALL your arguments/analogies/examples been based off of? You just fabricate nonsense and base it on how you feel the world runs, and generalize it in all cases. One word for that, arrogance.

Possession of alcohol under 21 is illegal. Illegal activities = crime.

Criminalized=you go to jail for it. If a 16 year old starts drinking a corona, he gets a drinking violation which is a ticket. THE 16 YEAR OLD DOES NOT GO TO PRISON. (You probably made some stupid comment about my statement of decriminalizing drugs above, research the terms at hand)

So basically you made up a term and have no proof that alcohol affects it and are trying to pass it off like an argument based on obvious facts like "people who drink way too much are alcoholics"?

Why are psychological terms that you don't know suddenly made up? Alcohol inhibits motor function. Everything is a cognitive process. The charts all favor me.

For those who drink heavily, alcoholism is more likely to develop as opposed to those who drink in moderation. Fact.

People who drink in moderation can still develop alcoholism. Fact

Early alcohol exposure is correlated to higher chances of developing alcoholism than later exposure. Fact.

Alcoholism is a problem that effects all of society, and SOME, but not you, consider it a disease. Fact.

That's completely baseless bullshit and you just have to look at every other country in the world with a low drinking age to know it.

Yet prohibition in the US in the 20s supports this too. Higher drinking=lower productivity.

If you commit a crime while drunk, off to jail you go and that's it. If you don't commit a crime, then do whatever the fuck you want with your life.

Please understand the US criminal justice system before posting about it.

What is this sentence?

Meant Harms/Benefits. DId YOU SEE WHAT TIME I WROTE THAT AT?

Dear lord you still don't understand what I was saying with the dirt bikes.
Well neither did Proteas after I spelled it out for him about 10 times so I'll stop trying.

If you weren't trying to make a point that parallels alcohol being fun but banned, then your example sucked.

What you do with your money, your body and your life is your business as long as you don't break the law. If you think otherwise, go live in North Korea.

So har. The law is a drinking age at 21.

At 5/11/08 03:31 PM, n64kid wrote:

Qutting eating fast/salty/sugary foods would be the same. But the thing is, you get withdrawal with smoking if you go cold turkey. The same can't be said for fast food.

Actually, Morgan Spurlock says it can.

At 5/12/08 07:51 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

Actually, Morgan Spurlock says it can.

Actually Pete Anderson, PHD in nutrition and food sciences says it can't. As explained, the physiological symptoms are not caused by an addiction or dependence. It's just a shift in diet that causes it. Vegans switching to meat show similar effects of meat eaters going solely vegan. So either neither is addictive, or both are addictive. There's a better explanation for neither.

At 5/12/08 05:05 PM, poxpower wrote:

Anyways, sorry.

lol silly rabbit you don't apologize after a debate.

Lazydrunk: you smell.

At 5/12/08 05:20 PM, n64kid wrote:

It showed cause and effect WITHIN territories. The ones on children were either strictly US or strictly Britain. I think one has another European country, I'm not sure though. But the studies were not conducted throughout the world; they used only samples from one country.

I'm saying the study doesn't tell you anything as to this: Are people pre-disposed to disobey their parents and get alcohol at a young age the same people who are predisposed to develop as alcoholics later in life anyway?

You can use 5 quadrillion bajillion people, you still won't get information on this if you simply follow people that loosely.

You listed 4 reasons that can be incorporated into terms that mean something. You also didn't list lack of productivity, which I'm adding.

Lack of productivity? Dear lord. Let people live how they want. I'm 100% sure the study on productivity doesn't count how HARD americans work but how much MONEY each one generates through his work. So a kid in China working 12 hour days making Slinkies won't be a drop in the sea but a jackass filling expense reports 30 minutes per day and using the rest of his time to eat donuts and go to the bathroom will register as like 100 times more "productive" than the kid.

Productivity has nothing to do with alcohol. N-O-T-H-I-N-G-.
Example2: I buy a tractor for my farm. I can do the work of 100 men in one day with it. Productivity X 100.

If Joe Bloe drinks too much to keep his job, then that's his damn problem, not mine.

The reason it was banned in Briatin, maybe. The amount of people admitted into psychiatric wards in America from heroin was staggering.

anyway...

Maybe they have a bad reason but maybe it's a good thing.

Less personal freedom is rarely(never) a good thing.

Criminalized=you go to jail for it. If a 16 year old starts drinking a corona, he gets a drinking violation which is a ticket. THE 16 YEAR OLD DOES NOT GO TO PRISON.

Well I don't know what else you'd call someone who breaks laws.
Lawbreakers? Whatever.

Alcoholism is a problem that effects all of society, and SOME, but not you, consider it a disease. Fact.

People should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect others.
best fact ever.

Yet prohibition in the US in the 20s supports this too. Higher drinking=lower productivity.

What you probably mean is that people are less present at work. So? I'll give you that, but again that's personal freedom. If you want to work hard, you can. If you don't want to, you can.
That's how it is in a NON-COMMUNIST country.

If you weren't trying to make a point that parallels alcohol being fun but banned, then your example sucked.

The point is that YOU GUYS LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY. Every little inch you give away without thinking or caring about it is one that you'll have all the trouble in the world getting back when you do want it back.
The argument is that it's easy to make up reasons to give up your freedom but it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to make arguments to get it back.

You want to take the challenge? Go ahead, let's pretend chocolate is banned for 21 year olds, but everything else is 18. Give me great arguments to lower the age for chocolate eating.

At 4/30/08 08:26 PM, Niddler wrote: My girlfriend drinks (illegally, as she's 20), and smells like alcohol and shit all day. Yet another reason to hate that bitch.

God, I can't stand her.

Then dump her goofy ass.

At 5/12/08 05:05 PM, poxpower wrote: whatever, word games.

I'm all for Fred Durst getting hit by a bus, but that doesn't mean I'm going to lobby for Greyhound drivers to go out of their way and run the guy over in the street if they should get the chance to do so.

You never actually mentionned that you drank anything at any time

Yes I did, page four.

especially people from Canada who are drinkers and people under 21 in the states.

Because they're usually the only ones you typically hear from actually wanting the policy changed. Canadians have no personal stake in it, but the U.S. minors do because then they get to drink earlier, and usually they're in favor of lowering the age to 16 or lower.

Then you go on to say about how you know these tragic horrible stories about alcohol abuse.

Because you were advocating lowering the age despite the fact that studies had shown that underage drinking leads to alcohol abuse later in life, and you defiantly stated that you did not care. So in addition to siding with the easily manipulated teenage populace on here, you were also showing a level of callousness that appalled me to no end.

Anyways, sorry.

*sigh*

All is forgiven man.

So, what do you propose we do to change the culture? How is that going to happen? I say that if you lower the age to 18, it will set in by itself. You disagree, so then what could be done to educate people now with the vision of lowering the age at some point in the future?

With 77% of the population against lowering the age of consumption, you don't stand a chance of just introducing the legislation and having it pass, and then HOPING the culture will accept it.

That's why I believe that for any change in the drinking law to even remotely possible, the change in culture will have to start in the home itself and spread out from there.

At 5/13/08 12:51 AM, Proteas wrote:

Because they're usually the only ones you typically hear from actually wanting the policy changed. Canadians have no personal stake in it, but the U.S. minors do because then they get to drink earlier, and usually they're in favor of lowering the age to 16 or lower.

What a surprise: people without the right to do something are the only ones to demand the right to do it.

Because you were advocating lowering the age despite the fact that studies had shown that underage drinking leads to alcohol abuse later in life,

well look at what I told N64 ( NINTENDO SIXTY FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRR) about it.

and you defiantly stated that you did not care.

Indeed.

That's why I believe that for any change in the drinking law to even remotely possible, the change in culture will have to start in the home itself and spread out from there.

Ok so what signs would there be that would tell you "ok now we're ready to lower the drinking age"?

At 5/13/08 12:18 AM, poxpower wrote: You can use 5 quadrillion bajillion people, you still won't get information on this if you simply follow people that loosely.

The higher the number, the better the quality. Like I said, your point raises a concern, but almost no one would agree that tests of 12,000 people wouldn't portray reality.

Productivity has nothing to do with alcohol. N-O-T-H-I-N-G-.

Except it does

-absenteeism is two to three times higher for drug and alcohol users than for other employees;

-employees with chemical dependence problems may claim three times as many sickness benefits and file five times as many workers' compensation claims;

-in many workplaces, 20 to 25 per cent of accidents at work involve intoxicated people injuring themselves and innocent victims;

-on-the-job supplies of drugs and alcohol account for 15 to 30 per cent of all accidents at work.

Example2: I buy a tractor for my farm. I can do the work of 100 men in one day with it. Productivity X 100.

If Joe Bloe drinks too much to keep his job, then that's his damn problem.

And the economy's, which IS your problem.

People should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect others.
best fact ever.

Yet underage drinking affects others. Therefore, people shouldn't be able to do that.

What you probably mean is that people are less present at work.

And less productive on the job.

That's how it is in a NON-COMMUNIST country.

Capitalism allows people to compete to better themselves, alcohol harms this.

The point is that YOU GUYS LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY.

The point also is that freedom runs on a 2 way street, and sometimes kids DONT know what's best for themselves. I want to be free of underage drunk drivers, and free of an economy not reaching potential output.

The argument is that it's easy to make up reasons to give up your freedom but it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to make arguments to get it back.

But this is not true. It's so hard for the government to take away an established privilege that it almost never happens.

You want to take the challenge? Go ahead, let's pretend chocolate is banned for 21 year olds, but everything else is 18. Give me great arguments to lower the age for chocolate eating.

That's east because chocolate doesn't inhibit brain function. Now I thought you were going to drop sugar, leave my milkshakes alone!!!

At 5/13/08 01:24 PM, n64kid wrote:

The higher the number, the better the quality.

Right but like I said, if the test doesn't isolate the proper elements, you can do them a million times and never get the real results.
That's 17th century science where they'd leave a pile of corn in a barn and find rats in it the next day and say that proved spontaneous generation.

You have to try and find every possible explanation as to why and how your conclusion could be wrong when you do a test like that with sooooooo many variables.

productivity

see bellow

And the economy's, which IS your problem.

Only if we have to waste tons of money helping him out of his addiction.
Which is why I'm all for heavier punishments of idiots.

So yeah tough shit if you throw away your life down the bottle. And you know what else? Tough shit if you eat yourself to death and tough shit if you weight 500 pounds and can't get out of your house anymore.
It's your own fault. Some people will try to help you, but the bottom line is that you have every right to do something stupid as long as you know that YOU'RE GONNA PAY FOR IT :O

Yet underage drinking affects others. Therefore, people shouldn't be able to do that.

How?
If you fuck up while drunk, that's a crime/fellony/fine or whatever. So you pay.

Capitalism allows people to compete to better themselves, alcohol harms this.

Capitalism allows people to FREELY compete. They're not FORCED.
You want to drink? Drink.

The point also is that freedom runs on a 2 way street, and sometimes kids DONT know what's best for themselves.

I agree, so why let them vote at 18? Or drive? Or join the army? Or own guns?
You have to pick: either they're responsible adults or they're not.

But this is not true. It's so hard for the government to take away an established privilege that it almost never happens.

uhhhh 9/11 homeland security bullshit?
I could probably find TONS of that stuff through history where the government in a "crisis" gave itself more right over the people and now you can't get it back.
But you're born into that world where "it's always been like this" so you don't miss that freedom and when someone tries to tell you that you should have that freedom, you laugh at them.

That's east because chocolate doesn't inhibit brain function. Now I thought you were going to drop sugar, leave my milkshakes alone!!!

Try to take it.
You just dodge the issue.
You and Proteas are just completely focused on how each thing is slightly different than the next that you don't get the fucking point on this AT ALL.
It's like I'm talking to a wall here. He thinks I'm trying to make him argue my points and you think that someone dirt bikes, pools and chocolate have something to do with alcohol and that's why I bring it up.

Just try: Chocolate ( surfing, dirt biking, driving hummers, WHATEVER, PICK ANYTHING ) is restricted for anyone under 21, ARGUE THE AGE DOWN TO 18.
Try.

At 5/13/08 01:36 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/13/08 01:24 PM, n64kid wrote:

You have to try and find every possible explanation as to why and how your conclusion could be wrong when you do a test like that with sooooooo many variables.

Fine every experiment is null.

How?
If you fuck up while drunk, that's a crime/fellony/fine or whatever. So you pay.

If you fuck up, you could take your own life AND the lives of others. You pay, and someone else pays too.

Capitalism allows people to FREELY compete. They're not FORCED.

Yet laws and economic policies are different.

You want to drink? Drink.

If it's legal.

I agree, so why let them vote at 18? Or drive? Or join the army? Or own guns?

Voting used to be 21, it was lowered because of joining the army at 18. If people were old enough to die for their country, they could atleast vote for who would not draft them.

However, drinking age did vary greatly until 1984 in the The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/youthis sues/1092767630.html

By raising the limit, we've seen fewer drunk driving crashes, less teen mortality from driving, and less cases of alcoholism in the 90s. I like when bad statistics are lowered.

You have to pick: either they're responsible adults or they're not.

Obviously, as a whole, they aren't.

uhhhh 9/11 homeland security bullshit?
I could probably find TONS of that stuff through history where the government in a "crisis" gave itself more right over the people and now you can't get it back.

Yeah we're still under Bush. Change of presidency is just like a revolution (theoretically). So to say we'll never get certain rights back is moot.

You just dodge the issue.

I said it doesn't inhibit motor functions.

You and Proteas are just completely focused on how each thing is slightly different than the next that you don't get the fucking point on this AT ALL.

If we don't get it, spell it out. And make sure you take into account everything we said before doing so because odds are it's been addressed in an earlier post.

It's like I'm talking to a wall here.

Feeling's mutual.

He thinks I'm trying to make him argue my points and you think that someone dirt bikes, pools and chocolate have something to do with alcohol and that's why I bring it up.

I think that you think that they have something to do with alcohol.

Just try: Chocolate ( surfing, dirt biking, driving hummers, WHATEVER, PICK ANYTHING ) is restricted for anyone under 21, ARGUE THE AGE DOWN TO 18.

But Proteas is right. You are making us do your work for you. And if you and I both know it's not the same as alcohol why waste our time?

Try.

Not harmful, harder to abuse, chocohol isn't a real addiction so har.

At 5/13/08 12:18 AM, poxpower wrote: Lazydrunk: you smell.

Smell of awesome.

You want to take the challenge? Go ahead, let's pretend chocolate is banned for 21 year olds, but everything else is 18. Give me great arguments to lower the age for chocolate eating.

People don't need chocolate to live, therefore any arbitrary regulation up to and including age 21 restrictions, are warranted/justified/legal due to the social and cultural impact of chocolate abuse.

At 5/13/08 02:22 PM, n64kid wrote:

Fine every experiment is null.

Well that one offers pretty interpretable conclusions as opposed to real factual ones.
Like if you make a study that finds that black kids score lower than white kids, you can't say "ah-ha, black kids are hella dumb!".
If you could like clone 50 kids in a lab and test alcohol on each of them, then you'd have real results.

If you fuck up, you could take your own life AND the lives of others.

Yeah you can do that with everything from a gun to a car to a chainsaw to whatever.
That's a risk and if you do it, jailtime for you.
You can't determine "oh, ok, if under 500 people die a year, then it's fine, if 501 and above, then we ban it". That's ridiculous.

Voting used to be 21, it was lowered because of joining the army at 18.

Well that's great logic. "well we need to draft kids, so, might as well let them vote...".

By raising the limit, we've seen fewer drunk driving crashes, less teen mortality from driving, and less cases of alcoholism in the 90s. I like when bad statistics are lowered.

Well again, of course this is going to be so the more your restrict people's freedoms.
If you outlawed chainsaws, chainsaw-related injuries would drop a lot. So where does that leave you? If that the kind of choice we should make every time there's a problem? Ban it?

Obviously, as a whole, they aren't.

Well raise everything to 21.

Yeah we're still under Bush. Change of presidency is just like a revolution (theoretically). So to say we'll never get certain rights back is moot.

Good luck with that.

I think that you think that they have something to do with alcohol.

It's about this simple fact: if you put a man in a jail, he will never commit a single crime EVER. If you put 100% of everyone in jail, there would be 0 crime.

You just don't see it happening when it happens step-by-step.
Consider this: Mothers Against Drunk Driving want to make it so every car can't start without you passing a Breathalyzer test. A breathalyzer would raise the cost of making a car by like 30-40 bucks, no big deal right?
And I bet that drunk driving accidents would drop A LOT.
So why be against it? I'll let you try to figure that out on your own.

Not harmful, harder to abuse, chocohol isn't a real addiction so har.

Harder to abuse than what? You can't start comparing it with anything else. Alcohol is 18, so what? let's raise it to 21 instead! Why do you want to legalize chocolate, you sick fuck? Aren't kids fat enough? Chocolate has no benefits to society. In fact I know someone who is obese because he eats chocolate constantly. We should definitely keep the age of chocolate to 21.
*insert graphs about how, since chocolate has been banned, chocolate comsumption is down*
*insert graph about how, since chocolate is for 21+, chocolate-related obesity has dropped a lot*

Get it yet?

At 5/13/08 06:29 PM, poxpower wrote:

If you could like clone 50 kids in a lab and test alcohol on each of them, then you'd have real results.

There are other methods that get real results without doing what you say.

Yeah you can do that with everything from a gun to a car to a chainsaw to whatever.

Except everything you list isn't an issue. No one cares about chainsaw deaths. Guns are misused when illegally purchased or when combined with alcohol. The death statistic with legal ownership of guns is low, according to one of mason's/cellars posts not too long ago. BUT I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING SO DROP IT.

Well that's great logic. "well we need to draft kids, so, might as well let them vote...".

It makes sense to me. Having power to elect someone who can directly alter your life, over not having the power.

Well again, of course this is going to be so the more your restrict people's freedoms.
If you outlawed chainsaws, chainsaw-related injuries would drop a lot. So where does that leave you? If that the kind of choice we should make every time there's a problem? Ban it?

Theres a fine line between what's culturally accepted that you seem to always ignore.

Well raise everything to 21.

Except studies show 21 isn't arbitrary for alcohol. Enough with the 21 for everything, I'm not making that argument and I doubt Proteas is either.

It's about this simple fact: if you put a man in a jail, he will never commit a single crime EVER. If you put 100% of everyone in jail, there would be 0 crime.

I don't know what you're talking about here. Is that supposed to be a fact? It isn't.

You just don't see it happening when it happens step-by-step.
Consider this: Mothers Against Drunk Driving want to make it so every car can't start without you passing a Breathalyzer test. A breathalyzer would raise the cost of making a car by like 30-40 bucks, no big deal right?

SADD, students against drunk driving wants it too.

And I bet that drunk driving accidents would drop A LOT.
So why be against it? I'll let you try to figure that out on your own.

There's this thought of a silver lining that seems to whip by your head without you noticing.

Harder to abuse than what?

Alcohol.

You can't start comparing it with anything else.

What the fuck do you think you do every damn time?

Alcohol is 18, so what? let's raise it to 21 instead! Why do you want to legalize chocolate, you sick fuck? Aren't kids fat enough?

Fine fine, I'll play your stupid game.

Chocolate has no benefits to society.

Uh oh tryptophan is in chocolate. What does this protein mean? It means it releases serotonin which is an anti-depressant and can prevent skitzo, mania and other abnormalities. That and COCOA is uber healthy, a powerful antioxidant and can be associated with losing weight, keeping LDL down and maintaining healthy blood pressure.

In fact I know someone who is obese because he eats chocolate constantly. We should definitely keep the age of chocolate to 21.

I know someone who eats chocolate constantly and is an underweight, as well a fine athlete. Maybe your friend shouldn't eat that Hershey's crap and get chocolate made from cocoa and raw sugar like normal people.

Get it yet?

Not when you bring up something that doesn't compare to alcohol, no.

i'ma put my two cents in here: i really think the drinking age should stay at 21 in America. some kids just can't handle alcohol, even at 21. if we lower it to 18, then there are going to be junior and senior high school kids legally buying beer, and then it would end up in schools, and...
anyway, my little conscience says to keep alcohol away from kids at least under 25, but that would cause trouble, so we lower the standards to 21 and try to keep it at least that high. if we take it any lower, then there wouldn't be much more to live for in the world, would there? :P

click here and i get money: http://s3.battleknight.us/index.php?loc=
hire&ref=MTY2Nzc=

At 5/13/08 07:57 PM, n64kid wrote:

There are other methods that get real results without doing what you say.

Probably, but it's not the ones in that study.

Except everything you list isn't an issue.

Guns aren't an issue?

No one cares about chainsaw deaths. Guns are misused when illegally purchased or when combined with alcohol.

Or when a kid blows his face off. Or when a neighbor shoots another neighbor. Again you don't get it anyways. I could enumerate about 500 of these things that have varying degrees of people caring, you'd reply to all of them without understanding the point.

Theres a fine line between what's culturally accepted that you seem to always ignore.

What's "culturally accepted' is not a valid argument for anything as culture changes every decade and is easily shaped by the media. The story of creation is culturally accepted.

Except studies show 21 isn't arbitrary for alcohol.

Ok I seriously don't remember reading that in your links. Where does this come from?

SADD, students against drunk driving wants it too.

But you didn't reply: why is it bad?
CAn't you even realize it's a bad idea? If you can't realize it's a bad idea, I don't see how you can be arguing about alcohol regulations :o

What the fuck do you think you do every damn time?

I'm trying to show you that you could do this with anything even if alcohol didn't exist. Stop trying to put alcohol in the equation.

Uh oh tryptophan is in chocolate. What does this protein mean? It means it releases serotonin which is an anti-depressant and can prevent skitzo, mania and other abnormalities.

Right but you forget that people are obese and obesity kills. We can get the benefits of these chemicals with many other foods. Removing chocolate has no effects.
BAN STAYS.

I know someone who eats chocolate constantly and is an underweight, as well a fine athlete.

Yeah BECAUSE HE RUNS. Still you don't answer that MANY PEOPLE ARE OVERWEIGHT BECAUSE OF IT. I don't see any benefits whatsoever in lowering the age back to 18. It's been proven that people from 18-21 have less self-control than people from 21+ and studies have shown that people who eat chocolate in a young age are known to eat a lot of it later on in life.
Man chocolate is a menace.

Not when you bring up something that doesn't compare to alcohol, no.

YOu still don't understand that the principle has nothing to do with alcohol, don't you?
I'm saying like "I can't disprove the evidence of Thor, why don't you try disproving the evidence of Aphrodite" and you're saying "What? Aphrodite? What does that have to do with Thor?".

NO GET

@pox:
Are you also for the legalization of all drugs and firearms? How about owning nuclear weapons?

Anyway, you dont live in teh US (right?) so why do you care?

At 5/13/08 10:14 PM, LCurtis wrote: @pox:
Are you also for the legalization of all drugs

Sure

and firearms?

I never really understood the personal benefits of owning a gun other than shot at OTHER people or animals. But still, I guess.

How about owning nuclear weapons?

I have no idea what you'll do with a nuke other than kill countless people.
Nukes have no self-defense capabilities. All you could ever do with a nuke is hurt other people.

I'm for personal freedom. Your body, do what you want. As soon as someone else comes into the equation, then it's in the law's hands.

so why do you care?

I'm bored

At 5/13/08 09:51 PM, poxpower wrote:

Probably, but it's not the ones in that study.

I'm still not sure which study you mean when I listed the 4. Either way, I officially don't care now. You seem to know it's true without the studies.

Guns aren't an issue?

Second amendment, people can bitch but nothing will get done.

Or when a kid blows his face off. Or when a neighbor shoots another neighbor. Again you don't get it anyways.

You don't get that theres a fine line between what's acceptable and what is not. You keep listing the acceptable that isn't banned or the unacceptalbe that is banned anyways. I never get you.

What's "culturally accepted' is not a valid argument for anything as culture changes every decade and is easily shaped by the media. The story of creation is culturally accepted.

So right now culture says AGE=21.

Ok I seriously don't remember reading that in your links. Where does this come from?

The chances of developing alcohol drastically decreases and moderates at around 20 in most cases.

But you didn't reply: why is it bad?

Why should I state the obvious? Why do you bring up something that goes against... lemme bring this term up again... "fine lining" between just prohibiting alcohol to minors and having it going overboard from groups like MADD when the initiative will never be passed?

CAn't you even realize it's a bad idea?

Can't you realize no one gives a shit and that's why their website counter displays 4 visitors since 1997?

If you can't realize it's a bad idea, I don't see how you can be arguing about alcohol regulations :o

One says don't drink, the other is a cute thing on a car that needs you to give it a blow job to make the car start. How come you always take the topic at hand and then swap it for something else?

What the fuck do you think you do every damn time?

I'm trying to show you that you could do this with anything even if alcohol didn't exist. Stop trying to put alcohol in the equation.

What???????????????????????????? above this I see :
New reply in "Lowering U.s. Drinking Age To 18", you say?

Alcohol is the center of the equation. It's 18+3=ALCOHOL=21
Right in the center of the equal sign.
I never get you poxy.

Right but you forget that people are obese and obesity kills. We can get the benefits of these chemicals with many other foods. Removing chocolate has no effects.
BAN STAYS.

You never proved chocolate makes people fat, just that your fat friend eats chocolate. Has he ever been thin? Is it Afroninja? Prove something so I can refute it to "lift the ban".

Yeah BECAUSE HE RUNS. Still you don't answer that MANY PEOPLE ARE OVERWEIGHT BECAUSE OF IT.

Because you haven't proved why many people are overweight because of it. You gave anecdotal evidence of some fatty with no name.

I don't see any benefits whatsoever in lowering the age back to 18. It's been proven that people from 18-21 have less self-control than people from 21+ and studies have shown that people who eat chocolate in a young age are known to eat a lot of it later on in life.

If you're going to play that game, then keep chocolate banned since it sounds like alcohol and should stay at 21. Thanks for proving my point for me. You lose.

Man chocolate is a menace.

I know, keep it banned till 21.

YOu still don't understand that the principle has nothing to do with alcohol, don't you?

You don't get this concept about where laws come from and what's socially acceptable. It's not all religion. Yet throughout this thread you either try to prove that alcohol should be prohibited to minors while saying omg it's taking away your freedoms, what's next, rainbows? "Rainbows cause AIDS" Let's ban rainbow viewing until we're 21. Prove it should be lowered to 18. Do it.

I'm saying like "I can't disprove the evidence of Thor, why don't you try disproving the evidence of Aphrodite"

But it's not relevant. Why should I disprove the evidence of something that you make analogous with what I'm trying to get you to do? But then in reality, what you use is never analogous, not ever.

In any sense, it seems you cannot dispute the fact that the evidence is stacked in favor of alcohol at age 21. So you admit defeat.

So I'm going to do some sort of a vote to see if you're silly or I'm a monkey.

Cast your ballot:
Poxpower has terrible analogies................Yes...........N o
This thread is about Alcohol consumption...Yes.......No
The drinking age should stay at 21.............Yes...........No
You get lost when pox starts to type.........Yes...........No

Wa la la

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Cast your vote newgrounders!

At 5/13/08 11:21 PM, n64kid wrote:

Second amendment, people can bitch but nothing will get done.

Wow basing laws on an ancient constitution. Great plan. Nothing ever changes in 300 years!

You don't get that theres a fine line between what's acceptable and what is not.

You're not the one to decide it and realize that the USA are the only people on earth who decided that the line is 21 for some reason when everyone else picked a different age or just banned alcohol altogether ( based on stupid religion bullshit, as usual ).

So right now culture says AGE=21.

Based on what signs again? Oh right the law says it. Welcome to the same circular logic loop as Proteas fell into.

The chances of developing alcohol drastically decreases and moderates at around 20 in most cases.

First off, I don't remember.
Second off, if the study was done in the U.S., the 21 age is dubious since anyone who drinks before that is a lawbreaker by nature, and lawbreakers are known to do stupid shit and ruin their lives, so you still have that problem.

Why should I state the obvious?

WHY IS IT BAD? Say it. It will save people. As far as I can gather, your ONLY argument against 18-20 people drinking is that lives would be saved.

How come you always take the topic at hand and then swap it for something else?

Because you don't get it otherwise. Well you don't get it straight either. So. Trying different angles here.

You never proved chocolate makes people fat

Chocolate doesn't make you unfat.
So, again, more chocolate is always a negative. We should shield people from it.

Because you haven't proved why many people are overweight because of it.

God damn is it that complicated to understand analogies here? You don't see the parallels at all with alcohol and this, do you?
All you do is find the couple differences and writer it out.
"What? A fable? Fables are stupid cause we're not animals, so the morals don't apply to humans cause it's animals in the stories".

I know, keep it banned till 21.

Well if that's the society you want to live in. Good job.

But it's not relevant. Why should I disprove the evidence of something that you make analogous with what I'm trying to get you to do? But then in reality, what you use is never analogous, not ever.

I'm trying to show you there are no arguments to give back freedom to people. Ever. There is 0 reason for anyone over 21 to legalize anything recreational that is banned for people under 21. None. Zero. Yet the argument you use is exactly that: Oh hey you can't tell me why we should lower it, so it should stay.
Don't you get it yet?

100% of anyone over 21 or who doesn't drink or want to drink has no interest letting people 18-20 drink. But it's not their fucking business because we should live in a FREE COUNTRY.
Either way of the spectrum, you and Proteas don't get it.
I say "chocolate" OH WHAT NO CHOCOLATE IS NOT AS BAD AS ALCOHOL LIKE NO
I say "women vote "OH NO WOMEN VOTE IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT OH NO.

I'm having a hard-ass time getting you to understand this :O

At 5/13/08 11:44 PM, poxpower wrote:

Wow basing laws on an ancient constitution. Great plan. Nothing ever changes in 300 years!

That's one way to look at it. But the right way is seeing it on our founding values with the framer's intent. It is the law of the land, a guaranteed right, the highest authority.

You're not the one to decide it and realize that the USA are the only people on earth who decided that the line is 21 for some reason when everyone else picked a different age or just banned alcohol altogether ( based on stupid religion bullshit, as usual ).

So religion says something, and science backed it up. You want to go against religion AND science with this one?

Based on what signs again? Oh right the law says it. Welcome to the same circular logic loop as Proteas fell into.

You've caused the circle. Every path you take leads to justification of alcohol being prohibited until 21. Yet you'll repeat one of these paths in a later post so wtf.

First off, I don't remember.

Posts are still in this thread.

Second off, if the study was done in the U.S., the 21 age is dubious since anyone who drinks before that is a lawbreaker by nature, and lawbreakers are known to do stupid shit and ruin their lives, so you still have that problem.

Strangle yourself as I have brought up studies of Britain and other European countries too.

WHY IS IT BAD? Say it. It will save people. As far as I can gather, your ONLY argument against 18-20 people drinking is that lives would be saved.

And productivity and mistrust. I trust people of age won't drink and drive for the most part. I don't trust people not drinking and driving if the law was lower. In-car breath test devices are a compromise that I'm against because they're costly, ineffective, and too easy to get around. And it takes mistrust to an EXTREME level.

Because you don't get it otherwise. Well you don't get it straight either. So. Trying different angles here.

You always contradict yourself when you say it straight, and you always use the worst examples ever when you don't.

Chocolate doesn't make you unfat.

That proof? Nope. Still not proof. You haven't proved why it should be banned for me to disprove it.

God damn is it that complicated to understand analogies here? You don't see the parallels at all with alcohol and this, do you?

I know you're trying to, but you fail.

All you do is find the couple differences and writer it out.
"What? A fable? Fables are stupid cause we're not animals, so the morals don't apply to humans cause it's animals in the stories".

Here you have a good example. I'm impressed. However, it does not apply in the case you are trying to make. Fables have morals which can be used by humans. Bans on chocolate don't have reasons similar to bans on alcohol, at all. The only similarity is that you've banned chocolate in your fabled world.

Well if that's the society you want to live in. Good job.

You seem to support this in some form in EVERY SINGLE ONE of you posts.

I'm trying to show you there are no arguments to give back freedom to people. Ever. There is 0 reason for anyone over 21 to legalize anything recreational that is banned for people under 21. None. Zero. Yet the argument you use is exactly that: Oh hey you can't tell me why we should lower it, so it should stay.
Don't you get it yet?

I find no problem with it because we have science, religion, culture and morality all supporting it. If you go ranting about religion being stupid while ignoring the other 3..........

100% of anyone over 21 or who doesn't drink or want to drink has no interest letting people 18-20 drink. But it's not their fucking business because we should live in a FREE COUNTRY.
Either way of the spectrum, you and Proteas don't get it.

Maybe your arrogance.... I don't know why you would have such a thing, is clouding your mind and you don't realize that you're missing something Proteas and I DO get.

I say "chocolate" OH WHAT NO CHOCOLATE IS NOT AS BAD AS ALCOHOL LIKE NO

Maybe your examples suck in general?

I say "women vote "OH NO WOMEN VOTE IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT OH NO.

Maybe because suffrage is so much more important.

I'm having a hard-ass time getting you to understand this :O

And I'm having a ridiculous time getting you to learn these fine linings we have between what's acceptable and what isn't. I can't argue chocolate not being banned because the reasons you give aren't serious. Food makes you fat, calories are calories, 500 calories of a salad=500 calories of chocolate, enough with your examples, they just don't compare.