Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 5/14/08 11:11 PM, n64kid wrote:

Culture, MASS opinion vs your individual one.

argument from the masses, i.e. logical fallacy, i.e. are you even serious?

And what did it show?

The same thing we all know: the people who drink the earliest have the highest chance to become alcoholics.
So what? Tough shit for those morons if they can't control themselves. Nothing indicates that "21" is the age at which suddenly people stop getting addicted to alcohol.

Pay attention to every link I gave you =P

I've looked at your links
You can't mash them all up together and pretend that if you take 1 finding here and 1 finding there you can make up a frankenstein conclusions that supports your views.
So far, what you did is take one study from out of the U.S., one that tested people up to 21, and one that tested people from 16 to 30 and then put all of them together to say "Data from all over the world on thousands of people show that the right age is 21" which is a bold-faced lie.
You can't do that. That's not how studies work o.O

You were talking about that, I was talking about productivity.

Of the car breathalyzer.

1.2 billion people vs 300 million. China is still a third world country overloaded with particle pollution and have some sort of fetish with the American Buick. Yet they have worse social problems than Americans do, so your point isn't even valid.

It was YOUR point that since America is the richest and "best" country, it must be right to have the age of 21.

It's cool for 14 year olds, did you get a chance to read the ones about drinking in your home?

My home is not a bar or a night club.

Except I was for bringing the age down to mid-late teens aswell. I questioned myself and saw that more data backs a 21 drinking age from around the world. That and what you keep ignoring, culture.

What culture? As far as I can tell you're still under the impression that your links you found somehow prove the age of 21 to be the best when it doesn't show that AT ALL.
The only "culture" argument is that in the US, the drinking age is 21. So it's completely circular logic to justify the age of 21 because the age happens to be 21.
Ridiculous.

Then fortify chocolate with vitamins like everyone else does. No more empty calories.

Why? You'd still get fat. There's no "diet chocolate" around. Even 90% cocoa chocolate is high in calories and makes you a fat ass.

Jet Ski owners and people who swim.

Name one.

Dear Lord...
here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9A02EEDA1439F933A15756C0A96E95826 0
Apparently there's a couple of morons who die and get into accidents each year.

Man what a scourge, let's ban them! Use a boat instead, guys lolol

Without me explaining, can you see how it doesn't apply?

No.
If you can say something like "guns don't kill people" then I can say "alcohol doesn't kill people".

Or Canada.

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Those have nothing to do with forcing people to work harder.
If you go to work drunk like a dumbass, your ass gets fired. Tough shit. Do you need the government to tell you to not go into work drunk?

I get your point but I can shove a bunch of stats with alcohol to show that what you said doesn't... aw fuck it.

Doesn't what?

First, America has Canada and Mexico if we want to get smashed and then do damage that's not in this country. Second, were you a dipshit when you were 17?

I wasn't a dipshit ever.
And yeah, people in the middle states love to travel all the way to Canada every weekend to buy beer. I'm sure bar owners wouldn't appreciate the extra local business anyways.

You have some paranoid domino effect theory where if they take away one freedom, what's stopping them from coming up with similar reasons to ban other things.

Not even. It's fine to have an "adult age" for things, but either 21 is too high or 18 is too low and based on everything everywhere on earth, 21 seems to clearly be too high.
My argument is that once you give away a freedom, there's virtually no arguments to get it back. It doesn't mean people will take more and more away, it just means you've probably lost that one bit for good and people like you don't give a shit or even realize it.

Proteas and I seem to place more emphasis on what our society wants

This is a terrible argument. Again I bring up women's vote, black people etc. but you pretend like somehow the argument doesn't apply to that but it does for other things.
No, sorry, the argument for the masses has no sway, ever. Just because we're a democracy when it comes to making some laws and electing presidents does not mean the right choice will be made. For instance, some morons in the southern states have managed to vote creationism into schools. They're definitely wrong about this, no doubt. None. But that's what their society wanted.

Does it sound like a good argument? No.

Maybe it's because we actually live in the country?

I think it's because you've enjoyed that right all your life and so you don't give a shit if anyone else gets to enjoy it as well since you have nothing to gain from it.
That's what I think.

---

At 5/15/08 12:28 AM, poxpower wrote:

argument from the masses, i.e. logical fallacy, i.e. are you even serious?

If I was making a claim, they're all saying it therefore it's right, it's the fallacy. I'm saying majority vote in favor of 21, it's a democracy, if the majority agrees on something and you don't, your opinion is void. Especially since you don't live in this country either.

You can't mash them all up together and pretend that if you take 1 finding here and 1 finding there you can make up a frankenstein conclusions that supports your views.

Why can't I unify supporting results?

So far, what you did is take one study from out of the U.S., one that tested people up to 21, and one that tested people from 16 to 30 and then put all of them together to say "Data from all over the world on thousands of people show that the right age is 21" which is a bold-faced lie.

Yet one study of American youth is all we need for me to say it moderates out at 21.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jul2006/niaaa -03.htm

In results that echo earlier studies, of those individuals who began drinking before age 14, 47 percent experienced dependence at some point, vs. 9 percent of those who began drinking at age 21 or older. In general, each additional year earlier than 21 that a respondent began to drink, the greater the odds that he or she would develop alcohol dependence at some point in life.

Tada. See how the numbers drastically decline?

It was YOUR point that since America is the richest and "best" country, it must be right to have the age of 21.

Which it is.

My home is not a bar or a night club.

Make it one, otherwise drink with your parents or some guardian who's 21.

The only "culture" argument is that in the US, the drinking age is 21. So it's completely circular logic to justify the age of 21 because the age happens to be 21.
Ridiculous.

Yet you seem to want it lowered to 18, if you lived in China you'd say there shouldn't be a law against it. So cultural relevance is part of it.

Why? You'd still get fat. There's no "diet chocolate" around.

Slimfast?

Even 90% cocoa chocolate is high in calories and makes you a fat ass.

Yet 500 calories of chocoalte=500 calories of apples. It's like asking what weighs more, 500 pounds of feathers or bricks?

So let's ban calories altogether? Or your ban food arguments suck?

Apparently there's a couple of morons who die and get into accidents each year.

Apparently you had to go to 1998 to waste my time.

Man what a scourge, let's ban them! Use a boat instead, guys lolol

Sigh, a couple of deaths from misuse vs deaths even when alcohol is used in moderation. Want me to pull the stat of drinking and driving fatalities even when the driver was below .08 BAC?

No.
If you can say something like "guns don't kill people" then I can say "alcohol doesn't kill people".

Cars function as transportation, alcohol functions as an inhibitor. Congress has a duty, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution to promote car use and limit alcohol consumption.

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"

I already showed how alcohol has a negative inpact on commerce. Do I have to prove that cars have a positive one now?

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Those have nothing to do with forcing people to work harder.

But some Canadian wants you to work harder and be more skilled. Should that Canadian move to North Korea?

I wasn't a dipshit ever.
And yeah, people in the middle states love to travel all the way to Canada every weekend to buy beer. I'm sure bar owners wouldn't appreciate the extra local business anyways.

We went over this already, didn't we? Bar owners and patrons don't want kids around when they drink/serve alcohol.

Not even. It's fine to have an "adult age" for things, but either 21 is too high or 18 is too low and based on everything everywhere on earth, 21 seems to clearly be too high.

First "21 is too high" is a claim relative to what you experience with a lower one. Then just becausesomeone is an adult doesn't mean they automatically get all adult status.
The legal gambling age is 19 years of age in Canada, right? I don't think internet gaming is legal at all. I can gamble at my local Indian casino when I'm 18. This doesn't even inhibit me or get me killed, I'm just supporting a business. Let's make a thread about the gambling age in Canada being lowered.

Then wait, you have to be 25 to rent a car. WTF? Thats 4 years over 21 and 7 years over 18. So becoming an adult is just a term to make you feel special when it's really not the greatest thing to happen to you.

My argument is that once you give away a freedom, there's virtually no arguments to get it back. It doesn't mean people will take more and more away, it just means you've probably lost that one bit for good and people like you don't give a shit or even realize it.

The thing here is freedoms ar every hard to take away in the first place once it's been established. It took 9/11 and only 9/11 to get the patriot act passed, yet the only freedoms I've noticed being taken away is walking through airport security with my shoes on.

Yet we got that freedom back for a while, and then some nut ruined it.

Same with prohibition in the 20s. We got our right to drink back because of American culture turning to the mafia and giving the government the finger.

This is a terrible argument. Again I bring up women's vote, black people etc. but you pretend like somehow the argument doesn't apply to that but it does for other things.

Because black people have a right to exist and women have a right to vote. Are you saying if we take away a black persons right to be black, he will never get his freedom back? Your arguments just suck.

No, sorry, the argument for the masses has no sway, ever. Just because we're a democracy when it comes to making some laws and electing presidents does not mean the right choice will be made.

The right choice, as stated as the first thing I said, has nothing to do with mass opinion. Your opinion being outnumbered means that our culture doesn't see the way you do. This only supports a drinking age at 21, it alone, doesn't say it's right.

I think it's because you've enjoyed that right all your life and so you don't give a shit if anyone else gets to enjoy it as well since you have nothing to gain from it.

Except I'm still a whiles away from being 21, so I do have the privilege to gain from it. However, science tells me that the risks of dependence sharply decline at 20-21, so it's a good thing to keep it higher.

That's what I think.

And that's what I know.

---

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
21 to buy drink
its 18 in the uk but its leagle to have fake ids so i can just ask my mates to go to the shop to buy me some drink
and if your caught drinking underage all they do is take it off you
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
unlucky
and lowering the age wouldnt stop binde drinking honestlly cos evry1 does it
ahahahahahahaha
21 2 drink
have fun :)

---

At 5/15/08 01:57 PM, n64kid wrote:

I'm saying majority vote in favor of 21, it's a democracy, if the majority agrees on something and you don't, your opinion is void.

Again with the example of women vote or black slavery. Even if the majority can vote laws, you have to realize that it doesn't mean it ends the discussion or that they were right about it and it's "too bad" and we shouldn't try to change it anymore.

Why can't I unify supporting results?

You didn't even unify the results, you took the sample from one, the process of another and then the results of another one and said it like it was one study that showed this conclusion.
I shouldn't have to explain why this is wrong :o

Yet one study of American youth is all we need for me to say it moderates out at 21.
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jul2006/niaaa -03.htm

Tada. See how the numbers drastically decline?

I already explained why that conclusion was skewed:
"The survey was done IN THE U.S., where, as I stated, if you drink before you're 21, you're breaking the law, and people who are prone to doing such things are usually the same kind of people who abuse drugs, work a shit job, drink a lot etc.
Furthermore, it says "9%" of people become alcoholics after they start consuming after they turn 21. But that is very misleading because that is the legal age, so you would expect that it's the age that most people start drinking, hence just skewing the numbers WAY down since most people won't ever become alcoholics."

If you can find that same kind of study done in another country that really shows that 9% decrease falling STRAIGT on the 21, then you'd have something.

It was YOUR point that since America is the richest and "best" country, it must be right to have the age of 21.

Which it is.

To which I said, if China becomes the richest and "best" country, you'd have to accept the "no drinking minimum" rule under that argument. Then you went on about how China is different so it doesn't count.

Make it one, otherwise drink with your parents or some guardian who's 21.

You were trying to make the argument that it was ok since you could drink with an adult even if you weren't 21, but people 18+ want a social life that doesn't include their parents.
o.O

Yet you seem to want it lowered to 18, if you lived in China you'd say there shouldn't be a law against it. So cultural relevance is part of it.

But "culture" is not an argument. At all.

Yet 500 calories of chocoalte=500 calories of apples.

500 calories of chocolate = 200 grams
500 calories of apples = 2 pounds. Or something like that.
Chocolate is too dangerous to be left alive. We should kill it.

Apparently you had to go to 1998 to waste my time.

Ok seriously, sorry to insult you at this point, but that's just stupid of you. They sell like 150 000 jet skis per year and somehow you think an article from 1998 is the only instance of anyone having fatal Jet Ski accidents and that 10 years later, no one has accidents?
Ridiculous. And it's even besides the point completely. I could have said 4x4s, dirt bikes, bungee jumping, base jumping WHATEVER.

Sigh, a couple of deaths from misuse vs deaths even when alcohol is used in moderation.

No one has ever died from responsible alcohol use. Ever.

Cars function as transportation, alcohol functions as an inhibitor.

Or just food or drinks or pleasure. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DRINK UNTIL YOU FALL DOWN.

I already showed how alcohol has a negative inpact on commerce. Do I have to prove that cars have a positive one now?

Car crashes probably cost billions and billions ever year. Not to mention the impossibly high cost of building and maintaining highway. Of course cars are good for the economy, but so is the sale of alcohol. Thousands upon thousands of people's jobs depend directly from making beer, wine, spirits etc.

But some Canadian wants you to work harder and be more skilled.

They're not forcing you, they're giving you opportunities, just as your employer can say "come to work drunk one more time and you're fired".

We went over this already, didn't we? Bar owners and patrons don't want kids around when they drink/serve alcohol.

They don't want ILLEGALS. Bar owners and patrons here are perfectly fine with 18-20 drinkers.
If they serve alcohol to minors, they can get arrested and have their license revoked. So in the U.S. they card EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME. It's really annoying when you're 27 and you get carded at every restaurant when you order a beer. Here? Almost no carding.

The legal gambling age is 19 years of age in Canada, right?

It's 18 in quebec, 19 where it's also 19 to drink, cause they serve alcohol in there.

I don't think internet gaming is legal at all.

That's because people kept getting ripped off. It wasn't to protect people from themselves, it was to protect people from asshole internet companies trying to steal their cash.

Let's make a thread about the gambling age in Canada being lowered.

The reason why they have one extra year tacked on their ages outside Quebec is because there was one more year of High School. But they removed that in Ontario I think, but just you wait and see how hard a time they'll have trying to get to lower the age of alcohol to 18.

Then wait, you have to be 25 to rent a car.

That's up to rental companies to decide. You can rent one when you're younger but it costs you WAY MORE.

The thing here is freedoms ar every hard to take away in the first place once it's been established.

And that's bad because???

Same with prohibition in the 20s. We got our right to drink back because of American culture turning to the mafia and giving the government the finger.

Yeah and rightly so. Same has been happening with drugs for DECADES. The war on drugs is a money hole and higher ages of consumption for anything are just one part of that whole idiot shebang yet you don't realize it for some reason.

Because black people have a right to exist and women have a right to vote.

And kids have a right to drink.

Your opinion being outnumbered means that our culture doesn't see the way you do.

Again, a terrible argument. I refer you to the civil war: half of american was for slavery, the other hald wasn't. So? Who was right? The ones who won the war?

Except I'm still a whiles away from being 21, so I do have the privilege to gain from it.

You said yourself that you get to drink because you travel. So you do enjoy the freedom to drink yet you'd deny it to others who don't have the money to travel like you do.

---

At 5/15/08 06:49 PM, poxpower wrote:

I'm saying majority vote in favor of 21, it's a democracy, if the majority agrees on something and you don't, your opinion is void.

Even if the majority can vote laws, you have to realize that it doesn't mean it ends the discussion

For the time being it does. That's how democracy works.

Why can't I unify supporting results?

You didn't even unify the results,

Except I did.

I already explained why that conclusion was skewed:
"The survey was done IN THE U.S., where, as I stated, if you drink before you're 21, you're breaking the law, and people who are prone to doing such things are usually the same kind of people who abuse drugs, work a shit job, drink a lot etc.

Show me a stat that says kids who drink earlier have it in their DNA to break the law.

Go ahead.

If you can find that same kind of study done in another country that really shows that 9% decrease falling STRAIGT on the 21, then you'd have something.

Why another country? Tests in this country are more relevant to the people in this country.

Then you went on about how China is different so it doesn't count.

I said they're far from being the richest country.

You were trying to make the argument that it was ok since you could drink with an adult even if you weren't 21, but people 18+ want a social life that doesn't include their parents.

Then they can have a social life minus the alcohol.

But "culture" is not an argument. At all.

Are you THAT dumb?

Yet 500 calories of chocoalte=500 calories of apples.

500 calories of chocolate = 200 grams
500 calories of apples = 2 pounds. Or something like that.
Chocolate is too dangerous to be left alive. We should kill it.

Oh wow 500 calories=9 ounces of avocado=270 grams

Let's ban avocados too. Oh wait, your argument still sucks.

Ok seriously, sorry to insult you at this point, but that's just stupid of you.

Bringing up the point about jet skis killing 2 people a year and comparing it to the damages alcohol causes is what is really stupid. Maybe you can hang yourself with the proverbial "fine line" before you get it.

No one has ever died from responsible alcohol use. Ever.

Hang yourself.

Car crashes probably cost billions and billions ever year. Not to mention the impossibly high cost of building and maintaining highway. Of course cars are good for the economy, but so is the sale of alcohol. Thousands upon thousands of people's jobs depend directly from making beer, wine, spirits etc.

And billions depend on cars.

They don't want ILLEGALS. Bar owners and patrons here are perfectly fine with 18-20 drinkers.

And you say culture isnt relevant when you use it to support your claim.

If they serve alcohol to minors, they can get arrested and have their license revoked. So in the U.S. they card EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME. It's really annoying when you're 27 and you get carded at every restaurant when you order a beer. Here? Almost no carding.

Yeah if someone cards me and takes 5 seconds out of my day I get so angry I could just kill a man.

The legal gambling age is 19 years of age in Canada, right?

It's 18 in quebec, 19 where it's also 19 to drink, cause they serve alcohol in there.

Well what's the harm of gambling? It doesn't kill you, they should lower it to 0.

I don't think internet gaming is legal at all.

That's because people kept getting ripped off. It wasn't to protect people from themselves, it was to protect people from asshole internet companies trying to steal their cash.

People could just be made aware, now they don't even have the option. They lost their freedoms, let's march down to the prime minister, I know he's not busy,and get your freedoms back.

That's up to rental companies to decide. You can rent one when you're younger but it costs you WAY MORE.

Age discrimination oh my god, we get the freedom to drive a car but not the freedom to be trusted like an adult when we are over 18. Hmm, maybe this is relevant to the 21 drinking age justification?

Yeah and rightly so. Same has been happening with drugs for DECADES. The war on drugs is a money hole and higher ages of consumption for anything are just one part of that whole idiot shebang yet you don't realize it for some reason.

Culture answers many of those questions. But wait, culture is never an argument?

And kids have a right to drink.

You mix privilege with right. Know the difference. You and I don't have the "right to drive, it's a privilege given to us at a certain age.

Again, a terrible argument. I refer you to the civil war: half of american was for slavery, the other hald wasn't. So? Who was right? The ones who won the war?

Again a piece of your ignorance. People are right in their own respective minds, so culture, or the majority of the minds that say one thing are who decides in a democracy.

You said yourself that you get to drink because you travel. So you do enjoy the freedom to drink yet you'd deny it to others who don't have the money to travel like you do.

Then they can do what they've been doing and wait or drink in their house and not call attention to themselves by throwing a huge party.

---

At 5/17/08 11:31 PM, n64kid wrote:

For the time being it does. That's how democracy works.

No, that's like the opposite of how it works.
There is always room for debate.

Show me a stat that says kids who drink earlier have it in their DNA to break the law.

DNA? Who said DNA? We all know the kids who disobey their parents are the ones who go out after curfew and drink, smoke, steal etc. etc.
And we all know that usually leads to problems in school and them having a shitty job later on which leads to them having friends who are like them, i.e. lazy smokers/drinkers who ruin their lives with alcohol or whatever.

Why another country? Tests in this country are more relevant to the people in this country.

Because the age is 21, so any data that suspiciously gravitate around that number are bullshit.

I said they're far from being the richest country.

That wasn't my point. What if they were? Based on your argument, they'd be right about the drinking age being... none.
Obviously stupid argument.

Then they can have a social life minus the alcohol.

Obviously but they shouldn't have to.

Are you THAT dumb?

Says person who can't read studies.

Oh wow 500 calories=9 ounces of avocado=270 grams

I don't see your point. Avocados have lots of calories so we should unban chocolate? No, we should ban avocados too!
Weeeee! Thank Proteas for my great arguments.

Bringing up the point about jet skis killing 2 people a year

So you wouldn't want to save those people?
You dick.

Hang yourself.

Show me you dipshit. You can't die from using alcohol responsibly, it's not even possible. If you die, it automatically means you were irresponsible, unless you were.. allergic to alcohol? Never heard of that.

And billions depend on cars.

Ever heard of buses?
p.s. thousands depend on alcohol.

Funny how every point you use against me, I can use against you, but then it "doesn't count because it's not the same".

And you say culture isnt relevant when you use it to support your claim.

Wtf you think I'll take the word of some underage drinker over the obvious financial benefit of having more people in a bar? You're basically claiming here that you KNOW that most bar-owners and patrons in the U.S.A. would just HATE to have 18-20 people there.
Yet you don't even go in these bars! haha You're not even 21! And you're trying to speak for them?

maybe you just hate yourself so much you wouldn't want you around a bar.

Yeah if someone cards me and takes 5 seconds out of my day I get so angry I could just kill a man.

You claim it's a big deal that some people might be annoyed by the kids, so I claim it's a big deal that some people are annoyed with carding.

Well what's the harm of gambling? It doesn't kill you, they should lower it to 0.

Gambling is for adults because you are financially responsible for yourself and you can't start losing all your parent's money. Alcohol is also for adults so that if you get fucked up on it, you only have yourself to blame, your parents don't get in trouble for your stupidity. That's what it means legally.

I think the only good reason for alcohol to be "for adults only" as well as drugs is that if you fuck up as an adult, you don't get your parents in trouble. If you crash a car while driving drunk at 16, your parents will have to pay for the damages.
So in that sense, the law isn't to protect the morons from themselves, but to protect the parents of said morons.

People could just be made aware, now they don't even have the option. They lost their freedoms, let's march down to the prime minister, I know he's not busy,and get your freedoms back.

Some people are trying to legalize it again and quite frankly I say "sure". The problem is that it's hard to regulate casinos and even harder to regulate online bullshit like that so that when you get ripped off and try to sue them, it turns to shit. Also gambling is illegal in a lot of states so it wouldn't make sense to allow internet gambling since you can do it from anywhere.
I don't know that it's banned in Canada. Maybe it is, but I never heard of it.

Age discrimination oh my god, we get the freedom to drive a car but not the freedom to be trusted like an adult when we are over 18.

No one has to trust you by law. Ever. Once you're 18, anything goes. If a company decides that they don't care losing all the business they'd get from renting cars to young people, then fine.
As long as there is a reason that's clearly not just discrimination like "oh you're black, fuck you". Young people are known to be bad drivers with bad financial situations, aka "don't rent" material.

Same goes for credit card companies and banks not loaning money to hobos. They have every right to protect their business and not waste time and money providing a service for people who abuse it a lot.

Culture answers many of those questions. But wait, culture is never an argument?

See again that's completely circular logic.
"well it's bad because it's banned because it's bad because it's banned".

I'd love for you to point out the difference between canadian culture and american culture because I know tons of both and I don't see it at all.

You mix privilege with right. Know the difference. You and I don't have the "right to drive, it's a privilege given to us at a certain age.

Right, when you become an adult, aka 18, not 21.

People are right in their own respective minds, so culture, or the majority of the minds that say one thing are who decides in a democracy.

So it would be ok if tomorrow we all voted to see if we bring back slavery or not? And then based on that, we just went "ok let's do it!".

Then they can do what they've been doing and wait or drink in their house and not call attention to themselves by throwing a huge party.

Right so hypocrisy basically. You don't have to wait, you don't care so you enjoy it while they have to wait 3 years. Not that I think it's a big deal mind you, but why do just one extra stupid thing when we could not do it?
What's the use?

---

At 5/18/08 12:13 AM, poxpower wrote:

Yeah I don't really feel like replying to everything right now so I'll say this.

The studies show 20, which is already an illegal age anyways. I disobey my parents, yet I don't steal or drink when it's illegal. I do, however, chill at clubs/bars but I just don't drink there.

The China thing, your argument is what if they become the richest country. If they do, then you get the point. But the thing is, they aren't the richest country, so until then, my point stands.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200 3/12/031205052952.htm
Even moderated alcohol consumption has negative effects

Even people with .04 BAC levels get into fatal accidents. Even those who are on the other end of drunk drivers usually aren't drunk themselves. Alcohol kills people who don't abuse it.

Don't bother trying to find an example that only kills 5 people a year because it's true that it wouldn't compare to alcohol.

Gambling is for adults because you are financially responsible for yourself and you can't start losing all your parent's money.

What if I'm 14 and I work? What if it's allowance? Birthday money? I should spend it the way I want to.

Alcohol is also for adults so that if you get fucked up on it, you only have yourself to blame, your parents don't get in trouble for your stupidity. That's what it means legally.

But alcohol costs your parents money too. They are financially responsible. So if a kid drops 100 bucks at a casino, what would be different than him dropping 60 bucks on some goldschlager and peppermint schnapps? The kid is obviously enjoying both, right? 100 bucks for entertainment and 60 bucks for a high.

So in that sense, the law isn't to protect the morons from themselves, but to protect the parents of said morons.

People can still be dependents at 21, especially college students.

So the rest of what you say is for the most part, idiotic as it ignores everything said in the thread. Cutlure is relevant. Didn't lazydrunk or someone else post a link saying 65% of the population, including bar and restaurant owners*, opposed lowering the drinking age? The majority is against it so as a democracy, it's tough shit for those in favor of it. Same with slaves and women not voting. The majority opposes those views.

* I've seen countless times teens at bars and restaurants with their parents being denied alcohol because the owner didn't view it as morally right.

---

At 5/18/08 01:32 AM, n64kid wrote:

The studies show 20

that's a lie.
You don't know how to read the studies. Show it again, I'll show you where you went wrong.

The China thing, your argument is what if they become the richest country. If they do, then you get the point. But the thing is, they aren't the richest country, so until then, my point stands.

That's utterly retarded since I can show easily that IF they were, your argument would be stupid.
"Whatever the best country says about anything is bound to be true".

Incredible.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200 3/12/031205052952.htm
Even moderated alcohol consumption has negative effects

Well that's an interesting study.
So how does this relate to the 21 age restriction? Moderate amounts of smoking is also bad.

Even people with .04 BAC levels get into fatal accidents. Even those who are on the other end of drunk drivers usually aren't drunk themselves. Alcohol kills people who don't abuse it.

Drinking and then going for a drive is abuse. Even a single beer can alter your judgment. To get a BAC of 04, I think you need something like 4 in your system, which is already a lot. I wouldn't call that moderate if you're going for a drive right after.
I wouldn't drive with 2-3 beers in me, even if I can drink 10.

What if I'm 14 and I work? What if it's allowance? Birthday money? I should spend it the way I want to.

How on earth would a casino worker know that?

Alcohol is also for adults so that if you get fucked up on it, you only have yourself to blame, your parents don't get in trouble for your stupidity. That's what it means legally.

But alcohol costs your parents money too. They are financially responsible. So if a kid drops 100 bucks at a casino, what would be different than him dropping 60 bucks on some goldschlager and peppermint schnapps?

None, except you can't go to a bar or a casino while you're under 18. If you find a way to open a casino in your house, let me know.

People can still be dependents at 21, especially college students.

Well they're legally adults, so they mistakes are their own to account for, even if their parents can bail them out if they want.

So the rest of what you say is for the most part, idiotic as it ignores everything said in the thread. Cutlure is relevant. Didn't lazydrunk or someone else post a link saying 65% of the population, including bar and restaurant owners*, opposed lowering the drinking age?

Ad populum is not an argument. 99.999999999999999% of people on earth could be in favor of a flat earth or chopping off women's privates, it's still stupid. In fact the majority of people on earth believe in God, and guess what? They're wrong.
So should we let them decide laws based on their belief?
No. NO, NO, NO.

* I've seen countless times teens at bars and restaurants with their parents being denied alcohol because the owner didn't view it as morally right.

To let the kids have alcohol? Duh, I told you, they could get in trouble.