Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/19/08 06:12 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

I would love to see where you pulled that from!

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/
20080530/news_lz1n30nowread.html

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/200 7/05/marine_alcohol_070511/

Camp Pendleton recently raised it to 21 from public outcry and drunk driving accidents.

DoD Instruction 1015.10

"In the case of a DoD installation located in more than one State or in one State but within 50 miles of another State or Mexico or Canada, the minimum drinking age on that DoD installation shall be the lowest applicable age of the State in which the DoD installation is located or the State or jurisdiction of Mexico or Canada that is within 50 miles of such DoD installation."

So for border camps, the installation commander may adopt the lower drinking age for military personnel on base.

At 8/19/08 06:33 PM, n64kid wrote: So for border camps, the installation commander may adopt the lower drinking age for military personnel on base.

Well I can't look at the Sandiego Article right now, guess my computer sucks.

What you said now is correct. What you said in your previous post was not. I just wanted to clarify that.

At 8/19/08 05:50 PM, hrb5711 wrote: Actually most college students don't binge as soon as it becomes legal to them, or even while it is illegal. So where did you get your fact from?

When I was at college, two thirds of the class went round back and did smoked weed.

Then when I went to a different campus the next year at least 4 of them were heavy drinkers.

My point is, what does a typical young man do when he can drink legally in a venue? He goes out with friends partying and drinking heavily. It happens all the time.

At 8/19/08 06:24 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: It isn't worth arguing about if there are no intelligent people to talk to, man I wish this site had more decent mods so there wouldn't be so many kids, its sad.

So says the high school drop out.

At 8/19/08 08:12 PM, Brick-top wrote: When I was at college, two thirds of the class went round back and did smoked weed.

:Your Point?

Then when I went to a different campus the next year at least 4 of them were heavy drinkers.

:Only four? That is pretty good for a college campus!

My point is, what does a typical young man do when he can drink legally in a venue? He goes out with friends partying and drinking heavily. It happens all the time.

I guess me and my friends aren't typical young men then......

So what was the point of that you smoked weed in college? Aren't you only 19 or something?

At 8/19/08 06:27 PM, adrshepard wrote: So everyone in high school who wants alcohol can always get it whenever they want in the same amount of time it would take to go out and buy some.

No that's not what i said. Thats called a strawman and i would expect a mature adult like yourself to understand this.

Nevertheless, what does it matter if it takes underage kids longer to get alcohol? How does that make the situation any better? The stricter the law is, the harder it is to enforce, which is why it isn't working as it was intended.

Not quite. Maybe if the hundred were raging alcholics you would make sense.

Haha, what? That made such little sense it was funny; please, elaborate.

How many criminals have been stopped from buying firearms because they would never be able to get a license?

Well, hopefully all of them, that would be great! But...

criminals can get guns the same way kids get alcohol, illegally.

No i am not saying we should just allow guns to everyone including convicted criminals, i am saying if someone really wanted a gun they are capable of getting it. same with alcohol. So in that respect i don't see a point to this rhetorical question

How many licks does it take to get to the middle of your lazy-ass mind?

No, i refuse to believe you are 23. Either that or i refuse to believe you attended college.

At 8/19/08 01:54 PM, Memorize wrote: While we're at it, let's make gambling legal at age 18.

Nothing like allowing people who are most likely, still living with their parents, the ability or opportunity to fuck their lives up even further while still allowing them to vote.

And gee, it's bad for people to be in the sun, they could get cancer, let's arrest sun bathers too. Oh, and old people could fall down stairs and break their hips, that is unhealthy, let's put all old people who live in houses with stairs in prison.

At 8/19/08 10:06 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: And gee, it's bad for people to be in the sun, they could get cancer, let's arrest sun bathers too. Oh, and old people could fall down stairs and break their hips, that is unhealthy, let's put all old people who live in houses with stairs in prison.

Yeah lets take another person's comment completely out of context, simplify it, and add nothing to the discussion! WEE!

I have come see some merit in the decision to leave drinking legal 'till you're 21.

In the younger, more rebellious stages of our lives, drinking is more fun because it's illegal. I don't believe that it should be illegal, but that is one ACTUALLY RELEVANT advantage I can think of.

At 8/19/08 11:12 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: as long as you drink responsibly and drink moderately it should be ok

Sounds dull. I believe that excitement requires some degree of risk.

It's important to do dangerous things once in a while, like binge drink, and then drive. I've survived unscathed 4/4 times. Upon entering the car each time, I was unable to stand, but still could drive. Don't worry, it was always between 2 and 4AM, no old ladies, families, or small children are killable at that hour. :)

Don't binge more than twice a month though, it'll do permanent damage to stiffness of your erection.

At 8/19/08 11:29 PM, BetaOrionis wrote: like binge drink, and then drive. I've survived unscathed 4/4 times. Upon entering the car each time, I was unable to stand, but still could drive. Don't worry, it was always between 2 and 4AM, no old ladies, families, or small children are killable at that hour. :)

Well than lets just make drunk driving legal too!

This shows why underage kids shouldn't be legally able to drink.

At 8/19/08 09:03 PM, Jackrabbit-slims wrote: No that's not what i said. Thats called a strawman and i would expect a mature adult like yourself to understand this.

No, you only said that there was rarely a time when people couldn't get alcohol. I find that hard to believe, if only because of the fact that you were one person in a giant high school who is not in a position to say who can get alcohol and who can't.
My exaggeration pointed out the logical inference of your comment, and unless you can show that what I said wasn't an exaggeration, then you cannot discount the possibility that there were kids who couldn't get alcohol specifically because of the prohibition.

Nevertheless, what does it matter if it takes underage kids longer to get alcohol? How does that make the situation any better? The stricter the law is, the harder it is to enforce, which is why it isn't working as it was intended.

Making things a pain in the ass is the best way to prohibit something without explicitly doing so. It's also the best way to do things when enforcement is near impossible. You are right that a kid COULD get alcohol illegally if he made it his sole purpose in life. But when he can't go out and buy it, he has to rely on someone else. What if he can't get in touch with that person or convince him to help? What if he wants to drink now but the "big party" isn't until next week? What if a helper reconsiders? These are all reasonable scenarios that would keep alcohol away from the kid.

Haha, what? That made such little sense it was funny; please, elaborate.

As little sense as your phrase that "people grow older with age," right? I assumed you meant "grow wiser" or "grow responsible"

There are different types of responsibility and wisdom. When we talk about immaturity, we are referring to the lack of foresight on how one's own actions will lead to certain consequences; kids take risks, endanger themselves unknowingly.

Another type of responsibility or wisdom is that which you apply to others, and it doesn't necessarily grow with age. Aged people know what happens when they do things, and they may think they know what happens when other people do things. Whether that gives them legitimate reason to dictate what other people should do is the dilemma of all positions of authority. I do not think it is a contradiction that 100 college presidents could be wise and responsible in their own behavior but may not have the best insight into directing other people's lives.

How many criminals have been stopped from buying firearms because they would never be able to get a license?

No i am not saying we should just allow guns to everyone including convicted criminals, i am saying if someone really wanted a gun they are capable of getting it. same with alcohol. So in that respect i don't see a point to this rhetorical question

This all goes back to whether some restriction is better than none at all. I say it is.

No, i refuse to believe you are 23. Either that or i refuse to believe you attended college.

As if you are above all that, right? Weren't you the first one in the thread to break "hearts," so to speak, and launch personal attacks?

At 8/19/08 11:46 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

At 8/19/08 11:29 PM, BetaOrionis wrote: like binge drink, and then drive. I've survived unscathed 4/4 times. Upon entering the car each time, I was unable to stand, but still could drive. Don't worry, it was always between 2 and 4AM, no old ladies, families, or small children are killable at that hour. :)

Well than lets just make drunk driving legal too!

hahaha, you're missing the point. THAT would make it less fun for younger people.

This shows why underage kids shouldn't be legally able to drink.

In that new context I created, it does.

I would drive drunk regardless of the legality of the substance or the act. Removing the legality just makes it punishable before I actually hurt anyone. And it's to prevent lawsuits against the state. That fact that I could die is what makes it fun for me though.

At 8/19/08 02:24 PM, Memorize wrote:
"Hey... did you learn anything?"

Alcoholic: "Yup... don't drink" *takes up bottle*

It has nothing to do with your shitty societal dilemmas and everything to do with natural freedom.

And by shitty I mean inconsequential, narrow, meaningless, etc

At 8/20/08 12:08 AM, BetaOrionis wrote: That fact that I could die is what makes it fun for me though.

Well than by all means do something that will only injure you and play Russian roulette with six bullets!

Have fun!

At 8/20/08 12:49 AM, hrb5711 wrote:

At 8/20/08 12:08 AM, BetaOrionis wrote: That fact that I could die is what makes it fun for me though.

Well than by all means do something that will only injure you and play Russian roulette with six bullets!

Hah, anyone can shoot themselves, drunk driving takes skill. Besides, I'm not looking to die, but when there is a chance that I could die, it makes an experience all the more thrilling. ;D

Have fun!

I always do.

What were we supposed to be talking about again? Drinking age? There really shouldn't be one, but lower is a step in the right direction.

Hey kids, at 18 you can go and die in a war for your country, but CONSUME ALCOHOL? Hell no.

At 8/19/08 11:46 PM, hrb5711 wrote: Well than lets just make drunk driving legal too!

This shows why underage kids shouldn't be legally able to drink.

People under 18 drink and drive.

Therefore your point is refuted.

At 8/20/08 02:29 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Hey kids, at 18 you can go and die in a war for your country, but CONSUME ALCOHOL? Hell no.

;;;
Not only that, you smoke a joint & get caught & they'll put you in jail !
No not for killing men ,women & children, no they'll put you in jail because you dared to smoke a joint.
Kill ,maim, destroy everything in sight in the war zone ,just don't do it high & don't dare go for a beer afterwards unless your over 21 years of age.

Come on people, how can that make any sense at all ?

Thank god the legal drinking age over here is 18, though I think it should be increased to 21 like in America...
...When I'm 21 ^__^

Surprisingly, the big issue here is not whether or not people drink to excess before they turn 21.

Granted, if people are going to anyway, the thing to do is simply remove the ineffective law. It's just like with the DC handgun ban. Having one of the highest instances of gun-related violence in the country, it just seems ridiculous to keep handguns illegal as you're basically only limiting freedom for its own sake at that point.

Basically, if a law does not work, then it is ineffectual to keep pouring money into it just because you think that legality is equivalent to a full-fledged endorsement of the activity.

And again, that's not even the big issue here. While it is a major point and should stand on its own, the real benefit to bringing the drinking age back down is that it actually could reduce college binge drinking.

Let's face it, one of the reasons why people drink to excess in college is because they're able to. When you turn 21 and you're away from any sort of moderating influence (i.e. your parents), then guess what's going to happen? Hell, look at what does happen. The fact is, if you're going to be legal to drink, it might as well be when you're most likely still under the care of your parents. By the time you're off on your own, drinking isn't a taboo and there's probably a good chance you've even downed a couple with your dad over a ballgame. If there's anything that takes the edge off of drinking, it's having a beer with your family.

I swear to God, though, if anybody replies with a "oh, you expect this to work all the time?!!!" as some kind of rebuttal, I'm going to choke an infant to death. Of course people are still going to binge drink and there will be drunk drivers and people will still die of alcohol poisoning. That's going to happen regardless. This is simply something to alleviate a little bit of the pressure and, if current trends are any indicator, the system that's set up right now does not work.

Remember, the drinking age was RAISED to 21 in the 80s in order to cut down on all of the problems associated with drinking. Seeing as how these colleges have some research to show that it's making things worse, why the hell not bring things back to the way they were?

At 8/19/08 08:50 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

At 8/19/08 08:12 PM, Brick-top wrote: When I was at college, two thirds of the class went round back and did smoked weed.

Your Point?

People at college aren't as innocent as you suspect they are.

Then when I went to a different campus the next year at least 4 of them were heavy drinkers.

Only four? That is pretty good for a college campus!

No, four out of 10 in our class.

And there are bars near one college that everyone goes to at lunch. A lot of them have a drink.

I should've been more specific.

My point is, what does a typical young man do when he can drink legally in a venue? He goes out with friends partying and drinking heavily. It happens all the time.

I guess me and my friends aren't typical young men then......

So what was the point of that you smoked weed in college? Aren't you only 19 or something?

I never said I smoked weed at college. I said the majority of them smoked weed. Stop quote mining.

At 8/20/08 11:07 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 8/19/08 08:50 PM, hrb5711 wrote: So what was the point of that you smoked weed in college? Aren't you only 19 or something?

I never said I smoked weed at college. I said the majority of them smoked weed. Stop quote mining.

;;;;
Yeah he never smoked any illegal substances...he just happened to 'smell' it once at a party he happened to be at. No one ever smokes it ,we all just happen to see it being smoked by strangers who just happen to be in our homes. Plus even if we look like we are smoking it, we are really just pretending to try & fit in...none of us EVER inhale ! ever !

At 8/20/08 11:37 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Yeah he never smoked any illegal substances...he just happened to 'smell' it once at a party he happened to be at. No one ever smokes it ,we all just happen to see it being smoked by strangers who just happen to be in our homes. Plus even if we look like we are smoking it, we are really just pretending to try & fit in...none of us EVER inhale ! ever !

I know a lot of people who hang out with potheads who've never tried weed. If you're trying to imply that anyone who goes to parties where some people are smoking weed has tried it, then, even though you don't know anyone like that, they do exist.

At 8/19/08 11:51 PM, adrshepard wrote: No, you only said that there was rarely a time when people couldn't get alcohol. I find that hard to believe, if only because of the fact that you were one person in a giant high school who is not in a position to say who can get alcohol and who can't.

Well we won't get very far if we just 'dont believe' what the other person is saying (as long as we differentiate between fact and opinion), but it doesn't make any difference in the long run whether or not it was hard, during my high school years, to get alcohol.

Also I went to a very small high school, and it was in a foreign country where the drinking age was 18 so by my senior year it was irrelevent. I can tell you, however, that upon my return to the US I saw that kids drink just as much as they did overseas, if not more. But, again, I came from a small high school so I can't make an informed observation on how many kids drink out of the whole population.

I do not think it is a contradiction that 100 college presidents could be wise and responsible in their own behavior but may not have the best insight into directing other people's lives.

Ok so thats where you and I disagree on a fundamental fact - so I can't pursue it any farther. I think that dozens of college presidents, after their years of experience would use that experience try to make changes which would better protect their students.

I think the change will have no effect at all on college students, if anybody thinks it will make a huge impact (for the worse) in the long run I would love to see the logic/historical precedent backing that up.

You, conversely, think they "may not have the best insight into directing other people's lives." I would call that bold, at the least, but I wouldn't say these people are 'directing' their students lives. They want to try out a new system, something similar to the Netherlands cannabis experiment (which has worked so far, there is actually less pot smoking there than in the neighboring countries) with the intentions of making it safer for their students.

At 8/20/08 12:05 PM, Jackrabbit-slims wrote:

At 8/19/08 11:51 PM, adrshepard wrote: I do not think it is a contradiction that 100 college presidents could be wise and responsible in their own behavior but may not have the best insight into directing other people's lives.

Ok so thats where you and I disagree on a fundamental fact - so I can't pursue it any farther. I think that dozens of college presidents, after their years of experience would use that experience try to make changes which would better protect their students.

I'll jump on this and even take it further. Are you saying that your opinion about college drinking is either more informed or reasonable than people who have been on college campuses for a combined total of over a millenia? How about people who have seen college campuses both before AND after the drinking age was moved to 21? You don't trust that they'd understand what the impact that moving the drinking age has been?

I don't even mean just a blind look at the statistics that show drinking has gone up, you could argue that just looking at the statistics wouldn't prove jack and you'd be right. I'm talking about incredibly smart people who have tremendous amounts of experience in dealing with college students. You have to assume they're going to have some insight into the direct impacts moving the drinking age has had, independent of the changing cultural influences on drinking.

So, in that vein, I ask again. They may not have the BEST insight into what's best for college students, but I think there is very convincing backing to suggest they have better insight than you do.

At 8/20/08 12:15 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Are you saying that your opinion about college drinking is either more informed or reasonable than people who have been on college campuses for a combined total of over a millenia?

no.

How about people who have seen college campuses both before AND after the drinking age was moved to 21?

no.

I'm talking about incredibly smart people who have tremendous amounts of experience in dealing with college students.

Right, the college presidents.

You have to assume they're going to have some insight into the direct impacts moving the drinking age has had, independent of the changing cultural influences on drinking.

Yes

So, in that vein, I ask again. They may not have the BEST insight into what's best for college students, but I think there is very convincing backing to suggest they have better insight than you do.

yea thats kind of the point

Did you misread my post? because it seems like we agree on the same thing, or where you replying to shepherd?