Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/20/08 12:28 PM, Jackrabbit-slims wrote: Did you misread my post? because it seems like we agree on the same thing, or where you replying to shepherd?

S'why I said I was taking the point further and included the guy's text that you were responding to.

I was saying that I was jumping on your point and expounding. There's no disagreement.

At 8/20/08 12:37 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I was saying that I was jumping on your point and expounding. There's no disagreement.

Oh ok thank you :D

At 8/19/08 08:12 PM, Brick-top wrote: 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.

This generally only happens until the novelty of drinking wears off. If you can remove the novelty in a controlled setting, you end up with primarily responsible drinking habits.

They should just change it so you can buy alcohol at liquor stores and restaurants when you're sixteen, and change it to 25 for bars.

At 8/20/08 12:54 PM, Elfer wrote: They should just change it so you can buy alcohol at liquor stores and restaurants when you're sixteen,

They already do that in the UK.

and change it to 25 for bars.

Umm...no you're working backwards.

In the UK you can legally drink alcohol at 5. This is because if you're resticted to it you're going to binge and end up an alcoholic. What you're doing is making the situation worse.

i would have to agree that public venues should allow younger drinkers as those are the places you tend to drink less. generally you don't go to a bar, pub, etc... to get ruined, but you do go to private parties where you buy your own and bring it along to do so.

At 8/20/08 11:07 AM, Brick-top wrote: People at college aren't as innocent as you suspect they are.

:Agreed.

No, four out of 10 in our class.

:You really can't back that up though. I can just as easily say when I was at college only a few people in a class of 100 drank. We can prove each other wrong so there is no point to this.

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

:Again no way to prove or disprove that, so no point in argueing about it.

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

Forgive me. I read to far into what you said. Still though, no one has come up with one study to suggest there is a huge drinking problem for underage people. We all know some of them drink, but where is this huge problem? These college presidents all say they want to lower the drinking age so kids can be educated more about responsible drinking, why don't they start educating them now?

well this doesn't mean anything to me? But?? I think its a bad idea? an 18 year old is not ready for that responsibility?

At 8/19/08 05:32 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Ummm....irrelevent much?

How so?

People contested that because they can join the military at age 18, they should be able to vote. So I say, if you're able to join the military at 18 and vote at 18, then you should be able to drink and gamble at age 18.

Though, with the military, you DO receive TRAINING and INSTRUCTION before being sent out into the field. So as a matter of fairness, I believe that in order to vote, you should receive specific TRAINING and INSTRUCTION in History and Economics before you're capable of making a rational voting decision.

And if you fail, you then shouldn't be able to vote.

Don't you just see all of the holes in this whole age game?

At 8/20/08 02:30 PM, hrb5711 wrote: Forgive me. I read to far into what you said. Still though, no one has come up with one study to suggest there is a huge drinking problem for underage people.

lol

We all know some of them drink, but where is this huge problem? These college presidents all say they want to lower the drinking age so kids can be educated more about responsible drinking, why don't they start educating them now?

Actually, not only was I educated on the effects of alcohol, drugs and unprotected sex in school but also in college.

They had these googles that showed you what you saw when you were drunk. It was really funny.

At 8/20/08 04:27 PM, Brick-top wrote: They had these googles that showed you what you saw when you were drunk. It was really funny.

Goggles, sorry force of habbit.

At 8/20/08 03:58 PM, Memorize wrote: Though, with the military, you DO receive TRAINING and INSTRUCTION before being sent out into the field. So as a matter of fairness, I believe that in order to vote, you should receive specific TRAINING and INSTRUCTION in History and Economics before you're capable of making a rational voting decision.

Agreed, but I think that is what our public school system was designed (in part) to do. But of course with the arrival of people like Bush I think they would rather have dumb voters who respond to things like "terrorists" and "9/11" and "gays" rather than actual policy.

thats what i would do if i were trying to take over the country

also lol at MADD... is there someone FOR drunk driving?

At 8/19/08 01:59 PM, Elfer wrote:

Regardless of the legal drinking age, the best way to combat risky drinking behaviour among youths is to introduce them to responsible drinking at home, rather than letting them find out about drinking by sneaking around to unsupervised parties and drinking themselves sick.

Don't know about the US, but here in Sweden study after study has shown that kids that are allowed "responsible drinking at home" have like 4 times larger risk of becoming alcoholics.

At 8/20/08 12:15 PM, Gunter45 wrote: 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 would normally totally agree with your reasoning because I employ it very often, especially rebutting criticism of the government.

However, in this case, the fact that they are college presidents is more or less irrelevant, because we are talking about simple concepts that one can understand without being an expert. The presidents' main argument is that kids are too stupid to make responsible decisions and therefore need guidance. An accurate observation. The only problem is that the dangers of drinking are already well known and easily communicated. I find it unlikely that there are swaths of young adults in the world who currently know nothing about alcohol or its effects and could only be saved by lowering the drinking age, which would somehow allow more "dialogue." I would think that someone would have to be cripplingly dysfunctional and socially inept not to understand that alcohol impairs judgment, motor skills, and body chemistry, not to mention the long term problems of alcoholism. What could any education attempt to convey besides these facts? And there is no need for any special educational techniques because its a simple matter of causation: you drink too much, you will experience x symptoms. That a person should err on the side of caution in finding out how much it takes to overwhelm them should be self-evident to everyone.

The solutions to the other scenarios they mention are quite obvious, too. When going off-campus to a strange place, don't lose yourself in alcohol to the point where you are vulnerable in some way. Same goes for normal parties if you're a woman. Plus, make sure you have some way to get back if you are going to be drunk.

(It is unsurprising that college presidents would believe education is the answer to all problems. It is what they do, anyway. They are probably liberals, too, and so are predisposed towards favoring government action to solve social problems.)

Without this "education" component, the presidents' argument falls apart, taking into account certain assumptions.
1. Lowering the drinking age would make alcohol more available to kids under 21 and so increase consumption in that age group.
2. 18 year-olds are less responsible, on the average, than 21 year olds in knowing how to take care of themselves and avoid risks.

Basically, their argument is turned on its head because their course involves increasing the supply of alcohol to younger people precisely as they state that 21 year olds aren't responsible enough to handle it themselves.

There is one final aspect to mention, one that has nothing to do with age and experience but everything to do with principle. In my view, when people know the dangers but proceed anyway, they deserve whatever happens to them. An 18 year-old is certainly competent enough to grasp the concepts of risk and uncertainty. I feel no sympathy for people who drink enough to the point where they hurt themselves or allow someone else to. I also feel it is more important that people suffer the consequences of their informed actions than be prevented by someone else, especially the government, from taking them in the first place. Responsibility is critical to how people operate in society, and in order for people to learn it must cut both ways.

At 8/20/08 12:54 PM, Elfer wrote: They should just change it so you can buy alcohol at liquor stores and restaurants when you're sixteen, and change it to 25 for bars.

WHAT? Isn't that kind of the opposite? It's easier to drink to much when you buy it at the liquor store than in a bar, in a bar you get thrown out if you are TOO drunk, but when you're partying with friends at some random place (often alone, since you don't want your parents to find out when your 16, legal or not) the risk is much higher. Especially since you buy it all before and so many people stack up more than they need "just to be sure".

At 8/20/08 05:24 PM, adrshepard wrote: What could any education attempt to convey besides these facts?

Not even the point. It's not a matter of education from an outside source. It's being eased into a situation. People binge drink on their 21st birthday because it's like a dam bursting. All this time away from their parents without being able to legally drink and, when they finally can get legal booze, what's stopping them from drinking a LOT of legal booze?

Nobody's claiming that telling people about alcohol and its effects is going to do shit, it simply doesn't work for anything. What we're talking about is having a controlled atmosphere in which they can begin drinking if they want to. Removing the taboo associated with alcohol by letting kids go drive to the store and grab their old man a six pack like it's no big deal would have a much more lasting effect than simply saying "IT'S BAD FOR YOU."

The message is simple: alcohol isn't bad for you if you know your limits. The healthy way to explore your limits is with people who will help you find your limit instead of telling you to stop being a pussy and do another shot.

At 8/20/08 04:27 PM, Brick-top wrote:

lol

:Ummm........ok maybe in the UK, but we are in the US. I need to see a study about the US drinking problem. Nice try though.

Actually, not only was I educated on the effects of alcohol, drugs and unprotected sex in school but also in college.

:Good for you. I don't think you understood my question though. I was asking if the president's of the colleges have these "amazing" new education plans now, why not use them? Why try and lower the drinking age first?

The more I read about this the more it sounds like these people are trying to lower the drinking age so they won't be held responsible for 18 yr old freshmen drinking to much in the dorms and killing or injuring themselves.

At 8/19/08 06:33 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 8/19/08 06:31 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

At 8/19/08 06:26 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

I drink im 19 and I drink moderatley . so why dont you go pull the life support on your comatose brother.

Dude, you are the sickest twisted and depraved person I have ever had the misfortune to meet.

Still I forgive you, I have no feelings for you n you have made me very angry but I do not hate you.
I will pray that you live a long life and that you will not die a horrible death due to your underage drinking.
You can throw all the insults you want at n threaten me n my family but I choose to not do that to you.

Why? do I think I'm better or higher than you? No, I'm human just like you n we are the same, only difference is I may insult people but do not take it to the point of the hate that you have expressed to me, I feel sorry for you because of that because you must feel a lot of pain on a daily basis.

Peace n God bless, I hope you apologize for what you said because it is hurting you more than me.

This is semi-unrelated, but still in the topic area.

Alcoholics anonymous should not be used as a government recognized method of curing addiction.

1. It demands admitting you have no self control even though self-control is all that is needed to stop drinking

2. it demands you recognize a god, both violating the first amendment (if required by courts for drunk drivers) and forcing atheists to worship a god is immoral

I'm a dual Canadian-American citizen who lives in Canada, and as far as I can tell the lower drinking age causes no harm. By 18 your old enough to vote and drive, why not drink.

At 8/20/08 05:24 PM, adrshepard wrote: I also feel it is more important that people suffer the consequences of their informed actions than be prevented by someone else, especially the government, from taking them in the first place. Responsibility is critical to how people operate in society, and in order for people to learn it must cut both ways.

So people are responsible for themselves, its not the governments job to decide for them? This seems very out-of-place next to the rest of your arguments. So why can't adult (and they are adults legally) 18 year olds be responsible for themselves when drinking alcohol? I think they can, i know they can. Of course, they don't. But they can.

So what is your policy on 'illicit' drugs, say, cannabis? *wink*wink*

An 18 year-old is certainly competent enough to grasp the concepts of risk and uncertainty.

There you go, I'm glad we agree.

At 8/20/08 11:43 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 8/20/08 11:37 AM, morefngdbs wrote: ...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.

;;;;;;;;;
No I'm not trying to say that ,nor am I implying anything like that Gunter.
I'm saying that NONE of US ever smoked dope, we all just "know" someone who does & even those who we are close to, who you think were smoking pot, were only pretending to inhale.

After all smoking pot is illegal & no one who comes here would do such a thing.
I'm sure of that.

its so nice to have a place to come to, where everyone is always honest & truthful.

At 8/21/08 03:00 PM, morefngdbs wrote: No I'm not trying to say that ,nor am I implying anything like that Gunter.
I'm saying that NONE of US ever smoked dope, we all just "know" someone who does & even those who we are close to, who you think were smoking pot, were only pretending to inhale.

After all smoking pot is illegal & no one who comes here would do such a thing.
I'm sure of that.

its so nice to have a place to come to, where everyone is always honest & truthful.

Fair enough. I was just kidding around anyway. It would be a crime for me to witness people smoking marijuana and not report it. I would be an accomplice at that point. That's illegal.

I don't smoke pot, but I know a lot of people who do, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

At 8/20/08 07:25 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

At 8/20/08 04:27 PM, Brick-top wrote:

lol
Ummm........ok maybe in the UK, but we are in the US. I need to see a study about the US drinking problem. Nice try though.

"no one has come up with one study to suggest there is a huge drinking problem for underage people."

You never said the US.

lol
omg
wft
etc

Actually, not only was I educated on the effects of alcohol, drugs and unprotected sex in school but also in college.

Good for you. I don't think you understood my question though. I was asking if the president's of the colleges have these "amazing" new education plans now, why not use them? Why try and lower the drinking age first?

Well, from what I was taught. They were very informative.

Actually I was doing a doormans course a few months ago usually working in places like bars, nighclubs etc. And that teacher taught us LESS than what the other colleges and schools did. And this is a man is teaching us how to deal with people who will be intoxicated yet he he gave me less information about the effects of alcoholism than when I was studying motor vehicle maintainence and servicing.

The more I read about this the more it sounds like these people are trying to lower the drinking age so they won't be held responsible for 18 yr old freshmen drinking to much in the dorms and killing or injuring themselves.

In parts of the Western world, moderate drinking by teenagers and even children under their parents' supervision is a given. Though the per capita consumption of alcohol in France, Spain and Portugal is higher than in the United States, the rate of alcoholism and alcohol abuse is lower. A glass of wine at dinner is normal practice. Kids learn to regard moderate drinking as an enjoyable family activity rather than as something they have to sneak away to do . Banning drinking by young people makes it a badge of adulthood-a tantalizing forbidden fruit.

Oh look, that's exactly what I've been trying to say.

At 8/20/08 05:43 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 8/20/08 05:24 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Not even the point. It's not a matter of education from an outside source. It's being eased into a situation. People binge drink on their 21st birthday because it's like a dam bursting. All this time away from their parents without being able to legally drink and, when they finally can get legal booze, what's stopping them from drinking a LOT of legal booze?

Err, basically themselves. People that drink to the extent that they hurt themselves when they turn 21 do not do so because of some unbearable pressure, they do it because they are morons. They know alcohol and be dangerous, they know little about how much alcohol they can tolerate, yet they binge. Why should I care about such a person's welfare? They themselves are the cause of their problems.

Nobody's claiming that telling people about alcohol and its effects is going to do shit, it simply doesn't work for anything. What we're talking about is having a controlled atmosphere in which they can begin drinking if they want to. Removing the taboo associated with alcohol by letting kids go drive to the store and grab their old man a six pack like it's no big deal would have a much more lasting effect than simply saying "IT'S BAD FOR YOU."

I love how all the people who use the "taboo" argument never admit to being such ignorant fools as they suppose everyone else is. Tell me, where are all these people who do illegal things for no other reason than the fact they are illegal?
And no one simply says, "It's bad for you," and leaves it at that. Anyone who understands the concepts of alcoholism or drunkeness to even a superficial extent can figure out why alcohol can be bad.

The message is simple: alcohol isn't bad for you if you know your limits. The healthy way to explore your limits is with people who will help you find your limit instead of telling you to stop being a pussy and do another shot.

I don't see how knowing one's limit will lessen peer pressure. The person should be insistent enough as a precaution in experimenting than out of necessity.

At 8/20/08 10:09 PM, Jackrabbit-slims wrote: So people are responsible for themselves, its not the governments job to decide for them? This seems very out-of-place next to the rest of your arguments.

Whoever said that I have to argue according to my actual beliefs? I still haven't seen anyone try to dispute my main points (the two assumptions in my previous post and the statement that kids already know the risks). All that's been put forward is an argument about a one-time binge event.

An 18 year-old is certainly competent enough to grasp the concepts of risk and uncertainty.

There you go, I'm glad we agree.

Not quite. I said they grasp the concepts on an intellectual level, not that they choose to act upon them. What do you think maturity is, just knowing right from wrong?

At 8/19/08 02:52 PM, animehater wrote: I have no problem with bringing back full on prohibition myself.

Like it'll really be that much harder to get alcohol if you want it?

At 8/21/08 07:22 PM, adrshepard wrote: Err, basically themselves. People that drink to the extent that they hurt themselves when they turn 21 do not do so because of some unbearable pressure, they do it because they are morons. They know alcohol and be dangerous, they know little about how much alcohol they can tolerate, yet they binge. Why should I care about such a person's welfare? They themselves are the cause of their problems.

However, that's where they start. There's a difference between first drinking with people who want to funnel booze down your throat and people who you really don't want to get drunk and make an ass of yourself around. I never said people wouldn't binge drink, in fact, I made it a point to preemptively deal with that faulty line of reasoning. The thing about binging is that there's slightly responsible ways to do it. I don't care what people do to themselves when they binge, that's their business, but when it becomes other people's problems, like when they drive, that's when steps need to be taken. Introducing people to drinking through responsible people (for the most part) who can at least introduce them to SAFE drinking.

I'm mainly talking from experience on this. I was introduced to drinking the wrong way and I am very, very lucky that I was able to learn the ropes without seriously hurting myself or anyone else. Friends of mine were not so lucky and it could have been prevented had any of us learned from OTHER people's mistakes beforehand. I also have friends who had beers with their family when they were in high school and it was no big deal. They have a very good sense of where there limit is and how to enjoy a nice buzz without fucking anyone up and, as far as I know, they don't have any really bad horror stories of losing their cool and almost dying or killing someone while drunk.

I love how all the people who use the "taboo" argument never admit to being such ignorant fools as they suppose everyone else is. Tell me, where are all these people who do illegal things for no other reason than the fact they are illegal?

Don't twist my words around. I never say that the taboo is what makes people drink. Don't resort to stupid bullshit like that.

The fact that it's taboo means you're way less likely to do it around irresponsible people. Underage parties are not typically where you'll find experienced drinkers, that's a fact. My whole point is that when people drink without knowing what their PERSONAL limits are, bad things happen to them and innocent bystanders.

Your stupid bullshit about people saying "drinking is bad because it does x,y,z" has nothing to do with it. Drinking isn't the problem, it's having a SUBJECTIVE understanding of what alcohol does to you PERSONALLY. That is only acquired through experience. Nobody can "educate" you on how many beers it takes to get you buzzed, how many more to get you drunk, how many often you can have a beer to stay buzzed, but not get stupid drunk, etc. Those are all important things to know if you're going to drink safely. Drinking with responsible people is the quickest and safest way to get a good grasp on what those limits are.

I don't see how knowing one's limit will lessen peer pressure. The person should be insistent enough as a precaution in experimenting than out of necessity.

Dude, if you know your limits and how to handle yourself when you're drunk, you're going to be a hell of a lot more safe than if you don't. Responsible drinkers get drunk, sure, but they KNOW they're drunk and they KNOW what they're like when they're drunk. Stupid people who don't know their limit get convinced to do stupid things and they're far more likely to get behind the wheel. It's just one of those things that I've learned from being around a lot of drinkers. Working around bars and stuff kinda gives you a good insight into the behavior of people who know what they're doing when drunk and those that don't.

Not quite. I said they grasp the concepts on an intellectual level, not that they choose to act upon them. What do you think maturity is, just knowing right from wrong?

Coming from the person who just got through telling me that people having experience with drinking in a responsible environment is on par with being told that drinking is bad. You can't be serious.

At 8/21/08 07:22 PM, adrshepard wrote:

An 18 year-old is certainly competent enough to grasp the concepts of risk and uncertainty.

There you go, I'm glad we agree.

Not quite. I said they grasp the concepts on an intellectual level, not that they choose to act upon them. What do you think maturity is, just knowing right from wrong?

Good point. You are saying that 18 years olds understand that drinking can be dangerous. Not many people will disagree with that.

But the "not that they choose to act upon them" hints at the notion that 'underage drinkers are not responsible drinkers.' Choosing to act on the concepts they grasp doesn't mean they refrain from drinking, it just means they can drink responsibly. Please tell me if I am misunderstanding your logic.

However, it seems fair to say that some underage drinkers will abuse alcohol, while some won't.

Also I don't think maturity is based on knowing right from wrong. There are plenty of mature people who know something is wrong but act against it for greed, pleasure, vengeance, fun, power, etc.

I can see the difference in foundation between our views more clearly now. It is hard to see how lowering the drinking age could not have the effect of having 18 year-olds drink for the first few times near their parents in the last year or so of high school. But I have also made it clear that the only responsible person required to drink alcohol safely is one's own self, regardless of whether its the first time or not. Neither have I seen any evidence that this "good" effect would outweigh the bad outcomes I've mentioned.

I have a severe problem (this is a time where my argument and views coincide, Jackrabbit) with making social or legal changes to accomodate those who demonstrate a lack of responsibility and foresight. Everyone is perfectly capable of drinking responsibly when he becomes 21 and waiting to drink before that age, though even by that time not everyone is. Quite simply, I WANT people who make those sort of mistakes to suffer for it. I want them to be tested in this way. It is a sad state of affairs when a code of laws ceases to uphold a standard of civil behavior and instead degrades itself into rules more accomodating to the lowest common denominator of people. Better that the rough, dirty edges of dough should be sliced off and discarded than be made to blend in with the clean whole and corrupt all of it.