(04-23-2014 06:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  You just got done telling us we should use alcohol as a reward. It's your conclusion. I am being perfectly logical.

People who are able to reason properly understand exactly what I meant. Those who aren't able to reason properly probably think I'm advocating handing out bottles of Jack as a bribe. That's fine with me.

Frankly, I really don't care if those people reach absurd conclusions or not and I'm certainly not going to spend a lot of time trying to explain the obvious to those who are determined to not understand in favor of their own made up absurdities.

Next.

Government's inconsistent treatment of youth

1) At age 17 IRS code says individual can no longer be claimed as dependent child and tax credit for dependent child is eliminated

2) At age 18 individuals are adults in everyway but drinking, they can enter into legally binding contracts, vote, be drafted for military service (if draft is ever reinstated).

3) In most states individuals as young as 13 can be tried as adults for criminal acts.

Definition for adult should be the same for all government directed activities.

(04-23-2014 06:27 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 06:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  You just got done telling us we should use alcohol as a reward. It's your conclusion. I am being perfectly logical.

People who are able to reason properly understand exactly what I meant. Those who aren't able to reason properly probably think I'm advocating handing out bottles of Jack as a bribe. That's fine with me.

Frankly, I really don't care if those people reach absurd conclusions or not and I'm certainly not going to spend a lot of time trying to explain the obvious to those who are determined to not understand in favor of their own made up absurdities.

Next.

So lets focus on what you said. You said alcohol privileges should be a reward for getting an education. You can't polish that turd. What are you doing man?

(04-23-2014 06:29 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  So lets focus on what you said. You said alcohol privileges should be a reward for getting an education. You can't polish that turd. What are you doing man?

I said that the drinking age should be 18 and treated as a privilege dependent on getting instruction in the responsible use of alcohol such as we do with "hunter safety" or "concealed carry". Between the ages of 18-21 the privilege could be revoked for 3 years for any alcohol/intoxicant related violation. This could be restricted to beer/wine.

The purpose would be to make responsible alcohol use a mark of adulthood instead of what we do today...making surreptitious binge-drinking a mark of adulthood.

Now somehow you interpreted that to be....handing out damned bottles of Jack Daniels, prostitutes, and blow willy nilly just for giggles.

I really have no need to debate with you about that. Anybody with a brain can figure out the ending of that one without our help.

Take care of the economy and the social culture will take care of itself. This whole notion that our society will break down because of drugs, alcohol, etc. is BS, the US survived for centuries without a drug prohibition or drinking age of 21 and scaling back restrictions won't cause us to fall into chaos (provided that non-social freedoms remain intact).

(04-23-2014 04:44 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 04:38 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 04:31 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 04:20 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 04:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  So let's just get to actual issue. What is the current obsession legalizing pot and lowering the drinking age? Are we not ready to admit that it is the liberalization of our society. Are we willing to acknowledge why that is happening and who is pushing these ideas?

1. Legalizing pot.
2. Lowering the drinking age.
3. Giving leniency to imprisoned drug dealers.
4. Decriminalizing drugs in general.
I
I'm not interested in the bogus argument about liberty and freedom. That argument can be used to justify anything.

I want to see if anyone can pinpoint the real reason this has become such a stylish cause.

Its the same reasons the green movement happened. Young people dont have $#it to worry abou like fighting a revolutionary war, a civil war, working in factories 12 hours a day or killing Nazis so they shift their focus. Politicians want their votes so they entertain the issues. Even the green movement hippies sought to fight for something bigger than themselves. Now it's "me, me, me."

I think it is a lot of that, and you are right on many fronts, but I also think it has to do with these messages being injected from the top. I think there are gains involved for our govt to keep people dependent on chemicals. It helps keep people dependent on the govt. I think it strips away their liberties and destroys their will to think for themselves. Tyrannically govt structures operate more easily in chaotic societies. I think drugs help keep populations from rising up and dependent. Almost like a widespread sedation. What a better way to keep the People distracted than medicating them. It allows for the real change to occur, undisputed.

I hate to say it, but I think the legalize drugs crowd has been tricked into fighting their cause. You hear them talk about liberties and freedoms, but what is really happening is they are helping us all become less free. They are stripping us all from a happy and productive society.

There is nothing free about being addicted to a chemical. Anyone who has experienced it first hand knows the meaning of the term "monkey on my back."

Idk..long term that would benefit very few. Even the most tyrannical rulers are rational.actors who.wish to maintain power. This would be a recipe for disaster.

These are the very tactics that have been used in Latin America and elsewhere in the world. Counties that have high govt dependence also have high rates of drug use brought about by almost promotion like relaxation of their drug laws. They also have high rates of crime, teen pregnancy, child abuse, homeless, mentally ill and single parent homes.

I don't think those who are injecting these ideas see America as long term. That is the point.

Yeah but those countries are hot garbage just waiting to get cleaned up by a territoriality aggressive state. If the elites of the U.S. want complete government control, they're going to do it in a way that allows them to rule the most powerful country on earth. The effects of what you're talking about would either A. be a huge drain on the government to the point where it leaves us vulnerable to attack or B. if the government doesn't take care of it's citizens cause an uprising. There's not really an in between.

There's no one thinking short term on Washington. We know this based on the length of time it takes to approve anything from a budget to a congressman's piss break.

(04-23-2014 06:59 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Take care of the economy and the social culture will take care of itself. This whole notion that our society will break down because of drugs, alcohol, etc. is BS, the US survived for centuries without a drug prohibition or drinking age of 21 and scaling back restrictions won't cause us to fall into chaos (provided that non-social freedoms remain intact).

Not when you are pushing liberal culture.

(04-23-2014 06:39 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 06:29 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  So lets focus on what you said. You said alcohol privileges should be a reward for getting an education. You can't polish that turd. What are you doing man?

I said that the drinking age should be 18 and treated as a privilege dependent on getting instruction in the responsible use of alcohol such as we do with "hunter safety" or "concealed carry". Between the ages of 18-21 the privilege could be revoked for 3 years for any alcohol/intoxicant related violation. This could be restricted to beer/wine.

The purpose would be to make responsible alcohol use a mark of adulthood instead of what we do today...making surreptitious binge-drinking a mark of adulthood.

Now somehow you interpreted that to be....handing out damned bottles of Jack Daniels, prostitutes, and blow willy nilly just for giggles.

I really have no need to debate with you about that. Anybody with a brain can figure out the ending of that one without our help.

Wow man. How old are you?

(04-23-2014 07:33 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 06:59 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Take care of the economy and the social culture will take care of itself. This whole notion that our society will break down because of drugs, alcohol, etc. is BS, the US survived for centuries without a drug prohibition or drinking age of 21 and scaling back restrictions won't cause us to fall into chaos (provided that non-social freedoms remain intact).

Not when you are pushing liberal culture.

There's never been a wealthy, enslaved society in the history of mankind. That will continue to be true in the years to come.

Social trends will come and go. The flappers didn't spend their entire life at a speakeasy, the hippies don't keep going around using LSD and engaging in free love. People have been decrying the "immorality of the youth" for centuries, and it's no different now. There are exceptions of course, but people will grow up when economic opportunities are plentiful.

(04-23-2014 07:39 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 07:33 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 06:59 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Take care of the economy and the social culture will take care of itself. This whole notion that our society will break down because of drugs, alcohol, etc. is BS, the US survived for centuries without a drug prohibition or drinking age of 21 and scaling back restrictions won't cause us to fall into chaos (provided that non-social freedoms remain intact).

Not when you are pushing liberal culture.

There's never been a wealthy, enslaved society in the history of mankind. That will continue to be true in the years to come.

Social trends will come and go. The flappers didn't spend their entire life at a speakeasy, the hippies don't keep going around using LSD and engaging in free love. People have been decrying the "immorality of the youth" for centuries, and it's no different now. There are exceptions of course, but people will grow up when economic opportunities are plentiful.

So now you are equating not being able to drink at 18 to being enslaved?

(04-23-2014 01:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Well, it was just a matter of time before the legalize crowd thought it would also be a great idea to lower the drinking age. Why not accelerate the downfall even more.

If my son or daughter are "adult" enough to be forced to fight for their country then surely they "adult" enough to partake in a legal substance.
It needs to be one or the other...Raise the age for conscription or lower the age to drink. Either way matters not to me. The contradiction should be embarrassing to anyone with have a fcking brain.

(04-23-2014 05:12 PM)supertiger Wrote:  One big issue about 18 year-old kids drinking is that most of them are idiots....

I'd also say that letting them buy alcohol would necessarily increase availability among 14-17 year olds. There's your biggest problem.

I'd think that 19 or 20 would be a better age than 21.

Adults have privileges and also obligations under law at adulthood now considered age 18.. If they are not mature enough?.. then raise the age of adulthood above 18. 21 would be fine with me. The alcohol issue is irrelevant. We are focusing on the wrong problem.

My guess is that we are afraid that if we move the age of adulthood up?...We have fewer kids we can snatch up and conscript to fight in some damn war. You know the younger they are...the easier they are to indoctrinate.

(04-23-2014 07:33 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 06:39 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 06:29 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  So lets focus on what you said. You said alcohol privileges should be a reward for getting an education. You can't polish that turd. What are you doing man?

I said that the drinking age should be 18 and treated as a privilege dependent on getting instruction in the responsible use of alcohol such as we do with "hunter safety" or "concealed carry". Between the ages of 18-21 the privilege could be revoked for 3 years for any alcohol/intoxicant related violation. This could be restricted to beer/wine.

The purpose would be to make responsible alcohol use a mark of adulthood instead of what we do today...making surreptitious binge-drinking a mark of adulthood.

Now somehow you interpreted that to be....handing out damned bottles of Jack Daniels, prostitutes, and blow willy nilly just for giggles.

I really have no need to debate with you about that. Anybody with a brain can figure out the ending of that one without our help.

Wow man. How old are you?

Over 18. over 21.

(04-23-2014 07:53 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 05:12 PM)supertiger Wrote:  One big issue about 18 year-old kids drinking is that most of them are idiots....

I'd also say that letting them buy alcohol would necessarily increase availability among 14-17 year olds. There's your biggest problem.

I'd think that 19 or 20 would be a better age than 21.

Adults have privileges and also obligations under law at adulthood now considered age 18.. If they are not mature enough?.. then raise the age of adulthood above 18. 21 would be fine with me. The alcohol issue is irrelevant. We are focusing on the wrong problem.

My guess is that we are afraid that if we move the age of adulthood up?...We have fewer kids we can snatch up and conscript to fight in some damn war. You know the younger they are...the easier they are to indoctrinate.

Yep, my thoughts are exactly the same. Lower the drinking age or raise the age of adult, conscription, responsibility and consent.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(04-23-2014 08:06 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 07:53 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 05:12 PM)supertiger Wrote:  One big issue about 18 year-old kids drinking is that most of them are idiots....

I'd also say that letting them buy alcohol would necessarily increase availability among 14-17 year olds. There's your biggest problem.

I'd think that 19 or 20 would be a better age than 21.

Adults have privileges and also obligations under law at adulthood now considered age 18.. If they are not mature enough?.. then raise the age of adulthood above 18. 21 would be fine with me. The alcohol issue is irrelevant. We are focusing on the wrong problem.

My guess is that we are afraid that if we move the age of adulthood up?...We have fewer kids we can snatch up and conscript to fight in some damn war. You know the younger they are...the easier they are to indoctrinate.

Yep, my thoughts are exactly the same. Lower the drinking age or raise the age of adult, conscription, responsibility and consent.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Ill fully admit I was not mature enough at 18 to handle booze. I am very lucky that I never harmed anyone with my foolish behavior. I can also say that I was not mature enough at 18 to be a trained killer either. I fully support raising the age of adulthood to 20 or 21. I think I had most of my schit together at age 20.

(04-23-2014 07:41 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 07:39 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 07:33 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 06:59 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Take care of the economy and the social culture will take care of itself. This whole notion that our society will break down because of drugs, alcohol, etc. is BS, the US survived for centuries without a drug prohibition or drinking age of 21 and scaling back restrictions won't cause us to fall into chaos (provided that non-social freedoms remain intact).

Not when you are pushing liberal culture.

There's never been a wealthy, enslaved society in the history of mankind. That will continue to be true in the years to come.

Social trends will come and go. The flappers didn't spend their entire life at a speakeasy, the hippies don't keep going around using LSD and engaging in free love. People have been decrying the "immorality of the youth" for centuries, and it's no different now. There are exceptions of course, but people will grow up when economic opportunities are plentiful.

So now you are equating not being able to drink at 18 to being enslaved?

No, you're better than that Okie.

In case you need me to spell it out, an economically free and prosperous society will never be dysfunctional to the point of a chaotic social breakdown. Government doesn't need to use the barrel of a gun to regulate vices, they just need to make sure that no one else hurts each other. The enslavement statement just meant that a wealthy society will never suffer from a great deal of oppressive social policies by the government, nor will they collapse as a result of people being able to smoke pot or drink past a certain age.

For the record, I don't think it's the worst idea to keep the ban on hard liquor for 21 and up. The best thing to help prevent alcohol abuse in the long run is for society at large to scale back our overbearing taboo attitude towards it. Imposing limits and making drinking out more than it really is just gives it a 'forbidden fruit' quality that encourages binge drinking.

(04-23-2014 08:21 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:06 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 07:53 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 05:12 PM)supertiger Wrote:  One big issue about 18 year-old kids drinking is that most of them are idiots....

I'd also say that letting them buy alcohol would necessarily increase availability among 14-17 year olds. There's your biggest problem.

I'd think that 19 or 20 would be a better age than 21.

Adults have privileges and also obligations under law at adulthood now considered age 18.. If they are not mature enough?.. then raise the age of adulthood above 18. 21 would be fine with me. The alcohol issue is irrelevant. We are focusing on the wrong problem.

My guess is that we are afraid that if we move the age of adulthood up?...We have fewer kids we can snatch up and conscript to fight in some damn war. You know the younger they are...the easier they are to indoctrinate.

Yep, my thoughts are exactly the same. Lower the drinking age or raise the age of adult, conscription, responsibility and consent.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Ill fully admit I was not mature enough at 18 to handle booze. I am very lucky that I never harmed anyone with my foolish behavior. I can also say that I was not mature enough at 18 to be a trained killer either. I fully support raising the age of adulthood to 20 or 21. I think I had most of my schit together at age 20.

But then you'll have 18 and 19 year old criminals claiming that they are too young to know right from wrong.

The countries who have the drinking age at 18 (or lower) also don't make alcohol that "big of a deal". You learn responsibility early and they don't have all these shows that glamorize getting wasted (Skins didn't really glamorize it). We have to retool our culture a bit for lowering the drinking age to be a success.

With that being said, I'm behind the principle of lowering the age.

(04-23-2014 07:42 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 01:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Well, it was just a matter of time before the legalize crowd thought it would also be a great idea to lower the drinking age. Why not accelerate the downfall even more.

If my son or daughter are "adult" enough to be forced to fight for their country then surely they "adult" enough to partake in a legal substance.
It needs to be one or the other...Raise the age for conscription or lower the age to drink. Either way matters not to me. The contradiction should be embarrassing to anyone with have a fcking brain.

Arguing that an 18-year-old can join the service and fight for our nation so they should be able to drink legally means permitting doing something harmful to their emotional and physical wellbeing. Drinking should never be considered a reward or right of passage.

(04-23-2014 08:41 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:21 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:06 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 07:53 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 05:12 PM)supertiger Wrote:  One big issue about 18 year-old kids drinking is that most of them are idiots....

I'd also say that letting them buy alcohol would necessarily increase availability among 14-17 year olds. There's your biggest problem.

I'd think that 19 or 20 would be a better age than 21.

Adults have privileges and also obligations under law at adulthood now considered age 18.. If they are not mature enough?.. then raise the age of adulthood above 18. 21 would be fine with me. The alcohol issue is irrelevant. We are focusing on the wrong problem.

My guess is that we are afraid that if we move the age of adulthood up?...We have fewer kids we can snatch up and conscript to fight in some damn war. You know the younger they are...the easier they are to indoctrinate.

Yep, my thoughts are exactly the same. Lower the drinking age or raise the age of adult, conscription, responsibility and consent.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Ill fully admit I was not mature enough at 18 to handle booze. I am very lucky that I never harmed anyone with my foolish behavior. I can also say that I was not mature enough at 18 to be a trained killer either. I fully support raising the age of adulthood to 20 or 21. I think I had most of my schit together at age 20.

But then you'll have 18 and 19 year old criminals claiming that they are too young to know right from wrong.

If they know right from wrong, they should be able to drink. If not, they aren't adults. Can't have it both ways. That's my position.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk