(04-24-2014 01:47 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:59 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:44 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:58 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I was just getting a gauge. In your opinion people shouldn't be able to buy cigarettes, enlist in the military, vote, move out of the house, own a home, take out a loan, or be able to sign any papers on their own accord?

I know that paragraph may seem like a bunch of straw men, but I believe that an adult is an adult. If you can do all of the above things, you should be able to drink if you want to. We have to be consistent.

Hold on now, there's a reason everything isn't the same age. You can buy tobacco at 18 because it doesn't intoxicate your skills, while alcohol DOES. IMO, legal drinking age should be 25.

So you're saying that a person that gets married at 18-25 shouldn't be able to have wine at their wedding? That falls in that age group.

Why don't you focus on the problem instead of making silly comparison. Here is what you are promoting.

"It's ok that more people will die from alcohol related deaths because at least 18 year olds will be able to have a glass of wine at their wedding."

Not really a silly comparison. These are things you're able to do as an adult. You can get married, start a family, risk life and limb in the military, sign contracts, take out loans, etc. but alcohol is over the line?

None of that alters your frame of thought through intoxication.

Also remember... Alcohol affects the cerebrum, the most frontal part of your brain. The cerebrum controls movement, smell, language/communication, and... memory. Marriage, contract signing, loans, and military do not do this.

(04-24-2014 02:02 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:47 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:59 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:44 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Hold on now, there's a reason everything isn't the same age. You can buy tobacco at 18 because it doesn't intoxicate your skills, while alcohol DOES. IMO, legal drinking age should be 25.

So you're saying that a person that gets married at 18-25 shouldn't be able to have wine at their wedding? That falls in that age group.

Why don't you focus on the problem instead of making silly comparison. Here is what you are promoting.

"It's ok that more people will die from alcohol related deaths because at least 18 year olds will be able to have a glass of wine at their wedding."

Not really a silly comparison. These are things you're able to do as an adult. You can get married, start a family, risk life and limb in the military, sign contracts, take out loans, etc. but alcohol is over the line?

None of that alters your frame of thought through intoxication.

Then why not have full prohibition.

(04-24-2014 02:02 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  You can't be a cop in El Paso either. A firefighter, yes, but not a cop.

Unfair, I'M PROTESTING!

(04-24-2014 02:04 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:02 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:47 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:59 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  So you're saying that a person that gets married at 18-25 shouldn't be able to have wine at their wedding? That falls in that age group.

Why don't you focus on the problem instead of making silly comparison. Here is what you are promoting.

"It's ok that more people will die from alcohol related deaths because at least 18 year olds will be able to have a glass of wine at their wedding."

Not really a silly comparison. These are things you're able to do as an adult. You can get married, start a family, risk life and limb in the military, sign contracts, take out loans, etc. but alcohol is over the line?

None of that alters your frame of thought through intoxication.

Then why not have full prohibition.

That's a totally different argument. This is about being 18 to 20 and legally drinking and why I don't support it.

It just kills me when people wont support a good bulk of the new enlisted troops and their supposed freedom. Maybe some no talent hack should make a sappy song about this I vote florida-Georgia line

(04-24-2014 02:13 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  It just kills me when people wont support a good bulk of the new enlisted troops and their supposed freedom. Maybe some no talent hack should make a sappy song about this I vote florida-Georgia line

What does the Georgia theme song have to do with rights? Oregon may have chosen Tom Cochrane's "life is a highway" for its theme song, but that doesn't change the drinking laws.

"None of that alters your frame of thought"

I take it you've never been married.

(04-24-2014 02:22 PM)Proud Bammer Wrote:  "None of that alters your frame of thought"

I take it you've never been married.

10 years... You left off the intoxicated part though. Nice sig BTW...

(04-24-2014 02:09 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:04 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:02 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:47 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Why don't you focus on the problem instead of making silly comparison. Here is what you are promoting.

"It's ok that more people will die from alcohol related deaths because at least 18 year olds will be able to have a glass of wine at their wedding."

Not really a silly comparison. These are things you're able to do as an adult. You can get married, start a family, risk life and limb in the military, sign contracts, take out loans, etc. but alcohol is over the line?

None of that alters your frame of thought through intoxication.

Then why not have full prohibition.

That's a totally different argument. This is about being 18 to 20 and legally drinking and why I don't support it.

Why would you support it being 25, why not older? 30% of all fatal drunk driving incidents are started by people between 25 and 34. 25% are between 35 to 44. It seems that people never become mature enough to handle it.

(04-24-2014 03:09 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:09 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:04 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:02 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:47 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Not really a silly comparison. These are things you're able to do as an adult. You can get married, start a family, risk life and limb in the military, sign contracts, take out loans, etc. but alcohol is over the line?

None of that alters your frame of thought through intoxication.

Then why not have full prohibition.

That's a totally different argument. This is about being 18 to 20 and legally drinking and why I don't support it.

Why would you support it being 25, why not older? 30% of all fatal drunk driving incidents are started by people between 25 and 34. 25% are between 35 to 44. It seems that people never become mature enough to handle it.

Supposing your percentiles are correct, where lies the other 45%?

(04-24-2014 03:12 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:09 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:09 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:04 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:02 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  None of that alters your frame of thought through intoxication.

Then why not have full prohibition.

That's a totally different argument. This is about being 18 to 20 and legally drinking and why I don't support it.

Why would you support it being 25, why not older? 30% of all fatal drunk driving incidents are started by people between 25 and 34. 25% are between 35 to 44. It seems that people never become mature enough to handle it.

Supposing your percentiles are correct, where lies the other 45%?

34% were 21-24. The other 11 are older than 44 I suppose.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/im...sheet.html

(04-24-2014 03:18 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:12 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:09 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:09 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:04 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Then why not have full prohibition.

That's a totally different argument. This is about being 18 to 20 and legally drinking and why I don't support it.

Why would you support it being 25, why not older? 30% of all fatal drunk driving incidents are started by people between 25 and 34. 25% are between 35 to 44. It seems that people never become mature enough to handle it.

Supposing your percentiles are correct, where lies the other 45%?

34% were 21-24. The other 11 are older than 44 I suppose.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/im...sheet.html

Did you catch that?

30% were in a 10 year age bracket beginning at 25 years old.
25% were in a 10 year age bracket beginning at 35 years old.
34% were in a 4 year age bracket beginning at 21 years old.

The 11% could go for less than 21, or older than 44... But the fact still remains, if those numbers are correct, lowering it to 18 could increase the percentage of drunk driving incidents.

(04-24-2014 03:25 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:18 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:12 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:09 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:09 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  That's a totally different argument. This is about being 18 to 20 and legally drinking and why I don't support it.

Why would you support it being 25, why not older? 30% of all fatal drunk driving incidents are started by people between 25 and 34. 25% are between 35 to 44. It seems that people never become mature enough to handle it.

Supposing your percentiles are correct, where lies the other 45%?

34% were 21-24. The other 11 are older than 44 I suppose.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/im...sheet.html

Did you catch that?

30% were in a 10 year age bracket beginning at 25 years old.
25% were in a 10 year age bracket beginning at 35 years old.
34% were in a 4 year age bracket beginning at 21 years old.

The 11% could go for less than 21, or older than 44... But the fact still remains, if those numbers are correct, lowering it to 18 could increase the percentage of drunk driving incidents.

You should be in favor of raising the age to at least 44 if societal damage is your main concern.

(04-24-2014 02:00 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:47 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:59 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:44 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Hold on now, there's a reason everything isn't the same age. You can buy tobacco at 18 because it doesn't intoxicate your skills, while alcohol DOES. IMO, legal drinking age should be 25.

So you're saying that a person that gets married at 18-25 shouldn't be able to have wine at their wedding? That falls in that age group.

Why don't you focus on the problem instead of making silly comparison. Here is what you are promoting.

"It's ok that more people will die from alcohol related deaths because at least 18 year olds will be able to have a glass of wine at their wedding."

Not really a silly comparison. These are things you're able to do as an adult. You can get married, start a family, risk life and limb in the military, sign contracts, take out loans, etc. but alcohol is over the line?

Read post 211. You really haven't laid out an effective argument as to why 18 year olds should be allowed to drink legally other than they are allowed to do other things.

You have failed to demonstrate why it is prudent to bypass the facts regarding statistical related alcohol deaths associated with 18 year olds and the effects alcohol has on the under developed brain. Joining the military has nothing to do with ingesting poisons...which is exactly what drugs are. Joining the military does not put the general public at risk.

You show me one of your failed societies and I'll try harder on my argument.

(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.

How is it "liberalization" by returning to what the Puritans did commonly?

And you haven't addressed the scripture where Jesus ate and drank (and was accused of being liberal). If that's your standard of liberak, I guess I'm guilty as charged.

Quote: 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 clemency to imprisoned drug dealers.
4. Decriminalizing drugs in general.

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.

Oh, so you know the "real" reason, and what everyone else believes is fiction?

That's what gnostic heretics say.

(04-24-2014 02:00 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Read post 211. You really haven't laid out an effective argument as to why 18 year olds should be allowed to drink legally other than they are allowed to do other things.

You have failed to demonstrate why it is prudent to bypass the facts regarding statistical related alcohol deaths associated with 18 year olds and the effects alcohol has on the under developed brain. Joining the military has nothing to do with ingesting poisons...which is exactly what drugs are. Joining the military does not put the general public at risk.

You weren't speaking to me but I'd put it this way...

The Constitution generally puts forth the idea that the burden is on the state to show why it needs to regulate something... and not on the people to show why something shouldn't be regulated.

Saying that something else is worse and legal basically means that the argument that this (whatever 'this' is) is so bad that it must be regulated is defeated without having to make the same arguments over and over again. You draw the line of 'public good' somewhere, and things either lie above or below that line. It is a matter of expediency, otherwise you end up arguing 90% of the same issues over and over again.

If one thing is legal and one is illegal... then the illegal one should be measurably 'worse' than the legal one, right? It is far easier to compare drinking at 18 vs drinking at 21 or smoking at 18 from developmental standpoints than it is to start from square one with the arguments about whether things that impact the mind and development and health should be legal in the first place. We're merely eliminating those parts of the argument that apply equally to those legal things.

If you (like others) consider that a 'freedom' argument that can be made about anything, then I'd say that you are right... and that was precisely the intent.


As to someone's comment about the 'real' reason, I'd say many of us support these things because we waste far too much time, energy and resources trying to keep people from doing things for what often seems like merely because 'we can'. If you want to destroy your brain cells, that just means more opportunity for those who don't. If you're old enough to take an order to kill someone or that will get you killed, you ought to be old enough to decide to kill a few of your own brain cells.

(04-24-2014 03:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:00 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:47 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:59 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  So you're saying that a person that gets married at 18-25 shouldn't be able to have wine at their wedding? That falls in that age group.

Why don't you focus on the problem instead of making silly comparison. Here is what you are promoting.

"It's ok that more people will die from alcohol related deaths because at least 18 year olds will be able to have a glass of wine at their wedding."

Not really a silly comparison. These are things you're able to do as an adult. You can get married, start a family, risk life and limb in the military, sign contracts, take out loans, etc. but alcohol is over the line?

Read post 211. You really haven't laid out an effective argument as to why 18 year olds should be allowed to drink legally other than they are allowed to do other things.

You have failed to demonstrate why it is prudent to bypass the facts regarding statistical related alcohol deaths associated with 18 year olds and the effects alcohol has on the under developed brain. Joining the military has nothing to do with ingesting poisons...which is exactly what drugs are. Joining the military does not put the general public at risk.

You show me one of your failed societies and I'll try harder on my argument.

Latin America is one big failed society.

Try harder.

(04-24-2014 05:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:00 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Read post 211. You really haven't laid out an effective argument as to why 18 year olds should be allowed to drink legally other than they are allowed to do other things.

You have failed to demonstrate why it is prudent to bypass the facts regarding statistical related alcohol deaths associated with 18 year olds and the effects alcohol has on the under developed brain. Joining the military has nothing to do with ingesting poisons...which is exactly what drugs are. Joining the military does not put the general public at risk.

You weren't speaking to me but I'd put it this way...

The Constitution generally puts forth the idea that the burden is on the state to show why it needs to regulate something... and not on the people to show why something shouldn't be regulated.

Saying that something else is worse and legal basically means that the argument that this (whatever 'this' is) is so bad that it must be regulated is defeated without having to make the same arguments over and over again. You draw the line of 'public good' somewhere, and things either lie above or below that line. It is a matter of expediency, otherwise you end up arguing 90% of the same issues over and over again.

If one thing is legal and one is illegal... then the illegal one should be measurably 'worse' than the legal one, right? It is far easier to compare drinking at 18 vs drinking at 21 or smoking at 18 from developmental standpoints than it is to start from square one with the arguments about whether things that impact the mind and development and health should be legal in the first place. We're merely eliminating those parts of the argument that apply equally to those legal things.

If you (like others) consider that a 'freedom' argument that can be made about anything, then I'd say that you are right... and that was precisely the intent.


As to someone's comment about the 'real' reason, I'd say many of us support these things because we waste far too much time, energy and resources trying to keep people from doing things for what often seems like merely because 'we can'. If you want to destroy your brain cells, that just means more opportunity for those who don't. If you're old enough to take an order to kill someone or that will get you killed, you ought to be old enough to decide to kill a few of your own brain cells.

Here is the problem with your argument. Because one is legal is not a reason to legalize another. It is not even remotely a fact that one is less harmful than the other.

(04-24-2014 07:33 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 03:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 02:00 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:47 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:04 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Why don't you focus on the problem instead of making silly comparison. Here is what you are promoting.

"It's ok that more people will die from alcohol related deaths because at least 18 year olds will be able to have a glass of wine at their wedding."

Not really a silly comparison. These are things you're able to do as an adult. You can get married, start a family, risk life and limb in the military, sign contracts, take out loans, etc. but alcohol is over the line?

Read post 211. You really haven't laid out an effective argument as to why 18 year olds should be allowed to drink legally other than they are allowed to do other things.

You have failed to demonstrate why it is prudent to bypass the facts regarding statistical related alcohol deaths associated with 18 year olds and the effects alcohol has on the under developed brain. Joining the military has nothing to do with ingesting poisons...which is exactly what drugs are. Joining the military does not put the general public at risk.

You show me one of your failed societies and I'll try harder on my argument.

Latin America is one big failed society.

Try harder.

Because of alcohol consumption and legal drugs?

I have mixed feelings on this.

First, you would think that anyone should be able to have a beer anytime they want, but since there's a risk to the public someone had to come up with an age of responsibility just like they did with calling kids under 17, 16 or whatever minors who can't engage in sex with people 3 or more years older than them. it's arbitrary, it doesn't take into account the different maturity levels between people, and it's a broad brush solution to what many see as a problem in need of a solution. Is it right? It depends on the person and the situation.

When I was a teenager the drinking age was 18. With fake ID I got into bars at the age of 16. I used to drive when I was totally sloshed and I'm lucky to be alive today and I never got arrested for a DUI although I was stopped a ton of times and told to sleep it off. Times were different back then - today my life would be ruined if I didn't have a driver's license because of drunk driving.

A guy in the military should be able to have a beer. how about we let soldiers drink on base only and can't leave if they've had too much or whatever amount someone decides is not safe. After all, in Texas a minor can legally drink in his house if he is with a parent. So why not a soldier if they have someone monitoring how much they drink? I mean, c'mon, these guys go through hell and need to blow off some steam.

On the other hand, I don't want my kid drinking while he's still too immature to know when to stop. These days thrill and binge drinking lead to rapes and/or accusations of them and kids seem less responsible than they did during my days.

So I personally think the drinking age should not be too low, 21 is good, 25 is better unless that person is with someone who will be legally responsible for his actions. Yes, kids will get their hands on booze, but it will happen a lot less than if some 18 kid buys booze for his 16 old friends who then get their 14 year old girl friends drunk.

And what the F is this obsession America has with getting high? Is Obama that bad that the only way to forget about his ineptness is to get hammered?