(04-23-2014 03:13 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  When did I ever say it would fix things? It WOULD, however, make it harder for roughly 30 million people to buy alcohol which, to me, is much better than making it EASIER for about 20 million people to buy alcohol.

Serious question, which makes more sense to you?

Personal responsibility makes more sense to me.

The drinking age is just meant to keep good kids from drinking, like locks and fences do for stealing. Those that don't care, like me when I was a teen, will find booze. We used to buy it at a grocery store called Nachitas for 33 cents a quart. I don't think she ever got caught.

It was a rite of passage for most teens in my era.

(04-23-2014 03:05 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 03:02 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  So you're saying that making it legal for purchasing by an 18 y/o would decrease binge drinking and other alcoholic stupidity? Haha. NO, it wouldn't.

No, I'm saying that removing the whole prohibition mindset in this country would make drinking less "big of a deal" like it is in Europe and South America. Kids grow up where it isn't abnormal to have a glass of wine at dinner and learn how to responsibly handle it.

I'll never forget my Spanish teacher in college... she moved from Argentina to the United States to teach. She talked about how she was shocked at the different societal viewpoints on alcohol between the 2 countries. She talked about there being much less binge drinking and much more responsible drinkers, especially at a young age, in Argentina.

The goal is to make sure drinkers are responsible drinkers. An arbitrary age limit does nothing to accomplish that other than hope that time turns out to be a good educator for the subject. Having an actual education with incentives behind it is a better idea.

But, people like to slam their fist down on the table and say "by God we need a crackdown".

A lot like feel-good "handgun free" signs that protect nobody this is a "drink-free age" sign that protects nobody. Makes the sign-maker feel safer.

(04-23-2014 03:10 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 02:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 02:49 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 02:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Please dude. The case of drunk driving accidents would double. Most 18 year olds are still in High School. Get a grip on reality.

For that to be true there would have to be that number who are obeying the 18 age limit that would suddenly not obey the DUI law.

Either that or the people currently breaking the age law who are obeying the DUI law would suddenly stop obeying the DUI law when it became legal for them to drink.

Neither scenario seems to make sense.

Absolutely absurd. Your whole argument doesn't make sense. That was already tried in Louisiana and Texas and the amount of DUI related accidents skyrocket. I can't even believe there are people out there that actually think that is a good idea. We are truly stupid.

It is simple math that by adding more legal drinkers into the population, the rate of DUIs will go up. Take a younger demographic that is less responsible, and has even less good decision making skills, then add alcohol to the equation and the problem worsens exponentially.

Your argument is ridiculous and we have two examples to back it up. People like you are dangerous, dude. This isn't smart. I am hoping that you are just young.

So at 18 you are old enough to consent for sex, enlist in the military, obtain debt, and sign a contract, but not have a beer? All I am asking for is consistency. Either raise the age of consent and the age of responsibility along with rights to 21 or lower the drinking age to 18. I don't care which, but it isn't right like this. Texas and Louisiana had to raise the drinking age because of financial extortion from the federal government and losing their highway money, not because it was a disaster.

enlisting in the military is usually a family decision. Enlisting in the military is about building skills and strengthening character. Drinking shots is not.

Texas and Louisiana both saw a sharp spike in drinking related fatalities involving vehicles. Of course they wanted the highway funding, but that restriction was put in place based on a rise in DUI deaths.

There really is no valid argument to put more legal drinkers in our society....and finally what is the point of this? What liberty is being infringed upon?

(04-23-2014 03:16 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 03:05 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 03:02 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  So you're saying that making it legal for purchasing by an 18 y/o would decrease binge drinking and other alcoholic stupidity? Haha. NO, it wouldn't.

No, I'm saying that removing the whole prohibition mindset in this country would make drinking less "big of a deal" like it is in Europe and South America. Kids grow up where it isn't abnormal to have a glass of wine at dinner and learn how to responsibly handle it.

I'll never forget my Spanish teacher in college... she moved from Argentina to the United States to teach. She talked about how she was shocked at the different societal viewpoints on alcohol between the 2 countries. She talked about there being much less binge drinking and much more responsible drinkers, especially at a young age, in Argentina.

The goal is to make sure drinkers are responsible drinkers. An arbitrary age limit does nothing to accomplish that other than hope that time turns out to be a good educator for the subject. Having an actual education with incentives behind it is a better idea.

But, people like to slam their fist down on the table and say "by God we need a crackdown".

A lot like feel-good "handgun free" signs that protect nobody this is a "drink-free age" sign that protects nobody. Makes the sign-maker feel safer.

I'm not sure what the goal is with the legal drugs and drink for all crowd but that isn't it.

Underage drinkers who drink and drive can get a DUI below .08

By lowering the drinking age the amount of under 21 year olds getting a DUI in this regard will go down. But I must stress that this is just one of a number of factors to consider

legal drinking age of 18, in there countries


Algeria
Argentina
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Belarus
Belize
Bermuda
Bolivia
Botswana
Brazil (19 in some provinces)
Burundi (none with parents)
Cameroon
Canada (19 in some provinces)
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chile
China
Columbia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
El Savador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji (lowered from 21 in 2009)
Finland
France (no minimum age in private)
Gabon
Gambia
Gibraltar
Greece
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
India (varies by state)
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Jordan
Kenya
Kyrgystan
Lebano
Lesoto
Lithuania
Malaw
Maldives
Mauritius
Mexico
Moldovia
Mongolia
Mozambique
Namibia
Nepal
New Zealand
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Peru
Philippines
Puerto Rico
Poland
Portugal
Republic of China
Republic of Congo
Russia
Rwanda
Samoa
Serbia
Seychelles
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovena
South Africa
Spain
Sweden (none for low proof beverage)
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States Virgin Islands
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Zambia
Zimbabwe

(04-23-2014 03:00 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 02:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  It is simple math that by adding more legal drinkers into the population, the rate of DUIs will go up. Take a younger demographic that is less responsible, and has even less good decision making skills, then add alcohol to the equation and the problem worsens exponentially.

His point is that people are drinking in high school now. Those people are either driving or not driving now... making it legal for an 18 year old to drink isn't going to make them all the sudden start drinking and driving. Either they are doing it now or they wouldn't be.

Why does that formula make sense to you guys? Just like weed. Yall think that just because people do it now, making it easier to purchase is not going to sway people into trying it.

Making things easier to buy only brings in MORE consumers. Look at cell phones. Nobody had them when they were expensive, then they started becoming easier and easier to buy and as more competition came along, prices went down, now even the homeless bum on the corner can suck a dick and go buy a phone with the money.

Why can't we aspire to be like those countries.

(04-23-2014 03:05 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 03:02 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  So you're saying that making it legal for purchasing by an 18 y/o would decrease binge drinking and other alcoholic stupidity? Haha. NO, it wouldn't.

No, I'm saying that removing the whole prohibition mindset in this country would make drinking less "big of a deal" like it is in Europe and South America. Kids grow up where it isn't abnormal to have a glass of wine at dinner and learn how to responsibly handle it.

I'll never forget my Spanish teacher in college... she moved from Argentina to the United States to teach. She talked about how she was shocked at the different societal viewpoints on alcohol between the 2 countries. She talked about there being much less binge drinking and much more responsible drinkers, especially at a young age, in Argentina.

But them there people are furriners.

(04-23-2014 03:16 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 03:10 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 02:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 02:49 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 02:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Please dude. The case of drunk driving accidents would double. Most 18 year olds are still in High School. Get a grip on reality.

For that to be true there would have to be that number who are obeying the 18 age limit that would suddenly not obey the DUI law.

Either that or the people currently breaking the age law who are obeying the DUI law would suddenly stop obeying the DUI law when it became legal for them to drink.

Neither scenario seems to make sense.

Absolutely absurd. Your whole argument doesn't make sense. That was already tried in Louisiana and Texas and the amount of DUI related accidents skyrocket. I can't even believe there are people out there that actually think that is a good idea. We are truly stupid.

It is simple math that by adding more legal drinkers into the population, the rate of DUIs will go up. Take a younger demographic that is less responsible, and has even less good decision making skills, then add alcohol to the equation and the problem worsens exponentially.

Your argument is ridiculous and we have two examples to back it up. People like you are dangerous, dude. This isn't smart. I am hoping that you are just young.

So at 18 you are old enough to consent for sex, enlist in the military, obtain debt, and sign a contract, but not have a beer? All I am asking for is consistency. Either raise the age of consent and the age of responsibility along with rights to 21 or lower the drinking age to 18. I don't care which, but it isn't right like this. Texas and Louisiana had to raise the drinking age because of financial extortion from the federal government and losing their highway money, not because it was a disaster.

enlisting in the military is usually a family decision. Enlisting in the military is about building skills and strengthening character. Drinking shots is not.

Texas and Louisiana both saw a sharp spike in drinking related fatalities involving vehicles. Of course they wanted the highway funding, but that restriction was put in place based on a rise in DUI deaths.

There really is no valid argument to put more legal drinkers in our society....and finally what is the point of this? What liberty is being infringed upon?

Fine than raise the voting age, legal adult age, and age of consent to 21.

(04-23-2014 03:19 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Why does that formula make sense to you guys? Just like weed. Yall think that just because people do it now, making it easier to purchase is not going to sway people into trying it.

Making things easier to buy only brings in MORE consumers. Look at cell phones. Nobody had them when they were expensive, then they started becoming easier and easier to buy and as more competition came along, prices went down, now even the homeless bum on the corner can suck a dick and go buy a phone with the money.

Cell phone markets are essentially unregulated, hence they are driven by capitalism.

Alcohol, prescription drugs, tobacco, and if marijuana is legalized will be heavily regulated and price controlled just as it is now. It is unlikely that it is going to be cheaper to buy weed if it is legalized, it will just be taxed.

The issue regarding teens turning to other and more accessible drugs like pills is indeed very real

(04-23-2014 03:21 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 03:16 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 03:10 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 02:58 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 02:49 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  For that to be true there would have to be that number who are obeying the 18 age limit that would suddenly not obey the DUI law.

Either that or the people currently breaking the age law who are obeying the DUI law would suddenly stop obeying the DUI law when it became legal for them to drink.

Neither scenario seems to make sense.

Absolutely absurd. Your whole argument doesn't make sense. That was already tried in Louisiana and Texas and the amount of DUI related accidents skyrocket. I can't even believe there are people out there that actually think that is a good idea. We are truly stupid.

It is simple math that by adding more legal drinkers into the population, the rate of DUIs will go up. Take a younger demographic that is less responsible, and has even less good decision making skills, then add alcohol to the equation and the problem worsens exponentially.

Your argument is ridiculous and we have two examples to back it up. People like you are dangerous, dude. This isn't smart. I am hoping that you are just young.

So at 18 you are old enough to consent for sex, enlist in the military, obtain debt, and sign a contract, but not have a beer? All I am asking for is consistency. Either raise the age of consent and the age of responsibility along with rights to 21 or lower the drinking age to 18. I don't care which, but it isn't right like this. Texas and Louisiana had to raise the drinking age because of financial extortion from the federal government and losing their highway money, not because it was a disaster.

enlisting in the military is usually a family decision. Enlisting in the military is about building skills and strengthening character. Drinking shots is not.

Texas and Louisiana both saw a sharp spike in drinking related fatalities involving vehicles. Of course they wanted the highway funding, but that restriction was put in place based on a rise in DUI deaths.

There really is no valid argument to put more legal drinkers in our society....and finally what is the point of this? What liberty is being infringed upon?

Fine than raise the voting age, legal adult age, and age of consent to 21.

I'm all for raising the voting age. I'm all for raising the age to enlists. The human brain isn't even fully developed until we are in our 20s.

BTW comparing ourselves to places in Latin America and other third world countries is pretty silly. Shall we go into how safe many of those societies are?

(04-23-2014 03:19 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Why can't we aspire to be like those countries.

Many of those countries are great places to live with great opportunities.
What separates usa is a billy bad ass high tech military.

(04-23-2014 03:04 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 02:59 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 02:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 02:12 PM)supertiger Wrote:  I like a cold beer as much as the next person....

I even agree with an 18 year old drinking age.

I do think their needs to be reasonable restrictions on alcohol sales. Mainly, because alcohol does have some negative effects on society that need to be mitigated.

I think you are better off keeping the drinking age at 18 and making it contingent until 21 on attending the equivalent of "concealed carry" classes for alcohol use. With the privilege being suspended for 3 full years for anyone violating any alcohol/intoxicant law between those ages. Sort of training wheels for responsible use.

That will never fly of course, but it would encourage responsible use....instead of encouraging law-breaking like now.

So basically, you can't beat them, so give in and do what they want you to do and HOPE it sways them to be responsible... Just like weed.

That's the epitome of a young 90's parent.

Nope, you can't beat them. You can even go the Iran route if you want, but they still drink there. 18 year olds still drink here and always will. You can't stop it, you can only hope to manage it.

We have some of the most irresponsible 18-21 year old drinkers in the world. Why is that? Your law should have stopped it.

Fool yourself if you want.

Did you type that without thinking? Making it legal for them is somehow going to make them responsible?

Let me make MY opinion clear, however, that I don't mind 18 year olds drinking at a house party.....AS LONG AS THEY STAY THERE for the rest of the night. But don't make the law change to accommodate them just because "they're gonna do it anyways." If they're stupid enough to do it, they deserve the time. If they're responsible enough to do it below 21, they won't get caught. Do you see my point yet?

(04-23-2014 03:24 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 03:19 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Why can't we aspire to be like those countries.

Many of those countries are great places to live with great opportunities.
What separates usa is a billy bad ass high tech military.

Not true. Ever been to Bogata? It's lax liberal laws, class warfare and corruption that have turned places like that into violent, drug fueled hell holes.

I am getting the feeling we have some Baptist posters here.

(04-23-2014 03:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Underage drinkers who drink and drive can get a DUI below .08

By lowering the drinking age the amount of under 21 year olds getting a DUI in this regard will go down. But I must stress that this is just one of a number of factors to consider

No, I think you have to use the 18-21 age like a learners permit period. If an 18 year old drives with ANY BAC they lose 3 whole years. If you are 19 and DUI then legal drinking age is now 23.

I think if you want to drink at 18, you have to go to a class sort of like hunter-safety or concealed carry.

Making it for beer and wine only I wouldn't be opposed to.

The goal is not to have laissez-faire drinking at 18. Its to encourage learning how to drink responsibly.

(04-23-2014 03:15 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 03:13 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  When did I ever say it would fix things? It WOULD, however, make it harder for roughly 30 million people to buy alcohol which, to me, is much better than making it EASIER for about 20 million people to buy alcohol.

Serious question, which makes more sense to you?

Personal responsibility makes more sense to me.

Apparently you agree with me, and don't want to acknowledge that fact, since you didn't answer my question.