(04-24-2014 08:23 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  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?

A voice of reason.

(04-24-2014 08:23 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  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?

This is where I can compromise. If the concern is about them going out to a bar, I'd go for not letting them buy from bars or restaurants until 21. Maybe limited amounts of beer from grocers or state equivalents at age 18.

Also, as much as I've defended my position, I could really take or leave this.

(04-24-2014 07:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  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.

But that isn't my argument. With all due respect, that's YOUR argument. MY argument is that everything is legal, until we give the government the authority to make it illegal. As I said, the burden is on the government to prove that it should be regulated and not on the people to prove that it shouldn't.

Generally speaking, 'the people' through a slow moving process of law and judicial review, should reflect the moral temperature. It shouldn't be some haphazard mixture of conflicting priorities, getting paid to have sex in front of a dozen people on film is legal, but getting paid to have sex with one person in private is not.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(04-24-2014 09:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 07:34 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  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.

But that isn't my argument. With all due respect, that's YOUR argument. MY argument is that everything is legal, until we give the government the authority to make it illegal. As I said, the burden is on the government to prove that it should be regulated and not on the people to prove that it shouldn't.

Generally speaking, 'the people' through a slow moving process of law and judicial review, should reflect the moral temperature. It shouldn't be some haphazard mixture of conflicting priorities, getting paid to have sex in front of a dozen people on film is legal, but getting paid to have sex with one person in private is not.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

This isn't about the govt and it isn't about freedom. It is about people who want to get high and have all kinds of propaganda in their back pocket.

You use the term govt very loosely. There are state governments and local governments and a federal govt. Let's stop pretending this is a kingdom and one ruling body oversees all.

The burden of proof lies in the medical data and the police reports and the societal aftermath....all of which you, and many like you have no viable argument against.

and finally, here is my answer to the legalize pot crowd hiding behind govt arguments

(04-24-2014 10:24 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Teens in the 1900's





Teens today:




So who do you think was more responsible?

that is so f-ing hilarious

I noticed that you conveniently skipped over this post, oklalittledixie. Thoughts?

(04-24-2014 05:07 PM)DrTorch 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.

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.

Good or bad guess the higher drinking age probably saved a lot of teenagers lives the last few decades.
Not seen an overwhelming number of 17 and 18 year olds that wouldn't take advantage of something if given the opportunity.

(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.

and yet you can be forced against your will to put a weapon in your hand and kill people. Great fcking logic.

(04-24-2014 09:46 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  This isn't about the govt and it isn't about freedom.

It is to me.

(04-25-2014 11:34 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(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.

and yet you can be forced against your will to put a weapon in your hand and kill people. Great fcking logic.

??????

(04-24-2014 08:35 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 05:50 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Ill stand by my position...and I think I am in the majority. If I can be dragged into battle against my will?...I can drink a fcking beer. I don't give a damn what age that is allowed. Just be consistent.

I'm pretty sure you are wrong.

You would think so...being in the minority.

I still know I am right. Conscription age should be the same as the drinking age... Period. Make it 21. Fine with me.

(04-25-2014 11:35 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:34 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(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.

and yet you can be forced against your will to put a weapon in your hand and kill people. Great fcking logic.

??????

Can't serve as a cop at 18..but..can be forced to kill in the military. Tell me what kind of logic supports that?

Just be fcking consistent....Whet is the problem here?

(04-25-2014 11:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:35 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:34 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(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.

and yet you can be forced against your will to put a weapon in your hand and kill people. Great fcking logic.

??????

Can't serve as a cop at 18..but..can be forced to kill in the military. Tell me what kind of logic supports that?

Just be fcking consistent....Whet is the problem here?

another false comparison. Last time I checked, we hadn't enacted the draft. You sign up for the military on your own accord, knowing that combat is a possibility. Just fcking form a logical argument.

(04-25-2014 11:56 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  You sign up for the military on your own accord, knowing that combat is a possibility.

He's talking about selective service registration, which isn't optional (of your own accord) for men anyway. No, we don't currently draft, but we could... and you are required to be on their list for that contingency. As he said, you CAN be forced into the military at 18.

If you wanted to change the laws to say that 18yr olds who ARE in the military can drink, then I think most would be okay with that.

I was in the Air Force for four years and in the Navy Reserve for about 8 years and I don't think that would be a pre-requisite for being able to drink at 18. I can attest that being in the military doesn't equal maturity. Sure, we were trained to do our jobs well but once off post we were pretty bad especially if we were inebriated. If a person waits until 21 that person would probably be more mature because he has experienced more, is probably married and can't afford to screw up by drinking because he might have kids to think about. I also know that there are 21ers out of the military that are still immature but I would venture to say that they are the exception.

(04-25-2014 10:55 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Good or bad guess the higher drinking age probably saved a lot of teenagers lives the last few decades.
Not seen an overwhelming number of 17 and 18 year olds that wouldn't take advantage of something if given the opportunity.

If you are talking about DUIs, that is more about parents and society hammering home don't drink and drive. Teenagers and those under 21 still drink, still get their booze and beer. In many states it is legal to drink under the age of 21 either with or without parental supervision, and even in some restaurants. We all know about the partying around college campuses and most of them are not 21, lol.

(04-25-2014 11:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:35 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:34 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(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.

and yet you can be forced against your will to put a weapon in your hand and kill people. Great fcking logic.

??????

Can't serve as a cop at 18..but..can be forced to kill in the military. Tell me what kind of logic supports that?

Just be fcking consistent....Whet is the problem here?

Fo, a soldier is pretty much led by a superior the entire way and told who to shoot at and when to stop. At cop pretty much acts on his own with no superior present, does whatever he wants, and the blue wall protects him. In a tense situation the soldier would probably be more disciplined than the cop...or at least that's how it seems these days with all these trigger happy policemen.

(04-25-2014 09:03 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:35 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:34 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(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.

and yet you can be forced against your will to put a weapon in your hand and kill people. Great fcking logic.

??????

Can't serve as a cop at 18..but..can be forced to kill in the military. Tell me what kind of logic supports that?

Just be fcking consistent....Whet is the problem here?

Fo, a soldier is pretty much led by a superior the entire way and told who to shoot at and when to stop. At cop pretty much acts on his own with no superior present, does whatever he wants, and the blue wall protects him. In a tense situation the soldier would probably be more disciplined than the cop...or at least that's how it seems these days with all these trigger happy policemen.

I submit the contradiction is glaring. I can be forced to kill people at age 18 under the flag of the state and yet I can not voluntarily be able to protect people under that same flag.

I fully agree that 18 is too young to be a cop. I think it is too young for either thing. Just be consistent. Decide what the age of consent should be and apply it consistently. That is all I ask.

(04-25-2014 11:56 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:35 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:34 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(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.

and yet you can be forced against your will to put a weapon in your hand and kill people. Great fcking logic.

??????

Can't serve as a cop at 18..but..can be forced to kill in the military. Tell me what kind of logic supports that?

Just be fcking consistent....Whet is the problem here?

another false comparison. Last time I checked, we hadn't enacted the draft. You sign up for the military on your own accord, knowing that combat is a possibility. Just fcking form a logical argument.

You can damn well believe that if the draft comes back (and it can) 18 year old men will be forced into conscription. I did not think I needed to make that clear.

(04-26-2014 08:17 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:56 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:35 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 11:34 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  and yet you can be forced against your will to put a weapon in your hand and kill people. Great fcking logic.

??????

Can't serve as a cop at 18..but..can be forced to kill in the military. Tell me what kind of logic supports that?

Just be fcking consistent....Whet is the problem here?

another false comparison. Last time I checked, we hadn't enacted the draft. You sign up for the military on your own accord, knowing that combat is a possibility. Just fcking form a logical argument.

You can damn well believe that if the draft comes back (and it can) 18 year old men will be forced into conscription. I did not think I needed to make that clear.

Give me a break. This is a ridiculous argument you are trying to form. Oh the outrage. DRINKING is NOT joining the military. They are two different activities with completely different outcomes.