The Drinking Age Is Past Its Prime

[whitehall]

Why in the world would there be a movement on the radical left to lower the drinking age when evidence suggests that teenage drinking has been increasing? Maybe it's about the recently liberated marijuana laws.

 

[Political Junky]

The drinking age was 18 in the state I grew up in, and they weren't very strict about that.

 

[Pop23]

The drinking age was 18 in the state I grew up in, and they weren't very strict about that.

19 where I was, but you could also drink if you were in the service or were married. Remember seeing people bring their marriage license to the bars with them. Strange now that I think about it.

 

[Duped]

MADD has fucked all recreational drinking for good. Two beers can be enough to get you a DUI, loss of your license and $10,000 plus in fines and court costs (the states love those bennies).

It's bullshit. You can die on the battlefields of Iraq but can't have a fucking beer.

We really are the most fucked up nation is so many ways.

Well drunk driving enforcement went from being a safety tool to a source of revenue.
I oppose these check points as a means to catch drunk drivers. Often, valuable hours of law enforcement resources are wasted with several officers sitting in the same spot for hours when they could be out on patrol doing the same thing. But as with any popular with the public law enforcement tactics, these check points have the support of just the right number of people. and of course, it's good publicity for law enforcement. "See, look at what we're doing!"....The checkpoints are the police dept's method of going for the low hanging fruit.
What pisses me off is there could be an armed robber stuffing a in a convenience store clerk into the walk in beer cooler at gun point right down the street while the police are asking a guy who has a tail light out to recite the alphabet backwards. THAT'S more important.

"Check Points" are a mechanism to interrogate people for more than intoxication - people law enforcement would not otherwise have the right to stop; no probable cause - they are un American.

 

[Leweman]

MADD has fucked all recreational drinking for good. Two beers can be enough to get you a DUI, loss of your license and $10,000 plus in fines and court costs (the states love those bennies).

It's bullshit. You can die on the battlefields of Iraq but can't have a fucking beer.

We really are the most fucked up nation is so many ways.

Well drunk driving enforcement went from being a safety tool to a source of revenue.
I oppose these check points as a means to catch drunk drivers. Often, valuable hours of law enforcement resources are wasted with several officers sitting in the same spot for hours when they could be out on patrol doing the same thing. But as with any popular with the public law enforcement tactics, these check points have the support of just the right number of people. and of course, it's good publicity for law enforcement. "See, look at what we're doing!"....The checkpoints are the police dept's method of going for the low hanging fruit.
What pisses me off is there could be an armed robber stuffing a in a convenience store clerk into the walk in beer cooler at gun point right down the street while the police are asking a guy who has a tail light out to recite the alphabet backwards. THAT'S more important.

"Check Points" are a mechanism to interrogate people for more than intoxication - people law enforcement would not otherwise have the right to stop; no probable cause - they are un American.

if you aren't breaking the law you have nothing to worry about ... theoretically

 

[Darkwind]

I think that driving and drinking and military service should be means tested.

At 16, if you vote democrat, you'll have to wait for the next election to do any of that, because you have shown that you are not mature enough to handle the adult world.

This would continue until you reach the age of 26, at which time, the democrats think that you are an adult and can then handle your own affairs, such as purchasing insurance.

After all, I don't really blame the kids. I blame the alleged adults in our society. I call it the "Interstate Highway Syndrome".

Just take a look at what the alleged adults do when it comes to the speed limit impositions on the highways.

 

[Duped]

Well drunk driving enforcement went from being a safety tool to a source of revenue.
I oppose these check points as a means to catch drunk drivers. Often, valuable hours of law enforcement resources are wasted with several officers sitting in the same spot for hours when they could be out on patrol doing the same thing. But as with any popular with the public law enforcement tactics, these check points have the support of just the right number of people. and of course, it's good publicity for law enforcement. "See, look at what we're doing!"....The checkpoints are the police dept's method of going for the low hanging fruit.
What pisses me off is there could be an armed robber stuffing a in a convenience store clerk into the walk in beer cooler at gun point right down the street while the police are asking a guy who has a tail light out to recite the alphabet backwards. THAT'S more important.

"Check Points" are a mechanism to interrogate people for more than intoxication - people law enforcement would not otherwise have the right to stop; no probable cause - they are un American.

if you aren't breaking the law you have nothing to worry about ... theoretically

Your argument is repulsive! The point is that they are breaking the law through subterfuge! They should be the ones worried! They swore, and are paid to uphold the law!

Many have fought, sacrificed, and died fighting for our freedoms! It is sacrilege to readily capitulate those freedoms to those sworn to protect them! Laws are suppose to protect the innocent - not to violate them for some perceived greater good!

Would you allow the police to search your house unannounced, without probable cause, in a neighborhood drug sweep - at their whim? Same principle!

 

[whitehall]

Here's the deal, the Hussein administration is the last chance for homosexual pedophiles to lower the consent age and the pot heads to dodge criminal charges for selling shit to kids.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The drinking age was 18 in the state I grew up in, and they weren't very strict about that.

19 where I was, but you could also drink if you were in the service or were married. Remember seeing people bring their marriage license to the bars with them. Strange now that I think about it.

I remember seeing that happen. Kind of crazy now that you mention it.

I turned 18 during a racing trip to Moab Utah. My friends dad took me to the bar at about 10pm and I turned 18 at midnight. I wanted to sleep because I had to race the next morning but he was making a big deal about it, and I was traveling on their dime. Finally a local cowboy I think may have been the sheriff of the town because everyone was looking at him when we walked in told the bar tender to "Just give him the damn beer so he get rested up for the race".

It made everyone happy I guess so it worked out. After the race we went and had another beer so that was cool.

 

[manifold]

Oh OK, sorry. Gun control doesnt reduce deaths.
Feel better, now?

It does though, and that's a fact.

No it does not, it has never been shown to reduce deaths. The very opposite.
Your "facts" are simply wrong.

Wow!

The fucking stupid shit you say sometimes is amazing.

Go look up gun deaths by country and then tell me again how stricter gun control doesn't translate into fewer gun deaths, just like fewer people drinking translates into fewer drunk driving deaths. The point is that that alone isn't a good enough reason to make either sound policy.

For example:

Gun related deaths per 100,000 people in the United Kingdom: 0.25
Gun related deaths per 100,000 people in the United States: 10.3

Do you know which of those two has the stricter gun control?

 

[The Rabbi]

It does though, and that's a fact.

No it does not, it has never been shown to reduce deaths. The very opposite.
Your "facts" are simply wrong.

Wow!

The fucking stupid shit you say sometimes is amazing.

Go look up gun deaths by country and then tell me again how stricter gun control doesn't translate into fewer gun deaths, just like fewer people drinking translates into fewer drunk driving deaths. The point is that that alone isn't a good enough reason to make either sound policy.

For example:

Gun related deaths per 100,000 people in the United Kingdom: 0.25
Gun related deaths per 100,000 people in the United States: 10.3

Do you know which of those two has the stricter gun control?

Ah geez not this shit again.
Look up deaths in Mexico and Switzerland and tell me which one has stricter gun laws.

 

[manifold]

No it does not, it has never been shown to reduce deaths. The very opposite.
Your "facts" are simply wrong.

Wow!

The fucking stupid shit you say sometimes is amazing.

Go look up gun deaths by country and then tell me again how stricter gun control doesn't translate into fewer gun deaths, just like fewer people drinking translates into fewer drunk driving deaths. The point is that that alone isn't a good enough reason to make either sound policy.

For example:

Gun related deaths per 100,000 people in the United Kingdom: 0.25
Gun related deaths per 100,000 people in the United States: 10.3

Do you know which of those two has the stricter gun control?

Ah geez not this shit again.
Look up deaths in Mexico and Switzerland and tell me which one has stricter gun laws.

That's why it's not sound policy. Glad to see your data point cherry picking skills match that of my own. Touché.

Still doesn't change the unassailable fact that fewer guns = fewer deaths from guns. If that's not what you're challenging then perhaps I misunderstood you. My bad.

 

[rightwinger]

The drinking age was 18 in the state I grew up in, and they weren't very strict about that.

19 where I was, but you could also drink if you were in the service or were married. Remember seeing people bring their marriage license to the bars with them. Strange now that I think about it.

18 year olds in the service are the last ones who should be trusted to drink

 

[martybegan]

Really loving all the "small government" being espoused by the conservatives in this thread. Entirely predictable since they don't actually believe in it.

That is really lame, there is a place for government, this happens to be one of them, we have a big enough problem with 21+ drinking drivers, there's no need to add millions of 18+ to the mix. Actually I should say millions of 16+ because the ones 18 will provide alcohol to their younger friends, just like 21 year olds do now.

However it should be up to the states. The constitution gives them regulation over alcohol via the 21st amendment. The highway funds end around is unconstitutional, despite what the SC said.

 

[manifold]

If raising the drinking age to 21 saved so many lives, why not raise it up to 35? If you can't be president, you ain't earned the right to drink son. Just think about all the life we could save, together.

 

[manifold]

Ok, here's my latest killer idea...

Abolish the drinking age entirely, and give the death penalty for deaths that a court determines were the direct result of drunk driving. I bet that would cut down on the teens driving drunk problem quite efficiently.

 

[manifold]

Ok, here's my latest killer idea...

Abolish the drinking age entirely, and give the death penalty for deaths that a court determines were the direct result of drunk driving. I bet that would cut down on the teens driving drunk problem quite efficiently.

Just think about all the life we could save, together.

 

[editec]

Many states tried the 18 year old drinking age.

I was tending bar at the time (1974) in New Jersey. Kids from PA came to this bar because it was right across the bridge from Easton, PA in Phillipsburg, NJ.

Yeah it was a tad wild but all in all not so bad.

Carnage on the highways of course, but that's Darwinism (and just fate for those killed by the drunks) in action.

But if we can demand that our boys serve in the military (and we still do insist men sign up for the draft) then it is not right to give them full rights as citizens.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I agree that it should be 18 for everyone, that was offered as a compromise.

Personally, I could live with granting this one 'special' right to people willing to lay down their life for my freedom. But that's just me.

I'd rather have the age at 21 for drinking and enlisting.

But your parents should be able to sell you to the military at 13. ; )

That just rolls into other issues though. The military is a job training program and a way for many to get college money. So what do those people do for the three years between high school and being able to persue a career?

I agree with selling them though.

Junior college ? I think the free public education should extend through the junior college/associate's degree level anyway.

I agree that the military can be a very good starting point for a lot of young people - but I'm afraid that at 18, a lot of youngsters join up without fully considering all the possible pitfalls.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Really loving all the "small government" being espoused by the conservatives in this thread. Entirely predictable since they don't actually believe in it.

That is really lame, there is a place for government, this happens to be one of them, we have a big enough problem with 21+ drinking drivers, there's no need to add millions of 18+ to the mix. Actually I should say millions of 16+ because the ones 18 will provide alcohol to their younger friends, just like 21 year olds do now.

However it should be up to the states. The constitution gives them regulation over alcohol via the 21st amendment. The highway funds end around is unconstitutional, despite what the SC said.

I disagree. States don't have a Constitutional right to receive highway funds.