HitsRus wrote:

ernest_t_bass wrote:

I'm 18, I'm legal. Please, leave me alone, stop giving me "rules" by which to live, and allow me to live my life in peace. If I harm others, then please punish me, but who are YOU to punish me for "harming" myself?

Might be the silliest thing I've seen you post.

There is no right...constitutional or otherwise that allows you to put other people at risk. Drive 100 MPH thru a school zone? No one gets hurt, so it's no harm no foul? And if you do harm somebody does your punishment make restitution?


'allow me to live my life in peace'....Peace is the exact reason alcohol laws are made to begin with.

ernest_t_bass wrote: There are other countries where there is no age (I think). Do you think if the USA were a "No age" limit country, we would have problems? I think kids have a desire to drink b/c they aren't allowed to. If they're allowed to drink, it won't have that risk factor.

queencitybuckeye wrote: Parents should determine how to educate their children on alcohol.

BORIStheCrusher wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote: Parents should determine how to educate their children on alcohol.

Parents actually parent their kids? :huh:

Bigdogg wrote: The people of Ohio voted for 19. Ironic that the Republican party icon Ronnie Ragan forced all the states into a 21 and over policy or they got no federal highway funds.

majorspark wrote:

Bigdogg wrote: The people of Ohio voted for 19. Ironic that the Republican party icon Ronnie Ragan forced all the states into a 21 and over policy or they got no federal highway funds.

Wrong. That was done by congress. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J proposed the amendment to HR 4616. Reagan initially opposed it by threatening veto. In the end the congress won and Reagan signed it into law. But if it makes you feel better to lay this soley at the feet of Reagan, carry on.

If you would like to educate yourself a little bit. Here is a good essay.

http://yria.alcade.net/essays/leg-an.htm

Bigdogg wrote:

majorspark wrote:

Bigdogg wrote: The people of Ohio voted for 19. Ironic that the Republican party icon Ronnie Ragan forced all the states into a 21 and over policy or they got no federal highway funds.

Wrong. That was done by congress. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J proposed the amendment to HR 4616. Reagan initially opposed it by threatening veto. In the end the congress won and Reagan signed it into law. But if it makes you feel better to lay this soley at the feet of Reagan, carry on.

If you would like to educate yourself a little bit. Here is a good essay.

http://yria.alcade.net/essays/leg-an.htm

No you are not correct. Reagan got the ball rolling two years before that piece of legislation with Executive Order 12358 - Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. There was discussion how it was going to be implemented but make no mistake, Regan WAS going to get it done and he did.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42395

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=41140

http://prohibitiontimes.piratenews.org/pcdd.html

majorspark wrote:

Bigdogg wrote:

majorspark wrote:

Bigdogg wrote: The people of Ohio voted for 19. Ironic that the Republican party icon Ronnie Ragan forced all the states into a 21 and over policy or they got no federal highway funds.

Wrong. That was done by congress. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J proposed the amendment to HR 4616. Reagan initially opposed it by threatening veto. In the end the congress won and Reagan signed it into law. But if it makes you feel better to lay this soley at the feet of Reagan, carry on.

If you would like to educate yourself a little bit. Here is a good essay.

http://yria.alcade.net/essays/leg-an.htm

No you are not correct. Reagan got the ball rolling two years before that piece of legislation with Executive Order 12358 - Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. There was discussion how it was going to be implemented but make no mistake, Regan WAS going to get it done and he did.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42395

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=41140

http://prohibitiontimes.piratenews.org/pcdd.html

There is nothing in his order concerning withholding funds to states that would not comply with the raising of the drinking age to 21. His statement on the commission was on their reccomendation to raise the limit. Like I said Reagan was initially opposed to enforcing this as a matter of states rights, then changed his mind and signed the bill. I think he made the wrong call and should have vetoed it.

MADD was involved in a massive publicity effort and letter writing campaign scaring the bejesus out of congressman and officials in the federal government, in an election year I might add. This was a failure of both branches and both parties in forcing their will on the states. Like I said if it makes you feel better to lay this soley at the feet of Reagan, go for it.

mexappeal12 wrote: i didnt say that was the point of the constitution... i didn't say it granted you rights... i said your inalienable rights are the ones in the constitution

and i am saying that you are using the word "right" incorrectly

to live your life as you see fit? so is doing cocaine your inalienable right if thats how you want to live your life as long as it doesnt infringe upon someone else's?

laws are different... you dont have the right to drive 150 mph ... you can and you are violating a law... there is a difference

Glory Days wrote:
because people didnt goto the government when they made mistakes in life. when people started holding the government responsible for the things people do to themselves thats when the government started to protect people from themselves. aslong as tax money is spent on drug addicts and alcoholics, the government should have every right to control those things.

ytownfootball wrote:
MADD was the push behind the drinking age being raised in the first place, and I can't disagree with it now, though I wasn't happy at the time. Drunk driving related deaths did drop dramatically.

eersandbeers wrote:

ytownfootball wrote:
MADD was the push behind the drinking age being raised in the first place, and I can't disagree with it now, though I wasn't happy at the time. Drunk driving related deaths did drop dramatically.

Could you provide some statistics on that?

ytownfootball wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

ytownfootball wrote:
MADD was the push behind the drinking age being raised in the first place, and I can't disagree with it now, though I wasn't happy at the time. Drunk driving related deaths did drop dramatically.

Could you provide some statistics on that?

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-ohio.html

It is important to note that the Ohio drunk driving statistics, as shown above, include data from individuals who were in an alcohol-related crash, but not driving a motor vehicle at the time. The U.S. Department of Transportation defines alcohol-related deaths as "fatalities that occur in crashes where at least one driver or non-occupant (pedestrian or bicyclist) involved in the crash has a positive Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) value."

ytownfootball wrote: No it doesn't.

I read the disclaimer as it was, I'm pretty sure it also includes those that were driving also while impaired, though not stated, it's more of an obvious point.

Besides, they are including those that were not actually behind the wheel as well, a larger sample, yet the decrease is what it is.

Crew Love wrote: It's not a numeric age, but I'd say once you graduate high school, you should be permitted to legally consume alcohol.

ytownfootball wrote: LOL...

Cause and effect? Are you serious?

Have automobile safey and "newer" highways and roads caused the effect of fewer deaths over the time frame?

Come on, I was born at night but not last night.

You want a good study, I would check out some insurance actuarial looks into the matter, but for now, and as far as my interests go, these stats will do just fine.

1_beast wrote: make it illegal....bootleg it. legalize pot. lol but you must be 18 to burn the fattie.