S
SnotBubbles
Jan 27, 2010 8:17am
For the record, I voted 18.
For the record, I laughed really hard at DeyDurkie and the "correctors" on this page. What a fail. Hahaha....and funnier that he manned up and left it.
For the record, I laughed really hard at DeyDurkie and the "correctors" on this page. What a fail. Hahaha....and funnier that he manned up and left it.
T
trackandccrunner
Posts: 1,283
Jan 27, 2010 8:57am
Once I turned 21 I quit caring.
ernest_t_bass
Posts: 24,984
Jan 28, 2010 8:02am
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.
By the way it reads, you are absolutely right. It looks very silly. I'll rephrase.
If I endanger anyone (drive too fast, drive while drunk, punch someone, etc.) then I should be punished. There should be laws in place for that. However, if I am in the comfort of my own home, or sitting at a bar, minding my own business, then I think I should be able to enjoy an alcoholic drink (while 18).
BORIStheCrusher
Posts: 1,893
Jan 28, 2010 9:22am
Yes and no. I think it should be lowered like most other countries but done so it the right fashion. I voted 18 (but not for the 'smoking, being able to die in war, etc...). Other countries have drinking ages of 18 and 16, yet don't have the problems we do as far as alcohol. I think if kids are exposed to it when they are younger, and just taught to be responsible about it, they would make smarter decisions. Sure some will, but you won't see as many kids binge drinking and driving drunk if they learn early on that alcohol is no big deal.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.
Goldenboy26
Posts: 164
Jan 28, 2010 9:24am
18 or 19, I think you should be out of High School before you start drinking
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Jan 28, 2010 9:31am
None mandated by law. Parents should determine how to educate their children on alcohol. The whole "forbidden fruit" aspect of the drinking age causes at least as many problems as it solves.
BORIStheCrusher
Posts: 1,893
Jan 28, 2010 9:38am
Parents actually parent their kids? :huh:queencitybuckeye wrote: Parents should determine how to educate their children on alcohol.
ernest_t_bass
Posts: 24,984
Jan 28, 2010 10:19am
LOL.... zactlyBORIStheCrusher wrote:Parents actually parent their kids? :huh:queencitybuckeye wrote: Parents should determine how to educate their children on alcohol.
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Jan 28, 2010 11:12am
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
Posts: 5,122
Jan 28, 2010 11:35am
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.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.
If you would like to educate yourself a little bit. Here is a good essay.
http://yria.alcade.net/essays/leg-an.htm
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Jan 28, 2010 11:56am
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.majorspark wrote: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.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.
If you would like to educate yourself a little bit. Here is a good essay.
http://yria.alcade.net/essays/leg-an.htm
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
C
cbus4life
Posts: 2,849
Jan 28, 2010 12:13pm
16.
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Jan 28, 2010 12:21pm
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.Bigdogg wrote: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.majorspark wrote: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.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.
If you would like to educate yourself a little bit. Here is a good essay.
http://yria.alcade.net/essays/leg-an.htm
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
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.
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Jan 28, 2010 5:21pm
I agree that both party's were at fault. The fact is Reagen stacked the commission with people he wanted to get the outcome he desired and got the ball rolling. He was against HR 4616 because it originally did not go far enough in his opinion.majorspark wrote: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.Bigdogg wrote: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.majorspark wrote: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.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.
If you would like to educate yourself a little bit. Here is a good essay.
http://yria.alcade.net/essays/leg-an.htm
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
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.
E
eersandbeers
Posts: 1,071
Jan 28, 2010 5:35pm
I was stating you aren't understanding my point. I'm not saying drinking is a right. I'm saying it's a right to live my life as I wish as long as I am not harming others in the process. That is a right.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
Why should there be a speed limit? If I endanger others then it is a crime. If I am driving at a speed without endangering others then whats the problem?
On that we agree.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.
Tax money should not be spent on those things. However, that does not justify control over my life because others are irresponsible.
Could you provide some statistics on that?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.
ytownfootball
Posts: 6,978
Jan 28, 2010 5:44pm
eersandbeers wrote:
Could you provide some statistics on that?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.
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-ohio.html
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Jan 29, 2010 10:59am
Please note the following disclaimer on the stats you cited:ytownfootball wrote:eersandbeers wrote:
Could you provide some statistics on that?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.
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-ohio.html
This makes those death stats worthless.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
Posts: 6,978
Jan 29, 2010 11:06am
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.
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.
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Jan 29, 2010 11:30am
First of all you are assuming cause and effect. You can not prove one thing causes another. You can only disprove a theory. Check out Experimental research before you argue that point because I have a pretty good background on what is a valid, scientific study.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.
Remember, cars are much more safer, highways are designed much better. Those are all factors along with the simple fact that it includes passengers that are simply in the car and are not driving and may have been the fault of a non impaired driver. I agree they are interesting stats, but there is no correlation in those stats that proves or disproves that the death rate has decreased because of stricter laws. I would hope someone has done a good study but I have yet to see it. If you know of one I would love to see it.
ytownfootball
Posts: 6,978
Jan 29, 2010 11:37am
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.
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.
J
justcompete
Posts: 263
Jan 29, 2010 11:39am
^^^ this ^^^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.
I was right in the middle of the age change from 18 to 19 to 21. To me 19 made the most sense. Out of high school and expected to be responsible enough to hold a job and/or go to college where you are in charge of what happens. No matter what age is in place, kids are going to abuse the right for a while.
S
slide22
Posts: 330
Jan 29, 2010 12:38pm
19, and I'm 18 years old. The problem with at 18 is that most kids that are 18 are still in high school.
1_beast
Posts: 5,642
Jan 29, 2010 1:31pm
make it illegal....bootleg it. legalize pot. lol but you must be 18 to burn the fattie.
B
Bigdogg
Posts: 1,429
Jan 29, 2010 1:58pm
Do you have a point to make or anything intelligent to add do you just want to establish you can type better?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.
If you want to take those stats you came up with and use those to prove your point feel free to. All I am saying is they are meaningless and not valid.
Big_Mirg_ZHS
Posts: 2,079
Jan 29, 2010 2:01pm
QFT1_beast wrote: make it illegal....bootleg it. legalize pot. lol but you must be 18 to burn the fattie.