U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-04-2009, 04:27 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,781,381 times
Reputation: 4539

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan View Post
Kids who drink excessively have permanent brain damage. Adults who drink excessively have permanent kidney damage. Mothers who drink excessively have deformed babies. Drinking is an ill, but it is legal and subject to the actions of free people. If I wanted to drink myself silly at 18, I would have and been forced to live with the consequences. Conversely, if I wanted to bang my head against the wall it would have happened on my own accord. I would have lived with those consequences also.
I DO think that drinking should be illegal for pregnant women actually. As far as your argument about 18 year olds...they are simply not mature enough to appreciate WHY it's bad. They can't be expected to be mature enough which has been proven by science.

 
Old 03-04-2009, 04:29 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,781,381 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan View Post
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CHANGES. The government puts an arbitrary date on adulthood because that is how a society has to function. Some peoples' brains are more developed, some peoples' never develop. At 18 you are given responsibilities and must become responsible. If they fail, they should be held accountable for their actions. If they succeed, they should be rewarded. If a parent hasn't prepared their child for that moment, they are failures as parents.
Remember, 18 and 19 year olds have had the same responsibilities as older men for centuries, and have done fairly well.
...and stop talking about brain development because after 65 we are all going downhill as our brains deteriorate. Based on this logic, the only drinkers should be between the ages of 21 and 65.
Well..back in the REALLY old days...13 and 14 year olds were getting married and having kids.

But 35 years ago or so, the age of majority was 21.

There's another argument with 18 year olds specifically...and that's that most kids turn 18 while they are still in high school. High school kids shouldn't be legally permitted to drink period.

Using your logic, all kids should be thrown out of their parents' homes on their 18th birthdays and not receive one penny of support after that. No paying for college, no shelter, no food, not staying on the parents' health insurance, none of this stuff even if the kid is still in high school. Not to even begin to mention the luxuries that many parents provide for kids that age (which they probably shouldn't...but that's a whole other argument).
 
Old 03-04-2009, 04:55 PM
 
3,651 posts, read 8,121,989 times
Reputation: 2747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnehahapolitan View Post
If people of any age drink and get high at their own plight, what do you care?
? So you're OK with 8 yr olds getting drunk and/or high?


Quote:
If they cause trouble, deal with the trouble they cause. Don't go on some witch hunt and ruin peoples' lives because of your personal beliefs on the matter.
Yeah don't try to prevent the trouble in the first place. Wait till it's too late.

If you want to think letting anyone of any age do whatever they want has less of a chance of ruining their lives vs putting some basic limits in effect (esp on things like drinking and drugs) - which you apparently consider a "witch hunt" to boot - have fun. I find all that incredibly bizarre, frankly.
 
Old 03-04-2009, 05:54 PM
 
1,245 posts, read 1,229,670 times
Reputation: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
The problem is you're very wrong about "your brain developing has nothing to do with the legal drinking age"...that's pretty much the point. If an 18 year old drinks the same amount of alcohol as a 30 year old, it will kill something like 5 times more brain cells in the 18 year old. That's significant. Kids who drink excessively at young ages often have permanent brain damage. 18 year olds still have underdeveloped brains.

I know that no law will STOP it but my ideas were to strengthen the laws to make the consequences far more severe and to do more prevention.
Whats the comparison between an 18 year old and a 21 year old? Give some sources before you try and spout out random numbers with no evidence.

And your plan is to throw kids in jail for drinking... And this is somehow going to benefit America and Americans... Kids are going to drink, they always have and always will. The only thing passing harsher laws will do is harm more kids' futures while spending more tax dollars.
 
Old 03-04-2009, 08:01 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,057 posts, read 29,753,954 times
Reputation: 10455
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickeldude View Post
Kids are going to drink, they always have and always will. The only thing passing harsher laws will do is harm more kids' futures while spending more tax dollars.
Unfortunately, that doesn't solve anything. Acknowledge that they're going to drink and...what? Just give them a free pass to drink until they manage to kill themselves--or worse, someone else?
 
Old 03-04-2009, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,781,381 times
Reputation: 4539
If my idea was fully implemented, I KNOW underage drinking would go WAYYY down. We just have to increase the likelihood of the kids getting caught and increase the consequences upon getting caught. That's pretty simple.

And the point, nickeldude, is that they wouldn't go to jail unless/until they had been CONVICTED of underage drinking and THEN had gotten one of the bracelets AND had drank again while they were required to wear the bracelet. The bracelet is nearly 100% fullproof. If they KNEW they would be caught and they KNEW they would go to jail, they likely wouldn't drink while they had to wear the bracelet.
 
Old 03-05-2009, 12:15 AM
 
2,506 posts, read 7,619,707 times
Reputation: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X View Post
Unfortunately, that doesn't solve anything. Acknowledge that they're going to drink and...what? Just give them a free pass to drink until they manage to kill themselves--or worse, someone else?
We allow 22 year olds to do just that, but maybe we should be practical instead of Puritanical. People make bad decisions, it is corollary to having the freedom to make good ones. If you want to drink until your liver is green, be my guest. We can educate as to lower the number of people doing it, but the ultimate decision is theirs no matter how much of a nanny state we become. No law is going to knock sense into someone who doesn't already have it, but that same law would come at the detriment of a larger group of people -- those who make rational decisions.
There are people with a half-dozen drunk driving arrests who still own a car. Seize it and use the proceeds for stricter law enforcement. Why do we tolerate DUIs at all? Then we could ensure public safety without being ageist about the matter.
Seriously. People talk for pages here about how dangerous daily living would become under the hypothetical reign of drunken teenage gangs. We already live under the siege of drunken adult gangs and do close to nothing about it. Perhaps our efforts should be placed there. It would do more good and be alot more fair.
 
Old 03-05-2009, 12:22 AM
 
1,245 posts, read 1,229,670 times
Reputation: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X View Post
Unfortunately, that doesn't solve anything. Acknowledge that they're going to drink and...what? Just give them a free pass to drink until they manage to kill themselves--or worse, someone else?
That happens now... I'm not seeing your argument in here if you could explain it further that'd be great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
If my idea was fully implemented, I KNOW underage drinking would go WAYYY down. We just have to increase the likelihood of the kids getting caught and increase the consequences upon getting caught. That's pretty simple.

And the point, nickeldude, is that they wouldn't go to jail unless/until they had been CONVICTED of underage drinking and THEN had gotten one of the bracelets AND had drank again while they were required to wear the bracelet. The bracelet is nearly 100% fullproof. If they KNEW they would be caught and they KNEW they would go to jail, they likely wouldn't drink while they had to wear the bracelet.
You don't know anything would happen, you're just speculating. Please don't act like your opinion is fact, it doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Not to mention you want to spend a lot more money for no apparent reason. I have yet to see a legitimate reason why the drinking age shouldn't be lowered to ~19 nor one why it should be raised.
 
Old 03-05-2009, 12:30 AM
 
2,506 posts, read 7,619,707 times
Reputation: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2000 View Post
? So you're OK with 8 yr olds getting drunk and/or high?



Yeah don't try to prevent the trouble in the first place. Wait till it's too late.

If you want to think letting anyone of any age do whatever they want has less of a chance of ruining their lives vs putting some basic limits in effect (esp on things like drinking and drugs) - which you apparently consider a "witch hunt" to boot - have fun. I find all that incredibly bizarre, frankly.
Sure. We could ferment the straw man from that statement into a potent concoction for the 3rd Grader. An eight year old is not remotely considered an adult...by anyone.
It doesn't take a particularly nimble mind to realize that we already have the laws that we need. Trouble doesn't start the second a 19 year old has a beer. It starts when a person of any age has 7 beers and drives home. Since people deserve chances, the first DUI should get the license revoked and the second should take every car in the household. Dictating the age of a drinker is akin to trying to reduce speeding by banning sports cars, because only sports cars can speed. There should be limits in effect only so far as to protect society. If somebody don't mind that they are an alcoholic, why should me or the government? Sit at home all day with Jack, nobody cares. If that alcoholic hits his wife, then society steps in and stops him. Sadly, the guy has to hit his wife first because the intention of hitting somebody is not a crime.
 
Old 03-05-2009, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,781,381 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickeldude View Post
You don't know anything would happen, you're just speculating. Please don't act like your opinion is fact, it doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Not to mention you want to spend a lot more money for no apparent reason. I have yet to see a legitimate reason why the drinking age shouldn't be lowered to ~19 nor one why it should be raised.
Drug tests are already given randomly in many high schools. Some already test for alcohol too. The urine/saliva tests are not expensive at all.

The bracelets are very expensive...but it would be the offenders themselves who would pay for them.

As far as your point about lowering the drinking age to 19, I would have much less of a problem with that than 18.

I posted this link earlier. I'll post it again since you want some sources. http://www.why21.org/
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top