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.
What does the ability to defend one's country or discuss politics have to do with the ability to handle drinking? Are they linked in some way I don't know about? Does drinking enhance one's ability to do either?
You're trying to link things that don't go together. The ability to defend your country or vote have nothing to with whether or not you are developmentally ready to drink. I was 18 when the drinking age was 18 and know first hand what a mistake that was. Only a fool would think that the ability to vote or defend your country proves you're ready to consume alcohol recreationally. These are disparate things. They have nothing to do with each other. You are trying to connect things that don't go together.
I've already answered your question! Here is a thought, if you DON'T want to lower the drinking age, then DON'T allow 18 year olds to vote, and DON'T send them into a war because their minds clearly AREN'T developed enough to make decisions on our countries policies, or have the mental capacity to be in a dangerous situation like war! Telling them that it is OK to put their lives at risk for our country or to fight someone elses war for them, and then telling them that they cannot consume an alcoholic beverage is of the utmost hypocrisy! If you can't see that, then I don't know what else to tell you! Furthermore, perhaps if our attitudes regarding alcohol weren't so damn puritanical then maybe we wouldn't have the issues with it that we do in this country!
It is really very simple if you look at it as a "responsibility" issue.
We are telling people that they are responsible enough to entrust the welfare of our country to them in voting and military service; we are telling people that they are responsible enough to entrust our safety to them by allowing them to drive a 1.5 to 10 ton vehicle on the freeways at 70 or 80 MPH; we are telling people that they are responsible enough to get married and have children; We are telling people that they are responsible enough to be sent to foreign countries and kill or be killed; etc.
HOWEVER, we are telling these same people that they are NOT responsible enough to have a glass of beer with dinner, or enter a bar, or drink a vodka collins, etc.
SOME of us believe that if these people are responsible enough to give some of the "perks of adulthood" to them, they are responsible enough to allow them to have ALL of the said "perks of adulthood". Conversely, if they are not responsible enough to be granted ALL the "perks of adulthood", then they probably are not responsible enough for ANY of said perks!
A person can not be half an adult. They either are or they are not. It is well beyond time for Society to decide which they are.
It is just that simple.
I don't see the point. Like everything from the left; it makes for an interesting discussion--but it really adds nothing of value or substance to issues that do matter but some how they find a way to politicize it.
Personally, it sounds like another left wing meme to rile up the youth vote. They'll claim that those "evil" old conservative republicans are trying to take away their right to booze up just as they were doing with marijuana.
Oh for Gods sake, will you please not make this political in this sense....geeze louise!!!!!
It is really very simple if you look at it as a "responsibility" issue.
We are telling people that they are responsible enough to entrust the welfare of our country to them in voting and military service; we are telling people that they are responsible enough to entrust our safety to them by allowing them to drive a 1.5 to 10 ton vehicle on the freeways at 70 or 80 MPH; we are telling people that they are responsible enough to get married and have children; We are telling people that they are responsible enough to be sent to foreign countries and kill or be killed; etc.
HOWEVER, we are telling these same people that they are NOT responsible enough to have a glass of beer with dinner, or enter a bar, or drink a vodka collins, etc.
SOME of us believe that if these people are responsible enough to give some of the "perks of adulthood" to them, they are responsible enough to allow them to have ALL of the said "perks of adulthood". Conversely, if they are not responsible enough to be granted ALL the "perks of adulthood", then they probably are not responsible enough for ANY of said perks!
A person can not be half an adult. They either are or they are not. It is well beyond time for Society to decide which they are.
It is just that simple.
yes, while some would have one glass a whole lot of them would have a whole lot more...and I believe you know that....and your points would be right, if those kids would be responsible drinkers....but kids are kids....and like I said, way back when I was a kid, NJ then had the age at 18, and it didn't work, a whole lot of people got killed.
I've already answered your question! Here is a thought, if you DON'T want to lower the drinking age, then DON'T allow 18 year olds to vote, and DON'T send them into a war because their minds clearly AREN'T developed enough to make decisions on our countries policies, or have the mental capacity to be in a dangerous situation like war! Telling them that it is OK to put their lives at risk for our country or to fight someone elses war for them, and then telling them that they cannot consume an alcoholic beverage is of the utmost hypocrisy! If you can't see that, then I don't know what else to tell you! Furthermore, perhaps if our attitudes regarding alcohol weren't so damn puritanical then maybe we wouldn't have the issues with it that we do in this country!
You have not shown that there is any kind of link between the ability to vote or defend one's country and the ability to handle alcohol. You're putting things together that don't belong together. You HAVE NOT SHOWN that someone who is old enough to vote is also old enough to drink or that someone who is old enough to fight in the military is old enough to drink. There is NO RELATIONSHIP between the ability to defend one's country or vote and their ability to drink. None.
You have not answered my question. You just keep stating if they're old enough to vote they should be old enough to drink when one has nothing to do with the other. Responsibility is given in steps to young people as they mature and can handle it. We let 13 year olds baby sit, we let 16 year olds drive and get jobs, we let 18 year olds vote and enlist and we let 21 year olds drink. If you want to use science, that should be 25 year olds because the brain is fully developed around age 25 and you really shouldn't be using drugs before then. Drug use after the brain has matured is far less damaging.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 11-07-2014 at 03:48 PM..
It is really very simple if you look at it as a "responsibility" issue.
We are telling people that they are responsible enough to entrust the welfare of our country to them in voting and military service; we are telling people that they are responsible enough to entrust our safety to them by allowing them to drive a 1.5 to 10 ton vehicle on the freeways at 70 or 80 MPH; we are telling people that they are responsible enough to get married and have children; We are telling people that they are responsible enough to be sent to foreign countries and kill or be killed; etc.
HOWEVER, we are telling these same people that they are NOT responsible enough to have a glass of beer with dinner, or enter a bar, or drink a vodka collins, etc.
SOME of us believe that if these people are responsible enough to give some of the "perks of adulthood" to them, they are responsible enough to allow them to have ALL of the said "perks of adulthood". Conversely, if they are not responsible enough to be granted ALL the "perks of adulthood", then they probably are not responsible enough for ANY of said perks! A person can not be half an adult. They either are or they are not. It is well beyond time for Society to decide which they are.
It is just that simple.
I disagree. We give adult responsibility in steps to young people in our culture.
The ability to drive a vehicle speaks nothing of one's ability to handle alcohol. They are unrelated abilities. You are putting things together that don't go together. This is like saying because a 13 year old can baby sit they are ready to become a parent. They are two different things and have nothing to do with each other. If the ability to drive were linked to the ability to handle alcohol we'd require a drivers test before you can legally drink. There is no relationship between the ability to drive a car a tank or a space ship for that matter and the brain's ability to handle alcohol. I don't care how many times posters say it. There simply is no relationship between the ability to vote, enlist, drive or just about anything else and whether or not you can handle drinking.
How does being able to defend one's country prove a person has the ability to handle alcohol? How does the ability to vote show they have the ability to handle alcohol? They don't because they have nothing to do with whether or not you can handle alcohol.
yes, while some would have one glass a whole lot of them would have a whole lot more...and I believe you know that....and your points would be right, if those kids would be responsible drinkers....but kids are kids....and like I said, way back when I was a kid, NJ then had the age at 18, and it didn't work, a whole lot of people got killed.
The drinking age was 18 when I was 18 too and it was a disaster. We were not mature enough to handle drinking. What people are missing here is that the ability to form an opinion and vote doesn't mean you're responsible enough to drink. They are different things. I can think if more reasons to keep teenagers from drinking. For starters, they need to practice being adults sober before they try it drunk. For my generation, we were pretty messed up because we were handed the right to drink way before we were ready to handle it. We got way too much freedom at one time and it went to our heads/ One of the things people forget is that development stops when you start drinking with any regularity.
The fact anyone would use the argument "We are old enough to enlist so we're old enough to drink" shows their level of immaturity and inability to make sound decisions based on logic. This is an illogical statement because the two are totally different. Being able to do one does not prove you are ready to do the other. Given that alcohol inhibits the brain's decision making power, I'd say this is an argument to NOT make the drinking age 18. I can testify that it was not a good thing when it was 18. Given that there is no reason that enlisted personnel should be drinking, the age to enlist should not be affected by the age one can drink.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 11-07-2014 at 04:40 PM..
The drinking age was 18 when I was 18 too and it was a disaster. We were not mature enough to handle drinking. What people are missing here is that the ability to form an opinion and vote doesn't mean you're responsible enough to drink. They are different things. I can think if more reasons to keep teenagers from drinking. For starters, they need to practice being adults sober before they try it drunk. For my generation, we were pretty messed up because we were handed the right to drink way before we were ready to handle it. We got way too much freedom at one time and it went to our heads/ One of the things people forget is that development stops when you start drinking with any regularity.
The fact anyone would use the argument "We are old enough to enlist so we're old enough to drink" shows their level of immaturity and inability to make sound decisions based on logic. This is an illogical statement because the two are totally different. Being able to do one does not prove you are ready to do the other. Given that alcohol inhibits the brain's decision making power, I'd say this is an argument to NOT make the drinking age 18. I can testify that it was not a good thing when it was 18. Given that there is no reason that enlisted personnel should be drinking, the age to enlist should not be affected by the age one can drink.
well said, thank you!
you've made some very good points and I sure hope Jersey doesn't do it again....I cannot believe how people forget.
Tie the legal drinking age and old enough to be drafted to the SAME number. 18, 21, whatever.
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.
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.
Furthermore, perhaps if our attitudes regarding alcohol weren't so damn puritanical then maybe we wouldn't have the issues with it that we do in this country!
The drinking age was 18 when I was 18 too and it was a disaster. We were not mature enough to handle drinking. What people are missing here is that the ability to form an opinion and vote doesn't mean you're responsible enough to drink. They are different things. I can think if more reasons to keep teenagers from drinking. For starters, they need to practice being adults sober before they try it drunk. For my generation, we were pretty messed up because we were handed the right to drink way before we were ready to handle it. We got way too much freedom at one time and it went to our heads/ One of the things people forget is that development stops when you start drinking with any regularity. 
