Rethink Drinking Age, Many University Presidents Say

[StorminNorman]

I can't believe I almost missed SuBe's utter domination of Spider-Bite

 

[StorminNorman]

If you can prove or even strongly suggest that lowering the drinking age will make people more likely to graduate from college, less likely to end up in prison, or less likely to have problems such as depression, I will support it.

In America - the burden of proof is on the government to explain why our rights should be restricted, not the citizens to prove why they shouldn't be.

What you should be looking for is proof that lowering the drinking age will make people less likely to graduate, more likely to end up in prison or more likely to have problems such as depression.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Jman, we agree more than disagree. We just have different ways of solving things.

My beef is, Spider-Bite seems to believe that it is ok to let Government control you, or make decisions for you and this is extremely dangerous. "For the Common Good" I assume. But, that is just too Marxist and Fascist for me. Like I've said over and over again, I side on Freedom. People should be free to make any decision they want, and as long as no one else is hurt, or nothing is stolen, or no one was Frauded out of anything, then so be it. I don't believe in Victimless Crimes.

Sometimes it is important for the government to intervene to give people more freedom.

For example, an alcoholic is much more likely to end up in prison. Well if we can help a person not become an alcoholic, than aren't we giving that person more freedom in the long run?

If we can help lift a person out of poverty, aren't they free to make choices about their life they wouldn't otherwise be able to make? Think about it, if their child grows up in a nice neighborhood instead of the ghetto wont there be less pressure on them to join gangs or sell drugs, things they might not want to do, but literally feel threatened for lives if they don't?

There is more than one way to liberate a person. by helping people grow into better adults, you give them more choices and more options with their life. You give them power over their own life, instead of leaving them powerless against hopelessness, poverty, addiction, abuse, and misery. And yes these things can make a person feel powerless.

 

[Spider-Bite]

In America - the burden of proof is on the government to explain why our rights should be restricted, not the citizens to prove why they shouldn't be.

What you should be looking for is proof that lowering the drinking age will make people less likely to graduate, more likely to end up in prison or more likely to have problems such as depression.

yes but evidence has been provided to support this position. It is possible that there is more evidence to support the other position. I'm asking for you guys to show it, or provide it.

This is America, you can speak up you know and say the government is mistaken and here is the evidence to show it.

 

[Spider-Bite]

I can't believe I almost missed SuBe's utter domination of Spider-Bite

How is that a domination? It was utter nonsense. For most of his post he had no idea what he was even saying. I tore his post to shreds. Anybody that wanted to could have.

Part of what bothers me is that people ignore the specifc points in the post, dance around them, and then try to compare me to Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler just because I want a drinking age of 21.

 

[Spider-Bite]

five pages into this, I think it's time for sombody to provide some evidence to back up their position. You guys have ranted long enough. time for evidence. I would never go on for five pages without providing evidence. but instead of providing evidence, someobody will come on here and say something sarcastic about me saying I wouldn't go on for five pages without providing evidence.

Not because they believe it, but because it's the only response they can think of, since they can't think of any evidence.

 

[The Senator]

You do not agree with all of that 100%. You have made it clear in your previous posts, that you are not some far right wing conservative, who believes the government should just sit back and let the rich dominate everything. Becaue that is the role of the government he is advoacting. A government that does nothing but prevent foreigners, and citizens from murdering, stealing, or hurting people. Under his government nobody would pick up your garbage, deliver your mail, teach your kids math, science, etc. We would have no NASA. NO funding for embryonic stem cell research. No government grants for scientific research or college. No rehabilitation programs for people like my Aunt who has spent years in a wheel chair. This program got her walking again. In a few years it's possible she could throw away her wheel chair. I know that is not the America you believe in.

I was agreeing with what he said about personal responsibility. The two of us have argued about the role of the federal government, more times than I can remember; however, I agree with SuBe on personal responsibility. I believe that the government should not take away our ability to make well-informed decisions. I believe that adulthood begins at the age of 18, and once a person is an adult, he or she should be able to make decisions on their own. Alcohol, as far as I know, is the only substance we cannot purchase once we become legal adults. I find that moronic; it's as if the government is saying, "here, you can have all of this, but you're not adult enough for this just yet." That's madness.

And honestly despite the fact that you argue with me all the time, do you think I'm some kind of Hitler or something? don't you think that is a little absurd? This guy is going way out on the wire with a very ridiculous rant, using words when he didn't even know what they meant.
I went on to say what liberty was, and he said that was not liberty, and I provided a link to the definition showing it was exactly what I said it was. same thing for government and tyranny.

I think you advocate far greater a role for the federal government than even I do.

He even accused me of supporting a dictatorship. when have I ever said I wanted a dictatorship?

Take it up with him.

Look based on the arguments made and the data that has been shown to me, I believe the appropiate age is 21. Despite all of these personal attacks at my character, nobody has once provided any data or reasoning to show how lowering the drinking age will help people live better lives. It's possible I'm wrong, and if people show me some data I will look at it. I keep asking but nobody is providing.

If you can prove or even strongly suggest that lowering the drinking age will make people more likely to graduate from college, less likely to end up in prison, or less likely to have problems such as depression, I will support it. I put that in bold, because I'd really be interested in reading it or hearing it. It's not a challenge or suggestion that you or nobody else can.

but nobody has even tried. All they do is resort to "ahh liberty, I support freedom and your a tyrant." I mean come on. That's not a debate. That is mud slinging. It makes it look like they have to attack me, because their position can't stand on it's own two feet with research or reasoning.

But that is the argument here: liberty. Our ability to make decisions for ourselves as free-thinking adults, without the government telling us what's best for us. Keeping the drinking age at 21 is doing just that, telling us that even though we're adults, we just can't handle alcohol. We're not old enough yet, not smart enough to handle all those consequences. Yet, by the time I was of age, I had a credit card for two years, I had three loans in my name, I had a fairly high GPA from one of the top 100 universities in the country... and even though I could manage my finances and make good decisions about my education, I couldn't legally decide whether or not I wanted to have a shot of vodka at the local bar on a Friday night.

Government intervention should end at a certain point, and I think that withholding our ability to make well, or poor, informed decisions as adults is crossing a line.

 

[The Senator]

five pages into this, I think it's time for sombody to provide some evidence to back up their position. You guys have ranted long enough. time for evidence. I would never go on for five pages without providing evidence. but instead of providing evidence, someobody will come on here and say something sarcastic about me saying I wouldn't go on for five pages without providing evidence.

Not because they believe it, but because it's the only response they can think of, since they can't think of any evidence.

"As the great philosopher Jagger once said, 'you can't always get what you want.'"

 

[Spider-Bite]

I was agreeing with what he said about personal responsibility. The two of us have argued about the role of the federal government, more times than I can remember; however, I agree with SuBe on personal responsibility. I believe that the government should not take away our ability to make well-informed decisions. I believe that adulthood begins at the age of 18, and once a person is an adult, he or she should be able to make decisions on their own. Alcohol, as far as I know, is the only substance we cannot purchase once we become legal adults. I find that moronic; it's as if the government is saying, "here, you can have all of this, but you're not adult enough for this just yet." That's madness.

I think I have made it very clear that my reasoning for supporting the drinking age of 21 is not to prevent 18 year olds from drinnking. It's because I believe that whatever age you want people to have the power to make this decision is, than you need to make the drinking age three years higher, because every 16 year old has an 18 year old friend whom they see often enough.

If I thought the government had the ability to enforce this law signifigantly better than it did, I would support lowering the drinking age. but as you and I both pointed out, it's incredibly easy for an 18 year old to get a drink. If we lower the drinking age, it will be even easier for younger teenagers to get it. I know that it many instances it's already easy, but there are still a lot of instances where it's not easy, and I don't want to erase the limited ability we have to prevent 15 and 16 year olds from becoming addicted to alcohol before they are even old enough to responsibly make the decision on their own.

I think you advocate far greater a role for the federal government than even I do.

Probably. I admit I very, very strongly believe in the power of the federal government. As I've said before it wasn't the private sector that put a man on the moon. It wasn't individual states rights that ended slavery. When that many people work together on the federal level amazing things can be accomplished.

Take it up with him.

Before you edited your post it said you 100% agreed with everything he said in that post. That is why I asked how you could make that kind of comparison to me.

But that is the argument here: liberty. Our ability to make decisions for ourselves as free-thinking adults, without the government telling us what's best for us. Keeping the drinking age at 21 is doing just that, telling us that even though we're adults, we just can't handle alcohol. We're not old enough yet, not smart enough to handle all those consequences. Yet, by the time I was of age, I had a credit card for two years, I had three loans in my name, I had a fairly high GPA from one of the top 100 universities in the country... and even though I could manage my finances and make good decisions about my education, I couldn't legally decide whether or not I wanted to have a shot of vodka at the local bar on a Friday night.

But as you made it clear, it was very easy for you go get alcohol. Sometimes laws have side effects. I believe this law is important because of the implications for people younger than 18.

Government intervention should end at a certain point, and I think that withholding our ability to make well, or poor, informed decisions as adults is crossing a line.

I believe it depends. Most of the time yes. However a lot of it comes down to "how will this effect society, and is it fair to the next generation, if they end up having to pick up the pieces we left behind?"

 

[The Senator]

I think I have made it very clear that my reasoning for supporting the drinking age of 21 is not to prevent 18 year olds from drinnking. It's because I believe that whatever age you want people to have the power to make this decision is, than you need to make the drinking age three years higher, because every 16 year old has an 18 year old friend whom they see often enough.

Then, by that logic, doesn't there mean that there shouldn't ever be a drinking age? Every 20 year old knows someone who is 21, so then shouldn't the drinking age be 23? But then, every 22 year old will know someone who is 23, so then shouldn't it be 25? That's a cop-out explanation.

Yes, of course sixteen year olds know eighteen year olds. There is a possibility that they could get alcohol from them. However, you have to assume that most eighteen year olds would be willing to buy alcohol for a sixteen year old, you have to assume that these eighteen year olds would even drink once they hit that age. But guess what? Kids in high school get alcohol anyway, with the drinking age being 21. Sixteen year olds know people who know people old enough to drink. Some steal the alcohol from their parents. Others end up at college parties, or get fake IDs, or do something else to get it.

As I said, when I was 14, I knew people who could get alcohol if I wanted it, with the drinking age being what it is today. So the current age limit has already failed your reasoning, and lowering it, I think, won't make much of a difference.

If I thought the government had the ability to enforce this law signifigantly better than it did, I would support lowering the drinking age. but as you and I both pointed out, it's incredibly easy for an 18 year old to get a drink. If we lower the drinking age, it will be even easier for younger teenagers to get it. I know that it many instances it's already easy, but there are still a lot of instances where it's not easy, and I don't want to erase the limited ability we have to prevent 15 and 16 year olds from becoming addicted to alcohol before they are even old enough to responsibly make the decision on their own.

These kids aren't going to become addicted to alcohol. They would have to have constant access to alcohol on a regular basis, and a steady flow of income to constantly purchase alcohol. Teenagers can barely afford to put gas in their cars or buy all the cool clothes they, like, have to wear... how are they going to be able to pay someone to buy them alcohol enough times to turn them into rampant alcoholics?

Before you edited your post it said you 100% agreed with everything he said in that post. That is why I asked how you could make that kind of comparison to me.

Um, you're definitely wrong. Why don't you hone up to your own responsibility and admit that you misread my post (which you did). I agree with SuBe on liberty and a few other issues, but not on everything he said in that post. I thought I made it clear the first time I posted it, considering I never edited it.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Then, by that logic, doesn't there mean that there shouldn't ever be a drinking age? Every 20 year old knows someone who is 21, so then shouldn't the drinking age be 23? But then, every 22 year old will know someone who is 23, so then shouldn't it be 25? That's a cop-out explanation.

I'm not advocating that, because I actually think that for the most part the appropiate age for a person to have the power to make this decision is 18. And for the most part most 18 year olds have the means to get alcohol if they want it. it's not always black and white, but I think there is a good balance there.

Yes, of course sixteen year olds know eighteen year olds. There is a possibility that they could get alcohol from them. However, you have to assume that most eighteen year olds would be willing to buy alcohol for a sixteen year old,

I believe most would.

you have to assume that these eighteen year olds would even drink once they hit that age.

you don't have to assume that. Just because the 18 year old doesn't drink themselves doesn't mean they wont buy it for a friend who wants it.

But guess what? Kids in high school get alcohol anyway, with the drinking age being 21. Sixteen year olds know people who know people old enough to drink. Some steal the alcohol from their parents. Others end up at college parties, or get fake IDs, or do something else to get it.

Yes kids in high school get alcohol anyways, but we don't need to make it easier for them to get it more often than they already do. And those efforts wont always be successful. Not every kid has the option to steal alcohol on a regular basis without getting caught. Yeah if you have drunk parents who go through alcohol really quick, they probably wont notice, but in an awful lot of families, they are going to notice.

As I said, when I was 14, I knew people who could get alcohol if I wanted it, with the drinking age being what it is today. So the current age limit has already failed your reasoning, and lowering it, I think, won't make much of a difference.

It doesn't always fail. In fact on most given days, most given teenagers would not be able to get it. they might be able to get it in a couple weeks, but not every day. When I was 20 I could get it every day if I wanted it. And when I was 21, all of my friends who weren't 21 could get it every single day if they wanted.

These kids aren't going to become addicted to alcohol. They would have to have constant access to alcohol on a regular basis, and a steady flow of income to constantly purchase alcohol.

I agree with the part in bold, but my problem is that I believe lowering the drinking age will do just that for people around 16. And as I know from being a teenager, I along with most others had the steady income to buy pot on a daily basis.

Teenagers can barely afford to put gas in their cars or buy all the cool clothes they, like, have to wear... how are they going to be able to pay someone to buy them alcohol enough times to turn them into rampant alcoholics?

with the money they currently buy pot with, and even though I have had a major problem with pot, I honestly believe that alcohol is much worse than pot. I often look back and think "thank god I didn't have a drinking problem instead."

Um, you're definitely wrong. Why don't you hone up to your own responsibility and admit that you misread my post (which you did). I agree with SuBe on liberty and a few other issues, but not on everything he said in that post. I thought I made it clear the first time I posted it, considering I never edited it.

my mistake. I mistook the belief about personal responsiblities as an endorsement of the general small government outlook that the government should never get involved in the lives of people. I know your not saying it shouldn't get involved to offer help or assistance.

 

[SuBe]

For one, I did not ever type out the word Dictatorship, because, like all the other Political Terms you used, you don't seem to understand the word.

Dictatorship is a type of Executive Branch. I said that you seem to favor Fascistic and Pro-Statist forms of Government.

I will not bring up any study or have I ever said anything about any study to prove that 18 year olds would be less dangerous with regard to legally obtaining alcohol. My Arguement, which you seem to not understand, is I am in favor of Liberty and freedom, even at the cost of the individual, because, like what Jman said, it's all about Personal Responibility. You can't prove that every person with alcohol is an alcoholic. The line of thought that it is for their own good is elitist, and to empower Government to control others just because you don't agree with it, puts you on the same playing field of the Evangelicals that made Homosexuality illegal, just because they didn't agree with it.

I don't care if some one could get hurt, that would be a result of a choice they made. I do care, however, IF they hurt someone else. IF they hurt someone else, then they should be punished. Because, it is the ACT of harm that is Criminal, not the freedom to pursue life.

Government is not the End all, be all.

I will say this again: You need to read three books.

1. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
2. Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
3. The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and John Linder

"Atlas Shrugged" will teach you about Capitalism. "Liberal Fascism" will teach you about the origin of your line of thinking, and exactly how dangerous it is. "The FairTax Book" will teach you about Liberty, Freedom, Taxation and US Government.

I do however highly doubt you will take me up on that.

 

[SentinelMind]

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I do feel that lowering the drinking age threatens me and other personally....more DUI and criminal assualts will happen. I can't see any good to society by lowering the drinking age, quite frank.

 

[SuBe]

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I do feel that lowering the drinking age threatens me and other personally....more DUI and criminal assualts will happen. I can't see any good to society by lowering the drinking age, quite frank.

Again, for me it has nothing to do with the Drinking Age. I agree that the act of Driving while intoxicated should be illegal. There should be stiffer penalties for it. But, an 18 year old buying a 6 pack to take home and having a drink with his friend while playing Halo shouldn't be illegal. My arguement is that Liberty should win this one, not emotions.

 

[SuBe]

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I do feel that lowering the drinking age threatens me and other personally....more DUI and criminal assualts will happen. I can't see any good to society by lowering the drinking age, quite frank.

Again, for me it has nothing to do with the Drinking Age. I agree that the act of Driving while intoxicated should be illegal. There should be stiffer penalties for it. But, an 18 year old buying a 6 pack to take home and having a drink with his friend while playing Halo shouldn't be illegal. My arguement is that Liberty should win this one, not emotions.

 

[SentinelMind]

Sometimes it is important for the government to intervene to give people more freedom.

For example, an alcoholic is much more likely to end up in prison. Well if we can help a person not become an alcoholic, than aren't we giving that person more freedom in the long run?

If we can help lift a person out of poverty, aren't they free to make choices about their life they wouldn't otherwise be able to make? Think about it, if their child grows up in a nice neighborhood instead of the ghetto wont there be less pressure on them to join gangs or sell drugs, things they might not want to do, but literally feel threatened for lives if they don't?

The person lifted self out of poverty because of the personal habits, value systems, and decisions that person made, not because of government program.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Again, for me it has nothing to do with the Drinking Age. I agree that the act of Driving while intoxicated should be illegal.

He's talking about unintended consequences of the law. and it will increase drunk driving a lot! And I mean a lot, because this agegroup does not have the same maturity as it's older counterparts. Before JMan jumps on this, I know many people at that age are mature, but that age group as a whole is definitely without a doubt going to be less mature than it's older counterparts.

There should be stiffer penalties for it.

this is actually more reason why it would only hurt their lives in the long run and not help them. You give them increased oppotunity to get charged with a DUI and you are seriously jeopardizing their future. Increase the punishment and you are jeopardizing it even further. Once a person gets caught up in the system, they tend to stay in the system. by the time they finish off their probation, they are already charged with something else.

But, an 18 year old buying a 6 pack to take home and having a drink with his friend while playing Halo shouldn't be illegal. My arguement is that Liberty should win this one, not emotions.

emotions? dude I used logic, facts, stats, and reasoning for my position. you went off on an emotional rant where you compared me to a tyrant, when dictatorships don't even have anything to do with the topic at hand.

the people arguing in favor of this seem to be the ones going on emotion, seeing is all they use are exagerations and sarcastic remarks to back up their position. None of you gave any stats or evidence to show how this will improve the lives of people in the long run. Which leads me to believe that after being asked so many times, people probably tried and failed. You can't act like that it's irrelevant. That is important to be taken into consideration. To just be like "I don't need to know that stuff in order for me to make an informed decision" is just stubborn.

 

[SuBe]

^Again, Spider-Bite, I will not show you any Stats, because Stats has no relavence in my Arguement. It is an arguement about Ideologies, and you just don't seem to get it.

 

[Spider-Bite]

^Again, Spider-Bite, I will not show you any Stats, because Stats has no relavence in my Arguement. It is an arguement about Ideologies, and you just don't seem to get it.

so who's going on emotions, and looking at it purely from an ideological perspective and not taking into consideration the facts around them?

People say the same thing about Bush. It's important not to trap yourself into a bubble like that. No political group or party or group of people belonging to a philisophical belief are ever correct 100% of the time. That is why it is important to look at each each issue uniquely and weigh the facts.

The only philisophical belief I bring with me to every issue is a belief in the responsiblity to build a better world, because without it, you might as well not even form an opinion.

 

[The Senator]

He's talking about unintended consequences of the law. and it will increase drunk driving a lot! And I mean a lot, because this agegroup does not have the same maturity as it's older counterparts. Before JMan jumps on this, I know many people at that age are mature, but that age group as a whole is definitely without a doubt going to be less mature than it's older counterparts.

And thirty-six year olds are more mature than twenty-one year olds.

Your point is lost in your arrogance. Tough phooey if that age group, as a whole, is irresponsible. I'm not irresponsible. Neither are millions of other people in that age demographic. We shouldn't be punished because everyone else can't stay sober or make well-informed decisions.

If it increases drunk driving, there's a solution to that: put them all in prison and revoke their licenses. Once that becomes law, that should deter these kids from drinking and driving. And if it doesn't, then that's one less irresponsible know-nothing off our streets.

this is actually more reason why it would only hurt their lives in the long run and not help them. You give them increased oppotunity to get charged with a DUI and you are seriously jeopardizing their future. Increase the punishment and you are jeopardizing it even further. Once a person gets caught up in the system, they tend to stay in the system. by the time they finish off their probation, they are already charged with something else.

Excuse me, but these people jeopardize their future when they decide to drink three gallons of alcohol and get behind the wheel of a vehicle. They deserve to spend time in prison, or be "stuck inside the system." They're the ones who made poor choices in life, not me, and because the likelihood that those imbeciles might get drunk and crash a car into a tree increases doesn't mean that I or anyone else who can act responsibly should have to be punished.

the people arguing in favor of this seem to be the ones going on emotion, seeing is all they use are exagerations and sarcastic remarks to back up their position. None of you gave any stats or evidence to show how this will improve the lives of people in the long run. Which leads me to believe that after being asked so many times, people probably tried and failed. You can't act like that it's irrelevant. That is important to be taken into consideration. To just be like "I don't need to know that stuff in order for me to make an informed decision" is just stubborn.

I didn't look for any stats because my argument does not require them.

The argument I'm making (and SuBe can answer for himself) is based in individual rights. My right to liberty, as defined by our own constitution and John Locke, is encroached upon by the federal government when it tries to limit my access to something because others make poor choices in life. I shouldn't be denied a drink because someone else is going to drive while intoxicated. I shouldn't be denied a handgun because someone else is going to murder his neighbor in Camden tonight. These incidents are not mutually exclusive; they do not affect me. I make good decisions, so do millions of other Americans within this age group. You think it is the government's right to protect us from the dangers of alcohol... which is a load of bull ****. Everyone in this country, over the age of eighteen, should be able to make well-informed decisions. They're adults. If they decide to drive drunk, so be it, they should be imprisoned and have their license suspended. If they decide to drink every night and they become an alcoholic, so be it. They're the ones who chose not to drink responsibly, not me.

The government should keep its hands off of my personal decisions. And when those personal decisions cause harm to our society or to others, then the government can feel free to prosecute me. Like every other American who makes poor decisions.

 

[The Senator]

so who's going on emotions, and looking at it purely from an ideological perspective and not taking into consideration the facts around them?

People say the same thing about Bush. It's important not to trap yourself into a bubble like that. No political group or party or group of people belonging to a philisophical belief are ever correct 100% of the time. That is why it is important to look at each each issue uniquely and weigh the facts.

The only philisophical belief I bring with me to every issue is a belief in the responsiblity to build a better world, because without it, you might as well not even form an opinion.

In addition to the belief that the federal government should rape our ability to decide things for ourselves...

 

[Spider-Bite]

In addition to the belief that the federal government should rape our ability to decide things for ourselves...

see what I mean about instead of providing stats and reasoning, I get sarcastic remarks and exagerations? I do not approach every issue absolutely committed to huge federal government.

I'm sure there are at least some laws you support, which means you don't believe every single decision should be left up to the individual.

Why is it okay for you to support govenrment intervention but not me? Do you believe heroin should be legal? Probably not, and assuming you don't, does that mean you too believe the govenrment should rape your ability to decide things?

We all have different opinions you know. We all support the government telling us what to do. We just have different opinions on what and when.

 

[Spider-Bite]

And thirty-six year olds are more mature than twenty-one year olds.

yeah so what's your point? I'm not 21. I'm 27. I don't know if your were implying that I was 21. I'm just not sure what your point was.

Your point is lost in your arrogance.

I was not the one claiming to not need information, facts, or stats. I was humble in stating that these things need to be looked at and considered. I'm not the arrogant one.

Tough phooey if that age group, as a whole, is irresponsible. I'm not irresponsible. Neither are millions of other people in that age demographic. We shouldn't be punished because everyone else can't stay sober or make well-informed decisions.

I wasn't stating that a 20 year old's lack of life experience is why they shouldn't be allowed to drink. I was stating that this is evidence to support the belief that there will be an increased in drunk drivers. I was merely backing up my point. And that point does support the 21 year old age requirement.

If it increases drunk driving, there's a solution to that: put them all in prison and revoke their licenses. Once that becomes law, that should deter these kids from drinking and driving. And if it doesn't, then that's one less irresponsible know-nothing off our streets.

it doesn't even deter adults, what makes you think it will deter young kids? And it's also another life down the tubes. Another future ruined. One less person contributing to society and one more using our tax dollars up to sit in prison. And when that person gets out of prison? what will life hold for them and the people around them? You have just given more examples of how this will harm society.

I dont' want a young kid's entire future ruined because of one stupid mistake that almost every person in the entire country has made.

Excuse me, but these people jeopardize their future when they decide to drink three gallons of alcohol and get behind the wheel of a vehicle. They deserve to spend time in prison, or be "stuck inside the system." They're the ones who made poor choices in life, not me, and because the likelihood that those imbeciles might get drunk and crash a car into a tree increases doesn't mean that I or anyone else who can act responsibly should have to be punished.

but you do want everybody else to be punished. by lowering the drinking age you would be risking our safety. I know that these people need to be punished when caught. it's the only way to enforce our laws. I support it because it's the only way. but it's nothing to be happy about. I prefer to find ways to help people avoid committing crimes that put them in the system.

We should be helping give people a future, so they can grow up to be happy individuals and have choices and freedoms. Not encouraging them to throw their life away and sit in prison.

I didn't look for any stats because my argument does not require them.

The argument I'm making (and SuBe can answer for himself) is based in individual rights. My right to liberty, as defined by our own constitution and John Locke, is encroached upon by the federal government when it tries to limit my access to something because others make poor choices in life. I shouldn't be denied a drink because someone else is going to drive while intoxicated. I shouldn't be denied a handgun because someone else is going to murder his neighbor in Camden tonight. These incidents are not mutually exclusive; they do not affect me. I make good decisions, so do millions of other Americans within this age group. You think it is the government's right to protect us from the dangers of alcohol... which is a load of bull ****. Everyone in this country, over the age of eighteen, should be able to make well-informed decisions. They're adults. If they decide to drive drunk, so be it, they should be imprisoned and have their license suspended. If they decide to drink every night and they become an alcoholic, so be it. They're the ones who chose not to drink responsibly, not me.

you miss the point entirely. I have shown that this will harm society and provided stats to back it up. You have not shown how this will help society.

The government should keep its hands off of my personal decisions. And when those personal decisions cause harm to our society or to others, then the government can feel free to prosecute me. Like every other American who makes poor decisions.

So do you support legalizing crystal meth, heroin, cocaine, and crack? We have to work to make sure that society does not go down the tubes. It takes a collective effort with rules promoting civilized behavior in order to have a good society to live in.

And it's not about getting revenge on the law breakers. It's about preventing bad thigns from happening in the first place. Sending the drunk driver to prison doesn't do much good to the victim if they are already dead. Yeah we have to send them there, but that is not the ideal situation.

 

[SuBe]

see what I mean about instead of providing stats and reasoning, I get sarcastic remarks and exagerations? I do not approach every issue absolutely committed to huge federal government.

I'm sure there are at least some laws you support, which means you don't believe every single decision should be left up to the individual.

Why is it okay for you to support govenrment intervention but not me? Do you believe heroin should be legal? Probably not, and assuming you don't, does that mean you too believe the govenrment should rape your ability to decide things?

We all have different opinions you know. We all support the government telling us what to do. We just have different opinions on what and when.

Nope, I do not support the Government that tells me what I can do in my own home that does not harm anyone else. So, you are wrong on that one, again.

 

[SentinelMind]

Again, for me it has nothing to do with the Drinking Age. I agree that the act of Driving while intoxicated should be illegal. There should be stiffer penalties for it. But, an 18 year old buying a 6 pack to take home and having a drink with his friend while playing Halo shouldn't be illegal. My arguement is that Liberty should win this one, not emotions.

Ok, but as Spider-Bite asked, do you think every drug (heroine, meth, cocaine) should be legalized, irrespective to consequences to society?

EDIT: Ok, I see you've answered the question above......unless you want to elaborate.