21 year old drinking age. - Page 2

PhantomWolf · 27th May 2012, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

American, disagree. I think it should be 18, same as voting and registering for the draft. The ones who are going to abuse alcohol are already drinking before 21 anyway.

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

18 is a good age.

Originally Posted by BStrong

The argument can be made either way.

If 18 is good enough to vote, something that can potentially effect the republic, why not drink?

The flipside is that 18 yo's aren't fully formed, and lack good judgement, which is why we used to draft 'em.

My take is that they drink already if they want to, so let them drink legally.

Originally Posted by Draca

I don't agree with it. I think it should be 18, the legal adult age.

I believe changing the age to 21 got tied to whether or not a state would get federal transportation funds.

Originally Posted by maxpower1227

I'm an American, very rare drinker, and I think it should be 18.

Originally Posted by lionking

Should be 18,

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. We have been trying this experiment for the past 14 years, and it is not a good idea, in fact the alcohol problem and teenagers has gotten so bad (even with most cities now impossing slcohol bans in public areas) here that they are now going to increase the age back to 20 in off-licences.

It's simple math, drop the drinking age, and you'll drop the age of the youngest drunks on the streets. Having drunk 12, 13, and 14 years olds roaming the streets is not a good idea, but that's the result. Don't believe it'd be any different for your country either, we looked at previous overseas experiments at an 18-year old drinking age and said we could do it better, we couldn't.

The Dark Lord · 27th May 2012, 05:28 PM

Somehow, teenagers manage to get drunk in the USA even though the drinking age is 21 in every state.

qayak · 27th May 2012, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Trakar

The only reasonable defense I can see of the 21 rule is that in America, the legal system does not generally hold individuals fully accountable and responsible for their own actions until they reach that age.

With 22 people under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed having been executed in the US since 1973, I don't think this is a reasonable defense.

jj · 27th May 2012, 07:21 PM

It is an age at which any parental response to clear addictive behavior is impossible. As such, it is criminally dangerous.

Brainster · 27th May 2012, 07:33 PM

It used to be 18 in many states in the US, but sometime around 1982, the Feds, facing pressure from groups like MADD, decided to withhold highway money from states that did not raise the age to 21. IIRC, Arizona was one of the last holdouts (although our age was 19).

WildCat · 27th May 2012, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

It used to be 18 in many states in the US, but sometime around 1982, the Feds, facing pressure from groups like MADD, decided to withhold highway money from states that did not raise the age to 21. IIRC, Arizona was one of the last holdouts (although our age was 19).

I was grandfathered in in Wisconsin when I was 18, but when I was in Arizona in 1987 we had to have an older friend buy for us.

TragicMonkey · 27th May 2012, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. We have been trying this experiment for the past 14 years, and it is not a good idea, in fact the alcohol problem and teenagers has gotten so bad (even with most cities now impossing slcohol bans in public areas) here that they are now going to increase the age back to 20 in off-licences.

It's simple math, drop the drinking age, and you'll drop the age of the youngest drunks on the streets. Having drunk 12, 13, and 14 years olds roaming the streets is not a good idea, but that's the result. Don't believe it'd be any different for your country either, we looked at previous overseas experiments at an 18-year old drinking age and said we could do it better, we couldn't.

But by that same argument, why not raise the drinking age to 21? Or 22? Or 24? 25? 28? 33? 45? The higher the age, the fewer the problems, right? If you basing the decision on reducing the number of drunks and alcohol-related issues, then the higher the age, the better. Or a complete ban, in fact.

If you are going to have alcohol, it should be available to all citizens at the same age as they attain their other rights. If an 18 year old can vote but can't drink, you have created a class of citizens who have only partial rights. Fully responsible for their actions, but forbidden to do certain things everyone else can do. That's injustice.

PhantomWolf · 27th May 2012, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

But by that same argument, why not raise the drinking age to 21? Or 22? Or 24? 25? 28? 33? 45? The higher the age, the fewer the problems, right? If you basing the decision on reducing the number of drunks and alcohol-related issues, then the higher the age, the better. Or a complete ban, in fact.

If you are going to have alcohol, it should be available to all citizens at the same age as they attain their other rights. If an 18 year old can vote but can't drink, you have created a class of citizens who have only partial rights. Fully responsible for their actions, but forbidden to do certain things everyone else can do. That's injustice.

The problem stems from the fact that 14 and 16 year olds are more likely to know and be friends with 18 year olds who will supply them with Alcohol, or can attempt to pass themself off as an 18 year old and get it themselves. They tend to know less 20 year olds who will buy it for them, and it's harder to pass as a 20 year old too.

Now, yes, many teens can get hold of it if they want, and often do, however, the results of multiple experiments about the world on this is pretty clear, dropping the drinking age increases the levels and lowers the age of those engaging in illegal drinking.

If you want to have the issues surrounding teen drinking magnified out of control, drunk teens on the streets, increased drunk driving by teens, teen deaths caused by alcohol overdoses, and alcohol caused vehicle accidents or crime, well then great, lower the drinking age to 18 and you'll get them all. If you want it kept under control, then keeping it at 20 or 21 is the far better idea. I guess it depends on the sort of society you want to live in. We tried it based on a belief that teens could be trusted and would respect it, and it was an abysmal failure, just as it has been elsewhere.

JJM 777 · 28th May 2012, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

It's simple math, drop the drinking age, and you'll drop the age of the youngest drunks on the streets.

Is it so simple math?
=>

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

teenagers manage to get drunk in the USA even though the drinking age is 21 in every state.

My line is: adults should allow teens to drink, as long as they do it within the same limits of reasonability that adults themselves follow in their own drinking. Yes I have bought alcohol to a few random teenagers that you may meet outside of alcohol stores, seeking for someone to help them. It is a crime, but I respect more the human rights of the teens than the state oppressing their human rights. When I was a teen, I didn´t patrol the streets begging passers-by to help me get alcohol, I simply walked to a supermarket and stole what I needed.

Brian-M · 28th May 2012, 02:42 AM

I think that when someone legally becomes an adult, they should have all the rights and choices that any other adult enjoys without being discriminated against by age.

So the legal age for drinking, voting, driving, etc should all be the same.

And serious question, why not lower all this to 16? Sure, kids are inexperienced and a little foolish at that age, but they're hardly mentally incompetent. So why not let them make their own decisions, and learn from their own mistakes?

In fact, why have a set age limit at all? Maybe set some kind of standardized cognitive function test which teenagers could take (like applying for a driver's license) that most adults would have no difficulty passing. When they're mentally mature enough to pass, they're legally adult. If they never manage to pass, then it's probably best if they aren't allowed vote or operate dangerous machinery like motor vehicles.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. We have been trying this experiment for the past 14 years, and it is not a good idea, in fact the alcohol problem and teenagers has gotten so bad (even with most cities now impossing slcohol bans in public areas) here that they are now going to increase the age back to 20 in off-licences.

Assuming that you're a New Zealander (from your sig), the minimum age for purchasing alcohol over there is 18, the same as over here in Australia and in the UK. We've had a minimum age of 18 for over 40 years and it's not a problem.

Apparently that New Zealand bill (if it passes) would only return the age for off-license purchase of alcohol back to 20. 18 year-olds will still be able to walk into a bar and order a beer or a whiskey.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

It's simple math, drop the drinking age, and you'll drop the age of the youngest drunks on the streets. Having drunk 12, 13, and 14 years olds roaming the streets is not a good idea, but that's the result. Don't believe it'd be any different for your country either, we looked at previous overseas experiments at an 18-year old drinking age and said we could do it better, we couldn't.

Kids are drinking at ages of 12, 13 and 14, true. But increasing the age limit isn't going to change this much.

The Don · 28th May 2012, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Apparently that New Zealand bill (if it passes) would only return the age for off-license purchase of alcohol back to 20. 18 year-olds will still be able to walk into a bar and order a beer or a whiskey.

Well one theory is that if you are ordering drink in a bar, the bar staff can stop serving you when you get too drunk but if you'r drinking at home there's nothing to stop you.

Having said that, I've been despicably drunk after drinking in pubs either because I've not had to buy the last few drinks (because I was in a large round) or because the last few shorts didn't hit me until I left.

edited to add.....

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Kids are drinking at ages of 12, 13 and 14, true. But increasing the age limit isn't going to change this much.

Yes they do, but maybe not as much as they claim they do...

Lamuella · 28th May 2012, 03:33 AM

I'm sure there is research out there on this but I haven't had chance to look, but my instinctive reaction is to think that people learn safer drinking habits when they learn about drink in an environment where it is allowed over an environment where it is elicit. If your first experiences of alcohol are glasses of beer with dinner with your parents present, it holds less mystique and is more carefully controlled than if your first experiences with alcohol are swigs of Mad Dog 20/20 in the barn behind your friend Joey's house.

Ian Osborne · 28th May 2012, 03:56 AM

Has anyone in America tried withholding their taxes until they're 21, as they shouldn't be taxed like an adult and treated like a kid?

Caper · 28th May 2012, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

If you want to have the issues surrounding teen drinking magnified out of control, drunk teens on the streets, increased drunk driving by teens, teen deaths caused by alcohol overdoses, and alcohol caused vehicle accidents or crime, well then great, lower the drinking age to 18 and you'll get them all. If you want it kept under control, then keeping it at 20 or 21 is the far better idea. I guess it depends on the sort of society you want to live in. We tried it based on a belief that teens could be trusted and would respect it, and it was an abysmal failure, just as it has been elsewhere.

Does that play out though? Drinking age in Canada is 19. Do we perform worst then the US in all those areas?

Travis · 28th May 2012, 04:23 AM

When I was in college I was actually in favor of reinstating prohibition. Of course I didn't drink, never ever got invited to any parties and thought of a new prohibition as a great way to get some childish revenge. Ah youth.

I eventually did try some alcohol when I reached age 25 but never liked it. I also quickly realized that anyone drunk pretty much annoys me greatly.

Anyways I'm not sure if it should be lowered but I do know that with a little fortitude and personal control not drinking at all until a mature age is quite doable.

sphenisc · 28th May 2012, 04:33 AM

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

Has anyone in America tried withholding their taxes until they're 21, as they shouldn't be taxed like an adult and treated like a kid?

No taxation without intoxication!

Skepticemea · 28th May 2012, 04:58 AM

No graft without draft!

stevea · 28th May 2012, 05:36 AM

I think the shift to 21yo a number of years ago was in response to M.A.D.D. and other neo-prohibitionists. I know there have been a lot of very silly crackdowns and impositions in my state.

One local grocery chain sells beer+wine+liquor and was made to put the alcohol in the back corner of the store and remove any displays or advertising near the entrance. I was told this was due to pressure from MADD. A local HomeBrew club used to meet and have tasting of their beers at a wine&beer making shop that also sells a few exotic bottled beers. But after the various enforcement crackdown, they can no longer allow the club members to bring or taste beer on premises. Restaurants with 'liquor licenses' can't host the HB beer tasting get-togethers for the same reason.

America has had a strange relationship to alcohol consumption since prohibition. Many states (22 IIRC) only sell certain kinds of alcohol through state operated stores or at least force all wholesale purchases via state operated warehouses. Many states have restrictions on minimum permissible prices or disallow discounts etc.

I was in Pennsylvania a few years ago and at that time bottles beer could only be purchased by the case (24 bottle quantity), and only through select controlled outlets. Even wine there came from state warehouses - so the election was limited.

Years ago I used to order wine from California wineries and other out of state vendors. Then for a period of ~10 years a group of ~14 states prohibited shipping alcohol into the state claiming it evaded taxes. This was later found by federal courts to be invalid imposition in interstate commerce. Then there was a period of time when I was supposed to fill out a detailed form and pay ~$1.50 to the state tax prior to ordering any out-of-state wine. The problem is, by the time the form was approved and I received notice - the product was long gone. I expect this was purposely the intent of the process; to allow the then-powerful anti-alcohol types to create a defacto prohibition where a legislative prohibition was not lawful. Anyway most out-of-state vendors feared lawsuits and still wouldn't ship.

There is no rational justification for most of these prohibition-era state alcohol rules. It demonstrates something significant about the permanence and self-sustaining nature of government bureaucracy as well as it's inability to change with conditions. Alcohol is a minor thing, but this exemplifies why we should not entrust government with more than the minimal powers necessary.

Wretched1 · 28th May 2012, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by MG1962

I wonder what happens in the real world - A 19 year old comes back to base in the wilds of Afghanistan after chasing some Taliban around the place, would his commanding officer really refuse him a drink....or is there some unwritten law that us civilians dont know about

Actually drinking in the military is strictly regulated by the UCMJ now. Under General Order #1 there is no drinking, porn, or extramarital sex in the current theaters of war.

Since at least 1988, when it comes to drinking, bases are governed by state and federal laws. Commanders can make them stricter, but not more lenient. As far as I know there are no Army Bases left in any state with an “18+ with Military ID” Law. For post outside US Territory, I believe the rules are governed by Host Nation Agreements. For example a soldier can have three drinks a day on post in Qatar where drinking is banned.

tomwaits · 28th May 2012, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by Lamuella

I'm sure there is research out there on this but I haven't had chance to look, but my instinctive reaction is to think that people learn safer drinking habits when they learn about drink in an environment where it is allowed over an environment where it is elicit. If your first experiences of alcohol are glasses of beer with dinner with your parents present, it holds less mystique and is more carefully controlled than if your first experiences with alcohol are swigs of Mad Dog 20/20 in the barn behind your friend Joey's house.

I think this is correct. Allowing kids to have a glass of wine at dinnertime or whatever helps encourage moderation. Otherwise teens get this "forbidden fruit" notion about alcohol that makes them think along the lines of "if I can just steal some of dad's whiskey, I can get so wasted!!!" or whatever.

Wretched1 · 28th May 2012, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by Brian-M

I think that when someone legally becomes an adult, they should have all the rights and choices that any other adult enjoys without being discriminated against by age.

So the legal age for drinking, voting, driving, etc should all be the same.

And serious question, why not lower all this to 16? Sure, kids are inexperienced and a little foolish at that age, but they're hardly mentally incompetent. So why not let them make their own decisions, and learn from their own mistakes?

In fact, why have a set age limit at all? Maybe set some kind of standardized cognitive function test which teenagers could take (like applying for a driver's license) that most adults would have no difficulty passing. When they're mentally mature enough to pass, they're legally adult. If they never manage to pass, then it's probably best if they aren't allowed vote or operate dangerous machinery like motor vehicles.

18 or 20 agreed, 16 no. I believe there is a lot of development and maturing happening between 16 and 18. After 18 not so much, and stupid is as stupid does.

Kestrel · 28th May 2012, 06:03 AM

My state used to allow 18 year olds to drink 3.2% beer. At that time we had fewer alcohol related problems in the 18 to 21 age group than nearby states that enforced a drinking age of 21. Our law was changed after the national campaign by MADD and other prohibitionist groups.

Kestrel · 28th May 2012, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by tomwaits

I think this is correct. Allowing kids to have a glass of wine at dinnertime or whatever helps encourage moderation. Otherwise teens get this "forbidden fruit" notion about alcohol that makes them think along the lines of "if I can just steal some of dad's whiskey, I can get so wasted!!!" or whatever.

Our society acts as if a magical transformation happens on the day a person turns 21 that allows their body to handle alcohol.

The Don · 28th May 2012, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Our society acts as if a magical transformation happens on the day a person turns 21 that allows their body to handle alcohol.

Sure but I suppose it's some kind of compromise to the prohibitionists. IMO the prohibitionist movement is stronger in the United States than in most other Western nations.

Lanzy · 28th May 2012, 07:23 AM

I'm all for raising the age to go into the military to 21 to match the drinking age.

Trakar · 28th May 2012, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by qayak

With 22 people under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed having been executed in the US since 1973, I don't think this is a reasonable defense.

I said "generally," some exceptional individuals earn their responsibility at earlier ages.

TriangleMan · 29th May 2012, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Wretched1

For example a soldier can have three drinks a day on post in Qatar where drinking is banned.

[sidenote] Actually alcohol is legal in Qatar, just tightly controlled. Some hotels have bars and can serve it in their restaurants. [/sidenote]

Madalch · 29th May 2012, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

If you want to have the issues surrounding teen drinking magnified out of control, drunk teens on the streets, increased drunk driving by teens, teen deaths caused by alcohol overdoses, and alcohol caused vehicle accidents or crime, well then great, lower the drinking age to 18 and you'll get them all. If you want it kept under control, then keeping it at 20 or 21 is the far better idea. I guess it depends on the sort of society you want to live in. We tried it based on a belief that teens could be trusted and would respect it, and it was an abysmal failure, just as it has been elsewhere.

Funny, we've had a drinking age of 18/19 (depending on the province) for decades, and haven't noticed such an abysmal failure. Or was your country completely free from such teenage tragedies before you lowered the drinking age?

Finster · 29th May 2012, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by epepke

Actually, it's legal to drink at 18, just not legal to buy or sell to or provide for (though the last really isn't much enforced in the home). It's perfectly legal for an 18-year-old to brew beer or make cider or wine or mead and drink it.

This may vary by state but at least in NH that's not the case. Under age drinkers can be arrested and charged with "internal possession" if they are caught drunk even if they don't have any un-consummed alcohol on them.

The Dark Lord · 29th May 2012, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Finster

This may vary by state but at least in NH that's not the case. Under age drinkers can be arrested and charged with "internal possession" if they are caught drunk even if they don't have any un-consummed alcohol on them.

Same in Arizona. When I was 18, I got caught being drunk at a dance at school. I got arrested. They didn't take me to jail but I did have to go to court and pay a small fine.

Rolfe · 29th May 2012, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by stevea

I think the shift to 21yo a number of years ago was in response to M.A.D.D. and other neo-prohibitionists. I know there have been a lot of very silly crackdowns and impositions in my state.

One local grocery chain sells beer+wine+liquor and was made to put the alcohol in the back corner of the store and remove any displays or advertising near the entrance. I was told this was due to pressure from MADD. A local HomeBrew club used to meet and have tasting of their beers at a wine&beer making shop that also sells a few exotic bottled beers. But after the various enforcement crackdown, they can no longer allow the club members to bring or taste beer on premises. Restaurants with 'liquor licenses' can't host the HB beer tasting get-togethers for the same reason.

America has had a strange relationship to alcohol consumption since prohibition. Many states (22 IIRC) only sell certain kinds of alcohol through state operated stores or at least force all wholesale purchases via state operated warehouses. Many states have restrictions on minimum permissible prices or disallow discounts etc.

I was in Pennsylvania a few years ago and at that time bottles beer could only be purchased by the case (24 bottle quantity), and only through select controlled outlets. Even wine there came from state warehouses - so the election was limited.

Years ago I used to order wine from California wineries and other out of state vendors. Then for a period of ~10 years a group of ~14 states prohibited shipping alcohol into the state claiming it evaded taxes. This was later found by federal courts to be invalid imposition in interstate commerce. Then there was a period of time when I was supposed to fill out a detailed form and pay ~$1.50 to the state tax prior to ordering any out-of-state wine. The problem is, by the time the form was approved and I received notice - the product was long gone. I expect this was purposely the intent of the process; to allow the then-powerful anti-alcohol types to create a defacto prohibition where a legislative prohibition was not lawful. Anyway most out-of-state vendors feared lawsuits and still wouldn't ship.

There is no rational justification for most of these prohibition-era state alcohol rules. It demonstrates something significant about the permanence and self-sustaining nature of government bureaucracy as well as it's inability to change with conditions. Alcohol is a minor thing, but this exemplifies why we should not entrust government with more than the minimal powers necessary.

Crikey, I had no idea.

I am not in favour of laissez-faire free access to alcohol, but this seems absolutely ridiculous. Land of the free? Is the US government incapable of hitting some sort of happy medium between absolute free-for-all (guns) and ridiculous over-restriction?

Rolfe.

Howie Felterbush · 29th May 2012, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Crikey, I had no idea.

I am not in favour of laissez-faire free access to alcohol, but this seems absolutely ridiculous. Land of the free? Is the US government incapable of hitting some sort of happy medium between absolute free-for-all (guns) and ridiculous over-restriction?

Rolfe.

Yes, everything is horrible here. That's why no one ever tries to get into this country.

Rolfe · 29th May 2012, 11:44 AM

Actually, I found the USA very nice the few occasions I visited.

I was trying to figure out this constant mantra of "we should not entrust government with more than the minimal powers necessary", which seems to be a particularly American thing. Seems to be a standard reason for not wanting to implement a rational healthcare system, and it's always puzzled me.

Rolfe.

3point14 · 29th May 2012, 11:47 AM

I figure once a person starts paying taxers, they can drink.

I figure that, if the state wants to take money from a person then the least they can do is let them have a drink to get over the shock.

Howie Felterbush · 29th May 2012, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Actually, I found the USA very nice the few occasions I visited.

I was trying to figure out this constant mantra of "we should not entrust government with more than the minimal powers necessary", which seems to be a particularly American thing. Seems to be a standard reason for not wanting to implement a rational healthcare system, and it's always puzzled me.

Rolfe.

The federal government doesn't determine the drinking age. They can influence the states by denying certain funding, but the decision rests at the state level.

Kestrel · 29th May 2012, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Actually, I found the USA very nice the few occasions I visited.

I was trying to figure out this constant mantra of "we should not entrust government with more than the minimal powers necessary", which seems to be a particularly American thing. Seems to be a standard reason for not wanting to implement a rational healthcare system, and it's always puzzled me.

Rolfe.

If the people believe that government is incapable of making their lives better, they will not expect such results. Promoting such views is in the interest of politicians who want to make life better for the elite instead of the vast majority of our citizens.

Thomas Franks book What's the Matter with Kansas^WP does a fine job discussing the odd consequences of such beliefs.

godless dave · 29th May 2012, 12:26 PM

This American still thinks it's ridiculous, although it's possible I'm still bitter because when I was 17 the drinking age in New York was 19, but by the time I was 19, they had raised it to 21.

bumlet5 · 29th May 2012, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by epepke

There's a written law. You can buy alcohol at 18 with a military ID.

Evidence? I am not able to find this online.

Mark6 · 29th May 2012, 01:23 PM

deleted

Twiler · 29th May 2012, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Ahh, thank you for asking...

1984 was about the government taking away freedom of choice in insidious ways.

No, more like blatant ways.

27th May 2012, 05:22 PM	#41
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,941	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey American, disagree. I think it should be 18, same as voting and registering for the draft. The ones who are going to abuse alcohol are already drinking before 21 anyway. Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba 18 is a good age. Originally Posted by BStrong The argument can be made either way. If 18 is good enough to vote, something that can potentially effect the republic, why not drink? The flipside is that 18 yo's aren't fully formed, and lack good judgement, which is why we used to draft 'em. My take is that they drink already if they want to, so let them drink legally. Originally Posted by Draca I don't agree with it. I think it should be 18, the legal adult age. I believe changing the age to 21 got tied to whether or not a state would get federal transportation funds. Originally Posted by maxpower1227 I'm an American, very rare drinker, and I think it should be 18. Originally Posted by lionking Should be 18, No, no, no, no, no, no, no. We have been trying this experiment for the past 14 years, and it is not a good idea, in fact the alcohol problem and teenagers has gotten so bad (even with most cities now impossing slcohol bans in public areas) here that they are now going to increase the age back to 20 in off-licences. It's simple math, drop the drinking age, and you'll drop the age of the youngest drunks on the streets. Having drunk 12, 13, and 14 years olds roaming the streets is not a good idea, but that's the result. Don't believe it'd be any different for your country either, we looked at previous overseas experiments at an 18-year old drinking age and said we could do it better, we couldn't.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

27th May 2012, 05:28 PM	#42
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	Somehow, teenagers manage to get drunk in the USA even though the drinking age is 21 in every state.
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860

27th May 2012, 06:57 PM	#43
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,712	Originally Posted by Trakar The only reasonable defense I can see of the 21 rule is that in America, the legal system does not generally hold individuals fully accountable and responsible for their own actions until they reach that age. With 22 people under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed having been executed in the US since 1973, I don't think this is a reasonable defense.
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,712	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

27th May 2012, 07:21 PM	#44
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,513	It is an age at which any parental response to clear addictive behavior is impossible. As such, it is criminally dangerous.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

27th May 2012, 07:33 PM	#45
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,429	It used to be 18 in many states in the US, but sometime around 1982, the Feds, facing pressure from groups like MADD, decided to withhold highway money from states that did not raise the age to 21. IIRC, Arizona was one of the last holdouts (although our age was 19).
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

27th May 2012, 07:39 PM	#46
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,053	Originally Posted by Brainster It used to be 18 in many states in the US, but sometime around 1982, the Feds, facing pressure from groups like MADD, decided to withhold highway money from states that did not raise the age to 21. IIRC, Arizona was one of the last holdouts (although our age was 19). I was grandfathered in in Wisconsin when I was 18, but when I was in Arizona in 1987 we had to have an older friend buy for us.

27th May 2012, 07:39 PM	#47
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,084	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf No, no, no, no, no, no, no. We have been trying this experiment for the past 14 years, and it is not a good idea, in fact the alcohol problem and teenagers has gotten so bad (even with most cities now impossing slcohol bans in public areas) here that they are now going to increase the age back to 20 in off-licences. It's simple math, drop the drinking age, and you'll drop the age of the youngest drunks on the streets. Having drunk 12, 13, and 14 years olds roaming the streets is not a good idea, but that's the result. Don't believe it'd be any different for your country either, we looked at previous overseas experiments at an 18-year old drinking age and said we could do it better, we couldn't. But by that same argument, why not raise the drinking age to 21? Or 22? Or 24? 25? 28? 33? 45? The higher the age, the fewer the problems, right? If you basing the decision on reducing the number of drunks and alcohol-related issues, then the higher the age, the better. Or a complete ban, in fact. If you are going to have alcohol, it should be available to all citizens at the same age as they attain their other rights. If an 18 year old can vote but can't drink, you have created a class of citizens who have only partial rights. Fully responsible for their actions, but forbidden to do certain things everyone else can do. That's injustice.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

27th May 2012, 11:42 PM	#48
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,941	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey But by that same argument, why not raise the drinking age to 21? Or 22? Or 24? 25? 28? 33? 45? The higher the age, the fewer the problems, right? If you basing the decision on reducing the number of drunks and alcohol-related issues, then the higher the age, the better. Or a complete ban, in fact. If you are going to have alcohol, it should be available to all citizens at the same age as they attain their other rights. If an 18 year old can vote but can't drink, you have created a class of citizens who have only partial rights. Fully responsible for their actions, but forbidden to do certain things everyone else can do. That's injustice. The problem stems from the fact that 14 and 16 year olds are more likely to know and be friends with 18 year olds who will supply them with Alcohol, or can attempt to pass themself off as an 18 year old and get it themselves. They tend to know less 20 year olds who will buy it for them, and it's harder to pass as a 20 year old too. Now, yes, many teens can get hold of it if they want, and often do, however, the results of multiple experiments about the world on this is pretty clear, dropping the drinking age increases the levels and lowers the age of those engaging in illegal drinking. If you want to have the issues surrounding teen drinking magnified out of control, drunk teens on the streets, increased drunk driving by teens, teen deaths caused by alcohol overdoses, and alcohol caused vehicle accidents or crime, well then great, lower the drinking age to 18 and you'll get them all. If you want it kept under control, then keeping it at 20 or 21 is the far better idea. I guess it depends on the sort of society you want to live in. We tried it based on a belief that teens could be trusted and would respect it, and it was an abysmal failure, just as it has been elsewhere.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

28th May 2012, 01:25 AM	#49
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf It's simple math, drop the drinking age, and you'll drop the age of the youngest drunks on the streets. Is it so simple math? => Originally Posted by The Dark Lord teenagers manage to get drunk in the USA even though the drinking age is 21 in every state. My line is: adults should allow teens to drink, as long as they do it within the same limits of reasonability that adults themselves follow in their own drinking. Yes I have bought alcohol to a few random teenagers that you may meet outside of alcohol stores, seeking for someone to help them. It is a crime, but I respect more the human rights of the teens than the state oppressing their human rights. When I was a teen, I didn´t patrol the streets begging passers-by to help me get alcohol, I simply walked to a supermarket and stole what I needed.
	Last edited by JJM 777; 28th May 2012 at 01:27 AM.

28th May 2012, 02:42 AM	#50
Brian-M Daydreamer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Downunder Posts: 4,268	I think that when someone legally becomes an adult, they should have all the rights and choices that any other adult enjoys without being discriminated against by age. So the legal age for drinking, voting, driving, etc should all be the same. And serious question, why not lower all this to 16? Sure, kids are inexperienced and a little foolish at that age, but they're hardly mentally incompetent. So why not let them make their own decisions, and learn from their own mistakes? In fact, why have a set age limit at all? Maybe set some kind of standardized cognitive function test which teenagers could take (like applying for a driver's license) that most adults would have no difficulty passing. When they're mentally mature enough to pass, they're legally adult. If they never manage to pass, then it's probably best if they aren't allowed vote or operate dangerous machinery like motor vehicles. Originally Posted by PhantomWolf No, no, no, no, no, no, no. We have been trying this experiment for the past 14 years, and it is not a good idea, in fact the alcohol problem and teenagers has gotten so bad (even with most cities now impossing slcohol bans in public areas) here that they are now going to increase the age back to 20 in off-licences. Assuming that you're a New Zealander (from your sig), the minimum age for purchasing alcohol over there is 18, the same as over here in Australia and in the UK. We've had a minimum age of 18 for over 40 years and it's not a problem. Apparently that New Zealand bill (if it passes) would only return the age for off-license purchase of alcohol back to 20. 18 year-olds will still be able to walk into a bar and order a beer or a whiskey. Originally Posted by PhantomWolf It's simple math, drop the drinking age, and you'll drop the age of the youngest drunks on the streets. Having drunk 12, 13, and 14 years olds roaming the streets is not a good idea, but that's the result. Don't believe it'd be any different for your country either, we looked at previous overseas experiments at an 18-year old drinking age and said we could do it better, we couldn't. Kids are drinking at ages of 12, 13 and 14, true. But increasing the age limit isn't going to change this much.
	__________________ "That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim Last edited by Brian-M; 28th May 2012 at 02:46 AM.

28th May 2012, 02:47 AM	#51
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,239	Originally Posted by Brian-M Apparently that New Zealand bill (if it passes) would only return the age for off-license purchase of alcohol back to 20. 18 year-olds will still be able to walk into a bar and order a beer or a whiskey. Well one theory is that if you are ordering drink in a bar, the bar staff can stop serving you when you get too drunk but if you'r drinking at home there's nothing to stop you. Having said that, I've been despicably drunk after drinking in pubs either because I've not had to buy the last few drinks (because I was in a large round) or because the last few shorts didn't hit me until I left. edited to add..... Originally Posted by Brian-M Kids are drinking at ages of 12, 13 and 14, true. But increasing the age limit isn't going to change this much. Yes they do, but maybe not as much as they claim they do...
	Last edited by The Don; 28th May 2012 at 02:49 AM.

28th May 2012, 03:33 AM	#52
Lamuella Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,480	I'm sure there is research out there on this but I haven't had chance to look, but my instinctive reaction is to think that people learn safer drinking habits when they learn about drink in an environment where it is allowed over an environment where it is elicit. If your first experiences of alcohol are glasses of beer with dinner with your parents present, it holds less mystique and is more carefully controlled than if your first experiences with alcohol are swigs of Mad Dog 20/20 in the barn behind your friend Joey's house.
Lamuella Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,480

28th May 2012, 03:56 AM	#53
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,383	Has anyone in America tried withholding their taxes until they're 21, as they shouldn't be taxed like an adult and treated like a kid?
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

28th May 2012, 04:10 AM	#54
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,949	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf If you want to have the issues surrounding teen drinking magnified out of control, drunk teens on the streets, increased drunk driving by teens, teen deaths caused by alcohol overdoses, and alcohol caused vehicle accidents or crime, well then great, lower the drinking age to 18 and you'll get them all. If you want it kept under control, then keeping it at 20 or 21 is the far better idea. I guess it depends on the sort of society you want to live in. We tried it based on a belief that teens could be trusted and would respect it, and it was an abysmal failure, just as it has been elsewhere. Does that play out though? Drinking age in Canada is 19. Do we perform worst then the US in all those areas?
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,949

28th May 2012, 04:23 AM	#55
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,943	When I was in college I was actually in favor of reinstating prohibition. Of course I didn't drink, never ever got invited to any parties and thought of a new prohibition as a great way to get some childish revenge. Ah youth. I eventually did try some alcohol when I reached age 25 but never liked it. I also quickly realized that anyone drunk pretty much annoys me greatly. Anyways I'm not sure if it should be lowered but I do know that with a little fortitude and personal control not drinking at all until a mature age is quite doable.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

28th May 2012, 04:33 AM	#56
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,749	Originally Posted by Ian Osborne Has anyone in America tried withholding their taxes until they're 21, as they shouldn't be taxed like an adult and treated like a kid? No taxation without intoxication!
sphenisc Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,749

28th May 2012, 04:58 AM	#57
Skepticemea Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: London, UK Posts: 2,277	No graft without draft!
	__________________ Eat ****, coprophage!

28th May 2012, 05:36 AM	#58
stevea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,121	I think the shift to 21yo a number of years ago was in response to M.A.D.D. and other neo-prohibitionists. I know there have been a lot of very silly crackdowns and impositions in my state. One local grocery chain sells beer+wine+liquor and was made to put the alcohol in the back corner of the store and remove any displays or advertising near the entrance. I was told this was due to pressure from MADD. A local HomeBrew club used to meet and have tasting of their beers at a wine&beer making shop that also sells a few exotic bottled beers. But after the various enforcement crackdown, they can no longer allow the club members to bring or taste beer on premises. Restaurants with 'liquor licenses' can't host the HB beer tasting get-togethers for the same reason. America has had a strange relationship to alcohol consumption since prohibition. Many states (22 IIRC) only sell certain kinds of alcohol through state operated stores or at least force all wholesale purchases via state operated warehouses. Many states have restrictions on minimum permissible prices or disallow discounts etc. I was in Pennsylvania a few years ago and at that time bottles beer could only be purchased by the case (24 bottle quantity), and only through select controlled outlets. Even wine there came from state warehouses - so the election was limited. Years ago I used to order wine from California wineries and other out of state vendors. Then for a period of ~10 years a group of ~14 states prohibited shipping alcohol into the state claiming it evaded taxes. This was later found by federal courts to be invalid imposition in interstate commerce. Then there was a period of time when I was supposed to fill out a detailed form and pay ~$1.50 to the state tax prior to ordering any out-of-state wine. The problem is, by the time the form was approved and I received notice - the product was long gone. I expect this was purposely the intent of the process; to allow the then-powerful anti-alcohol types to create a defacto prohibition where a legislative prohibition was not lawful. Anyway most out-of-state vendors feared lawsuits and still wouldn't ship. There is no rational justification for most of these prohibition-era state alcohol rules. It demonstrates something significant about the permanence and self-sustaining nature of government bureaucracy as well as it's inability to change with conditions. Alcohol is a minor thing, but this exemplifies why we should not entrust government with more than the minimal powers necessary.
stevea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,121

28th May 2012, 05:40 AM	#59
Wretched1 Student Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Midway between NH and VT Posts: 31	Originally Posted by MG1962 I wonder what happens in the real world - A 19 year old comes back to base in the wilds of Afghanistan after chasing some Taliban around the place, would his commanding officer really refuse him a drink....or is there some unwritten law that us civilians dont know about Actually drinking in the military is strictly regulated by the UCMJ now. Under General Order #1 there is no drinking, porn, or extramarital sex in the current theaters of war. Since at least 1988, when it comes to drinking, bases are governed by state and federal laws. Commanders can make them stricter, but not more lenient. As far as I know there are no Army Bases left in any state with an “18+ with Military ID” Law. For post outside US Territory, I believe the rules are governed by Host Nation Agreements. For example a soldier can have three drinks a day on post in Qatar where drinking is banned.

28th May 2012, 05:48 AM	#60
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 2,288	Originally Posted by Lamuella I'm sure there is research out there on this but I haven't had chance to look, but my instinctive reaction is to think that people learn safer drinking habits when they learn about drink in an environment where it is allowed over an environment where it is elicit. If your first experiences of alcohol are glasses of beer with dinner with your parents present, it holds less mystique and is more carefully controlled than if your first experiences with alcohol are swigs of Mad Dog 20/20 in the barn behind your friend Joey's house. I think this is correct. Allowing kids to have a glass of wine at dinnertime or whatever helps encourage moderation. Otherwise teens get this "forbidden fruit" notion about alcohol that makes them think along the lines of "if I can just steal some of dad's whiskey, I can get so wasted!!!" or whatever.

28th May 2012, 05:54 AM	#61
Wretched1 Student Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Midway between NH and VT Posts: 31	Originally Posted by Brian-M I think that when someone legally becomes an adult, they should have all the rights and choices that any other adult enjoys without being discriminated against by age. So the legal age for drinking, voting, driving, etc should all be the same. And serious question, why not lower all this to 16? Sure, kids are inexperienced and a little foolish at that age, but they're hardly mentally incompetent. So why not let them make their own decisions, and learn from their own mistakes? In fact, why have a set age limit at all? Maybe set some kind of standardized cognitive function test which teenagers could take (like applying for a driver's license) that most adults would have no difficulty passing. When they're mentally mature enough to pass, they're legally adult. If they never manage to pass, then it's probably best if they aren't allowed vote or operate dangerous machinery like motor vehicles. 18 or 20 agreed, 16 no. I believe there is a lot of development and maturing happening between 16 and 18. After 18 not so much, and stupid is as stupid does.

28th May 2012, 06:03 AM	#62
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	My state used to allow 18 year olds to drink 3.2% beer. At that time we had fewer alcohol related problems in the 18 to 21 age group than nearby states that enforced a drinking age of 21. Our law was changed after the national campaign by MADD and other prohibitionist groups.

28th May 2012, 06:11 AM	#63
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	Originally Posted by tomwaits I think this is correct. Allowing kids to have a glass of wine at dinnertime or whatever helps encourage moderation. Otherwise teens get this "forbidden fruit" notion about alcohol that makes them think along the lines of "if I can just steal some of dad's whiskey, I can get so wasted!!!" or whatever. Our society acts as if a magical transformation happens on the day a person turns 21 that allows their body to handle alcohol.

28th May 2012, 07:09 AM	#64
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,239	Originally Posted by Kestrel Our society acts as if a magical transformation happens on the day a person turns 21 that allows their body to handle alcohol. Sure but I suppose it's some kind of compromise to the prohibitionists. IMO the prohibitionist movement is stronger in the United States than in most other Western nations.

28th May 2012, 07:23 AM	#65
Lanzy Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 880	I'm all for raising the age to go into the military to 21 to match the drinking age.
Lanzy Muse Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 880

28th May 2012, 07:53 AM	#66
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,927	Originally Posted by qayak With 22 people under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed having been executed in the US since 1973, I don't think this is a reasonable defense. I said "generally," some exceptional individuals earn their responsibility at earlier ages.
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,927	__________________ Trakar AKA/formerly TShaitanaku "Dubitanda quippe ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus." (By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth.) — Peter Abelard

29th May 2012, 09:36 AM	#67
TriangleMan Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Qatar (ya rly!) Posts: 1,208	Originally Posted by Wretched1 For example a soldier can have three drinks a day on post in Qatar where drinking is banned. [sidenote] Actually alcohol is legal in Qatar, just tightly controlled. Some hotels have bars and can serve it in their restaurants. [/sidenote]

29th May 2012, 09:59 AM	#68
Madalch The Jester Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The wet coast. Posts: 8,704	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf If you want to have the issues surrounding teen drinking magnified out of control, drunk teens on the streets, increased drunk driving by teens, teen deaths caused by alcohol overdoses, and alcohol caused vehicle accidents or crime, well then great, lower the drinking age to 18 and you'll get them all. If you want it kept under control, then keeping it at 20 or 21 is the far better idea. I guess it depends on the sort of society you want to live in. We tried it based on a belief that teens could be trusted and would respect it, and it was an abysmal failure, just as it has been elsewhere. Funny, we've had a drinking age of 18/19 (depending on the province) for decades, and haven't noticed such an abysmal failure. Or was your country completely free from such teenage tragedies before you lowered the drinking age?
	__________________ As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero. -Vaarsuvius It's a rum state of affairs when you feel like punching a jar of mayonnaise in the face. -Charlie Brooker

29th May 2012, 10:33 AM	#69
Finster Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 464	Originally Posted by epepke Actually, it's legal to drink at 18, just not legal to buy or sell to or provide for (though the last really isn't much enforced in the home). It's perfectly legal for an 18-year-old to brew beer or make cider or wine or mead and drink it. This may vary by state but at least in NH that's not the case. Under age drinkers can be arrested and charged with "internal possession" if they are caught drunk even if they don't have any un-consummed alcohol on them.
Finster Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 464	__________________ "You can't help respecting anybody who can spell TUESDAY, even if he doesn't spell it right; but spelling isn't everything. There are days when spelling Tuesday simply doesn't count." - WtP

29th May 2012, 10:44 AM	#70
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	Originally Posted by Finster This may vary by state but at least in NH that's not the case. Under age drinkers can be arrested and charged with "internal possession" if they are caught drunk even if they don't have any un-consummed alcohol on them. Same in Arizona. When I was 18, I got caught being drunk at a dance at school. I got arrested. They didn't take me to jail but I did have to go to court and pay a small fine.
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860

29th May 2012, 11:31 AM	#71
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,328	Originally Posted by stevea I think the shift to 21yo a number of years ago was in response to M.A.D.D. and other neo-prohibitionists. I know there have been a lot of very silly crackdowns and impositions in my state. One local grocery chain sells beer+wine+liquor and was made to put the alcohol in the back corner of the store and remove any displays or advertising near the entrance. I was told this was due to pressure from MADD. A local HomeBrew club used to meet and have tasting of their beers at a wine&beer making shop that also sells a few exotic bottled beers. But after the various enforcement crackdown, they can no longer allow the club members to bring or taste beer on premises. Restaurants with 'liquor licenses' can't host the HB beer tasting get-togethers for the same reason. America has had a strange relationship to alcohol consumption since prohibition. Many states (22 IIRC) only sell certain kinds of alcohol through state operated stores or at least force all wholesale purchases via state operated warehouses. Many states have restrictions on minimum permissible prices or disallow discounts etc. I was in Pennsylvania a few years ago and at that time bottles beer could only be purchased by the case (24 bottle quantity), and only through select controlled outlets. Even wine there came from state warehouses - so the election was limited. Years ago I used to order wine from California wineries and other out of state vendors. Then for a period of ~10 years a group of ~14 states prohibited shipping alcohol into the state claiming it evaded taxes. This was later found by federal courts to be invalid imposition in interstate commerce. Then there was a period of time when I was supposed to fill out a detailed form and pay ~$1.50 to the state tax prior to ordering any out-of-state wine. The problem is, by the time the form was approved and I received notice - the product was long gone. I expect this was purposely the intent of the process; to allow the then-powerful anti-alcohol types to create a defacto prohibition where a legislative prohibition was not lawful. Anyway most out-of-state vendors feared lawsuits and still wouldn't ship. There is no rational justification for most of these prohibition-era state alcohol rules. It demonstrates something significant about the permanence and self-sustaining nature of government bureaucracy as well as it's inability to change with conditions. Alcohol is a minor thing, but this exemplifies why we should not entrust government with more than the minimal powers necessary. Crikey, I had no idea. I am not in favour of laissez-faire free access to alcohol, but this seems absolutely ridiculous. Land of the free? Is the US government incapable of hitting some sort of happy medium between absolute free-for-all (guns) and ridiculous over-restriction? Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

29th May 2012, 11:37 AM	#72
Howie Felterbush Bow Tie Daddy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: In the twilight, singing all the old lullabies Posts: 5,333	Originally Posted by Rolfe Crikey, I had no idea. I am not in favour of laissez-faire free access to alcohol, but this seems absolutely ridiculous. Land of the free? Is the US government incapable of hitting some sort of happy medium between absolute free-for-all (guns) and ridiculous over-restriction? Rolfe. Yes, everything is horrible here. That's why no one ever tries to get into this country.
	__________________ "Don't be too offended by the likes of him - I hear he doesn't even own ascots." -JoeyDonuts "I must be more tired than I thought. Howie, you are starting to make sense." -MG1962 "You're a mean old evil cynic. And mean." Halfcentaur

29th May 2012, 11:44 AM	#73
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,328	Actually, I found the USA very nice the few occasions I visited. I was trying to figure out this constant mantra of "we should not entrust government with more than the minimal powers necessary", which seems to be a particularly American thing. Seems to be a standard reason for not wanting to implement a rational healthcare system, and it's always puzzled me. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

29th May 2012, 11:47 AM	#74
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: London ish Posts: 3,596	I figure once a person starts paying taxers, they can drink. I figure that, if the state wants to take money from a person then the least they can do is let them have a drink to get over the shock.
	__________________ Cull the delusional.

29th May 2012, 11:54 AM	#75
Howie Felterbush Bow Tie Daddy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: In the twilight, singing all the old lullabies Posts: 5,333	Originally Posted by Rolfe Actually, I found the USA very nice the few occasions I visited. I was trying to figure out this constant mantra of "we should not entrust government with more than the minimal powers necessary", which seems to be a particularly American thing. Seems to be a standard reason for not wanting to implement a rational healthcare system, and it's always puzzled me. Rolfe. The federal government doesn't determine the drinking age. They can influence the states by denying certain funding, but the decision rests at the state level.
	__________________ "Don't be too offended by the likes of him - I hear he doesn't even own ascots." -JoeyDonuts "I must be more tired than I thought. Howie, you are starting to make sense." -MG1962 "You're a mean old evil cynic. And mean." Halfcentaur