Drinking Age in the USA

[GoCougs]

I'm surprised at your opinion Cougs, given your vocal criticism in the past of laws that supposedly restrict freedoms.

Your "freedom" to get inebriated and/or get use illegal drugs and then crash into me, rob me, steal my identity, etc., is not a freedom.

[Rupert]

Not intentionally. But I do live with three of them and constantly see dozens of people's Facebook photos.

OMG, Facebook photos. You are so experienced.

On this subject, you can either make an argument based on statistics, or make one based on extensive experience with underage drinking and partying. I suggest you move to statistics.



( )

[Rupert]

Actually, that's not really false. Lowering the drinking age will put more 18-21 year olds in the bars and clubs. And, putting them in the clubs will naturally make any poor decisions they make a more public issue because they're making them in a public place. Seems totally logical, really.

Underage kids already drink in public places. College parties are pretty much public, after all.

[Rupert]

Wouldn't someone who chooses to drive to a bar drunk now because the bar won't serve them because of their age be pretty likely to drive away from a bar drunk if they could be legally served there? You're not really solving a problem by lowering the drinking age when it comes to people like that.

And you're not making the problem worse, either.

[Rupert]

Your "freedom" to get inebriated and/or get use illegal drugs and then crash into me, rob me, steal my identity, etc., is not a freedom.

But yours broke.

[Minpin]

Two things o the last couple posts.

1. Taxi's. We never drive around after a night a drinking. Just cause we break the law to indulge in some liquid gold doesn't make us fucking retards.

2. Fake ID's. Never had any issues getting rejected or turned down anywhere. Furthermore, most bars won't actually let you in unless you are a female or over 21. 

[TBR]

Wouldn't someone who chooses to drive to a bar drunk now because the bar won't serve them because of their age be pretty likely to drive away from a bar drunk if they could be legally served there? You're not really solving a problem by lowering the drinking age when it comes to people like that.

Well, using your logic you'd be cutting the risk in two. But, they often get driven by pledges. This is actually more for financial reasons than anything as generally drinks can be gotten by underage people through an older "brother".

[TBR]

Two things o the last couple posts.

1. Taxi's. We never drive around after a night a drinking. Just cause we break the law to indulge in some liquid gold doesn't make us fucking retards.

2. Fake ID's. Never had any issues getting rejected or turned down anywhere. Furthermore, most bars won't actually let you in unless you are a female or over 21. 

On #2, the instances I am talking about are generally where a bar is rented out for a private party.

[Colonel Cadillac]

Well, using your logic you'd be cutting the risk in two. But, they often get driven by pledges. This is actually more for financial reasons than anything as generally drinks can be gotten by underage people through an older "brother".

Pledge taxi

[Raza]

As stated by bing_oh I think, alcohol is already pervasive enough, and a very powerful (read: terrible) drug. The last thing we need is to encourage its use beyond what is already done, and lowering the drinking age will do just that. Try circular logic to state the opposite but that is exactly what will happen.

No.

[Raza]

OMG, Facebook photos. You are so experienced.

On this subject, you can either make an argument based on statistics, or make one based on extensive experience with underage drinking and partying. I suggest you move to statistics.



( )

I started drinking at 15.  I've never driven drunk.  I work for the largest asset manager in the world. 

Underage drinking = financial success.

Here are the statistics behind that statement:
100% of people named Raza who drank from the age of 15 now work for the largest asset manager in the world.

[FoMoJo]

I started drinking at 15.  I've never driven drunk.  I work for the largest asset manager in the world. 

Underage drinking = financial success.

Here are the statistics behind that statement:
100% of people named Raza who drank from the age of 15 now work for the largest asset manager in the world.

BGI?

Are you recommending that people start drinking when they're 15?

[Raza]

BGI?

Are you recommending that people start drinking when they're 15?

We bought BGI.  BGI is now us.  I don't know how they were successful, their people seem incompetent.  Their counterparts in my department are terrible. 

And I'm not recommending anything.  Statistics don't make recommendations; I'm just stating statistics.

[FoMoJo]

We bought BGI.  BGI is now us.  I don't know how they were successful, their people seem incompetent.  Their counterparts in my department are terrible. 

And I'm not recommending anything.  Statistics don't make recommendations; I'm just stating statistics.

One person is not much of a statistic .

[Raza]

One person is not much of a statistic .

It's 100%! 

[Rupert]

Ha!

[GoCougs]

I think if you guys were a little more honest with yourselves perhaps you'd have a bit more of a chance at achieving your goals; 18-year-old drinking age = more 18-20 year-olds drinking.

[Rupert]

Yeah, some. So?

[Minpin]

I think if you guys were a little more honest with yourselves perhaps you'd have a bit more of a chance at achieving your goals; 18-year-old drinking age = more 18-20 year-olds drinking.

Even if I did agree with your logic; where is the harm in that? Are you a teetotaling boring motherfucker? It's not like america would jump back to the "Rye Whiskey" days.

[Raza]

I think if you guys were a little more honest with yourselves perhaps you'd have a bit more of a chance at achieving your goals; 18-year-old drinking age = more 18-20 year-olds drinking.

No.

[bing_oh]

Even if I did agree with your logic; where is the harm in that? Are you a teetotaling boring motherfucker? It's not like america would jump back to the "Rye Whiskey" days.

I'm not a teetotaling boring motherfucker, but I do deal with drunks and the consequences of drunks' actions on an almost nightly basis. As I've already said, I consider alcohol to be perhaps the most problem drug in the US at this point. There IS harm to be found in increasing the segment of the population who would be drinking on a normal basis.

[Raza]

I'm not a teetotaling boring motherfucker, but I do deal with drunks and the consequences of drunks' actions on an almost nightly basis. As I've already said, I consider alcohol to be perhaps the most problem drug in the US at this point. There IS harm to be found in increasing the segment of the population who would be drinking on a normal basis.

There's more harm in keeping it illegal.

[bing_oh]

There's more harm in keeping it illegal.

How does keeping it illegal do more harm, exactly?

[Raza]

How does keeping it illegal do more harm, exactly?

It's a restriction on personal rights; there is no more harm than that. 

Alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth, crack, et al, should all be legal. 

[Minpin]

I'm not a teetotaling boring motherfucker, but I do deal with drunks and the consequences of drunks' actions on an almost nightly basis. As I've already said, I consider alcohol to be perhaps the most problem drug in the US at this point. There IS harm to be found in increasing the segment of the population who would be drinking on a normal basis.

You also see the bottom percentile in everything on a nightly basis. Every fuck up you deal with would be a fuck up regardless of alcohol. And for every fuck up you arrest there are dozens more who drink responsibly. 

[bing_oh]

It's a restriction on personal rights; there is no more harm than that. 

Alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth, crack, et al, should all be legal.

Um...no. You'll never convince me that the "personal rights" associated with these substances overrides the common good dictating making them illegal.

[bing_oh]

You also see the bottom percentile in everything on a nightly basis. Every fuck up you deal with would be a fuck up regardless of alcohol. And for every fuck up you arrest there are dozens more who drink responsibly. 

Not necessarily. I work in a very small city, so contact with certain people on a regular basis is a common occurance. You'd be amazed how many of the fuckups I deal with are never a problem when they're not drinking. That's not to say that there aren't some well-rounded fuckups who cause problems drunk or sober...there are plenty of those, too.

[FoMoJo]

It's a restriction on personal rights; there is no more harm than that. 

Alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth, crack, et al, should all be legal. 

Apart from alcohol, drugs have spawned a world-wide criminal enterprise that has provided the means for some of the most brutal thugs to gain far more power and control than they otherwise could have achieved.  Of course, the main market of these illicit drugs is the US population.  Making them legal would at least gain a few advantages.  The growth/manufacture would assume the normal course of production and international trade as well as a source of tax revenue.  It would also remove the market from the control of the thugs.  As for those who use drugs, they can exercise their personal rights.  However, although their personal rights would not be impeded, their social rights may well be if they find that they're prone to addiction; Addictive personality disorder.

However, in spite of the seeming advantages, I would not recommend allowing addictive drugs to be legalized.

[bing_oh]

Apart from alcohol, drugs have spawned a world-wide criminal enterprise that has provided the means for some of the most brutal thugs to gain far more power and control than they otherwise could have achieved.  Of course, the main market of these illicit drugs is the US population.  Making them legal would at least gain a few advantages.  The growth/manufacture would assume the normal course of production and international trade as well as a source of tax revenue.  It would also remove the market from the control of the thugs.  As for those who use drugs, they can exercise their personal rights.  However, although their personal rights would not be impeded, their social rights may well be if they find that they're prone to addiction; Addictive personality disorder.

However, in spite of the seeming advantages, I would not recommend allowing addictive drugs to be legalized.

The problem with legalization is that you're effectively trading one set of problems for another. While legalization may effect the criminal enterprises that currently sell drugs, the social effects of addiction will become more prominent. And, quite frankly, the idea of the "functioning drug addict," especially those on harder drugs like heroin, crack, meth, etc, is for the most part a fantasy. Eventually, the drug takes total control and priority in their lives, and they will do anything to get more. When you can't support a job because of your addiction but still need the drug, then the chances of turning to other criminal activities to get it rises significantly.

[FoMoJo]

The problem with legalization is that you're effectively trading one set of problems for another. While legalization may effect the criminal enterprises that currently sell drugs, the social effects of addiction will become more prominent. And, quite frankly, the idea of the "functioning drug addict," especially those on harder drugs like heroin, crack, meth, etc, is for the most part a fantasy. Eventually, the drug takes total control and priority in their lives, and they will do anything to get more. When you can't support a job because of your addiction but still need the drug, then the chances of turning to other criminal activities to get it rises significantly.

...which is why I wouldn't recommend it.

However, in spite of tremendous efforts, it seems there is no way of keeping these drugs out of the country.  The more effective way would be to reduce the demand.  Of course, many would see this as infringing on personal rights.  It gets to be a circular argument.  Another method might be in providing a better means of enlightenment for those most susceptable to the habit; perhaps the hapless poor who are even now being supported in their habits by welfare.  This arouses a much greater passion in those paying taxes to support them.  In other words, there is no good way to reduce the use of drugs or the drug trade in general; even though the money raised by drugs, other than financing drug kingpins who seem to slaughter at will, also finances those who we are fighting in Afghanistan; though much of their product is sold in the Euro and UK markets.