Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Defense of "Underage" Drinking
Mercurial Times ^ | March 1, 2002 | Aaron Armitage

Posted on 03/04/2002 10:49:56 AM PST by A.J.Armitage

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-288 next last
To: FreedominJesusChrist
The situation is really quite clear: by consenting to government power enforcing some people's morality, you have opened the door for other people to use the same power to different ends. Simply put, you feel everything is fine so long as government is regulating activities in which you're not engaged. But sooner or later, the folks in power will get around to telling YOU what you cannot do, for YOUR OWN good.

When that day comes, hopefully you will understand who enabled it.

101 posted on 03/04/2002 12:14:32 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
I can always tell who are the girls that drink and party non-stop, because they look like hell.

So naturally, there ought to be a law, right?

102 posted on 03/04/2002 12:14:59 PM PST by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
No one's rights depend on whether the government thinks he can "handle" it.

No, it depends on whether the people of the community/city/state he chooses to live in feel safe with allowing such young people to have access to such dangerous things.

103 posted on 03/04/2002 12:16:38 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: truenospinzone
How dare you bring logic into this argument! Personally, I think the drinking age should be lowered to 18. I think the age one can serve on a military tribunal to try and hang a peaceful Islamist terrorist should be lowered to 18, too.
104 posted on 03/04/2002 12:18:06 PM PST by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: shellylet
That's no reason to limit drinking. Drinking and driving, yes, because it affects other people and takes place in the public realm. But simply drinking is not going to hurt anyone (except MAYBE the drinker, and that's really not preventable by the government no matter how many laws they pass), even if the drinker is (GASP) 'underage.'
105 posted on 03/04/2002 12:18:16 PM PST by LibertyGirl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
No, it depends on whether the people of the community/city/state he chooses to live in feel safe with allowing such young people to have access to such dangerous things.

One could make the same claim about firearms and people of all ages. Are you making that claim?

106 posted on 03/04/2002 12:18:52 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
I'm not talking of the past. I speak of modern times.

The past is still with us.

107 posted on 03/04/2002 12:18:59 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
So how does this wonderful "WE THE PEOPLE" theory of yours work in cities/states that have passed by majority initiatives allowing, for example, for the use of medical marijuana, only to have the federal government initiate force against those complying with their communities' own standards? Does the majority only count when it's in your favor? Silly me, I must have missed the public vote on the Constitutionality of the WOsD and legal drinking age.
108 posted on 03/04/2002 12:19:00 PM PST by truenospinzone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
I agree with legalizing for 18-and-up. Actually, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to legalizing it for younger people in the context of adult supervision. I'm talkig about alcohol, not drugs, mind you.
109 posted on 03/04/2002 12:21:29 PM PST by LibertyGirl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Are you making that claim?

No. Two reasons. I believe the right to self defense is inalienable. 2) The second amendment backs me up on that.

110 posted on 03/04/2002 12:22:10 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
No, it depends on whether the people of the community/city/state he chooses to live in feel safe with allowing such young people to have access to such dangerous things.

No. The individual has inalienable rights. Communities/cities/states only have rights in their relationship with the Fed. Gov. The Communities/cities/states do not have that kind of power over a sovreign individual. This is not a democracy. Rights are not open to discussion at any level.

111 posted on 03/04/2002 12:23:01 PM PST by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: LibertyGirl77
Right. I agree. However, I do see some problems that could arise. I have no prob with parents allowing their 15 year old son have a beer with dinner, but what of the parents, the likes of which we have read about in the news, where they have booze parties for their kids and all their friends?
112 posted on 03/04/2002 12:23:53 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
In fact, "the government" is us. It is WE THE PEOPLE who have decided these things, and at the state level.

That isn't true---at least when it comes to state drinking ages. In the early-to-mid 1980s, the federal government declared it would stop spending federal highway money in states that refused to raise their drinking ages to 21. Sure enough, each state changed its legal drinking age to 21. I was a college freshman in one of the last states to raise its drinking age---Vermont---and I could drink legally at 18 in '86.

113 posted on 03/04/2002 12:24:25 PM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: southern rock
The individual has inalienable rights.

True, however many rights are not inalienable and are up for discussion. Such as the right to smoke crack.

114 posted on 03/04/2002 12:25:03 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: LibertyGirl77
I don't agree! Just because you lower the drinking age doesn't mean the "lightbulb" is going to come on and all of a sudden a young person is going to drink responsibly. Statistics will show the younger you start to drink the more likely you are to become an alcoholic. Also, I'm afraid I don't have that kind of faith in a young person to go to their friends house and drink "responsibly" or vice versa. Your opening doors that don't need to be opened!
115 posted on 03/04/2002 12:25:22 PM PST by shellylet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"Suppose you view human nature as being totally depraved. What form of government would this lead to?

Whether you like it or not, our Puritan ancestors, who believed that human nature is totally depraved, are very much responsible for our system of government now. The Puritians believed strongly in covenant theology, which meant that they rejected the divine right of kings, and believed rather, that the people had the responsibility to govern themselves. We owe our system of checks and balances to the belief that human nature is flawed. Even the most well-intentioned government can become corrupt and demoagogic at times, the Puritains and the Founding Fathers knew this. That is why no branch of government is supposed to have a monopoly on power.

It is when people believe that humans are innately good, when Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and wacky Utopian governments come about and fail. Because we are not innately good inside, we were born with original sin and should not delude ourselves of anything otherwise.

116 posted on 03/04/2002 12:26:40 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: shellylet
Statistics will show the younger you start to drink the more likely you are to become an alcoholic.

Could you cite those stats? I'd like to check them out. Thanks.

117 posted on 03/04/2002 12:26:50 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
No. Two reasons. I believe the right to self defense is inalienable. 2) The second amendment backs me up on that.

It would seem the 10th Amendment backs me up on my claim. Right?

118 posted on 03/04/2002 12:28:12 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Didnt NC Senate candidate Elizabeth Dole, while in the Reagan admin. propose raising the drinking age to 25? I have heard this to be the case for a long long time but have never seen any evidence that she made the suggestion. Could someone please set me straight on this.
119 posted on 03/04/2002 12:28:22 PM PST by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shellylet
I must have missed something in this article. Nothing said about the thousands of innocent people murdered at the hands of drunk drivers.

No, you didn't miss anything at all. Do you know why? Because it's not about drunk drivers. It's about the drinking age.

Your "argument", such as it is, ought to make you ashamed of yourself. You see something you disagree with, and then drag in an emotionally charged issue only peripherally related and try to carry the argument on gruesome "have you ever seen people burned to death" type demagoguery, instead of actually using reason.

120 posted on 03/04/2002 12:28:24 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
True, however many rights are not inalienable and are up for discussion. Such as the right to smoke crack.

That is your opinion. From where do you derive this?

Please keep in mind that the BOR was never intended to be a finite list of rights.

121 posted on 03/04/2002 12:28:50 PM PST by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
What, exactly, is you claim?
122 posted on 03/04/2002 12:29:21 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: southern rock
I was talking about a simple observation I had made. The states should have the right to decide those things. That is how a democratic republic works. In the case of all 50 states, the people have decided to enact underage drinking laws.
123 posted on 03/04/2002 12:29:52 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
So if parents are cool with littel 10 year old jimmy snort'in a few lines, you think there should be no gov. intervention? This is rich...

There may be an issue of neglect. Or may not.

BTW, pot, used by prepubecents causes major stunting of sexual maturity. Can even cause permanent sterility if used by a boy who is going through puberty.

Which isn't an argument for making it illegal.

124 posted on 03/04/2002 12:30:40 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
You had to ask strangers? I just had my dad buy it for me.

"I'm not sending him to Buffalo a rookie." Thats what my dad said to someone at a party who asked him about my drinking beer at the party. I was 17 at the time, and was leaving for college in Buffalo in 2 months.

125 posted on 03/04/2002 12:30:48 PM PST by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: southern rock
It is not inalienable. It is unalienable.
126 posted on 03/04/2002 12:31:04 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Interesting post AA..I have never approved of the 21 law....

Does this mean you're buying? ;-)

Bump to read tonite.

127 posted on 03/04/2002 12:31:26 PM PST by Ward Smythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
In the case of all 50 states, the people have decided to enact underage drinking laws.

And how many of those 50 states have a democracy as a state government?

128 posted on 03/04/2002 12:32:06 PM PST by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Sure, but some states wanted 21 and other states were satisfied with 18. Why should the federal government threaten to withold highway funds if state law was not changed? That doesn't sounds like constitutional republicanism to me.
129 posted on 03/04/2002 12:32:08 PM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: southern rock
From where do you derive this?

Common sense (no offense meant by that)

Do you have the right to own a nuke? Or to declare that your land is a separate nation? Some rights can be volunteered away.

You have the natural right to seek personal justice from someone that wrongs you. However, when you live in a large society, you sacrifice that right over to the gov, to punish the offender in your place. If you attempted to seek retribution, you, yourself would be arrested.

130 posted on 03/04/2002 12:32:40 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: southern rock
Look I know that we do not have a pure democracy, but we have a representative one, same with the states.
131 posted on 03/04/2002 12:33:35 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

Comment #132 Removed by Moderator

To: Liberal Classic
"Why should the federal government threaten to withold highway funds if state law was not changed?"

I was not aware that they had.

133 posted on 03/04/2002 12:34:37 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
In the case of all 50 states, the people have decided to enact underage drinking laws.

Only after coercion and blackmail by the federal government, i.e "We will no longer spend federal money on highways in your state unless you raise the legal drinking age to 21". That's not exactly the same as an overwhelming moral decree from "the people", is it?

134 posted on 03/04/2002 12:34:48 PM PST by truenospinzone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
"In fact, the government is us."

I have every reason to believe you; it's certainly not the REST of us!

135 posted on 03/04/2002 12:35:07 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
What, exactly, is your claim?

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Unless you can cite the passage in the Constitution where the federal government is tasked to set drinking ages, the issue belongs at the state level. So states set up their own laws regarding drinking, and the fedgov's response is to blackmail individual states into doing what it wants.

136 posted on 03/04/2002 12:35:28 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
No, it depends on whether the people of the community/city/state he chooses to live in feel safe with allowing such young people adults between the ages of 18-20 to have access to such dangerous things legal (and I daresay enjoyable) substances.

I would hardly call a glass of wine with dinner 'dangerous.' Yet it is illegal for a 19-year-old wife and mom to comsume. It's illegal for an 18-year-old serviceman to relax with a beer. I realize some younger adults will abuse this right. But a lot of 35-, 45-, and even 65-year-olds abuse this right as well. It doesn't make it any better or worse when it's a young person doing it.

137 posted on 03/04/2002 12:35:33 PM PST by LibertyGirl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Which isn't an argument for making it illegal.

It is for young and pre-teens. Even if a parent allowed their young child to smoke pot, it would be reckless endangerment. I agree that pot is no more harmful than cigarettes (actually less, since is it not addictive) to adults, but it is quite harmfull to developing kids.

138 posted on 03/04/2002 12:36:00 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Common sense (no offense meant by that)

So basically just subjective opinion. O.K.

139 posted on 03/04/2002 12:36:01 PM PST by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
No you didn't "get" me, but you did get me to laugh a little while sitting at my computer. Bible reading by myself, along in my room, is my constitutional right and does not have an affect on anyone else's lives whatsoever. Over the age of 21, I have no problem with people drinking their lives away. But the underage drinking laws are there for a reason. In this case, state government is the moral restraint that stops a lot of drunk driving accidents from happening.

Suppose a 20 year old drinks in his own house, and doesn't cause any effect on anyone else. The same argument applies. Although, it's a little odd to see the same argument about Bible reading people usually use for vices.

And you keep using reasons for the 21 age that apply to people over 21. Why don't we stop a 22 year old from driving drunk?

140 posted on 03/04/2002 12:37:07 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: LibertyGirl77
"But a lot of 35-, 45-, and even 65-year-olds abuse this right as well. It doesn't make it any better or worse when it's a young person doing it."

Using situation ethics to frame an argument is not a solid course of action.

141 posted on 03/04/2002 12:37:12 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
So there are some messed up parents out there who throw booze parties for teenagers. That's for the parents of the other kids to deal with if they have a problem with it. NOT the federal government.
142 posted on 03/04/2002 12:37:31 PM PST by LibertyGirl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: LibertyGirl77
I completely agree. I just am saying that the people of a state/city/community have the constitutional ability to prohibit 18-20 year olds access to alcohol. They have the constitutional ability to prohibit alcohol completely even. The Constitution does not prevent stupid state laws.
143 posted on 03/04/2002 12:38:32 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: shellylet
I know--how about you raise your kids, and I'll raise mine, and if we both do a good job, we shouldn't need the government to step in and do it for us.
144 posted on 03/04/2002 12:38:55 PM PST by LibertyGirl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: LibertyGirl77
NOT the federal government.

The Fed has no business in ANY of this. These are all STATES' issues.

145 posted on 03/04/2002 12:39:42 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Whether you like it or not, our Puritan ancestors, who believed that human nature is totally depraved, are very much responsible for our system of government now.

Really. So you completely agree with Winthrop's "City on a Hill" commune speech?


146 posted on 03/04/2002 12:39:46 PM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
RE:Trying to ban Bon Jovi cause they think he has no more talent.......

That's not an opinion, that's public record.
147 posted on 03/04/2002 12:39:47 PM PST by tomakaze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"Suppose a 20 year old drinks in his own house, and doesn't cause any effect on anyone else. The same argument applies. Although, it's a little odd to see the same argument about Bible reading people usually use for vices. And you keep using reasons for the 21 age that apply to people over 21. Why don't we stop a 22 year old from driving drunk?"

I was replying to southern rock. I never said that drinking laws do stop 22 year olds from driving drunk, that is illogical. What I was saying, however, is that underage drinking laws stop a lot of irresponsible teenagers from driving drunk.

148 posted on 03/04/2002 12:40:03 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
If you believe young people are going to sit in their homes and drink and never leave or get inside of a car and drive it, your not being realistic! Getting into a car and driving isn't the only stupid thing young people do after they've had a few...how about unsafe sex? Ashamed? I don't think so! If NOT lowering the drinking age prevents one innocent person from being killed by an immature doof that thinks he or she has to drink to prove themselves I'll bring up driving while drinking anytime lowering the age for drinking is discussed!
149 posted on 03/04/2002 12:40:18 PM PST by shellylet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Please respond to my #87 response to your #66, if you can. ;^)
150 posted on 03/04/2002 12:40:53 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-288 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson