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 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 281-288 next last
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.
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.
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.
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.
To: LibertyGirl77
NOT the federal government.The Fed has no business in ANY of this. These are all STATES' issues.
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?
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.
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.
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!
To: Texaggie79
Please respond to my #87 response to your #66, if you can. ;^)
To: NittanyLion
WHOA WHOA WHOA, wait a min. Where have I EVER said that the FED should have a say?
To: FreedominJesusChrist
Ha. That's funny. Sure, they 'decided' to enact more restrictive drinking laws--because they'd been BLACKMAILED by the federal government.
To: Texaggie79
They have the constitutional ability to prohibit alcohol completely even. The Constitution does not prevent stupid state laws. But the sovriegnity of the individual does!
To: truenospinzone
All states have specific statutes defining the age of adulthoodAgreed -- as to age of majority. That's my point: statutes define the ages for certain things. They can't determine the age for voting (constitutionally set at 18). Simply because the statutes use a term of art like age of majority and then place many things in there doesn't draw any distinction between the age of majority and drinking age. In other words, you can't say that simply because they are defined as an adult, they should be drinking. The same statutes that define them as of majority also say the drinking age is 21. My point is simply that we have decided as a society that certain ages are right for certain things. Now, if things like loss of parental support, the ability to write contracts, etc., were constitutionally set at 18, your point would be valid. Since it's set by statute, it takes more than just to say "if he can sign a contract, he should be able to drink."
154
posted on
03/04/2002 12:41:48 PM PST
by
1L
To: Hemingway's Ghost
John Winthrop's 'City on a Hill' sermon was not about communes. That is the wackiest interpretation that I have ever heard. It was a sermon about America being the shining city on the hill through strong morals and living the life of a Christian. He was envisioning a more moral and God-fearing society, not a commune 70's style.
To: headsonpikes
Please respond to my #87 response to your #66, if you can. ;^)I didn't see anything to respond to. Just some statements. You apparently aggree that pretty much all people don't go around trying to keep people from doing things that they don't personally find appealing.
To: LibertyGirl77
I had never heard of that happening before. Could you give me some links to sources, so I could read up more on that?
To: southern rock
But the sovriegnity of the individual does!Not living under the protection of a government.
To understand this the better, it is fit to consider that every man when he at first incorporates himself into any commonwealth, he, by his uniting himself thereunto, annexes also, and submits to the community those possessions which he has, or shall acquire, that do not already belong to any other government. For it would be a direct contradiction for any one to enter into society with others for the securing and regulating of property, and yet to suppose his land, whose property is to be regulated by the laws of the society, should be exempt from the jurisdiction of that government to which he himself, and the property of the land, is a subject. -- John Locke
To: A.J.Armitage
Hey A.J,
I just wanted to say I'm impressed with the way you keep your head cool when faced with invincible ignorance. Keep up the good work!
balrog
To: Texaggie79
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.
And THAT I absolutely agree with.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 281-288 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson