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 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-288 next last
To: NittanyLion
WHOA WHOA WHOA, wait a min. Where have I EVER said that the FED should have a say?
151 posted on 03/04/2002 12:40:54 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Ha. That's funny. Sure, they 'decided' to enact more restrictive drinking laws--because they'd been BLACKMAILED by the federal government.
152 posted on 03/04/2002 12:41:33 PM PST by LibertyGirl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

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!

153 posted on 03/04/2002 12:41:38 PM PST by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: truenospinzone
All states have specific statutes defining the age of adulthood

Agreed -- 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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

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.
155 posted on 03/04/2002 12:42:57 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

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.

156 posted on 03/04/2002 12:43:38 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

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?
157 posted on 03/04/2002 12:44:34 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

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

158 posted on 03/04/2002 12:45:15 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

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

159 posted on 03/04/2002 12:45:24 PM PST by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

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.

160 posted on 03/04/2002 12:45:46 PM PST by LibertyGirl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | 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. 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.

In fact, I do like it. You seem to have missed the key factor in checks and balances, ect. The power of the government is limited, because the government is run by people under the effects of the Fall.

161 posted on 03/04/2002 12:46:52 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Parents don't want their minor children doing a lot of things. If it is a legal product that they are legally allowed to purchase it is the PARENTS responsibility to see that their children do not do it/them, not the store clerks.
162 posted on 03/04/2002 12:47:17 PM PST by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #163 Removed by Moderator

To: truenospinzone
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".

Ironically, our newly minted domestic terrorism laws include among the definitions of acts of domestic terrorism "using threats of force or coercion to influence public policy".

164 posted on 03/04/2002 12:47:36 PM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: LibertyGirl77
BTW, I totally missed your appearence on P.I. the other night. I am so ticked at myself. Do they have a list somewhere when they will run certain re-runs?
165 posted on 03/04/2002 12:47:49 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: shellylet
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!

If a ban on all handguns prevents one innocent person from being killed, I'll bring up deaths anytime gun rights are discussed!

166 posted on 03/04/2002 12:48:32 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
If it is a legal product that they are legally allowed to purchase it is the PARENTS responsibility to see that their children do not do it/them, not the store clerks.

Ok, I don't want my 16 year old to have access to alcohol. Under your law, I would have to follow him around all day to make sure he does not purchase it. It would be similar to me trying to prevent my minor child from buying a snickers bar. If he wants a snickers bar, he will get it.

167 posted on 03/04/2002 12:50:26 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: truenospinzone;A.J.Armitage
the fact that the law is federal

Is it? I thought it was by federal coersion by withholding highway money?

A small point, since it amounts to the same thing.

168 posted on 03/04/2002 12:51:29 PM PST by StriperSniper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
WHOA WHOA WHOA, wait a min. Where have I EVER said that the FED should have a say?

You haven't, and indeed have repeatedly stated just the opposite more than once. My mistake...we're definitely in agreement on that issue.

169 posted on 03/04/2002 12:51:34 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Fact Sheet: National Minimum Drinking Age Law
170 posted on 03/04/2002 12:55:22 PM PST by LibertyGirl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Lokibob
I think that the drinking age should be lowered to 16, and the driving age raised to 25.

Agreed. I trust my peers drunk in their homes more than I do sober behind the wheel.

171 posted on 03/04/2002 12:55:27 PM PST by JediGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Re your #156.

I can only assume you read neither my post nor your own.

172 posted on 03/04/2002 12:55:54 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
No, I do understand that...I thought it was you who was missing the point. Sorry about that one.
173 posted on 03/04/2002 12:55:56 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: shellylet
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!

I no more believe that that I believe people who are 22 will just sit at home drinking, or, for that matterm that people who haven't had enough sleep will sit at home and not drive.

The fact that someone might do something risky after drinking is no argument at all. If they do, it's the driving that's the problem.

174 posted on 03/04/2002 12:56:33 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Alcohol isnt legal to purchase at 16 and it never will be in this country, so you don't have to worry.

But say that you didn't want your minor child eating Snicker Bars, whose responsibility is it to prevent him from doing such?

175 posted on 03/04/2002 12:57:20 PM PST by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: LibertyGirl77
Thanks for the link. This sounds really bad, but for some reason the link was blocked. You see, I attend a private conservative Christian University and we have a filtering system on the internet. For some reason, I couldn't get in.
176 posted on 03/04/2002 12:57:30 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
I agree with your apparently unintended dichotomy. ;^)

Ok thats nice.

Control freaks are not normal people.

Agreed

They are the new, improved uber-citizens

Whatever.

177 posted on 03/04/2002 12:57:59 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
ROFL. That's a link to a government website!
178 posted on 03/04/2002 12:58:32 PM PST by LibertyGirl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: vic heller
I'm all for lowering the drinking age to 18. However, if you have a wreck and injure someone you get an an aggravated assault charge with no less than two years in the can. If you kill someone, you're looking at 20 years per body. I'd make the brewers and distillers pay for TV ads publicizing the penalties.

Agreed. A price has to be paid when you kill somebody in this situation. This reminds me of a story...there's a guy where I live who was an assistant coach (my dad was head coach) of little league baseball...well, when he was 15 he got drunk and killed the teenage girl who was in the car with him. His license was suspended till he was 18. Then a year ago (he was about 19 or 20) he gets drunk, goes speeding headed south in the northbound side of the interstate and knocks off another person and seriously injures another. Quite a shame.

179 posted on 03/04/2002 12:58:41 PM PST by JediGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Okay, Mary Poppins!

I'll waste nither breath nor wit on you henceforth.

180 posted on 03/04/2002 12:59:49 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
But say that you didn't want your minor child eating Snicker Bars, whose responsibility is it to prevent him from doing such?

Yes. But once the child was old enough to get out on his own. I would not have control. Worst case scenario, he get's a snickers. That's not all too bad. Change that worst case scenario to, he gets all the booze he wants, that's not acceptable.

181 posted on 03/04/2002 1:00:09 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: LibertyGirl77
Thanks for the link anyway. I don't know why it's blocked. But I bet I can find the information from my law professor, I was just being lazy.
182 posted on 03/04/2002 1:00:16 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Winthrop's speech was most definitely about communal living. Perhaps you should try not to filter every single word through modern experience. Here it is again if you care to read it.
183 posted on 03/04/2002 1:01:06 PM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
Well, be more clear in your proclamations. You said normal people aren't control freaks. We agree.
184 posted on 03/04/2002 1:01:10 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Here, try this one.
185 posted on 03/04/2002 1:01:35 PM PST by LibertyGirl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
"I'll waste nither breath nor wit on you henceforth."

Don't you think you could be a little bit more benevolent? You know, we pretty much are all conservatives here, even though we may diagree on some issues...

186 posted on 03/04/2002 1:02:03 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: LibertyGirl77
Ha. That's funny. Sure, they 'decided' to enact more restrictive drinking laws--because they'd been BLACKMAILED by the federal government.
That's the thing that really ought to P.O. conservatives, the fact that the federales stuck their noses into what is at most a state issue at the behest of a well organized pressure group. How is this bad when it's some liberal group, or the safety nazis, yet OK when it's a right-PC group like the MADD mothers (who ceased to be about drinking and driving, focusing almost solely on the former, years ago)?

This offense was particularly egregious in Ohio. Before the federal blackmail began, Ohio allowed 19 and 20 year olds to buy beer. The religious right and its allies sponsored a referendum in 1983 to raise the beer age to 21. This proposal got absolutely crushed at the polls, by a 2-1 margin.

Thwarted in Ohio, the MADD lobbyists went running to Washington with their blackmail proposal. Unsuprisingly, despite the referendum Ohio's Democratic Senators (Glenn and Metzenbum) voted for it.

Fortunately, we don't have Democratic Senators any more, but we're still living with their handiwork. Conservative principles pretty much demand that decisions about drinking ages (and for that matter BAC limits) be left to the states.

-Eric

187 posted on 03/04/2002 1:02:25 PM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
Thanks for the link...I will read it again. But I already read it when I was a junior in high school for my American Lit. Class.
188 posted on 03/04/2002 1:03:12 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
I wouldn't say that Communal living is wrong. It just doesn't work and is not practical.
189 posted on 03/04/2002 1:03:58 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Ok, I don't want my 16 year old to have access to alcohol. Under your law, I would have to follow him around all day to make sure he does not purchase it.

Yep. Sorry, but the state is not here to do your parenting for you.

190 posted on 03/04/2002 1:04:55 PM PST by southern rock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: LibertyGirl77
Thanks, that one worked. I will read up on that.
191 posted on 03/04/2002 1:05:02 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Your university blocks search engines? This is from

The document is a PDF file available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/Community%20Guides%20HTML/PDFs/Public_App7.pdf which is found at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

From the document:

What is the national age 21 drinking law?

The National Minimum Drinking Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. States that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act. The U.S. Department of Transportation has determined that all states are in compliance with this act.

192 posted on 03/04/2002 1:06:03 PM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
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 a degree it does, through the Fourteenth Amendment. I'd like to see someone challenge the Sunday beer sales laws that all to many places have, as the only justification for making Sunday special is religious.

-Eric

193 posted on 03/04/2002 1:07:08 PM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: southern rock
You call it parenting, I call it common sense.

Join the LP, the party without it.......

194 posted on 03/04/2002 1:08:28 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Just PLEASE take all the statist bull-poo on that site with a grain of salt--really, everything past the first two sections is just pro-nanny state propaganda.
195 posted on 03/04/2002 1:09:02 PM PST by LibertyGirl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
"Don't you think you could be a little bit more benevolent?"

HA! My heart is hardened to those who need to have my humorous ripostes explained!

We(imperial we) take no prisoners! ;^)

196 posted on 03/04/2002 1:09:41 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | 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.
That's because the law we are discussing has precisely zero to do with driving while drunk, which is illegal regardless of one's age.

-Eric

197 posted on 03/04/2002 1:09:47 PM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Your response is most likely the difference in maturity levels. Why do you have a problem waiting until the legal age to drink? And before you say it's not fair, don't. I don't think I should have to pay the taxes I do either.

Just my opinion but I think the reasons for keeping the drinking age as it is are far better than any argument I've read here for lowering it.

Unfortunately, innocent people are affected by alcohol. You may be able to sit in your dorm and have a drink and it's no big deal, but there are many teens who would not be able to handle that responsibility and other people end up paying the consequences.

198 posted on 03/04/2002 1:10:04 PM PST by shellylet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
There have always been religious laws. Our own founders created states whos own Constitutions said that all those that run for office must be of the Protestant religion.
199 posted on 03/04/2002 1:10:15 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
There have always been religious laws. Our own founders created states whos own Constitutions said that all those that run for office must be of the Protestant religion.
The First Amendment did not apply to the states until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

-Eric

200 posted on 03/04/2002 1:12:08 PM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-288 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