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 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 281-288 next last
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 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 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.

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