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 last
To: mrustow
So, if a police officer sees an eight-year-old drinking, smoking, or taking drugs, it's none of his business?

He could take them home to their parents (and I see no reason any other adult from the community couldn't do the same thing).

Your argument would also require that a three-year-old who accidentally kills his baby brother be arrested and charged with manslaughter or murder.

And why's that?

It's just common sense, that you need an official age of majority. The unavoidable imperfection of such a convention is no more a convincing argument against it, than it would be against any other social convention.

Sure, you need an age of majority for voting and consenting to sex and contracts, but not for drinking.

251 posted on 03/04/2002 4:33:08 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
The Alabama Constitution has provisions for referendum. We also have it in Texas, and most of the Southern states.

And where does the Alabama constitution get its authority from?

252 posted on 03/04/2002 4:36:56 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
I always thought the "bloodbath", as you call it, occurred because the kids suddenly went wild when they lowered the drinking age. If it had been 18 all along the spike wouldn't have happened.

I guess you've just solved the problem of paedophilia, then. Just drop all laws against child molestation, and after a period where the paedophiles go a little wild, it should settle down to something more manageable.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think of the above as a serious reply?

253 posted on 03/04/2002 4:39:51 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
...in the mid-70s, the states nearly all lowered the age to 18 (or 19 in some instances). The result was a BLOODBATH

And the 18 year olds were buying for their 16 year old friends, who gave it to thier 14 year old girl friends. Sad, but true. Some spoiled it for the responsible.

254 posted on 03/04/2002 4:40:27 PM PST by Ace's Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Joel Miller on Razormouth.Com is lovin' ya, dude. (Check his recent articles on underage drinking).

Beer at Supper, and Wine at Communion.
Let the Parents be the judge as to quantity.

255 posted on 03/04/2002 4:48:51 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Joel Miller on Razormouth.Com is lovin' ya, dude. (Check his recent articles on underage drinking).

He read it?

256 posted on 03/04/2002 5:10:17 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
I thought you were smarter than that, sickbay.
257 posted on 03/04/2002 5:20:37 PM PST by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"Turn-ons: the doctrine of enumerated powers; Roman history; slow, seductive readings from The Law."

It must not take a lot to turn you on.

258 posted on 03/04/2002 6:22:59 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
What can I say? I'm easy.
259 posted on 03/04/2002 7:51:26 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"What can I say? I'm easy."

You didn't have to say anything, your profile page says it all.

260 posted on 03/04/2002 9:02:41 PM PST by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Your argument would also require that a three-year-old who accidentally kills his baby brother be arrested and charged with manslaughter or murder.

And why's that?

Because your essay suggested that there is no reason for a statutory age of majority, without which children and adults would be the same in the eyes of the law.

261 posted on 03/04/2002 9:40:03 PM PST by mrustow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
No one is seriously suggesting to reduce the drinking age to 16 so your fears are unfounded.

As far as I know, there are only 2 things that an 18 year old can not do and that is buy alcohol and buy a handgun. All other privileges and responsibilities of adulthood are bestowed on them at 18.

262 posted on 03/05/2002 4:12:03 AM PST by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
The First Amendment did not apply to the states until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. I believe it did, and I believe the founders agree with me. Why make a BoR that only applies to the Fed gov, which is supposed to be a very small faction with little function. The states are where criminal laws are tried. Why address cruel and unusual punishment, when the STATES are the majority of the prosecutors? The BoR have always applied to the States. The 14th just solidified that.
It's debatable whether it did or not before the 14th Amendment. For example the Congregational Church was not disestablished in Connecticut until 1818.

Once the Fourteenth was ratified, it was no longer debatable.

-Eric

263 posted on 03/05/2002 4:21:37 AM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: shellylet
Well call me a smart-a$$, but I think you're a dumb-a$$ if you believe young people are going to sit in their homes and drink and never end up getting into a car to drive it! You're not so old that you shouldn't remember doing stupid things when you were younger!

I'm just saying I'd rather err on the side of protecting innocent victims from immature, irresponsible people

By your logic we should ban alcohol, since even older people might drink and then get into a car.

Perhaps then we should ban skydiving, because these "immature, irresponsible people" might land on someone.

-Eric

264 posted on 03/05/2002 4:23:51 AM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
All other privileges and responsibilities of adulthood are bestowed on them at 18.

Rent a car, some counties, you have to be 21 to purchase XXX material. Some states you must be 19 to buy cigarettes. Gotta be 35 to run for president......

265 posted on 03/05/2002 7:07:20 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: JoeGar
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has led Congress down this stupid path. A pox on MADD!

See post #229.

266 posted on 03/05/2002 9:05:42 AM PST by bassmaner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: MudPuppy
They are able to drink at 18 on base just not hard liquor. The Marine Corps (at least while I was in) seems to even encourage it.

EBUCK

267 posted on 03/05/2002 9:06:29 AM PST by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
"They are able to drink at 18 on base just not hard liquor."

that is INCORRECT.
As a former Marine and a current govt contractor that works on a Marine base I can tell you that Bases follow the state & Federal laws.
Back in the day you could drink beer & wine in NC if you were over 18 and hard liquor if you were over 21.
That rule no longer applies. Everyone has gone to a 21 yr old age limit for any alcohol.

Many Enlisted Clubs are closed and the whole Club system is shot because of this and the crackdown on drinking in the military.

268 posted on 03/05/2002 9:23:46 AM PST by MudPuppy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: MudPuppy
I didn't know that it had changed. I haven't been on a base since '95. Seems that the nanny trickle down effect has finally trickled down our boys' way. Seriously out of wack.

EBUCK

269 posted on 03/05/2002 9:27:38 AM PST by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: FreedominJesusChrist
Ouch.
270 posted on 03/05/2002 9:49:14 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: mrustow
Because your essay suggested that there is no reason for a statutory age of majority, without which children and adults would be the same in the eyes of the law.

Just for this one area, not for everything. I certainly wouldn't say a three year old can consent to have sex, for example.

271 posted on 03/05/2002 9:53:21 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Hmmm...interesting perspective--why sex but not drinking?
272 posted on 03/05/2002 10:27:25 AM PST by LibertyGirl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: LibertyGirl77
There's a difference between child molestation and drinking. If a little kids drinks, it's no different from anything else under parental authority, since it's just a matter of discipline, presuming it's without permission in the first place. If a child is molested, however, that's a crime, since there's a victim and a victimizer. If there's no guilty party because both are underage, it's back to being a parental matter.
273 posted on 03/05/2002 10:47:17 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Oh, okay. I thought you meant you thought it should be illegal for 15 year olds to have sex but not to drink. That was strange to me.
274 posted on 03/05/2002 11:38:51 AM PST by LibertyGirl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Arguments usually hypes the extremes, exceptions are aberrations. It does not make the legislation created have force. Parents that want to give a child a watered down glass of wine on special occasions will continue to do so. It is teaching a proper way to relate to alcohol.

It is not drinking at 18 or 20 that is the problem. It is the indiscriminate use (over indulging) that is the danger. Many young people have insufficient development to be cognizant of the risks. Common sense, please.

"Abuse" is the entry to 'micro managing' the people. We are willingly giving away our freedom. On one hand the government is giving us medical care and we welcome it and receive it: the other hand comes with all sorts of rules and regulations tied to the medical care. Just like schools ... or any other program you want to look at thoroughly.

Haven't we figured out how this game is played. Evidently not. We keep thinking we are getting more than we are giving away. WRONG!

It is about POWER and MONEY. The government's ... and ours. They get more and more ... we give more and more. ... they win ... we lose. We are aiding and abetting our own loss of freedom and liberty.

275 posted on 03/06/2002 11:57:11 AM PST by Countyline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
I got drunk on champaign on New Year's Eve when I was one year old with no ill effects.

Why not just tape a sign on the seat of your pants that says "KICK ME"?

276 posted on 03/08/2002 10:17:29 PM PST by freebilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Yes, that means no drinking age whatsoever.

When my 15 year old son gets your 11 year old daughter drunk and has "consensual" sex with her, come tell me about "coercively achieved social perfection" and let me laugh at you.

The lawyers will love a society like the one you envision.

277 posted on 03/08/2002 10:28:01 PM PST by freebilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freebilly
That sort of thing happens now.
278 posted on 03/09/2002 5:21:41 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
That sort of thing happens now.

Let me know when it happens to your daughter.

279 posted on 03/09/2002 10:42:59 PM PST by freebilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: freebilly
And if it does, would you have me blame a policy preference of mine that isn't in place, or the policy that is in place now?
280 posted on 03/09/2002 11:07:38 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Sow the whirlwind, reap the whirlwind.

Now, as a practical aside, very few people over the age of 21 care to have the drinking age abolished. The underage drinkers who consume 11% of the alcohol in this country will have to continue to do so in violation of the law. It may not be fair or logical that 18 year olds can get killed in battle but can't legally buy a beer, but hey, life ain't fair or logical.

281 posted on 03/09/2002 11:20:47 PM PST by freebilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: freebilly
The underage drinkers who consume 11% of the alcohol in this country will have to continue to do so in violation of the law

11% really isn't that much, considering that includes kids 18, 19, and 20 years old. That's just 1/9th the alcohol in America, for ALL teenagers and young adults.

From someone's 18th birthday to their 21st is 3 years. 3 years divided by 1/9th is 27 years. That means if everyone drank the same amount of alcohol every year from the age 18 until they turned 48, (and then if people over 48 drank nine times as much total as kids under 18), then underage people would be drinking 11% of the alcohol in America. 11% is really not that much at all.

We need to do something to raise this tragic figure! LEGALIZE ALCOHOL FOR 18-year-olds, NOW!

282 posted on 03/09/2002 11:30:38 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: freebilly
Sow the whirlwind, reap the whirlwind.

So which policy now in place is sowing the whirlwind?

Now, as a practical aside, very few people over the age of 21 care to have the drinking age abolished. The underage drinkers who consume 11% of the alcohol in this country will have to continue to do so in violation of the law.

And as a practical aside from your "practical aside", they will continue to do so in violation of law.

It may not be fair or logical that 18 year olds can get killed in battle but can't legally buy a beer, but hey, life ain't fair or logical.

By which argument any and all evils can be justified. I'm reminded of the Devil's Dictionary's definition of a conservative: "A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others." I, of course, am neither.

283 posted on 03/09/2002 11:35:00 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
No, you're neither. You're a Libertarian-- which can best be described as someone who behaves like a prostitute but justifies her behavior like a attorney (The worst of all possible combinations):^)
284 posted on 03/10/2002 5:39:06 AM PST by freebilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: freebilly
Out comes the old (and very tired) libertarian=libertine "argument". Even if it were true, it would have nothing to do with whether we're right, and it isn't true. And I'm a guy.
285 posted on 03/10/2002 10:29:51 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

Comment #286 Removed by Moderator

Comment #287 Removed by Moderator

To: A.J.Armitage
The 25 percent figure was what Thomas Sowell calls an "Aha! statistic".

I've recently read about the Social Norming program that was tested at NIU and is now in use at more than 40 universities across the nation. I was reminded of it because of these stats and because reporting that "almost half of college students at college X are occasional binge drinkers" reinforces the misconception that every else is drinking a lot and therefore it is a social norm; whereas reporting that "greater than 50% of students never binge drink" means the exact same thing and changes the perception where social norms are concerned.

Of course the fact that this was tested at NIU brought you and this article to mind.

288 posted on 11/28/2002 12:24:59 PM PST by Equality 7-2521
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


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