Skip to comments.In Defense of "Underage" Drinking
Posted on 03/04/2002 10:49:56 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
click here to read article
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.
And where does the Alabama constitution get its authority from?
Let me ask you a question. Do you think of the above as a serious reply?
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.
Beer at Supper, and Wine at Communion.
Let the Parents be the judge as to quantity.
He read it?
It must not take a lot to turn you on.
You didn't have to say anything, your profile page says it all.
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.
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.
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.
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!By your logic we should ban alcohol, since even older people might drink and then get into a car.
I'm just saying I'd rather err on the side of protecting innocent victims from immature, irresponsible people
Perhaps then we should ban skydiving, because these "immature, irresponsible people" might land on someone.
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......
See post #229.
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.
Just for this one area, not for everything. I certainly wouldn't say a three year old can consent to have sex, for example.
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.
Why not just tape a sign on the seat of your pants that says "KICK ME"?
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.
Let me know when it happens to your daughter.
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.
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!
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.
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.