Will we be getting younger members soon?

[rdwj]

When you are 18 you take on responsibility for yourself. You are an adult. Our government needs to treat us that way. If my parents tried to "parent" me after I turned 18, I would have laughed and walked away. They understood I was an adult and did not make decisions for me anymore. That's how it should be.

Oh, and Cheese, it should be 18 for men, 30 for women.

Sounds like the words of nearly every 18 year old still living in off their parent's dime that I've ever met. As I get older, I totally see why why parents laughed at me when I gave them that same load of ****. The 18 yr olds that I've met that are even REMOTELY close to what I'd consider an adult are few and far between.

Being leagally responsible for your actions and being a responsible adult are two totally different things. Were you completely on your own and paying all your own bills at 18?

 

[Evan!]

The people who want the age lowered to 18 are those who will profit off of increased sales. This is less of a libertarian issue and more of a capitalist idea.

Care to back that up with facts? Personally, I have nothing to gain from it. So what about me?

Get kids drinking earlier, and their tolerance goes up quicker. Therefore, they'll soon go from splitting a case with 6 friends to drinking the case by themselves. Also, it gives marketing companies the opportunity to brand people at a more impressionable age.

This very well may be true, and the motives of the alcohol industry very well may be sinister. But that doesn't speak to the validity of the argument in any way. Most of us can agree that slavery was a bad thing and needed to be repealed...but if there happened to be an "evil corporation" that stood to profit off of abolition, would it make any difference? No, abolition would still be just as valid. Just because the alcohol industry supports lowering the age (supposedly) does not speak one bit to whether the idea itself is valid; such an argument is a logical fallacy:

A supports X.
A is bad.
Therefore, X must be bad.

No...does not compute.

It makes no sense to lower the drinking age. The last thing we need is another consumption item to make people fatter, lazier and dumber at a younger age. This isn't Europe where you can walk or bike to most places. The U.S. was built for the automobile and as such it means we need to be more careful about who we let drive.

So, enforce drunk driving laws, then. It makes sense to lower the drinking age for the reasons outlined in that article. If it's illegal, kids are just going to go "underground" and drink more in unsupervised situations. And this is a good thing?

Now, I'm not opposed to allowing the sale of alcohol to people under 21 in the presence of a parent. I'd actually support that, as it would give kids an opportunity to learn responsible drinking.

Should their parents also follow them to Iraq and hold their hand while they fire their automatic rifle at insurgents?

Kids can learn responsible drinking from their parents even in the absence of such a law---providing that said parents are any good at their job as parents.

But you've still not explained to me why, the instant people turn 21 years of age, some sort of magical responsibility switch gets flipped...and suddenly, they go from not being able to buy a single beer at a bar, to being able to buy an entire case of aristocrat vodka, overnight. Does that really make sense? Is a 21 year old really that much more responsible than a 20-year-old?

 

[Evan!]

In retrospect, I'm kinda of happy about the parenting my parents gave me when I was 18. While I was "legally" an adult, in no way would I say I was responsible or able to make intelligent, informed decisions. I don't think that you magically go from kid to adult on the night of your 18th birthday.

Same here. I wasn't magically transformed on my 18th birthday, or my 21st. Which makes the idea of a national drinking age absurd to begin with. At 18, was I responsible enough to have a drink? I think so. Was I responsible enough to fire an automatic weapon in a warzone, or take a bullet from someone else's? No, I doubt it. Yet, our laws reflect the exact opposite of that.

 

[rdwj]

I'm willing to allow any 18 yr old with a military ID to enter a bar and have a beer, since it will, for once and for all, put an end to the tired argument of being able to die for your country and not being able to have a drink in a pub.

 

[Cheesefood]

Care to back that up with facts? Personally, I have nothing to gain from it. So what about me?

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2004/coors-head-seeking-senate-for.html

This very well may be true, and the motives of the alcohol industry very well may be sinister. But that doesn't speak to the validity of the argument in any way. Most of us can agree that slavery was a bad thing and needed to be repealed...but if there happened to be an "evil corporation" that stood to profit off of abolition, would it make any difference? No, abolition would still be just as valid. Just because the alcohol industry supports lowering the age (supposedly) does not speak one bit to whether the idea itself is valid; such an argument is a logical fallacy:

It was called "The Cotton Industry". Why do you think it took so much effort to abolish slavery?

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

Well, I wasn't sheltered as a teenager and I started working when I was 14. I bought my own car before I turned 15, I started forming my own opinion when I was 13... I was more than ready to assume responsibility by the time I was 18, I moved out of my parents when I was 17! Anyone will be responsible if their parents don't baby them and make them think they are children. I was a man by the time I was 18. I'm sorry, but if you go through puberty at 12 and 13, 5 years is more than enough time to learn about life and what you need to do with yourself.

 

[rdwj]

Well, I wasn't sheltered as a teenager and I started working when I was 14. I bought my own car before I turned 15, I started forming my own opinion when I was 13... I was more than ready to assume responsibility by the time I was 18, I moved out of my parents when I was 17! Anyone will be responsible if their parents don't baby them and make them think they are children. I was a man by the time I was 18. I'm sorry, but if you go through puberty at 12 and 13, 5 years is more than enough time to learn about life and what you need to do with yourself.

Most kids aren't even done with school until they're 22-25 these days. Once they're completely on their own, they're closer to 30 than 18

 

[Evan!]

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2004/coors-head-seeking-senate-for.html

That shows that one of the supporters is an industry member who would stand to benefit. But your implication was that the vast majority of supporters are biased industry hacks:

"The people who want the age lowered to 18 are those who will profit off of increased sales."

Put "some of" in front of that sentence, and you've got it right.

 

[Orfy]

The reason the Age in the UK should be increased is because of an increase in bad parenting.

 

[Evan!]

It was called "The Cotton Industry". Why do you think it took so much effort to abolish slavery?

Read what I wrote again. I said that, if there was an evil corporation who stood to benefit from abolition, that wouldn't have any effect on how good abolition was.

Not slavery, abolition.

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

Most kids aren't even done with school until they're 22-25 these days. Once they're completely on their own, they're closer to 30 than 18

"kids" are done with school by the time they are 18. If they choose to go onto a higher education than they are welcome to... as I did. No reason to stop learning just because you are an adult.

 

[olllllo]

That shows that one of the supporters is an industry member who would stand to benefit. But your implication was that the vast majority of supporters are biased industry hacks:

Quote:
"The people who want the age lowered to 18 are those who will profit off of increased sales."

Put "some of" in front of that sentence, and you've got it right.

I think a better way to put that is:

The people who [are actively taking measures to have the] age lowered to 18 are those who will profit off of increased sales.

and that would be none of us on this board.

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

Not trying to come off as an ass to you guys, but I hate too much government, and I think America just keeps sinking further and further in that direction. These stupid laws are gonna keep the momentum going. We are taking away responsibility from the individual, and in my HONEST opinion, that is a terrible terrible thing.

 

[Cheesefood]

Put "some of" in front of that sentence, and you've got it right.

As soon as you show me you have the political clout and acumen to push through such a proposal, I'll consider your opinion as having merit. You support it in theory, but most likely will not support it outside of arguing on a little internet forum.

So when I speak of support, I speak of actually supporting the bill and helping pass it through. You, my friend, are just someone with an opinion on the matter.

 

[Evan!]

I'm willing to allow any 18 yr old with a military ID to enter a bar and have a beer, since it will, for once and for all, put an end to the tired argument of being able to die for your country and not being able to have a drink in a pub.

How about the other things...like, oh, I don't know, entering into a legally-binding contract? If I show my signature on a contract, can I also buy a beer? How about voting? Would you not agree that electing the leaders of our country, who in large part shape the destiny and direction of this country, is not a huge responsibility?

 

[olllllo]

How about the other things...like, oh, I don't know, entering into a legally-binding contract? If I show my signature on a contract, can I also buy a beer? How about voting? Would you not agree that electing the leaders of our country, who in large part shape the destiny and direction of this country, is not a huge responsibility?

Can't rent a car though. Run for President.

 

[Evan!]

Not trying to come off as an ass to you guys, but I hate too much government, and I think America just keeps sinking further and further in that direction. These stupid laws are gonna keep the momentum going. We are taking away responsibility from the individual, and in my HONEST opinion, that is a terrible terrible thing.

Agreed. The government is no substitute for good parenting and personal responsibility.

 

[Evan!]

Can't rent a car though. Run for President.

I've always wondered: is that a law, or just a rental industry standard policy?

 

[Cheesefood]

How about the other things...like, oh, I don't know, entering into a legally-binding contract? If I show my signature on a contract, can I also buy a beer? How about voting? Would you not agree that electing the leaders of our country, who in large part shape the destiny and direction of this country, is not a huge responsibility?

One vote can't do as much damage as one drunk driver.

http://www.fnnc.org/drunk-driving.html

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

One vote can't do as much damage as one drunk driver.

Who says that drunk driver was under 21? That drunk driver was an idiot that deserves whatever horrible things happen to him. That doesn't mean every individual who drinks a beer is gonna drive drunk.

 

[Evan!]

As soon as you show me you have the political clout and acumen to push through such a proposal, I'll consider your opinion as having merit. You support it in theory, but most likely will not support it outside of arguing on a little internet forum.

So when I speak of support, I speak of actually supporting the bill and helping pass it through. You, my friend, are just someone with an opinion on the matter.

True, but it doesn't make that opinion any more or less valid. I still don't understand your point at the end of the day. The biases of an issue's supporters only speak to their individual credibility, not to the credibility of the idea itself. You seem to be trying to discredit the idea itself by pointing out this conflict of interest...when, realistically, all it proves is that Coors seems to have a conflict of interest. Good point. I agree.

And in fact, you are wrong, as I am "one of those guys" who bothers his elected representatives constantly. The wifey, she always gives me crap because I keep getting reply letters from congressmen and senators about stuff. So no, I don't just bitch and moan on internet forums.

 

[olllllo]

I've always wondered: is that a law, or just a rental industry standard policy?

Industry standard policy AFAIK, but it stands as de-facto age-based discrimination or ipso-facto law depending on your outlook.

I believe the bar is even higher for foreign rentals, (26) if I am not mistaken.

 

[Cheesefood]

Who says that drunk driver was under 21? That drunk driver was an idiot that deserves whatever horrible things happen to him. That doesn't mean every individual who drinks a beer is gonna drive drunk.

http://www.fnnc.org/drunk-driving.html

"[FONT=verdana,arial,geneva,helvetica,sansserif]The car in which Jacqueline travelled when she was hit by a car driven by a 17-year old student on his way home after a couple of beers with his friends. This was in late 1999."[/FONT]

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

I rented a car in Ireland and Germany when I was 21. Not sure what the minimum age is, but was cool. I guess that's kind of off-topic.

 

[Buford]

It was called "The Cotton Industry". Why do you think it took so much effort to abolish slavery?

You read Evan's post wrong - he said if there was an "evil corporation" that stood to profit off of abolition. The cotton industry was the exact opposite.

 

[Evan!]

One vote can't do as much damage as one drunk driver.

http://www.fnnc.org/drunk-driving.html

One vote (many "ones") are responsible for many atrocities committed by certain elected officials. The efficacy is lost in a crowd, but it is still effective.

And as seefresh points out, your poster only serves to prove the evils of drunk driving, not the drinking age.

 

[Ó Flannagáin]

"[FONT=verdana,arial,geneva,helvetica,sansserif]The car in which Jacqueline travelled when she was hit by a car driven by a 17-year old student on his way home after a couple of beers with his friends. This was in late 1999."[/FONT]

Still, plenty of drunk driving accidents are from people over 21. That was my point, I realize that under 21 folks are drinking and driving. And, as you can see, this "kid" was under 18, so lowering the law wouldn't have effected the outcome of that wreck.

 

[Evan!]

"[FONT=verdana,arial,geneva,helvetica,sansserif]The car in which Jacqueline travelled when she was hit by a car driven by a 17-year old student on his way home after a couple of beers with his friends. This was in late 1999."[/FONT]

Hmmm...he was 17, and still drinking. Looks like our laws did that girl a whole lot of good.

What's your point in all this? That drinking irresponsibly is bad? Agreed. That drinking and driving is bad? Agreed. That 18-year-old drunk drivers who kill people are worse than 21-year-old drunk drivers who kill people? Sorry, don't agree.

 

[olllllo]

The obvious solution to me is make the age of majority 21.

Perhaps then we wouldn't be in the [redacted] boondoggle that we're in right now.

 

[rdwj]

The obvoius solution to me is make the age of majority 21.

Perhaps then we wouldn't be in the neo-con boondoggle that we're in right now.

Good lord - let's not get into a political discussion. Seems like whenever the word neo-con rears it's ugly head, the conversation is pretty much over.