22
   

Should the drinking age (U.S.) be lower?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 06:04 am
@boomerang,
We did not create government to protect us from our own poor judgment.
We created it to protect us from each other or from aliens.

We did not grant it authority to control what we can eat or drink.
It has those powers only by USURPATION.

What any person eats or drinks is a PERSONAL MATTER,
in which government has no rightful say, as to any person of any age.
The best law in the matter is NO law, at all.

In your case, what u give Mo to eat or to drink is your private concern.





David
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 11:45 am
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
I've had quite enough of every law designed to protect people from themselves.


You and Hawkeye both, Bill. Like two peas in a pod, you guys are.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 11:49 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
We can thank MADD and weak-kneed, tipping judges for the ridiculous age limit on drinking.

...

I don't blame MADD, but I do blame public officials.


The kind of consistency of thought that you are famous for, Finn. Those would be those judges who legislate from the bench to pick up some extra pocket money, right?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 11:58 am
@JTT,
Quote:
You and Hawkeye both, Bill. Like two peas in a pod, you guys are.


David is with us too, he just wrote again about that yesterday.

It is much more than laws designed to protect people from their own stupidity and actions, we have gone deeply into laws that tell people what is OK to believe and what is not ok to Believe, what can be said and what can not be said.

When David says that the state has Usurped its authority he is exactly right, and we should not let this abuse of the individual stand. My Zen socialism depends upon each person being fully formed to free to voluntarily choose to work towards the collective effort. This police state thing we have going, promoted by feminists and others who want to control what we because they have no faith in their ability to convince people to voluntarily follow them, has got to go.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 12:54 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
You and Hawkeye both, Bill. Like two peas in a pod, you guys are.
hawkeye10 wrote:
David is with us too, he just wrote again about that yesterday.

It is much more than laws designed to protect people from their own stupidity and actions, we have gone deeply into laws that tell people what is OK to believe and what is not ok to Believe, what can be said and what can not be said.

When David says that the state has Usurped its authority he is exactly right, and we should not let this abuse of the individual stand. My Zen socialism depends upon each person being fully formed to free to voluntarily choose to work towards the collective effort. This police state thing we have going, promoted by feminists and others who want to control what we because they have no faith in their ability to convince people to voluntarily follow them, has got to go.
The thing about tolerating USURPATION
is that once government gets away with it,
it becomes habitual, and we have no Constitutional restraints
on government and it moves toward having a Stalin, a Hitler or a Saddam of unlimited authority.

Personal freedom and the domestic power of government are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 01:44 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
The thing about tolerating USURPATION
is that once government gets away with it,
it becomes habitual, and we have no Constitutional restraints
on government and it moves toward having a Stalin, a Hitler or a Saddam of unlimited authority.


You are completely, 100%, unequivocably, totally, without a doubt, absolutely bonkers!
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 01:54 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
You are completely, 100%, unequivocably, totally, without a doubt, absolutely bonkers!
How often do controlling authorities, be it a church or a state, voluntarily give up jurisdiction? Organizations once empowered have the urge to perpetuate that power, they dont give it up unless they are not given a choice about the matter.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 01:56 pm
In Canada the drinking age is 19 except for Quebec @ 18, so if it's lowered cross-border drinking will reduced; on the other hand perhaps Canadian alcohol exports to the US would increase.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 02:02 pm
@Chumly,
I believe it's;

BC 19
AB 18
SK19
MB18
ON19
QB18

The rest ???
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 02:03 pm
@Chumly,
Quote:
so if it's lowered cross-border drinking will reduced


Would "so if it's lowered cross-border drinking will be reduced" also be suitable, Chumly?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 02:09 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
You are completely, 100%, unequivocably, totally, without a doubt, absolutely bonkers!
hawkeye10 wrote:
How often do controlling authorities, be it a church or a state, voluntarily give up jurisdiction?
Organizations once empowered have the urge to perpetuate that power,
they dont give it up unless they are not given a choice about the matter.
That is obviously true.





David
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 02:12 pm
@JTT,
Where did my beagle?
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 04:17 am
One of the issues with alcohol being consumed by young people is, the decision making part of the brain doesn't fully mature until somewhere between 21-25 years of age. Talk to any police in a place that has a legal drinking age of 18 years, and they'll tell you that the vast majority of their alcohol related problems come from the youngest age bracket.

Binge drinking may occur at young ages, and that in itself is a problem, but assault related problems requiring most govt resources (ie police), mostly occur where a large amount of intoxicated strangers are in the same place at the one time (ie. usually at licensed premises)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/28/2021 at 02:54:45