Drinking Age Discussion

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Who's Marvin?

Some white catholic dude who posts here sometimes. Decent sort, except he hates all blacks...

[Jacque67 7,328]

Fixed that for you. No charge.

Well unless you don't eat anything , those calories from alcohol will all be excess. Plus too much sugar in the blood stream leading to long term health problems.

On another note, I used to know a really skinny guy who would have a couple of pints of Guiness a day and nothing else. On Fridays as a treat he would eat some raw steak!!!!

[Mark88 184]

Growing up in Bavaria, beer was pretty much part of the culture. Legal age for beer and wine is 16, everything else is 18. Eventhough when going to a restaurant, beeing 13 and ordering a shandy when your parents were with you never was a problem.

I also think a lower drinking would take off the taboo feeling of it. But parents would have to educate the children more about the bad side of alcohol (like mine did and schools also did alot, too).

[mota bhai 2,675]

... he hates all blacks...

Eh, don't we all. I'm so glad everyone on this forum is white. It's liberating.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Who's Marvin?

Some white catholic dude who posts here sometimes. Decent sort, except he hates all blacks...

Eh, don't we all. I'm so glad everyone on this forum is white. It's liberating.

As soon as I get my Egg and I on, I'm going to travel to each of you and cut you. Have a nice day.

[Teddy B 17,252]

You seem to be arguing one of the major points of anti-prohibition: the law doesn't stop people who want to drink. What it does, literally in your case, is to drive it underground.

If you want a high murder rate, fantastical profits in organized crime, corrupt police who take money in protection rackets and injustice in enforcement of laws - bring on prohibition. The nation did that already and saw how letting the do-gooders run the law brought about the kind of organized crime capable of destroying society.

I don't drink a drop of alcohol ever, but can see how prohibition causes more problems than it solves so I am not going to try imposing my own sobriety on everyone else in society. The hypocrisy of elders doing the opposite of what they are saying too - God, what more disgusting example can we serve to our kids and prove they shouldn't listen to us. The biggest problems we have in the USA are prescription drug abuse and legal alcohol consumption.

I have read this post 3 times and I fail to see how it relates to what I posted. Are you sure you meant to quote me in your reply?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Who's Marvin?

If he was not black you would know. You are a racist

[GandD 5,966]

Prolly

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

As soon as I get my Egg and I on, I'm going to travel to each of you and cut you. Have a nice day.

Reminds me of someone. Who was it that served in the military many years ago? And liked to cut men and boys, often traveling to do so?

.

.

.

Oh yeah, wasn't that Jeffrey Dahmer???

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Reminds me of someone. Who was it that served in the military many years ago? And liked to cut men and boys, often traveling to do so?

.

.

.

Oh yeah, wasn't that Jeffrey Dahmer???

You're going to get stabbed, with a twist, because I'm a nice guy.

[rlogan 2,036]

I have read this post 3 times and I fail to see how it relates to what I posted. Are you sure you meant to quote me in your reply?

Well that certainly speaks to the intellect of at least one person on the side of prohibition.

That's a pretty cogent point: a simpleton figures that all you have to do is make something illegal, people will stop doing it, and there will be no other consequences. It doesn't take a lot of savvy to think beyond that. Murder is not only illegal, but it can get you the death penalty and yet people are murdered every day. Especially in places where guns are illegal, and they're murdered with those illegal guns.

So the question isn't the simpleton's version of legal = everyone does it vs. illegal = nobody does it. The question is whether the effects of the law pass a cost-benefit criteria to society on balance. In the case of murder, sure - because you get those people off the street and even though incarceration is expensive it is worth the cost. But the costs associated with even partial prohibition just aren't worth it. We have a number of unsolved murders, robberies, and rape here and yet there are police engaged in all sorts of ridiculous pursuits, like spying on school kids smoking off campus, pulling housewives over for expired registrations, or expired parking meters etc. They are doing undercover stings trying to see if they can buy alcohol or cigarettes without the clerk asking for ID - what a stupid waste of resources when rapists and murderers are running loose.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Well that certainly speaks to the intellect of at least one person on the side of prohibition.

That's a pretty cogent point: a simpleton figures that all you have to do is make something illegal, people will stop doing it, and there will be no other consequences. It doesn't take a lot of savvy to think beyond that. Murder is not only illegal, but it can get you the death penalty and yet people are murdered every day. Especially in places where guns are illegal, and they're murdered with those illegal guns.

So the question isn't the simpleton's version of legal = everyone does it vs. illegal = nobody does it. The question is whether the effects of the law pass a cost-benefit criteria to society on balance. In the case of murder, sure - because you get those people off the street and even though incarceration is expensive it is worth the cost. But the costs associated with even partial prohibition just aren't worth it. We have a number of unsolved murders, robberies, and rape here and yet there are police engaged in all sorts of ridiculous pursuits, like spying on school kids smoking off campus, pulling housewives over for expired registrations, or expired parking meters etc. They are doing undercover stings trying to see if they can buy alcohol or cigarettes without the clerk asking for ID - what a stupid waste of resources when rapists and murderers are running loose.

I was correct, you are lost and confused. It's ok, there will be other threads with shiny objects.

[Peikko 1,575]

You seem to be arguing one of the major points of anti-prohibition: the law doesn't stop people who want to drink. What it does, literally in your case, is to drive it underground.

If you want a high murder rate, fantastical profits in organized crime, corrupt police who take money in protection rackets and injustice in enforcement of laws - bring on prohibition. The nation did that already and saw how letting the do-gooders run the law brought about the kind of organized crime capable of destroying society.

I don't drink a drop of alcohol ever, but can see how prohibition causes more problems than it solves so I am not going to try imposing my own sobriety on everyone else in society. The hypocrisy of elders doing the opposite of what they are saying too - God, what more disgusting example can we serve to our kids and prove they shouldn't listen to us. The biggest problems we have in the USA are prescription drug abuse and legal alcohol consumption.

The only people I know that seem to be duty bound to tell you that they do not drink are alcoholics in recovery and these people have an extraordinary relationship with alcohol and people who do drink. The people I know who are not interested in drinking never mention how little they drink. Just an observation.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Well that certainly speaks to the intellect of at least one person on the side of prohibition.

That's a pretty cogent point: a simpleton figures that all you have to do is make something illegal, people will stop doing it, and there will be no other consequences. It doesn't take a lot of savvy to think beyond that. Murder is not only illegal, but it can get you the death penalty and yet people are murdered every day. Especially in places where guns are illegal, and they're murdered with those illegal guns.

So the question isn't the simpleton's version of legal = everyone does it vs. illegal = nobody does it. The question is whether the effects of the law pass a cost-benefit criteria to society on balance. In the case of murder, sure - because you get those people off the street and even though incarceration is expensive it is worth the cost. But the costs associated with even partial prohibition just aren't worth it. We have a number of unsolved murders, robberies, and rape here and yet there are police engaged in all sorts of ridiculous pursuits, like spying on school kids smoking off campus, pulling housewives over for expired registrations, or expired parking meters etc. They are doing undercover stings trying to see if they can buy alcohol or cigarettes without the clerk asking for ID - what a stupid waste of resources when rapists and murderers are running loose.

I get what you are saying, and I agree. Of course I drink a litre of sake a day so what do I know (j/k on the litre bit...i probably have 2 12 oz beers a day or a typical carafe of sake which holds maybe 8-10oz)

[SMR 368]

In Russia, it's easy for young teens and even pre-teens to get alcohol and for the most part it's a terrible thing. 12 and 14 year olds get plastered in the streets and destroy their bodies. It's not just a question of emotional and mental maturity, but also physical maturity. Extreme alcohol consumption screws up 12 year-olds more than 21 year-olds and it has little to do with judgment.

Also, people don't really drink because it's taboo. If that were the case, 22 year-olds would just stop drinking. I understand that banning something can caused organized crime. But making it legal doesn't stop people from using it. In fact, shockingly, making things legal usually results in more people doing them.