Drinking Age Discussion

[rlogan 2,036]

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.

Lol. Guilt-tripping is not an argument. It is an attempt at bullying people with emotional attacks. "Just" as in "Just an observation" is called a minimizer: I'm not really making this malicious attack here because I am using the word "just".

That is why you can't apply this personal attack logically to the argument at hand. It draws no conclusion with respect to the subject, and that's why prohibition was reversed so decisively when the USA tried it: because the prohibitionists turned out to be the ones that could not reason.

Bringing up drinking.... in a discussion about drinking. My, how far out of your way you are willing to go in painting other people as crazy. Just like your other thread calling the duly elected officials of Miami "mad". You don't do much in the way of reasoning, but a lot in the way of name-calling.

[GandD 5,966]

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.

You think a law is ever conceived to outlaw something in the hope that it will decrease something? Are you suggesting laws with less than 100% success are pointless?

[rlogan 2,036]

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.

I lived in Russia for a school semester and did both academic and sports exchanges for a few years, spending about a month each time. My God, the social pressure to drink was incredible. I finally learned to tell them it was my religion. That shut them up whereas no other explanation would keep them from badgering me. I have been to a lot of countries and never experienced the pressure to drink like I did in Russia.

You are not making any coherent argument here. It seems to be that "alcohol is easy to get" so that is why there is so much underage drinking in Russia. Alcohol is easy to get anywhere. Even in the deepest jungles of the Amazon you can whip up a batch with zero education or money, and they make plenty of it. Even in jails of America where it is not only illegal but highly policed they make plenty. What is different about Russia is not how easy it is to get, but the culture and socioeconomics. It is illegal to sell alcohol to minors in Russia. The fact it doesn't stop them from getting it, just like in the USA, ought to cause a thinking person to look beyond the terribly simplistic "it should be illegal" thinking and deal instead with the social problems underlying alcohol abuse.

One of the things prohibitionists do is practice denial. Kids can tell us that alcohol, cigarettes or any number of other things have an allure because of the taboo nature and the prohibitionist will deny it even though the kids admit so themselves. Sure, it is not true for a lot of kids. Like me. I didn't do it. Nor smoke. But I acknowledge that others do. I think what upsets prohibitionists is anything that makes the world more complicated than this naiive belief system.

[rlogan 2,036]

You think a law is ever conceived to outlaw something in the hope that it will decrease something? Are you suggesting laws with less than 100% success are pointless?

Those are obviously rhetorical questions, meaning you had no intentions of listening to an answer before you asked them. You've already proven to have no inkling about cost-benefit analysis.

It is also an extremely manipulative way to frame it: "less than 100% success". Over 70% of minors have tried alcohol despite it being illegal. Same thing with underage sex, underage smoking pot, or whatever - we are not talking about 99% success or 98% success - we are talking about laws not stopping people from doing it if they want to.

So instead of dealing with the reality, you try to frame a false image of me being against something that is 99% effective. If you were honest instead of deceitful with this kind of manipulative framing, you would be acknowledging the reality. But you don't even want to look up such statistics because reality is harder to deal with intellectually than the simpleton's view of

making it illegal = 99% won't do it.

[GandD 5,966]

Those are obviously rhetorical questions, meaning you had no intentions of listening to an answer before you asked them. You've already proven to have no inkling about cost-benefit analysis.

It is also an extremely manipulative way to frame it: "less than 100% success". Over 70% of minors have tried alcohol despite it being illegal. Same thing with underage sex, underage smoking pot, or whatever - we are not talking about 99% success or 98% success - we are talking about laws not stopping people from doing it if they want to.

So instead of dealing with the reality, you try to frame a false image of me being against something that is 99% effective. If you were honest instead of deceitful with this kind of manipulative framing, you would be acknowledging the reality. But you don't even want to look up such statistics because reality is harder to deal with intellectually than the simpleton's view of

making it illegal = 99% won't do it.

I wondered if you would be able to discuss something in a reasonable tone. I guess not. Now tell me what I really meant and call me a simpleton or something.....again.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Those are obviously rhetorical questions, meaning you had no intentions of listening to an answer before you asked them. You've already proven to have no inkling about cost-benefit analysis.

It is also an extremely manipulative way to frame it: "less than 100% success". Over 70% of minors have tried alcohol despite it being illegal. Same thing with underage sex, underage smoking pot, or whatever - we are not talking about 99% success or 98% success - we are talking about laws not stopping people from doing it if they want to.

So instead of dealing with the reality, you try to frame a false image of me being against something that is 99% effective. If you were honest instead of deceitful with this kind of manipulative framing, you would be acknowledging the reality. But you don't even want to look up such statistics because reality is harder to deal with intellectually than the simpleton's view of

making it illegal = 99% won't do it.

So laws restricting highway speeds are most certainly out, yes? After all, just about every driver has disobeyed prescribed speeds at some point or another.

[Sousuke 1,214]

So laws restricting highway speeds are most certainly out, yes? After all, just about every driver has disobeyed prescribed speeds at some point or another.

Highway speeds are more like physiological behavioral controls in my opinion. IE. you set the speed at 45 knowing people will generally stay under 55 as a result.

In a way thats what the 21 law tries to do too, make it socially unacceptable to drink below 21. Except people generally won't follow that.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Sousuke

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

That's actually very true. Same deal with smokers.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Those are obviously rhetorical questions, meaning you had no intentions of listening to an answer before you asked them. You've already proven to have no inkling about cost-benefit analysis.

It is also an extremely manipulative way to frame it: "less than 100% success". Over 70% of minors have tried alcohol despite it being illegal. Same thing with underage sex, underage smoking pot, or whatever - we are not talking about 99% success or 98% success - we are talking about laws not stopping people from doing it if they want to.

So instead of dealing with the reality, you try to frame a false image of me being against something that is 99% effective. If you were honest instead of deceitful with this kind of manipulative framing, you would be acknowledging the reality. But you don't even want to look up such statistics because reality is harder to deal with intellectually than the simpleton's view of

making it illegal = 99% won't do it.

I don't believe in prohibition of alcohol, but I do believe in stiffer sentences for alcohol-related crimes - whether that involves jail time, court mandated alcohol awareness classes or recovery clinics.

What's wrong with that?

I wondered if you would be able to discuss something in a reasonable tone. I guess not. Now tell me what I really meant and call me a simpleton or something.....again.

Calling someone a simpleton should be enough to get someone suspended. Apparently.

[slim 1,530]

Here we have yet another law designed to protect people from themselves. Laws shouldn't be made to limit our freedoms. They should only be made to regulate the unwanted infringement of our rights by others.

If people (of any age) want to get shnockered, they should be allowed to do it. But the moment they do something dumb because they're shnockered, then we have a problem. The state of their shnockeredness is irrelevant.

At present, we have laws against being under the influence of alcohol. You don't have to do anything otherwise illegal - simply possessing it in your system is enough. I believe that to be a violation of our liberty.

DUI laws are a glaring example of this. Simply driving your car in an otherwise safe manner, while under the influence of alcohol, is a violation of the law. Compare that to not wearing your seat belt. You're not harming anyone else on the road yet it's still illegal. A cop on a motorcycle (who wears no seatbelt) can kidnap you, by force, for not wearing your seatbelt. To keep you safe.

Somewhere along the way we forgot what liberty was all about. We wanted to protect ourselves from each other and then someone had the bright idea that we should be protected from ourselves.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well there has to be some objective standsrd to DUI laws other than "He had a few drinks but I didn't think he was pissed your honour"

[slim 1,530]

Well there has to be some objective standsrd to DUI laws other than "He had a few drinks but I didn't think he was pissed your honour"

Agreed. Lets start with an actual infraction. Something like causing an accident.

At present, simply operating a vehicle is illegal. Here in Ohio, possessing a gun while intoxicated (at all) is illegal. (Though in the neighboring state of Indiana it doesn't matter at all.) I had the discussion with my wife (who likes to get drunk in the park or whatever) about anything at all that happens being magnified because she's "under the influence of alcohol." The scenario I put out there was one of her and her friends swinging on the swings. Say a kid ran under them and was injured. They'd probably be charged with a crime of some type - not because they actually did something but because they're automatically at fault due to being under the influence of alcohol.

When we take a sip of that potion we waive our rights to be sovereign and immediately become at fault in any incident. I doubt our founders would agree with that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It should be illegal because you have the potential to cause an accident. Everyone is held to the same standard.

[slim 1,530]

Every single driver out there has the potential to cause an accident. Only the ones under the influence of alcohol are held to the higher standard.

Well, so are the folks not wearing their seatbelts but that's not really the topic. On that note though, does not wearing a seatbelt put someone else at greater risk?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well yeah. If you drink and drive you're more likely to cause an accident. Hence you get jailed.

So what is the point you're trying to make?