Is It Time To Lower The Drinking Age?

[elizabeth09]

I want to say that they should either raise the drinking age to 23 or have stores start cheeking I.D.s. I want to say if you do not have you I.D., then you can not but it, no matter what they say.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='23 April 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1272039547' post='2098579']
I like how you ignored the Catechism and what I developed based on that.


M-T, you're awesome!
[/quote]


i didn't quote it because i figured you made a mistake since you were supporting my arguement with 2291. cause it fully supports what ihave been saying.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='23 April 2010 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1272001191' post='2098411']
Nothing in my reply to you was self-righteous. My response was that your comments were uncharitable and that your argument lacked cogency and consistency. That's not self-righteous, that is a statement of opinion. I am perfectly able to disagree with civility and I believe that I can produce numerous persons on PM who can attest to this. If others have been uncharitable to you, take it up with them. I'm not on that list.

Your argument, again, is lacking consistency. What is the purpose for someone drinking a beer? You assume all people drink for pleasure alone. More often than not, drinking alcohol is a form of self-medication. What about the person with mental illness who suffers from depression, yet has no health insurance? Drinking might well be a way that person copes with suffering. How about people with undiagnosed chronic pain? Again, alcohol (or some illegal drugs) can be used as a treatment for those people.

You make the logical fallacy of lumping all users of alcohol and/or drugs into the category of your random frat kid binge drinking themselves into a stupor on a Friday night. That is a poor logical step to take. People use alcohol and drugs for a variety of reasons, some of them for the exact same reasons that other people take medications that have been prescribed for them. Is a cancer patient smoking marijuana to relieve symptoms, because the drugs they need are too expensive for them to afford, morally wrong? According to you, yes. How about if that was, instead, a person suffering from depression who drinks a glass of wine with dinner to make them feel more relaxed? Is that morally wrong as well? Because, if I may refresh you, this is, in fact, what you said:



Illegal for everyone. You said it, not me. My argument was simply a refutation of your blanket statement. You can backtrack and say, oh, but I didn't mean this or that. Yet, that is, in fact, what you said. Either make a clear and thoughtfully phrased statement which clarifies that position, or admit that your initial statement was in error. And you still have yet to address my post on the incongruity of the assessment you made about the criminalization of an activity or substance leading to a decreased crime rate.

I haven't put words in your mouth. The words in your mouth simply did not make consistent sense. It is not a slight against you as a person to dispute your argument. I am sorry if you take it that way.
[/quote]

do you really want to go down the route that alcohol is good self medication for people with out any insurance? that is the most assanine argument in this debate. using alcohol as self medication for a chronic problem is never, NEVER a good idea. no doctor will tell you its a good idea. now your just grasping at straws in this argument. just like you say illegal drugs can be used as self medication. last i checked the catholic church has a specific stance on illegal drug and your going against that stance. this is the biggest joke of an argument. using alcohol or illegal drugs as self medication. its almost not worth arguing about, since its so far out there in left field. i mean seriously, do you honestly support the idea for people without medical insuarance to self medicate with alcohol and illegal drug? do you really support that?

so your taking one comment out of context. fantastic, great job. the comment you took was my very first generalized basic statement on this topic. as the debate continued on, i got more specific. in numerous posts i clarified my points. so you either did NOT read all my posts or you read them and ignored them. which was it? before responding to my post, had you read all of my previous posts on the subject? if you did, then you know what my thoughts were, so why bring up my first post. or if you did not, why jump into the thread without reading all the other posts to get caught up?

i addressed your post about criminization in another post. go read it. its the same thing i would have posted to respond to you, so there was no point in just doing a copy and paste.

oh and just for clarification, not i but the church says not to illegal drugs. they say to follow the laws. they don't give approvals to break the laws because of your income. so again, are you going against catholic teaching, because it seems like it with your stance?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='23 April 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1272082901' post='2099043']
i didn't quote it because i figured you made a mistake since you were supporting my arguement with 2291. cause it fully supports what ihave been saying.
[/quote]
Only through begging the question does CCC 2291 support your argument, and begging the question is a logical fallacy.

By the way, 2290 is the more relevant quotation here.


2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.



2290 only supports your argument if you've pre-supposed that *all* use of alcohol is excessive abuse. This is not supported in the context of the entire quotation, because it is mentioned quite specifically alongside food, tobacco, and medicine, which quite clearly can be used moderately, and indeed in the case of food and medicine, *must* be used moderately. To claim that all use of alcohol is abuse is to attempt to violently force the Catechism into a position that it does not take. It is equivalent to Protestant Scriptural eisegesis, and has no place in Catholic morality.

RE: 2291, nobody here has argued that the use of recreational drugs is good. I certainly have not. For the third or forth time, I have stated earlier that I personally have no logically consistent argument against them. Maybe the Church does. Like I said, I'm working on that issue. So leave that one alone, because it will get us nowhere.

[Marie-Therese]

Where, oh where, to begin.

[quote name='havok579257' date='24 April 2010 - 12:33 AM' timestamp='1272083605' post='2099051']
do you really want to go down the route that alcohol is good self medication for people with out any insurance? that is the most assanine argument in this debate. using alcohol as self medication for a chronic problem is never, NEVER a good idea. no doctor will tell you its a good idea. now your just grasping at straws in this argument. just like you say illegal drugs can be used as self medication. last i checked the catholic church has a specific stance on illegal drug and your going against that stance. this is the biggest joke of an argument. using alcohol or illegal drugs as self medication. its almost not worth arguing about, since its so far out there in left field. i mean seriously, do you honestly support the idea for people without medical insuarance to self medicate with alcohol and illegal drug? do you really support that?[/quote]

Never said I supported any of those things. I said they were possibilities. Your entire argument is based on conjecture, predicated on the idea that a substance which in some fashion alters a person's sensory perceptions is inherently bad. My "[b]asinine[/b]" argument (please note spelling) was not that alcohol or drugs were good self medication. I said they could be used as such. Don't try to make my statements into something that they aren't.

[quote]so your taking one comment out of context. fantastic, great job. the comment you took was my very first generalized basic statement on this topic. as the debate continued on, i got more specific. in numerous posts i clarified my points. so you either did NOT read all my posts or you read them and ignored them. which was it? before responding to my post, had you read all of my previous posts on the subject? if you did, then you know what my thoughts were, so why bring up my first post. or if you did not, why jump into the thread without reading all the other posts to get caught up?[/quote]

As I stated previously, I read the entire thread before posting. That includes all posts made before and after your first post, and before my first post...hence, the entire thread. I have also read all responses since my first post. I think that pretty much covers it.

I did not, in fact, take your quote out of context. As a matter of fact, I copied the entire quote, time stamp and all. Taking something "out of context" means to remove a statement from its surrounding, clarifying statements, thereby rendering it to mean something which its original intent did not mean at all. I took nothing out of context. I simply reminded you of what you said, context and all. If you have decided, since making that statement, that it was an unfortunate blanket statement which did not reflect the totality of your viewpoint, all well and good. Then say that. Don't accuse me of trying to misrepresent you in some way. That is an accusation you're not going to get by on me. You said alcohol should be totally illegal outside worship services. That is an unequivocal, frank statement of belief. If that is what you think, back it up. Otherwise, back off. Don't try and squirm out of an uncomfortable position by claiming that I somehow misrepresented you and that your further statements clarified your position. Nope, sorry. You haven't wavered from that position. All you've managed to do is say if a doctor prescribes something it's generally OK and then argue with Nihil about how much alcohol constitutes being mentally impaired by it.


[quote]i addressed your post about criminization in another post. go read it. its the same thing i would have posted to respond to you, so there was no point in just doing a copy and paste.[/quote]

I apologize that I missed that paragraph in your response to Jesus_lol. However, your statement is just "drugs are bad m'kay and they make people do crime." Do you have statistics or any kind of data that would give credence to your position? All I can tell you is to read any decent history book about the Prohibition period in the United States, and my point is adequately proved. If you have conflicting data, I'd love to see it. I am willing in any case to be proven wrong, if you have the means to do so outside what seems to be simply your opinion.

[quote]
and just for clarification, not i but the church says not to illegal drugs. [/quote]

Uh...ok? I never advocated illegal drugs. As a matter of fact, in one of my previous posts (post 109 for your reference) I said this:

[quote name= 'Marie-Therese']Again, I emphasize: I AM NOT ADVOCATING MAKING METH (OR ANY DRUG) LEGAL. I am simply making a point. It is a logical fallacy to say that simply outlawing something makes crimes related to that thing diminish. The war on drugs is unsuccessful for that very reason...the drugs are illegal, but there is a high demand. Therefore, those who are willing to accept the risks associated with the drug trade are in a position to make large sums of money off those substances. However, their actions are illegal. [/quote]

Where in that do I advocate illegal drug use? Nowhere. NOWHERE.

What I do advocate is the following from the CCC, which Nihil kindly referenced:

[quote]2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, [b]except on strictly therapeutic grounds[/b], is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.
[/quote]

Notice the bolded portion. This was the basis of my position in people using a substance for therapeutic reasons.

[quote]they say to follow the laws. they don't give approvals to break the laws because of your income. so again, are you going against catholic teaching, because it seems like it with your stance?
[/quote]

I never advocated breaking laws. However, if a law exists which in some fashion inhibits a suffering person from obtaining proper care, refer kindly to the following, CCC paragraph 1902:

[quote]1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility":

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence. [/quote]

Please read that carefully and ponder what it means. I, or any other Catholic, am not permitted to break laws simply because I do not like them or do not agree with them. However, if a law perpetrated by a government to which we are subject in the natural order "falls short of right reason, it is said to be an unjust law" and to obey would be acting in accord with violence.

If you'd like to formulate a counter to me that has some sort of reference material, or facts, super. Otherwise your argument is your opinion. That's fine, too. Just don't try to paint me, or anyone else who disagrees with your position, as some kind of lush or drug-sympathizer or, even worse, a disobedient Catholic. I can tolerate a lot of things. That last one gets my Irish up. I take that flag under my name very, very seriously. Impugning my character is not a way to get your point across.

[Nihil Obstat]

Havok, can you provide any Scriptural, Magisterial, or Patristic support for your position that all consumption of alcohol is reckless, irresponsible, and immoral? Even just a little bit?

I just have this strange feeling that God wouldn't have picked wine to play such an integral role in salvation history if all non-liturgical use of it constitutes grave sin. For instance, at the Wedding at Cana, were all the guests there including the Apostles and Mary participating in irresponsible immorality in their (obviously rather large) consumption of wine? Obviously there was wine at the Last Supper too, and I'm willing to bet that they drank it even outside of the context of the first Eucharist.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 09:49 AM' timestamp='1271954999' post='2098064']
you prove my point right here. you say you can have up to five beers and still be functioning at a reliable higher level. this is what happens when people drink. they always think they are less impaired then they actually are. science backs up my claims, unless you have some some other evidence we are not aware of.

making something legal, a drug would make more crime. simple as this, many illlegal drugs are not used by the general population because it is illegal. by makinging it legal your making it avaliable to the general population. crime increases because of the drugs reaction on the human body. its simple math. the less people which have access to a mind altering drug, the less crimes that will be comittied. the more access someone has to it, the more crimes comitted.

your arguement is the same agruement people make when they want to make something legal. they say it would be cause less crime and be better regulated if it was legal. its the same argument for people who want legalized prostituion, legalized drugs, legalized assisted suicide and so on. exposing something to the general public would increase the crime rate 100 fold.
[/quote]

the 5 beers thing was a joke. there is really no perceptible change in the way people act after one drink. or two even. at the rate livers process alchohol i could have a drink once an hour all day and no one would notice me acting differently.

and no, you are wrong. smoking pot doesnt make you commit crimes. the only way smoking pot makes you commit crimes is if you think the act of smoking pot is itself a crime. the crimes you commit with illegal drug dealing and buying would be mostly eliminated if the substance wasnt illegal. think prohibition era. istead of a few people drinking beers, they now have to deal with the mob and other violent criminals, or undertake the risky act of making the substance themselves, with risky homemade stills.
that all went away when prohibition stopped. prove me wrong.

same would with making pot legal. then no one would have to deal with mexican drug cartels,individual drug dealers in shady situations, and since it was legal, instead of solving trade disputes and bad business with drive by shootings, you could take your complaints to the police.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='24 April 2010 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1272087758' post='2099087']
Havok, can you provide any Scriptural, Magisterial, or Patristic support for your position that all consumption of alcohol is reckless, irresponsible, and immoral? Even just a little bit?

I just have this strange feeling that God wouldn't have picked wine to play such an integral role in salvation history if all non-liturgical use of it constitutes grave sin. For instance, at the Wedding at Cana, were all the guests there including the Apostles and Mary participating in irresponsible immorality in their (obviously rather large) consumption of wine? Obviously there was wine at the Last Supper too, and I'm willing to bet that they drank it even outside of the context of the first Eucharist.
[/quote]


dude, other than that one passage, i never once stated their was scriptural evidence for my thoughts. i said it was my feelings on the subject. where did i ever say other than that one comment, that the ccc aggree'd with my decision?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='24 April 2010 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1272125215' post='2099210']
dude, other than that one passage, i never once stated their was scriptural evidence for my thoughts. i said it was my feelings on the subject. where did i ever say other than that one comment, that the ccc aggree'd with my decision?
[/quote]
Well in that case I'm glad that you will at least admit that the Church does not support your position (because She certainly supports ours).

Edited April 24, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='24 April 2010 - 12:26 PM' timestamp='1272126378' post='2099219']
Well in that case I'm glad that you will at least admit that the Church does not support your position (because She certainly supports ours).
[/quote]


the church supports whatever idea's you want her to support for you. as evidence by the way you debate. so whatever.

fact is, i think a certain way and last i checked its not a sin or goes against the catholic church to think the way i think. no matter what you would have people believe.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='24 April 2010 - 01:20 AM' timestamp='1272086448' post='2099080']
Where, oh where, to begin.



Never said I supported any of those things. I said they were possibilities. Your entire argument is based on conjecture, predicated on the idea that a substance which in some fashion alters a person's sensory perceptions is inherently bad. My "[b]asinine[/b]" argument (please note spelling) was not that alcohol or drugs were good self medication. I said they could be used as such. Don't try to make my statements into something that they aren't.



As I stated previously, I read the entire thread before posting. That includes all posts made before and after your first post, and before my first post...hence, the entire thread. I have also read all responses since my first post. I think that pretty much covers it.

I did not, in fact, take your quote out of context. As a matter of fact, I copied the entire quote, time stamp and all. Taking something "out of context" means to remove a statement from its surrounding, clarifying statements, thereby rendering it to mean something which its original intent did not mean at all. I took nothing out of context. I simply reminded you of what you said, context and all. If you have decided, since making that statement, that it was an unfortunate blanket statement which did not reflect the totality of your viewpoint, all well and good. Then say that. Don't accuse me of trying to misrepresent you in some way. That is an accusation you're not going to get by on me. You said alcohol should be totally illegal outside worship services. That is an unequivocal, frank statement of belief. If that is what you think, back it up. Otherwise, back off. Don't try and squirm out of an uncomfortable position by claiming that I somehow misrepresented you and that your further statements clarified your position. Nope, sorry. You haven't wavered from that position. All you've managed to do is say if a doctor prescribes something it's generally OK and then argue with Nihil about how much alcohol constitutes being mentally impaired by it.




I apologize that I missed that paragraph in your response to Jesus_lol. However, your statement is just "drugs are bad m'kay and they make people do crime." Do you have statistics or any kind of data that would give credence to your position? All I can tell you is to read any decent history book about the Prohibition period in the United States, and my point is adequately proved. If you have conflicting data, I'd love to see it. I am willing in any case to be proven wrong, if you have the means to do so outside what seems to be simply your opinion.



Uh...ok? I never advocated illegal drugs. As a matter of fact, in one of my previous posts (post 109 for your reference) I said this:



Where in that do I advocate illegal drug use? Nowhere. NOWHERE.

What I do advocate is the following from the CCC, which Nihil kindly referenced:



Notice the bolded portion. This was the basis of my position in people using a substance for therapeutic reasons.



I never advocated breaking laws. However, if a law exists which in some fashion inhibits a suffering person from obtaining proper care, refer kindly to the following, CCC paragraph 1902:



Please read that carefully and ponder what it means. I, or any other Catholic, am not permitted to break laws simply because I do not like them or do not agree with them. However, if a law perpetrated by a government to which we are subject in the natural order "falls short of right reason, it is said to be an unjust law" and to obey would be acting in accord with violence.

If you'd like to formulate a counter to me that has some sort of reference material, or facts, super. Otherwise your argument is your opinion. That's fine, too. Just don't try to paint me, or anyone else who disagrees with your position, as some kind of lush or drug-sympathizer or, even worse, a disobedient Catholic. I can tolerate a lot of things. That last one gets my Irish up. I take that flag under my name very, very seriously. Impugning my character is not a way to get your point across.
[/quote]


i am not even going to bother responding when your still trying to ignore evertything i posted and use my first post, a generalized post to try and make yourself look like your winning the debate. you obviously did not read any of my previous posts because you fail to recognize what i said in those posts. you completely ignore it so to make your arguement seem like its right. when you take the time to actually read my posts after my first one, then get back to me and i will answer your posts. until then, i am not going to bother responding to a person who ignores what i wrote in numerous posts.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='24 April 2010 - 12:05 PM' timestamp='1272128730' post='2099231']
the church supports whatever idea's you want her to support for you. as evidence by the way you debate. so whatever.

fact is, i think a certain way and last i checked its not a sin or goes against the catholic church to think the way i think. no matter what you would have people believe.
[/quote]
You can personally choose not to drink. That's never been debated. For some people I'm sure that's the most responsible choice, for instance, a recovering alcoholic. What you cannot do, without being at odds with the Church, is tell other people that their drinking is by nature irresponsible and immoral. To say that is to contradict the Church and to judge the soul of another person. What you also will not be able to do is prove that alcohol should not be consumed recreationally, because again, the Church does not support that, and to present such an argument ultimately leads back to my former point, as was nicely demonstrated throughout this thread.

As well, I'm really not sure what you mean by "as evidence by the way [I] debate." For one thing it (and its preceding sentence) doesn't makes no sense grammatically. Secondly, I think I've put forward a fairly solid case based on Scripture and Magisterial teaching. If you've got a problem with either of those sources, then maybe we've got deeper problems than this particular debate.

Have a nice Saturday.

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' date='24 April 2010 - 01:05 PM' timestamp='1272128730' post='2099231']
the church supports whatever idea's you want her to support for you. as evidence by the way you debate. so whatever.

fact is, i think a certain way and last i checked its not a sin or goes against the catholic church to think the way i think. no matter what you would have people believe.
[/quote]
Strunk and White are spinning in their graves.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Winchester' date='24 April 2010 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1272130126' post='2099241']
Strunk and White are spinning in their graves.
[/quote]
I had to look that one up.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='24 April 2010 - 01:21 PM' timestamp='1272129667' post='2099236']
You can personally choose not to drink. That's never been debated. For some people I'm sure that's the most responsible choice, for instance, a recovering alcoholic. What you cannot do, without being at odds with the Church, is tell other people that their drinking is by nature irresponsible and immoral. To say that is to contradict the Church and to judge the soul of another person. What you also will not be able to do is prove that alcohol should not be consumed recreationally, because again, the Church does not support that, and to present such an argument ultimately leads back to my former point, as was nicely demonstrated throughout this thread.

As well, I'm really not sure what you mean by "as evidence by the way [I] debate." For one thing it (and its preceding sentence) doesn't makes no sense grammatically. Secondly, I think I've put forward a fairly solid case based on Scripture and Magisterial teaching. If you've got a problem with either of those sources, then maybe we've got deeper problems than this particular debate.

Have a nice Saturday.
[/quote]


judge the soul of another person? last i checked telling someone something is wrong is not judging their soul. i never stated if you drink you go to hell or you will not make it to heaven. saying something is irresponsible is not judging one's soul. its it wrong to tell someone thier dressed immodestly, or it that considered juding ones soul.

the church does not disgaree with me. show me where the church says one must not only drink alcohol but must disagree with any law that outlaws drinking. that you must be in favor of alcohol consuption. once again your twisting things to make your argument. its the same with people in the ww2 thread. they are twisting chruch teaching to fit their argument.

do you honestly think i have ever cared if my sentances are grammactically correct? its a weak argument to attack grammer in an internt debate board. oh and here we are again insnuating i have problesm with the church and her teaching. this is an example of what i mean by the way you debate. turning something i said into a round about way to attack me or to fit your point.

at the end of the day the church never states that i must approve of alcohol. that i must never agree for it to me made illegal and that i am going against its teachings if i think so. so until you can show me evidence, my stance will not change.