Is It Time To Lower The Drinking Age?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 April 2010 - 01:15 AM' timestamp='1271913326' post='2097833']
So are you saying that, in fact, after a single drink a person is rendered incapable of making responsible, moral choices? Are you saying that every single time I have a drink, I am putting myself in a near occasion of sin in which I am liable to make ridiculous, dangerous, irresponsible choices?

Or can a person in fact have a few drinks, then responsibly decide that if they drink anymore they may impair their judgement more than is morally safe, and then consciously choose to stop drinking?
[/quote]


i am saying that anytime a person takes a mind altering substance it reduces their ability to make responsible, moral choices. its simple facts. alcohol alters your mind. when your mind is altered in any way it effects your decison making.

i can't comment on near occasion to sin because i don't like that statement because someone could turn anything and everything into a near occasion to sin. although that's an entirly different debate.

cchoosing to stop drinking after you've had a few drinks does not suddenly make your mind not impaired. fact is, alcohol is a MIND ALTERING substnace when used even as little as one beer. it alters people's minds. it impairs their minds. anything that impairs a person is not good for them.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 12:20 AM' timestamp='1271913653' post='2097837']
i am saying that anytime a person takes a mind altering substance it reduces their ability to make responsible, moral choices. its simple facts. alcohol alters your mind. when your mind is altered in any way it effects your decison making.

i can't comment on near occasion to sin because i don't like that statement because someone could turn anything and everything into a near occasion to sin. although that's an entirly different debate.

cchoosing to stop drinking after you've had a few drinks does not suddenly make your mind not impaired. fact is, alcohol is a MIND ALTERING substnace when used even as little as one beer. it alters people's minds. it impairs their minds. anything that impairs a person is not good for them.
[/quote]
No, choosing to stop after a few drinks means that you are not impaired to the point that your cannot make responsible choices.


It's just common sense. If I can choose to stop drinking, or choose not to drive, or choose not to do any number of stupid things, then I *will* choose not to do those stupid things. Then everyone's fine. End of story.

I'm not interesting in living under Sharia law.

[Nihil Obstat]

Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s always laughter and good red wine.
At least I’ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!

Hilaire Belloc




I hear Belloc was a good guy. Apparently he drank responsibly.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 01:08 AM' timestamp='1271912882' post='2097826']
by your logic, meth realted crimes are only as bad as they are now because its illegal. if meth was made legal, then the crimes would decrease.
[/quote]

While I am not the advocate of the use of a substance as heinous as methamphetamine, the position you stated is correct. Legalization of any item or substance, which has a high public demand attached to it, decreases crime related to the illicit means of obtaining that item or substance.

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.

Let's take away the inherent bias associated with drugs and substitute another item into the equation. Let's say books that promote sexual promiscuity are outlawed. Now, there is an inherent personal danger in promiscuity. On this we are agreed. Someone could be killed as a result of sexually promiscuous choices (i.e. disease). However, there is a large public demand for sex and for those books related to the topic. People who want those items will find a way to get them. When they are no longer legal, then they find illegal means. Crime increases.

In the case of drugs, our culture is saturated with gang warfare, gun violence, drug overdoses, and all manner of mayhem that is related SPECIFICALLY to the fact that drugs are illegal. That doesn't make drugs good. That makes the laws and the way they are enforced poor and ineffectual.

I think that if some drugs were regulated then the crime underworld that has developed to run the drug trade would be destroyed. There is no profit to be made on trafficking legal goods.

Don't try to make this as a pro-drug argument. However, strictly on the merits of the argument, legalizing some drugs would, in fact, decrease crime.

[aalpha1989]

[quote]

[b]
[/b][b]A newmorality has burst upon us with some violence in connection with theproblem of strong drink; and enthusiasts in the matter range from theman who is violently thrown out at 12.30, to the lady who smashesAmerican bars with an axe. In these discussions it is almost alwaysfelt that one very wise and moderate position is to say that wine orsuch stuff should only be drunk as a medicine. With this I shouldventure to disagree with a peculiar ferocity. The one genuinelydangerous and immoral way of drinking wine is to drink it as amedicine. And for this reason: If a man drinks wine in order to obtainpleasure, he is trying to obtain something exceptional, something hedoes not expect every hour of the day, something which, unless he is alittle insane, he will not try to get every hour of the day. But if aman drinks wine in order to obtain health, he is trying to getsomething natural; something, that is, that he ought not to be without;something that he may find it difficult to reconcile himself to beingwithout. The man may not be seduced who has seen the ecstasy of beingecstatic; it is more dazzling to catch a glimpse of the ecstasy ofbeing ordinary. If there were a magic ointment, and we took it to astrong man, and said, "This will enable you to jump off the Monument,"doubtless he would jump off the Monument, but he would not jump off theMonument all day long to the delight of the City. But if we took it toa blind man, saying, "This will enable you to see," he would be under aheavier temptation. It would be hard for him not to rub it on his eyeswhenever he heard the hoof of a noble horse or the birds singing atdaybreak. It is easy to deny one's self festivity; it is difficult todeny one's self normality. Hence comes the fact which every doctorknows, that it is often perilous to give alcohol to the sick even whenthey need it. I need hardly say that I do not mean that I think thegiving of alcohol to the sick for stimulus is necessarilyunjustifiable. But I do mean that giving it to the healthy for fun isthe proper use of it, and a great deal more consistent with health.

The sound rule in the matter would appear to be like many other soundrules - a paradox. Drink because you are happy, but never because youare miserable. Never drink when you are wretched without it, or youwill be like the grey-faced gin-drinker in the slum; but drink when youwould be happy without it, and you will be like the laughing peasant ofItaly. Never drink because you need it, for this is rational drinking,and the way to death and hell. But drink because you do not need it,for this is irrational drinking, and the ancient health of the world.

For more than thirty years the shadow and glory of a great Easternfigure has lain upon our English literature. Fitzgerald's translationof Omar Khayyam concentrated into an immortal poignancy all the darkand drifting hedonism of our time. Of the literary splendour of thatwork it would be merely banal to speak; in few other of the books ofmen has there been anything so combining the gay pugnacity of anepigram with the vague sadness of a song. But of its philosophical,ethical, and religious influence which has been almost as great as itsbrilliancy, I should like to say a word, and that word, I confess, oneof uncompromising hostility. There are a great many things which mightbe said against the spirit of the Rubaiyat, and against its prodigiousinfluence. But one matter of indictment towers ominously above the rest- a genuine disgrace to it, a genuine calamity to us. This is theterrible blow that this great poem has struck against sociability andthe joy of life. Some one called Omar "the sad, glad old Persian." Sadhe is; glad he is not, in any sense of the word whatever. He has been aworse foe to gladness than the Puritans.

A pensive and gracefulOriental lies under the rose-tree with his wine-pot and his scroll ofpoems. It may seem strange that any one's thoughts should, at themoment of regarding him, fly back to the dark bedside where the doctordoles out brandy. It may seem stranger still that they should go backto the grey wastrel shaking with gin in Houndsditch. But a greatphilosophical unity links the three in an evil bond. Omar Khayyam'swine-bibbing is bad, not because it is wine-bibbing. It is bad, andvery bad, because it is medical wine-bibbing. It is the drinking of aman who drinks because he is not happy. His is the wine that shuts outthe universe, not the wine that reveals it. It is not poeticaldrinking, which is joyous and instinctive; it is rational drinking,which is as prosaic as an investment, as unsavoury as a dose ofcamomile. Whole heavens above it, from the point of view of sentiment,though not of style, rises the splendour of some old Englishdrinking-song -

Then pass the bowl, my comrades all, And let the zider vlow.

For this song was caught up by happy men to express the worth of trulyworthy things, of brotherhood and garrulity, and the brief and kindlyleisure of the poor. Of course, the great part of the more stolidreproaches directed against the Omarite morality are as false andbabyish as such reproaches usually are. One critic, whose work I haveread, had the incredible foolishness to call Omar an atheist and amaterialist. It is almost impossible for an Oriental to be either; theEast understands metaphysics too well for that. Of course, the realobjection which a philosophical Christian would bring against thereligion of Omar, is not that he gives no place to God, it is that hegives too much place to God. His is that terrible theism which canimagine nothing else but deity, and which denies altogether theoutlines of human personality and human will.

The ball noquestion makes of Ayes or Noes, But Here or There as strikes the Playergoes; And He that tossed you down into the field, He knows about it all- he knows - he knows.

A Christian thinker such as Augustine orDante would object to this because it ignores free-will, which is thevalour and dignity of the soul. The quarrel of the highest Christianitywith this scepticism is not in the least that the scepticism denies theexistence of God; it is that it denies the existence of man.

Inthis cult of the pessimistic pleasure-seeker the Rubaiyat stands firstin our time; but it does not stand alone. Many of the most brilliantintellects of our time have urged us to the same self-conscioussnatching at a rare delight. Walter Pater said that we were all undersentence of death, and the only course was to enjoy exquisite momentssimply for those moments' sake. The same lesson was taught by the verypowerful and very desolate philosophy of Oscar Wilde. It is the carpediem religion; but the carpe diem religion is not the religion of happypeople, but of very unhappy people. Great joy does not gather therosebuds while it may; its eyes are fixed on the immortal rose whichDante saw. Great joy has in it the sense of immortality; the verysplendour of youth is the sense that it has all space to stretch itslegs in. In all great comic literature, in "Tristram Shandy" or"Pickwick," there is this sense of space and incorruptibility; we feelthe characters are deathless people in an endless tale.

It istrue enough, of course, that a pungent happiness comes chiefly incertain passing moments; but it is not true that we should think ofthem as passing, or enjoy them simply "for those moments' sake." To dothis is to rationalize the happiness, and therefore to destroy it.Happiness is a mystery like religion, and should never be rationalized.Suppose a man experiences a really splendid moment of pleasure. I donot mean something connected with a bit of enamel, I mean somethingwith a violent happiness in it - an almost painful happiness. A man mayhave, for instance, a moment of ecstasy in first love, or a moment ofvictory in battle. The lover enjoys the moment, but precisely not forthe moment's sake. He enjoys it for the woman's sake, or his own sake.The warrior enjoys the moment, but not for the sake of the moment; heenjoys it for the sake of the flag. The cause which the flag stands formay be foolish and fleeting; the love may be calf-love, and last aweek. But the patriot thinks of the flag as eternal; the lover thinksof his love as something that cannot end. These moments are filled witheternity; these moments are joyful because they do not seem momentary.Once look at them as moments after Pater's manner, and they become ascold as Pater and his style. Man cannot love mortal things. He can onlylove immortal things for an instant.

Pater's mistake isrevealed in his most famous phrase. He asks us to burn with a hard,gem-like flame. Flames are never hard and never gem-like - they cannotbe handled or arranged. So human emotions are never hard and nevergem-like; they are always dangerous, like flames, to touch or even toexamine. There is only one way in which our passions can become hardand gem-like, and that is by becoming as cold as gems. No blow then hasever been struck at the natural loves and laughter of men sosterilizing as this carpe diem of the aesthetes. For any kind ofpleasure a totally different spirit is required; a certain shyness, acertain indeterminate hope, a certain boyish expectation. Purity andsimplicity are essential to passions - yes even to evil passions. Evenvice demands a sort of virginity.

Omar's (or Fitzgerald's)effect upon the other world we may let go, his hand upon this world hasbeen heavy and paralyzing. The Puritans, as I have said, are farjollier than he. The new ascetics who follow Thoreau or Tolstoy aremuch livelier company; for, though the surrender of strong drink andsuch luxuries may strike us as an idle negation, it may leave a manwith innumerable natural pleasures, and, above all, with man's naturalpower of happiness. Thoreau could enjoy the sunrise without a cup ofcoffee. If Tolstoy cannot admire marriage, at least he is healthyenough to admire mud. Nature can be enjoyed without even the mostnatural luxuries. A good bush needs no wine. But neither nature norwine nor anything else can be enjoyed if we have the wrong attitudetowards happiness, and Omar (or Fitzgerald) did have the wrong attitudetowards happiness. He and those he has influenced do not see that if weare to be truly gay, we must believe that there is some eternal gaietyin the nature of things. We cannot enjoy thoroughly even apas-de-quatre at a subscription dance unless we believe that the starsare dancing to the same tune. No one can be really hilarious but theserious man. "Wine," says the Scripture, "maketh glad the heart ofman," but only of the man who has a heart. The thing called highspirits is possible only to the spiritual. Ultimately a man cannotrejoice in anything except the nature of things. Ultimately a man canenjoy nothing except religion. Once in the world's history men didbelieve that the stars were dancing to the tune of their temples, andthey danced as men have never danced since. With this old paganeudaemonism the sage of the Rubaiyat has quite as little to do as hehas with any Christian variety. He is no more a Bacchanal than he is asaint. Dionysus and his church was grounded on a serious joie-de-vivrelike that of Walt Whitman. Dionysus made wine, not a medicine, but asacrament. Jesus Christ also made wine, not a medicine, but asacrament. But Omar makes it, not a sacrament, but a medicine. Hefeasts because life is not joyful; he revels because he is not glad."Drink," he says, "for you know not whence you come nor why. Drink, foryou know not when you go nor where. Drink, because the stars are crueland the world as idle as a humming-top. Drink, because there is nothingworth trusting, nothing worth fighting for. Drink, because all thingsare lapsed in a base equality and an evil peace." So he stands offeringus the cup in his hand. And at the high altar of Christianity standsanother figure, in whose hand also is the cup of the vine. "Drink" hesays "for the whole world is as red as this wine, with the crimson ofthe love and wrath of God. Drink, for the trumpets are blowing forbattle and this is the stirrup-cup. Drink, for this my blood of the newtestament that is shed for you. Drink, for I know of whence you comeand why. Drink, for I know of when you go and where."[/b]




[/quote]

Edited April 22, 2010 by aalpha1989

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 April 2010 - 01:23 AM' timestamp='1271913828' post='2097838']
No, choosing to stop after a few drinks means that you are not impaired to the point that your cannot make responsible choices.


It's just common sense. If I can choose to stop drinking, or choose not to drive, or choose not to do any number of stupid things, then I *will* choose not to do those stupid things. Then everyone's fine. End of story.

I'm not interesting in living under Sharia law.
[/quote]



after a few drinks means your impaired. you can say what you want and think what ou want but science backs me up on this. a few drinks makes a person impaired. i understand you like alcohol and is evident on these boards, when people like something or think a certain way, they make every excuse under the sun about why its ok and why its not bad. fact is, alcohol impairs a person's mind. science proves this undeniablly. unless you got some evidence to go against everything science has shown, then you argument fails. your mind is altered after a few drinks. sure, not as altered as a person who drinks 50 beers, but altered none the less. something that alters one's mind is never good for them. something is not good for a person when it alters their mind, their reflexes, their inhibitions, thier decsion making and so on. unless ou got some evidence to back up your claim.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 01:30 AM' timestamp='1271914222' post='2097844']
something that alters one's mind is never good for them. something is not good for a person when it alters their mind, their reflexes, their inhibitions, thier decsion making and so on.
[/quote]


So your position is that anything "mind-altering" is bad? Pain killers? Antidepressants? Cough syrup? All these can have mind-altering effects and yet they are good. They are prescribed by doctors, right?

What about people who become addicted to those substances which are legally prescribed for a legitimate condition? Does that mean that all those substances should be prohibited too?

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 April 2010 - 01:25 AM' timestamp='1271913908' post='2097840']
Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There's always laughter and good red wine.
At least I've always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!

Hilaire Belloc




I hear Belloc was a good guy. Apparently he drank responsibly.
[/quote]

English beers aren't too great. Irish and German ftw.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1271914222' post='2097844']
after a few drinks means your impaired. you can say what you want and think what ou want but science backs me up on this. a few drinks makes a person impaired. i understand you like alcohol and is evident on these boards, when people like something or think a certain way, they make every excuse under the sun about why its ok and why its not bad. fact is, alcohol impairs a person's mind. science proves this undeniablly. unless you got some evidence to go against everything science has shown, then you argument fails. your mind is altered after a few drinks. sure, not as altered as a person who drinks 50 beers, but altered none the less. something that alters one's mind is never good for them. something is not good for a person when it alters their mind, their reflexes, their inhibitions, thier decsion making and so on. unless ou got some evidence to back up your claim.
[/quote]
You're completely missing the point.
The fact of the matter is that [b]I am still able to make moral choices[/b] after a few drinks. I can make the responsible choice of not drinking any more. That is the key here. You seem to be implying that all inhibitions disappear after a single drink, which is simply ridiculous. The process of impairment is both gradual and generally predictable, and if one stays below a certain threshold they are more than able to continue acting responsibly and morally.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 April 2010 - 12:36 AM' timestamp='1271914605' post='2097848']
English beers aren't too great. Irish and German ftw.
[/quote]
I actually don't like beer all that much as a general rule. At least not at this point.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 April 2010 - 06:38 AM' timestamp='1271914691' post='2097850']
I actually don't like beer all that much as a general rule. At least not at this point.
[/quote]
Whiskey's better. (I dislike beer as well, though I can at least tolerate one that my FIL makes).

[Jesus_lol]

to havok.

first off, comparing drinking to pot smoking isnt helping you, because if anything smoking pot is the less dangerous and impairing substance.

secondly, i could drink at least 2 drinks and still reliably be higher functioning than several sober people i know. maybe up to 5 beers.

and yes, making things like marijuana legal(im not saying hard stuff like heroin, though many of the same things apply) would cut crime immensely. and going the opposite way with alchohol will give you gang operated moonshine and smuggling again.

[Maximilianus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 April 2010 - 02:25 AM' timestamp='1271913908' post='2097840']
Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There's always laughter and good red wine.
At least I've always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!

Hilaire Belloc




I hear Belloc was a good guy. Apparently he drank responsibly.
[/quote]

I'm thinking he practiced the lost art of Catholic drinking.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Maximilianus' date='22 April 2010 - 03:04 AM' timestamp='1271923466' post='2097869']
I'm thinking he practiced the lost art of Catholic drinking.
[/quote]
What do you mean, lost?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='22 April 2010 - 01:35 AM' timestamp='1271914548' post='2097847']
So your position is that anything "mind-altering" is bad? Pain killers? Antidepressants? Cough syrup? All these can have mind-altering effects and yet they are good. They are prescribed by doctors, right?

What about people who become addicted to those substances which are legally prescribed for a legitimate condition? Does that mean that all those substances should be prohibited too?
[/quote]


well obviously you ignored my numerous posts with this question addressed in it, so i will say it again. i am ok with mind altering substances if used as medication/prescribed by a doctor.

next time, please take the time to read my numerous posts which explain this very point. thank you.