Is It Time To Lower The Drinking Age?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 April 2010 - 01:36 AM' timestamp='1271914609' post='2097849']
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.
[/quote]


i am stating anything that alters one's mind is not a good thing. even one beer alters someone's mental status. sure, not to the degree of say 20 beers, but it still alters a person's mind. sorry, but when you alter a person's mind and it effects it negatively like i posted above, its not a good thing.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 April 2010 - 03:33 AM' timestamp='1271921613' post='2097868']
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.
[/quote]


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.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 11:41 AM' timestamp='1271954487' post='2098058']
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.
[/quote]
Are they fundamentally good things, or fundamentally evil things?


If they are fundamentally evil, then it is logical that there use for any reason is also evil.

If they are fundamentally good, then it is logical that their proper use is also good, even given that their abuse is evil, as is abuse of all created things.

So unless your argument is that alcohol is fundamentally evil (which is a Protestant fundamentalist argument, not Catholic argument), we've got a bit of a problem.

So then the question becomes "what is proper use?" For that, I think reading the august Mr. Chesterton's essay would be a good start.


Here's what the Catechism has to say:
2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the [b]abuse[/b] 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.


The Catechism talks about the *abuse* of alcohol. Not moderate consumption.




[quote]The weak arguments from the Bible used by fundamentalists to oppose all alcohol use whatsoever collapse upon even cursory examination, in my opinion. They try to assert that the biblical "wine" is merely unfermented grape juice. The term "strong drink, " however, in contrast to "wine," is seen, e.g., in passages such as Lev 10:9, Num 6:3, Deut 14:26, 29:6, Jud 13:4,7,14, 1 Sam 1:15, Prov 31:4, Mic 2:11 (cf. Prov 20:1, 31:6, Is 5:11,22, 24:9, 28:7, 56:12, Luke 1:15). This Hebrew word is shekar, defined by Strong's Concordance (word #7941) as "intoxicant, i.e., intensely alcoholic liquor - strong drink." Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon (1st ed., 1847; reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1979) likewise defines it as

strong drink, intoxicating liquor, whether wine, Nu 28:7, or intoxicating drink like wine, made from barley . . ., or distilled from honey or dates. It is often distinguished from wine . . . (p. 823)
Note that God doesn't outright forbid this "strong drink" as immoral in and of itself. It may be avoided (along with wine) by some for fasting or ascetic (voluntary self-denial) purposes (as in Lev 10:9, Num 6:3, and Deut 29:6), but that is not a sweeping prohibition. In fact, in Deut 14:26, Moses (see Deut 1:1) says in so many words that it is perfectly acceptable to drink it. The writer of Proverbs advises giving "strong drink" to the dying, and "wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more" (31:6-7; NRSV). This is similar to the Apostle Paul's suggestion to "take a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments" (1 Timothy 5:23; NRSV).
In many of these passages, it is implied, however, that excessive drinking of this intoxicant, or drunkenness, is a bad thing, characteristic of the wicked. Thus, the Bible (and the Catholic Church, following it) condemns drunkenness, but not all use of alcohol or wine (e.g., Deut 21:20, Prov 20:1, 21:17, 23:20-21,29-35, 26:9, Is 5:11-12, Rom 13:13, 1 Cor 5:11, 6:10, Gal 5:21, 1 Tim 3:3,8, Titus 1:7, 2:3, 1 Peter 4:3).

Many OT passages praise wine (e.g., Jud 9:13, Ps 104:15). Having "plenty" of wine is a divine blessing (Gen 27:28). Wine was used at the ancient Jewish festivals (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles), and on the Sabbath, and was offered as a libation in Jewish rituals (Ex 29:40, 1 Sam 1:24), which may account for its later use in the Passover Seder. The Talmud called for red wine to be used. The Last Supper was a Jewish Passover (see Mt 26:17 ff., Mk 14:12 ff., Lk 22:15 ff., Jn 13:1 ff.); hence Jesus undeniably used wine as the example of what was to become the Christian Eucharist.

Jesus partook of wine and was absurdly accused by His critics of being a drunkard (Matt 11:19, Lk 7:33). He turned water into wine (not grape juice), in His first miracle (Jn 2:1 ff.). Jesus drank wine on the cross:

A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the wine, he said, 'It is finished.' Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

(John 19:29-30; cf. Mt 27:48, Mk 15:36; NRSV)[/quote]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 11:44 AM' timestamp='1271954653' post='2098059']
i am stating anything that alters one's mind is not a good thing. even one beer alters someone's mental status. sure, not to the degree of say 20 beers, but it still alters a person's mind. sorry, but when you alter a person's mind and it effects it negatively like i posted above, its not a good thing.
[/quote]
What if the only negative effect after a single drink is that my reaction time is slowed from the media 215 milliseconds up to 260 milliseconds? That's mild altering. Is it irresponsible and evil?

[Winchester]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luVjkTEIoJc[/media]

Edited April 22, 2010 by Winchester

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Winchester' date='22 April 2010 - 12:54 PM' timestamp='1271955282' post='2098069']
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/luVjkTEIoJc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/luVjkTEIoJc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
[/quote]
<sigh> Robot talk...

[Winchester]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='22 April 2010 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1271955343' post='2098071']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luVjkTEIoJc[/media]
[/quote]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luVjkTEIoJc[/media]

[Socrates]

[quote name='havok579257' date='21 April 2010 - 01:56 AM' timestamp='1271829368' post='2097229']
so now someone who wants weapon reduction wants a nany state. i guess people who don't want a nanny state want every person have access to rocket launchers and wmd's. this point is unitelligent.[/quote]
City laws banning handguns have proven completely ineffective in preventing violent crime. In fact, the cities that had the strictest handgun laws had some of the highest murder rates.
If you outlaw guns, only the lawless will own them. Criminal gangs are usually pretty effective in getting around the law in obtaining weapons.
If guns were banned, we'd end up with a society in which the only ones with access to guns are the government and criminal thugs. Ordinary citizens would then be at the mercy of both.
And even if by some miracle your gun ban were actually effective in keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, you'd have a society in which the weak, women, and the elderly would be completely defenseless against physically stronger attackers.
As the saying goes: God created all men; Sam Colt made them equal.

As to rocket launchers, extreme as that may seen today, it's actually closest to the vision of our Founding Fathers, who envisioned the states defended by militias composed of citizen-soldiers who owned their own weapons, and would be a defense both against external enemies and tyrannical government. At the time, the weapons owned by private citizens were no different than those used by the military. (KoC or somebody in another gun control debate provided some great quotes on this from the American Founding Fathers. Maybe if somebody could post them here?)
If all the citizens are armed, and ready to use their arms, it makes it near impossible for the government to exercise tyrannical control over them. One of the first measures the Nazis took after seizing power was to outlaw guns from ordinary citizens.


[quote]
yes, but making guns illegal greatly reduces the number of guns and limits the number of times someone would need them.[/quote]
It merely keeps guns in the hands of the government and of lawless criminals, and greatly limits the opportunities of ordinary citizens to legitimate self-defense.

[quote]and here you are again spewing liberal rhetoric. i said one thing and your twisting words to try and make your arguement. i believe its the role of the government to keep their people safe and provide them with the oppertunities to fullfill thier dreams. reducing guns and making them illegal will work to better keep society safe. unless your really going to tell me, if we drastically reduced guns and weapons, more people would die.
[/quote]
Spewing liberal rhetoric???
If you're going to take the lazy route of accusing me of spewing ideological rhetoric, you could at least get the ideologies correct, and accuse me of spewing conservative rhetoric!
. . . Gosh!
Since when was defending the second amendment right to keep and bear arms [i]liberal[/i]?
It's overwhelmingly conservatives that favor second amendment rights and gun ownership, and liberals that favor unconstitutional gun-control laws and such.
I've been accused of a lot of things on here, but that's the first time I've been called "liberal" for defending second amendment rights. Oh well, I guess you deserve points for originality.

And if you're really going to take that nanny-state "the government needs to keep the people safe by banning anything dangerous" line, as others have pointed out, they should start by banning cars. Many more Americans have been killed by cars than by guns. The vast amount of American gun-owners have never killed anybody. Let's have a free republic of adult citizens, not a bunch of helpless children controlled by a "Mommy" government that ensures that they stay away from sharp objects and don't hurt themselves.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1271954487' post='2098058']
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.
[/quote]

I actually didn't "ignore your numerous posts" on the topic. I read ALL your posts. Your problem is that there is no coherent, consistent argument being made. First drugs are OK from a doctor, next any thing that alters the mind is bad and should be illegal. Sorry, door doesn't swing both ways there, champ. If you think mind altering substances should be illegal, then say so. I obviously included the proviso that there are plenty of documented cases of properly prescribed substances, prescribed for legitimate conditions, being abused. Does this point then prove your argument that mind altering substances are evil and should be outlawed, or is it that you must accept that with certain substances come the potential for abuses of a kind?

And, you completely ignored the lengthy post I made on your argument about the illegality of a substance leading to decreased crime. If you feel strongly about a subject, that's fine. However, in the meantime, while you're picketing your local liquor store, I offer a suggestion that you should consider a more charitable tone in your responses. Your opinion is fine and good; your insinuations about the character of others here (such as that backhanded swing at Nihil Obstat about how it was obvious what a liking he had to drinking) are uncalled for. I'd rather be in the company of a drunkard than a self-righteous ideologue any day--at least the drunkard KNOWS they are drunk.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='22 April 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1271995190' post='2098384']
I actually didn't "ignore your numerous posts" on the topic. I read ALL your posts. Your problem is that there is no coherent, consistent argument being made. First drugs are OK from a doctor, next any thing that alters the mind is bad and should be illegal. Sorry, door doesn't swing both ways there, champ. If you think mind altering substances should be illegal, then say so. I obviously included the proviso that there are plenty of documented cases of properly prescribed substances, prescribed for legitimate conditions, being abused. Does this point then prove your argument that mind altering substances are evil and should be outlawed, or is it that you must accept that with certain substances come the potential for abuses of a kind?

And, you completely ignored the lengthy post I made on your argument about the illegality of a substance leading to decreased crime. If you feel strongly about a subject, that's fine. However, in the meantime, while you're picketing your local liquor store, I offer a suggestion that you should consider a more charitable tone in your responses. Your opinion is fine and good; your insinuations about the character of others here (such as that backhanded swing at Nihil Obstat about how it was obvious what a liking he had to drinking) are uncalled for. I'd rather be in the company of a drunkard than a self-righteous ideologue any day--at least the drunkard KNOWS they are drunk.
[/quote]

the door doesn't swing both ways... actually yes it does. all pain meds alter a person mentally, all psych meds do to. your obviously reaching here and just trying to maker your point and grasping for straws. unless you honestly believe medication for MEDICAL purposes aqre the same as someone sitting at home drinking a beer. i never said they are the same. in fact i said just the opposite. so are you going to continue to put words in my mouth?

hey, the same can be said for people on here towards me and back handed comments. so before you go after the one person who disagree's with your opinion, how about go after everyone equally. is that to much to act? now who's being self rightous now?

Edited April 23, 2010 by havok579257

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 April 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1271955158' post='2098067']
What if the only negative effect after a single drink is that my reaction time is slowed from the media 215 milliseconds up to 260 milliseconds? That's mild altering. Is it irresponsible and evil?
[/quote]


except that is not the only effects of one drink. drinking effects more than just one thing. you may think it only effects one thing and slightly at that, but science shows that drinking affects many things, not just a single thing.

irresponsible to take mind altering substances? i could agree with that.

evil? i don't believe an inanimate object can be evil. i believe people can be evil, but not something that is inanimate.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 April 2010 - 12:51 PM' timestamp='1271955063' post='2098065']
Are they fundamentally good things, or fundamentally evil things?


If they are fundamentally evil, then it is logical that there use for any reason is also evil.

If they are fundamentally good, then it is logical that their proper use is also good, even given that their abuse is evil, as is abuse of all created things.

So unless your argument is that alcohol is fundamentally evil (which is a Protestant fundamentalist argument, not Catholic argument), we've got a bit of a problem.

So then the question becomes "what is proper use?" For that, I think reading the august Mr. Chesterton's essay would be a good start.


Here's what the Catechism has to say:
2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the [b]abuse[/b] 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.


The Catechism talks about the *abuse* of alcohol. Not moderate consumption.
[/quote]


i don't believe they are inherently evil or good but that's because i don't believe things can be evil or good. i think people can be evil or good. i think inanimate things without a soul is just a thing.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='havok579257' date='23 April 2010 - 01:05 AM' timestamp='1271999131' post='2098406']
the door doesn't swing both ways... actually yes it does. all pain meds alter a person mentally, all psych meds do to. your obviously reaching here and just trying to maker your point and grasping for straws. unless you honestly believe medication for MEDICAL purposes aqre the same as someone sitting at home drinking a beer. i never said they are the same. in fact i said just the opposite. so are you going to continue to put words in my mouth?

hey, the same can be said for people on here towards me and back handed comments. so before you go after the one person who disagree's with your opinion, how about go after everyone equally. is that to much to act? now who's being self rightous now?
[/quote]

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:

[quote]Posted 17 April 2010 - 01:42 AM
alcohol, except in places of worship should be illegal for everyone, for everyone. [/quote]

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.

[Jesus_lol]

man peyton, you are like being like Bruce Lee vs a punching bag right now.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Jesus_lol

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='23 April 2010 - 12:12 AM' timestamp='1271999565' post='2098409']
i don't believe they are inherently evil or good but that's because i don't believe things can be evil or good. i think people can be evil or good. i think inanimate things without a soul is just a thing.
[/quote]
I like how you ignored the Catechism and what I developed based on that.


M-T, you're awesome!