littleflower+JMJ Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 cmom your soo cool! i mean, your like the wisest person i know!! your one kewl mom! +JMJ B) B) B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shover Robot Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 The constitutional right to vote at age 18 is a very new thing in our country. Up until 1971, states could set an age and run with it. Now we have the 26th amendment. The Minimum Drinking Age Act was passed in 1984. It states that if States want federal dollars from the Federal Highway Fund (created by Eisenhower for you trivia buffs), they must conform to the norm of the age of 21. I know up until very recently, Louisiana's drinking age was 18, but I'm pretty sure they had to change it because their roads were rapidly crapping out and they have no real source of income. The minimum age of enlistment into the Armed Forces is 17 (with parental consent) and 18 without it. That's a federal thing, states have never had the right to choose when a person was able to enlist for federal service. What it all boils down to is the federal government taking away that states rights to govern themselves. Big government keeps getting bigger and more powerful. I wonder when we'll get Federally appointed governers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shover Robot Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Oh, and no, it really doesn't make much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Huether Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 I'm surprised no one brought this up: Drinking is the only "adult" thing that causes you to loose control of yourself. Smoking a sigarette doesn't do anything (except cause cancer). You can be responsible to vote - because when you are sober at 18 you normally act like an adult. You can fight for your country, because at 18 and sober you act as an adult and ration as an adult (though in some cases I'm not sure ). Anyway - at 18, when you drink you start to loose your ability to ration and act like an adult. I guess it's a matter of, at 21 the gov. feels as though you will know your limits better. But between 18 and 21, statistis show that bad things happen when drinking occurs. It's really the only "adult" activity that incapacitates the user to an extent. Even a small drink effects your brain (whether you know it or not). What are your thoughts on this aspect of it? I don't agree or disagree too much (I never had the urge to drink something that tastes like sweaty feet - but that's just me) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 it seems to me that there are two issues here. One issue (and I think we can all agree) is that the drinking age is a totally arbitrary number. I used to be a substance abuse therapist, and the numbers of young adults (18-21) drinking has not decreased since the 1984 (not in any significant fashion). So, lets all say it "There is no rational basis for this law". Second issue is whether or not the breaking of this law is a moral issue. Since this law is not based in any form of morality (in England and most of Europe, drinking ages are much younger), I think this is a legit question. If it is a sin to drink at the age of 19 or 20, it surely can be no worse than speeding during my morning commute, or failing to use my turn signal. peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 (edited) Jake, I did bring it up in this thread and the other one. I felt it was obvious when I pointed out that Society evaluates the behaviours in view of how society is harmed or affected. It's not just about the harm or consequences for individual persons, it's about the harm society sees done to it as a whole. Christianity is not just about individual rights. We are our brother's keeper as well. We need society as a result of the human nature we are created by God with, so we have to evaluate some things as a society, even when that requires self sacrifice. Society balances the harm to an individual person that is drafted or enlists in the army at 18 with the good for society it does. As I had pointed out, those 18 year olds are still under the nominal command of older pesons. And as a rule, the amount of persons drafted is not the entire 18 to 20 year old population. Further restrict that to the drafted kids that actually see combat. Voting is another matter as well. Individual votes count, but the 18 to 20 year old's vote is diluted by the rest of the voting population so any unwanted consequences from immature votes are virtually eliminated. Smoking has more harm for the individual than society as a whole. That is why restrictions are different. Attitudes have changed about that to some degree, and that's why anti-smoking laws are in such favor, though I think they've become unbalanced too much and are less about the effects of Society now, but are driven by greed. I posted some factoids about alcohol on another thread. The huge negative impact on society is obvious. Of couse it's logical to have different laws about drinking when you view the greater picture of the impact on society versus the impact on personal choice. Edited July 31, 2003 by jasJis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 21 is really not that arbitary. An 18 year old is not an adult. THey are only listed as adults so the governments can draft them. Their thinking processes and bodies are not yet mature. That is why alcohol affects there differently than adults. 21 is the beginning of adult maturity. The Europeans are much more intelligent about this. There a person is considered a youth until 25. Kids start drinking younger and younger these days. Most kids in my generation started hitting the bottle around 15-16. Now its 11-13. Drunks are getting younger these days. I think all laws are based on morality: someones particular assumptions of how life works. I depends on whether you agree with their assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_bc Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 (edited) The Europeans are much more intelligent about this. There a person is considered a youth until 25. I think this age limit is only applicable for airline discounts. I've moved to a new country yearly or every second year since I was 18, and some of them in Europe, but I've never seen 25 mentioned as a relevant age limit for anything else, except for entry into the poshest bars in Scandinavia (and that's just because <25s usually can't afford to drink in those bars). Many, possibly most European countries don't have a real age limit for alcohol consumption. Some of them distinguish between beer or wine and hard liquor. For example, if memory serves, you need to be 18 to buy hard liquor in Germany but you can get beer at 14. I could be wrong on that particular case, but I'm pretty sure 25 is not a working definition of adulthood across Europe. Edited July 31, 2003 by _bc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marielapin Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 All we want is for the government to be consistent. I wouldn't shed a tear if they raised the voting age, legal adult age and draft age to 21. We just don't like the inconsistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BullnaChinaShop Posted August 4, 2003 Author Share Posted August 4, 2003 Marielapin is right. The big problem we have with the whole situation is the inconsistency. I think that any government that holds contradictory laws undermines its own authority to a certain degree. I think that people are more likely to break the law if it is seen as being contradictory or hypocritical. It gives them an excuse whether legitimate or not for justifying breaking the law. I wouldn't have a problem with the difference in drinking age and voting/draft age if the difference was decided by the states without them being coerced into it. The whole tying federal highway funds to drinking age is underhanded and just a way to get around constitutional restrictions on the federal government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulls Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 If someone is too immature to be trusted with an alcoholic beverage then why are they not to immature to be voting, in the military, owning firearms, smoking and a whole host of other other rights and responsibilities that adults have? Why are 18 year old too immature to drink but not to doo all these other things? Why is alcohol so much harder for young adults to get a grip on that it is worth giving them every other right but that one? Either they have been taught to use these rights and responsibilities or they haven't. have you ever seen what goes on at a party college, or any other social gathering with a large number of underage drinkers? the results speak for themselves, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 I think the logic is based on who causes the most death and destruction to themselves and society. 18 to 20 year old drinkers. 18 to 20 year old voters. 18 to 20 year old servicemen. 18 to 20 year old legal gun owners. 18 to 20 year old smokers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 (edited) Well, a 5 year old is old enough to draw with crayons but not use feathers with a ink bottel to write.... would it be logical to let that 5 year old have a bottle of ink for his pen? NO! Therfore, some things such as "old enough to fight but not drink alcohol" is logical because there reasons behind it. Maturity is one thing, such as the kids maturity with a bottle of ink, and a 18 year olds maturity with alcohol. Edited August 4, 2003 by Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleflower+JMJ Posted August 4, 2003 Share Posted August 4, 2003 i think it has nothing to do with the gov. being consist, alchohol is a totally different matter... i know because i'm at 18 and i know that if that law were to make it legal to drink at this age you would fear driving anywhere because your life would be at a greater risk of getting killed. at 18 you are still young, you don't know what your going to do in life, you still have alot of growing up to do and some still haven't realized the meaning of responsiblitly. yes, i have friends who drink underage but if the law allowed them to do it legally i shudder at the thought of having a 18 yr old driver behind the wheel who had a choice of drinking legallyand heading towards me on the same street! yes, some 18 yrs olds are responsible, use their head and would not abuse this privilege but i know that the majority would end up hurting themselves or others around them if it was legal. kids today and drinking are really really bad, its awful, just like mulls said.....just think and at 21, we're alittle bit better, not perfect but at lleast we aren't immature or as childish at 18.....and the gov knows that i'm glad and greatful that the law is at 21, God knows how many more accidents and mistakes and deaths would have been made that would have been costly... i have lost 5 friends!! 5 in 4 years!! all gone and dead just on car accidents! how old ? oh, an average of 18-24 yrs old, i can still feel the effects of their lost and i know how important it is to safeguard everyone.....another friend who lived thru a tragic accient but had his leg amputated at the age of 23.....and at least i know that our streets are safer because of the laws that are placed...i'm scared of car accidents, especially those who claim lives....and leave you wondering what happen....one of those car accidents was drunk driving, and it kills ya inside...it really does....knowing that they made a bad decision and should be here today but aren't because of the choices they made... its a matter of knowing and making the laws based on what each case is for, no two laws are the same, its about being safe and smart about each law, not consistency thats my two cents...no refunds.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted August 5, 2003 Share Posted August 5, 2003 This is admittedly off topic, but all this discussion about the government and drinking made me remember that here in Indiana, it is illegal to sell alcohol when the voting polls are open. Makes you think, huh? peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now