🚀 go-pugleaf

Robert Rodgers wrote:
> 
> "Adam T. Michalski" <mradam@execpc.com> wrote:
> >Robert Rodgers wrote:
> >> "Adam T. Michalski" <mradam@execpc.com> wrote:
> >> >       Maybe if the drinking age was repealed for everyone, maybe people would
> >> >learn how to drink responsibly when they are younger,
> >>
> >> Ha, Ha, Ha.  That's a good one.  Do you really believe that or were
> >> you going for humor?
> >
> >       I truly believe that.
> 
> Well, then let me address it.  The reason it wouldn't work is that
> people *today* only learn to drink responsibly because they have
> responsibilities to live up to, so they're forced to learn.  This is
> why it's such a problem with the 18 to 21 crowd -- they really hve no
> responsibilities to live up to -- and is much less of a problem when
> you get into the mid and upper twenties (because they do and are
> learning).
> 
> Since we wont be pushing responsibility down the age ladder, what
> we'll get is not people learning to drink responsibly (drinking
> doesn't encourage responsible drinking) but rather another 3 years of
> them drinking irresponsibly.

Sounds like a rational argument but I'm not sure it is
one. I lived in Germany for almost three years and had an
opportunity to see a country which has a lower drinking age
and did not observe the outcome you claim.

It may be due to the fact that the Germans as a culture expect, 
and their childred deliver, more resopnsible behavior from their 
children. If so it's not the drinking age that is the problem and
using one is a questionable solution. Are you advocating the
drinking age be raised to 25 or 30?

Slightly related, the germans don't let their childred drive until
18 and it is *very* expensive, and fairly difficult to pass the 
required tests, to get licensed. As someone once put it: "Which is
better? Letting children learn to drive after they've got a little 
experience with alcohol or letting them learn to drink after they've
got a little experience with driving."

JMH

Tim Reed  <tr264695@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote:
 
>> Which is good for you, but anecdotal evidence, and therefore irrelevant.

> It is relevant.   Anecdotes make up people's lives.

It is not relevant because for every anecdote you have, I have an
opposing one, and none can be validated, and none would stand in
any sort of debate.
						JD
				trying to stay near the topic

Robert Rodgers wrote:
> 
> Tim Reed <tr264695@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote:
> >Robert Rodgers wrote:
> >>
> >> "Adam T. Michalski" <mradam@execpc.com> wrote:
> >> >       Maybe if the drinking age was repealed for everyone, maybe people would
> >> >learn how to drink responsibly when they are younger,
> >>
> >> Ha, Ha, Ha.  That's a good one.  Do you really believe that or were
> >> you going for humor?
> >
> >Because your plan has worked so far right?  Wrong, the US has the one of
> >the highest per capita rate of alcoholism.
> 
> And it would *skyrocket* if we dropped the drinking age.  What, you
> think all those pre-twentysomething wasteoids would suddenly drink
> responsibly if the drinking age was lowered to 18?  No way.
> 
> The current system works (a little).  Having no system at all wouldn't
> work, period.
> 
> And please, don't start in about Europe.  European kids aren't running
> around still acting like 10 year olds with their first beer by age 19.


This system doesn't work at all.  Look around.  Its like the kid who
gets freedom all at once at college and goes nuts with it.  If you grow
up around alcohol its no big deal when you get to use it with friends. 
Besides if it works how come there's been no lowering of alcoholism
since then?

Robert Rodgers wrote:
> 
> adamf@vtaix.cc.vt.edu (Adam Finkelstein) wrote:
> >In article <332c8fa6.26763660@news.wam.umd.edu>,
> >Robert Rodgers <knave@acm.org> wrote:
> >>I wonder what would happen, however, if we let the under-21 crowd
> >>choose between a driver's license and a drinker's license.  That would
> >>be an interesting social experiment -- allow the state to issue one,
> >>or the other, but not both, until age 21.
> >
> >
> >Aren't you pompus. If one can be inducted into the armed services and
> >ostensibly defend their country, they should be "responsible" enough to
> >drink.
> 
> That's a non-argument.  In the armed forces, you're supervised and
> regimented.
> 
> What does that have to do with teenyboppers getting wasted because
> they think it's cool?

Yes Robert because all us under 21s are so irresponspible, I don't why
you let us out of the house.  Why don't you just tie us all up until
we're 21 because we can't handle life until the 21 fairy comes and
sprinkles 21 dust on all of us and suddenly makes us responsible.

Responsiblility can only be gained through experience.  By depriving
people of experience you are guaranteeing that alcohol will be abused
much more later on.  Its like the kid who has no freedom from his
parents at home and then gets to college.  What does he do?  He doesn't
suddenly become responsible thats for damn sure.

Jack Dracula wrote:
> 
> Tim Reed  <tr264695@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote:
> 
> > I can be drafted, I can vote, I can drive and I can buy a shotgun,
> > but I'm not allowed to drink?  Thats ridiculous.
> 
> Well, we don't want you drafted drunk, voting drunk, driving drunk
> or shooting drunk, so we better keep things like they are.


	So, what you're saying is is that every single teenager that drinks
automatically will get drunk?                                        

-- 
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Adam Michalski                              
mradam@execpc.com 
smilinadam@juno.com                         
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/3286/ 
St. Francis, Wisconsin U.S.A.

Tim Reed wrote:
 
> Robert Rodgers wrote:

> > "Adam T. Michalski" <mradam@execpc.com> wrote:

> > >       Maybe if the drinking age was repealed for everyone, maybe 
> > >people would learn how to drink responsibly when they are younger,
 
> > Ha, Ha, Ha.  That's a good one.  Do you really believe that or were
> > you going for humor?
 
> Because your plan has worked so far right?  Wrong, the US has the one 
> of the highest per capita rate of alcoholism.

Care to name a source on that figure ???  I'm not disagreeing, but an
unsupported statement does your cause more damage than good. . .
-- 
* Keith A. Glass,  Annandale, Virginia, USA, Filker/punster at large *
*               Coordinator, Electronic Freedom March                *
*       Spring 1997, Washington DC   URL: http://www.efm.org         *
*  Note:to reply,remove the "spamblocker." from before huskynet.com  *

Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri wrote:
 
> In article <332d8979.2368483@news.wam.umd.edu>,
> Robert Rodgers <knave@acm.org> wrote:

> >What does that have to do with teenyboppers getting wasted because
> >they think it's cool?

> What do teenyboppers getting wasted because they think it's cool
> have to do with me having a glass of wine with dinner?
 
I believe the phrase is "equal protection under the law".  The fact 
that you may be a mature and responsible person, but the law can't
measure maturity and/or responsibility.  It can only measure (in this
type of case) :

(a) Did you, or did you not consume alcohol ?

(b) Were you, or were you not of the legal minimum age to do act (a)

An equal standard, easily and rapidly quantifiable.  Unfair as it may
be to mature, responsible people under the age of 21. . . .
-- 
* Keith A. Glass,  Annandale, Virginia, USA, Filker/punster at large *
*               Coordinator, Electronic Freedom March                *
*       Spring 1997, Washington DC   URL: http://www.efm.org         *
*  Note:to reply,remove the "spamblocker." from before huskynet.com  *

Jack Dracula wrote:
> 
> You're not being discriminated against. Discrimination implies
> being picked out among equals because of some irrelevant sign.
> You're being picked out not to buy alcohol because of your age
> because it is illegal to buy alcohol at your age, and that's
> completely relevant to the current laws. Disrimination isn't
> the kind of terminology you can just toss around.
>                                                 JD
>                                         arguing semantics


	Isn't that age discrimination?  Aren't we all equal?  We are all human
beings on this newsgroup, from what it appears to me.  So why should
human beings over 21 years of age be the only ones able to consume or
purchase alcoholic beverages, while human beings under the age of 21 are
not allowed to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages? To me, it
appears as age discrimination.

-- 
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Adam Michalski                              
mradam@execpc.com 
smilinadam@juno.com                         
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/3286/ 
St. Francis, Wisconsin U.S.A.

In article <332c1817.1794570@news.ios.com>, Mr. Sandman <the sandman> wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Mar 1997 08:09:13 GMT, mwalcoff@wam.umd.edu (Matt Walcoff)
>wrote:
>
>>The "Maryland Underage Drinking Prevention Committee," a key
>>organization in the war on youth, is holding a fund-raiser at Goucher
>>College's Kraushaar Auditorium Mar. 29. They're having a concert of
>>Broadway songs.
>>
>>I think this would be an excellent opportunity to hold an
>>anti-drinking age protest. Goucher College is in the Baltimore area. 
>>
>>We can sit around and talk about how much we hate the drinking age for
>>years, but no one will pay attention unless we start to get our point
>>across.
>>
>>Reply if interested.
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>
>
>So Matt, tell us exactly what is wrong with the current drinking age
>in the state of Maryland...  Is it possible that you may be under the
>current legal drinking age in the State of Maryland, of 21???

It is certainly possible that he is, but let's take a look at what he can
and cannot do: he can serve his country in war and get addicted to
cigarettes, provided he's over 18, but cannot legally buy a gun or a
bottle of wine until he's 21.  He's responsible for his actions in any
court of law, but isn't deemed responsible enough to start making choices
about some of the things he can put in his body.  A woman of 18 can take
drugs to end a pregnancy, making a decision about the life of her child,
but letting her get near alcohol? What a terrible thing! She can't
possibly be responsible enough!

>Lets see, just what exactly would happen if somehow the state decided
>to repeal this law and bring back the pre 1982 age of 18 for beer and
>wine purchases.  Well lets see, as far as I can tell the only
>difference would be more drunk driving offenses committed by
>teenagers, more misdemeanor offenses like loitering, public
>drunkeness, disturbing the peace and a higher alcohol addiction rate
>amongst the under 21 crowd!!!  Sounds like you have a good cause on
>your hands... I for one, wouldn't mind sharing the road with drunken
>teenagers...

agreed!  As long as there are stupid laws against drinking below ANY age,
there will be stupid people breaking them simply for the sake of breaking
the law.  If it's illegal, it must me good and smart.  Take a look at
marijuana or speeding (as the recent discussions have gone) for typical
instances.  Funny how there aren't huge numbers of drunk teenagers on the
road in Europe where parents, intead of prohibiting their children from
drinking and thus shirking the responsibility of educating them about it,
let their kids get it out of their systems if they need to, and actually
grow up by the time they're 18.  Wake up, man!  There are more drunk
drivers over 21 than under.  Most 18-21s are afraid enough at least not to
drive when they've been drinking, hence the importance of the shuttle
routes to bars.  Many 21 and overs think that since they're legal, they
can be idiots too.  Good Lord, I'm not sure I'd want to be on the road
with your arrogant ass either.  Personally I'm a teetotaler and usually a
designated driver.  I also happen to be 19.  This isn't what stops me from
drinking, but rather that I grew up partially in Budapest, and always with
sane parents, so that I learned better long before I was 18. 

>
>Matt...get with it...It's not gonna happen !!  I too was mad at the
>adult population in Md when I was a teenager in 1982, they raised the
>drinking age 4 months before my 18th birthday, so a lot of my friends
>where able to drink and I was excluded because of the 4 month
>difference.  Well the 3 year wait will probably do you some good...
>
>As an adult aged 32 now, I can now look back and see that this was a
>favorable decision made by the state, and I really think that drinking
>is not all that and a bag O' chips...
>
so why don't you let people find that out before they're 32, eh?

drinking age is stupid and dangerous.  ANY drinking age.


>Think about when your kids are 18,  and you have spent your adult
>lifetime loving and teaching them right from wrong, to have all of
>that lost because your 18 year old killed himself and a few of his
>friends in a traffic accident caused by teenage stupidity, ie drinking
>and driving!!!
>
part of teaching them right from wrong will be wine at the dinner table,
and responsible role models to learn from.

>Wake up Matt, enjoy your youth without a fog of drunkeness!!
not everyone against the drinking age is in a drunken stupor.  Some of us
are sober and sick of being looked down on by our friends because we can't
bring a gift of a bottle of wine when going to a friend's house for
dinner like we've always seen our parents do.

Those of you used to being in a drunken haze, BTW, sleep it off and see
the beautiful weather outside will ye?  Go for a walk with your
significant others, and enjoy each other's company minus booze for a
change.  It's spring, and it really can be very nice.

Peace, folks,

Gremio

--
Gregory A. Marton                               Santirix Gremionis

gremio@wam.umd.edu                       ***   He who laughs, lasts.
http://www.glue.umd.edu/~gremio         **|** 
2119 Centreville South, UofMarylandCP    *|*  An elephant is a mouse
(301)314-1537                             |  with an operating system. 
--                                       ,|, 

Christopher R. Bowman <crb@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:

>>>>> You're not being discriminated against. Discrimination implies
>>>>> being picked out among equals because of some irrelevant sign.

>>>> Which is exactly the case.  If you knew me, you would realize that my
>>>> peers are not generally people of the same chronological age as me.
>>>> They are universally older than me and over 21.

>>> You are the same as every other person below the age of 21 because
>>> you are all below 21. There is no discrimination here.

>>>>> You're being picked out not to buy alcohol because of your age
>>>>> because it is illegal to buy alcohol at your age, and that's
>>>>> completely relevant to the current laws.

>>>> Ah...so the fact that the law said women/blacks/whoever weren't
>>>> allowed to vote meant that wasn't discrimination either.

>>>The discrimination here was that they should have been equal under
>>>the eyes of the law. Age limits were set up for different reasons.

>>>Not that this has anything to do with the arguement. Just didn't want
>>>you feeling like a victim.

>>>Oh, and arguing that alcohol is easy for minors to get isn't a very
>>>good arguement, because all that says is that it's easy to break the
>>>law. Says nothing at all about the law itself.

> But you incorrectly restrict the class of people you call their peers,
> When we look at discrimination of blacks, we don't say "You are the same
> as every other [black] person. There is no discrimination here"

All people are alike, correct? They are born at age zero, and go up
from there. We have to set limits on when they are old enough to do
certain things; I don't want six year olds driving cars. So we set
a limit for everyone. This is not age discrimination, it's that ol'
standby, common sense. 

>We say you are just like every other citizen, and we should apply the same
>method here.

You're right. Let's see what kind of president a five year old will vote 
for. Barney!

>When we look at the rights and obligations of every other full citizen
>we can see that people aged 18 - 21 have all the other right and privalages
>but are denied this one, and yet we are presented with no logical reason
>even given that we accept the principle of "bright lines" which is a
>separate issue.

But 18 is arbitrary too, right? Let's give cigarettes to all
children. I mean, it's their right and everything. Wouldn't
want to discriminate here.

>To say that our law and by inference our government makes such a distiction
>is not in and of it self validating to your point of view.  Our government
>has before made such distictions to blacks, and indians and the interned
>japanese durring WWII, the imprimeur of government does not necessarily
>convey legitimacy, this was the whole thrust of Nueremburg.

I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. Nuremberg? That might
count as a Nazi reference, which means it's time for this debate to
die its natural death.
							JD

Christopher R. Bowman <crb@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:

>:>>>> I think a better idea
>:>>>> would be to let people run their own lives especially after they
>:>>>> reach the age of 18.

>:>>> Uh, I have not met that many 18 year olds that are capable of running
>:>>> their own lives.

>:>> I've been running mine since I was 16.  And that means having a job,
>:>> and paying for my tuition, rent, car payments, car insurance and food.

>:> Which is good for you, but anecdotal evidence, and therefore irrelevant. 
>:> The majority of people who are 18 do not run their own lives.

> And your source for this is what?  anecdotal evidence, that it is
> yours, doesn't make it any better (or worse for that matter) or even
> correct.

Do the majority of 18 year olds work full time? No.
Do the majority run their own households? No.
Do the majority pay for their own tuitions? No.

Do you honestly mean to tell me that most 18 year olds do? Or
are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
							JD

Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri <coolhand@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>Robert Rodgers <knave@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>What does that have to do with teenyboppers getting wasted because
>>they think it's cool?
>
>What do teenyboppers getting wasted because they think it's cool
>have to do with me having a glass of wine with dinner?

If you want a glass of wine with dinner, you can have that right now -
if your parents approve.

None of the drinking laws prohibit a parent from giving a drink to his
child.  The law prohibits the child from buying and drinking it on his
own, which is something very different.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Charlap          | The contents of this message are not the opinions
david AT visix DOT com | of Visix Software, nor of anyone besides myself.
Visix Software, Inc.   |---------------------------------------------------
Member of Team-OS/2    | If you send me unsolicited e-mail advertising, I
-----------------------| will notify your postmaster and ask him to delete
                       | your net access.  You have been warned.
                       ----------------------------------------------------

In article <5gkj7m$q86@shelby.visix.com>,  <david AT visix DOT com> wrote:
}Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri <coolhand@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
}>Robert Rodgers <knave@acm.org> wrote:
}>>
}>>What does that have to do with teenyboppers getting wasted because
}>>they think it's cool?
}>
}>What do teenyboppers getting wasted because they think it's cool
}>have to do with me having a glass of wine with dinner?
}
}If you want a glass of wine with dinner, you can have that right now -
}if your parents approve.
}
}None of the drinking laws prohibit a parent from giving a drink to his
}child.  The law prohibits the child from buying and drinking it on his
}own, which is something very different.

The law is "contributing the the delinquency of a minor".
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                                russotto@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." 

In article <5gkj7m$q86@shelby.visix.com>,  <david AT visix DOT com> wrote:
>Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri <coolhand@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>>
>>What do teenyboppers getting wasted because they think it's cool
>>have to do with me having a glass of wine with dinner?
>
>If you want a glass of wine with dinner, you can have that right now -
>if your parents approve.
>
>None of the drinking laws prohibit a parent from giving a drink to his
>child.  The law prohibits the child from buying and drinking it on his
>own, which is something very different.


a) I stopped living with my parents when I was 16.

b) I am not a child.

c) Regardless of this law (which varies from state to state), nowhere
in the US can I order alcohol with dinner at a restaurant, accompanied
by parents or not.




-- 
======================================================================
Kevin Scaldeferri				University of Maryland

"The trouble is, each of them is plausible without being instinctive"

> Of course the ironic thing is that its easier for me to get pot than it
> is to get alcohol.  Way to go with that whole sober thing.

So it's easier to break one law than another. Your point?

						JD

Judith Cookson Grunberger (jcookson@Glue.umd.edu) wrote:
: In article <5gmcvk$a8m@y.glue.umd.edu>,
: Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri <coolhand@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
: >In article <5gkj7m$q86@shelby.visix.com>,  <david AT visix DOT com> wrote:

: >>None of the drinking laws prohibit a parent from giving a drink to his
: >>child.  The law prohibits the child from buying and drinking it on his
: >>own, which is something very different.
: >
: >a) I stopped living with my parents when I was 16.
: >
: >b) I am not a child.
: >
: >c) Regardless of this law (which varies from state to state), nowhere
: >in the US can I order alcohol with dinner at a restaurant, accompanied
: >by parents or not.

: Wrong. You can in Texas, where minors may drink in public if accompanied
: by a parent, a guardian, or spouse who is of age. (I've seen official
: notices posted in Texas restaurants, for anyone who wants to challenge me
: on this.)

: But aside from that technicality, I agree with Kevin. My parents started
: giving me tastes of beer from the age of 2. I'm allowed to have beer and
: wine in my parents home. My parents not only think the drinking age is
: stupid, but have forgotten that I can't have alcohol in public places --
: I've been asked by my mom why I don't just order my own drink. 

: We've had a lot of anecdotes about parents who give their children alcohol
: while fostering a responsible attitude towards it. These children are
: responsible drinkers. I think the volume of anecdotes says something --
: combined with the evidence given from people who have had experience in
: other countries, I think we've got a solid argument against the drinking
: age.

It seems to me that what the argument boils down to is something like
"Yes, there are some younger folks who can drink responsibly, but there
are a lot of stupid ones, so we won't let any of them drink." 

First comment:  IMHO, punishing the kids who are actually responsible
enough to handle drinking is idiotic.

Second comment:  Following up Kevin and Judy, it seems that the parents
who actually take the time to teach their kids about alcohol end up with
responsible kids who are able to drink responsibly.

I'll conclude with this... I don't think prohibition can exist in a free
society.  Besides being incompatible with freedom, it simply doesn't work.

For the record, I am 21.

- Chip Spangler

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "We must hold forth a vision of a freer, more tolerant America. We
  must show the American people the great benefits of a society based on
  mutual, voluntary exchange where coercion and fraud has been
  banished... We will only be satisfied when we have a truly free
  society. But we will not wait for that to happen -- we will make it
  happen."
   
   -- the late Jim Lewis, America Reclaimed.

>: We've had a lot of anecdotes about parents who give their children alcohol
>: while fostering a responsible attitude towards it. These children are
>: responsible drinkers. I think the volume of anecdotes says something --
>: combined with the evidence given from people who have had experience in
>: other countries, I think we've got a solid argument against the drinking
>: age.

>It seems to me that what the argument boils down to is something like
>"Yes, there are some younger folks who can drink responsibly, but there
>are a lot of stupid ones, so we won't let any of them drink." 
>
>First comment:  IMHO, punishing the kids who are actually responsible
>enough to handle drinking is idiotic.
>
>Second comment:  Following up Kevin and Judy, it seems that the parents
>who actually take the time to teach their kids about alcohol end up with
>responsible kids who are able to drink responsibly.

Don't forget some other points:

	Do not underestimate the power of inertia. Actually getting 
	something changed takes a great deal of work, especially an
	unfavorable position like this (let's face it, most lawmakers
	are older, and would balk greatly at this idea. The powerful
	lobbies of groups like MADD will also be against it.)


> I'll conclude with this... I don't think prohibition can exist in a free
> society.  Besides being incompatible with freedom, it simply doesn't work.

What we have isn't that bad. Sure, kids complain, but they will do
that.
							JD

In article <5gmcvk$a8m@y.glue.umd.edu>,
Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri <coolhand@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:
>In article <5gkj7m$q86@shelby.visix.com>,  <david AT visix DOT com> wrote:

>>None of the drinking laws prohibit a parent from giving a drink to his
>>child.  The law prohibits the child from buying and drinking it on his
>>own, which is something very different.
>
>a) I stopped living with my parents when I was 16.
>
>b) I am not a child.
>
>c) Regardless of this law (which varies from state to state), nowhere
>in the US can I order alcohol with dinner at a restaurant, accompanied
>by parents or not.

Wrong. You can in Texas, where minors may drink in public if accompanied
by a parent, a guardian, or spouse who is of age. (I've seen official
notices posted in Texas restaurants, for anyone who wants to challenge me
on this.)

But aside from that technicality, I agree with Kevin. My parents started
giving me tastes of beer from the age of 2. I'm allowed to have beer and
wine in my parents home. My parents not only think the drinking age is
stupid, but have forgotten that I can't have alcohol in public places --
I've been asked by my mom why I don't just order my own drink. 

We've had a lot of anecdotes about parents who give their children alcohol
while fostering a responsible attitude towards it. These children are
responsible drinkers. I think the volume of anecdotes says something --
combined with the evidence given from people who have had experience in
other countries, I think we've got a solid argument against the drinking
age.

--Judy

-- 
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| Judith Grunberger, Technical Writing Weenie/Intern, McCabe & Associates |
|       jcookson@glue.umd.edu * http://www.glue.umd.edu/~jcookson         |
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*

Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri (coolhand@Glue.umd.edu) wrote:

: Sorry 'bout the blank article

Were you drunk when you posted it? And are you under 21 on that?? 

*See* what happens in such cases heh

Jack Dracula (vampire@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri <coolhand@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:

: >> You're not being discriminated against. Discrimination implies
: >> being picked out among equals because of some irrelevant sign.

: > Which is exactly the case.  If you knew me, you would realize that my
: > peers are not generally people of the same chronological age as me.
: > They are universally older than me and over 21.

: You are the same as every other person below the age of 21 because
: you are all below 21. There is no discrimination here.

Like in you are say Asian, and we don't hire any asian here ...and so its
not discrimination!!

: >> You're being picked out not to buy alcohol because of your age
: >> because it is illegal to buy alcohol at your age, and that's
: >> completely relevant to the current laws.

: > Ah...so the fact that the law said women/blacks/whoever weren't
: > allowed to vote meant that wasn't discrimination either.

: The discrimination here was that they should have been equal under
: the eyes of the law. Age limits were set up for different reasons.

Like in firing people over ...say 50?

: Not that this has anything to do with the arguement. Just didn't want
: you feeling like a victim.

Give the kid a candy ...you will pacify him better.

: Oh, and arguing that alcohol is easy for minors to get isn't a very
: good arguement, because all that says is that it's easy to break the
: law. Says nothing at all about the law itself.

: 						JD

spanglrc@wam.umd.edu (Charles Spangler) wrote:
>First comment:  IMHO, punishing the kids who are actually responsible
>enough to handle drinking is idiotic.


Not allowing them to drink is "punishment"?  My god, they're so
deprived.


>I'll conclude with this... I don't think prohibition can exist in a free
>society.

It depends on how you define prohibition.  Some people (including
extreme libertarians) define it as an absolute right to (e.g., they
classify DUI laws under "prohibition").  

dube@Glue.umd.edu (Manu Dube) wrote:
>Like in you are say Asian, and we don't hire any asian here ...and so its
>not discrimination!!

God, even when I was under 21 I would have been embarassed by such
silly, stupid arguments.

Sheesh.

Kevin <kniffler@cris.com> wrote:
>anyone that drinks will get drunk. The perception is that someone who is
>18 doesn't have as good judgement as someone who is 21. Of course this
>perception is held by people over 21.

You know what the nicest thing about being mature is?  It means you
can look at people older and more experienced than you and appreciate
that they *are* older and that they *are* more experienced than you.
This is a nice thing because these people are more than willing to
share their experience with you, which is both interesting and quite
useful.

This doesn't just apply to you teenies, in fact.  A large portion of
the twentysomething crowd could stand to be a little more humble about
their actual background and start listening to their elders.

Jack Dracula (vampire@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri <coolhand@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:

: > But, I'm still upset that I continue to be discriminated
: > against because of my (chronological) age.

: You're not being discriminated against. Discrimination implies
: being picked out among equals because of some irrelevant sign.

Company fires older employees in favor of younger ones, and it *is*
discrimination, if it can be proved that they could work as well as the
others.

And this guy is not allowed to buy alcohol *not* because it has been shown
that he abuses it, *but* because he is not 21, and it is not? heh

: You're being picked out not to buy alcohol because of your age
: because it is illegal to buy alcohol at your age, and that's
: completely relevant to the current laws. Disrimination isn't
: the kind of terminology you can just toss around.
: 						JD
: 					arguing semantics

Robert Rodgers wrote:
> 
> Kevin <kniffler@cris.com> wrote:
> >anyone that drinks will get drunk. The perception is that someone who is
> >18 doesn't have as good judgement as someone who is 21. Of course this
> >perception is held by people over 21.
> 
> You know what the nicest thing about being mature is?  It means you
> can look at people older and more experienced than you and appreciate
> that they *are* older and that they *are* more experienced than you.
> This is a nice thing because these people are more than willing to
> share their experience with you, which is both interesting and quite
> useful.
> 
> This doesn't just apply to you teenies, in fact.  A large portion of
> the twentysomething crowd could stand to be a little more humble about
> their actual background and start listening to their elders.

i can listen just fine...  its when people expect me to go beyond simply
listening to them.  for the most part, i can (and do) think for myself.  
i also respect other peoples views, and i'm generally open to them. 
however, 
when people try and tell me that i should act this way or that, i get a 
little angered.

you've asked me to listen and i will.
what have you got to say??  and why do you think its the "right" way?

frankly i don't see the difference between me being drunk at 16 or drunk
at 22.  i did some stupid things when i first started drinking, but i
don't
think it had anything to do with age.  it probably had more to do with
the
novelty of drinking and being "cool" at the time.  

and then a few years later i go to college and i'm basically done with
the 
drinking stupidly scene, but now half of the people i'm hanging out with
are 
finally away from their parents and they're being just as stupid (if not
more, 
because of greater accessibility to alcohol) as i was 4 or 5 years
before.

again, i don't see the difference.

and now after college, i see the same thing going on at bars, in the
streets, etc.

i don't see the difference.


i'm not saying that in order to be a responsible drinker you need to go
through a "stupid" phase.  if i ever have kids, you can be sure that
drugs and sex will be not be a "hush hush" topic.  mostly because i
would want to minimize their "stupid" phase as much as possible.


jon

In article <5gms2m$9p1@rac10.wam.umd.edu>,
Jack Dracula <vampire@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>	Do not underestimate the power of inertia. Actually getting 
>	something changed takes a great deal of work, especially an
>	unfavorable position like this (let's face it, most lawmakers
>	are older, and would balk greatly at this idea. The powerful
>	lobbies of groups like MADD will also be against it.)

That is silly.  Just because something is damn near impossible, that
doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.  Anything is possible with the will to
do it.

Brian

-- 
     Brian Gluckman        |   the life you're given's no use at all 
     kaustin@eng.umd.edu   |       if you burn it up with hate          
     kaustin@wam.umd.edu   |      --bruce cockburn, "free to be" 
     briang@capaccess.org  |     http://www.wam.umd.edu/~kaustin

In article <332f03cc.1102713@news.wam.umd.edu>,
Robert Rodgers <knave@acm.org> wrote:
>spanglrc@wam.umd.edu (Charles Spangler) wrote:
>>First comment:  IMHO, punishing the kids who are actually responsible
>>enough to handle drinking is idiotic.
>
>
>Not allowing them to drink is "punishment"?  My god, they're so
>deprived.
>

It is punishment when a large number of establishments do not allow
people under 21 in, regardless of whether they wish to drink or not.
I am forbidden in most of the better dance clubs in this city.  I
cannot go out with my coworkers after work to blow off steam.  I go to
_college_ week at a ski resort and can't participate in most of the
week's activities because of my age.  

The alcohol is a minor issue compared to the overwhelming limitations
on social activities.



-- 
======================================================================
Kevin Scaldeferri				University of Maryland

"The trouble is, each of them is plausible without being instinctive"

Kevin <kniffler@cris.com> wrote in article <332E9FBC.4F11@cris.com>...
> Tim Reed wrote:
> 
> > Of course the ironic thing is that its easier for me to get pot than it
> > is to get alcohol.  Way to go with that whole sober thing.
> 
> Hey, when pot's legal, it'll be just as hard for you to get as alcohol
> :)
> Kniffler
> 

Not necessarily.  If there's a growing youth civil rights movement moving
along thanks to the Internet, by the time pot may be debated on whether it
should be legal, there could be a heavy force of people fed up with age
discrimination to a point that they'll derail any age restrictions on
cannibis.  Or at least put it at a lower age than alcohol.  

Brent

Jack Dracula <vampire@wam.umd.edu> wrote in article
<5gkau9$sgb@rac2.wam.umd.edu>...
> Christopher R. Bowman <crb@Glue.umd.edu> wrote:

> >>>The discrimination here was that they should have been equal under
> >>>the eyes of the law. Age limits were set up for different reasons.

But it's still set up under the same premise, that you can judge individual
people by the age of their body and no other factor when individual
cognitive development says otherwise.  Human beings, at least ideally, are
supposed to be equal under the law.  This is why Dr. King said, "An unjust
law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority
group to obey but does not make binding on itself."  Age discrimination
violates this ideal of government, and therefore why it should be generally
opposed by independent-thinking people who realize the intrinsic rights of
every human being.  

> >>>Not that this has anything to do with the arguement. Just didn't want
> >>>you feeling like a victim.

I'm sorry, but it's everything to do with the arguement.  We're setting up
a premise, that legal discrimination against groups of people in the past
based on prejudice was wrong.  Why was it wrong?  Because it is
intellectually unsound and morally reprehensible to judge an individual
person by what group they belong to.  However, age discrimination is based
on that same wrongful premise, that all members of a group of people should
be treated inferiorily under the law because of a perception that all
members of that group fit that group's profile conceived from wrongful
prejudices about that group.  

> All people are alike, correct? 

Incorrect.  All people are *not* alike.  This fact alone shoots down the
very validity of the legal conclusion that says people should be judged
differently under the law because of the date of their birthday, because
everyone under that date is *not* the same.    

> They are born at age zero, and go up
> from there. We have to set limits on when they are old enough to do
> certain things; I don't want six year olds driving cars. So we set
> a limit for everyone. This is not age discrimination, it's that ol'
> standby, common sense.

We should set a limit on driving because some individuals can't see above
the dashboard or cannnot understand road signs, not because they are six
years old.  
  
> >We say you are just like every other citizen, and we should apply the
same
> >method here.
> 
> You're right. Let's see what kind of president a five year old will vote 
> for. Barney!

Again, you're assuming the behavior of individual people because of their
group membership.  We let people wholly incompetent about important issues
vote on candidates that determine how we are to live every 1st Teusday in
November.  So, how can the law object to a 16-year-old who is knowledgeable
about important issues and can make an informed decision about a candidate
to cast her vote in the ballot box?  Because that 16-year-old is wrongly
assumed to be incompetent based on her group membership.  Assume is the
mother of all screw-ups.      

> But 18 is arbitrary too, right? Let's give cigarettes to all
> children. I mean, it's their right and everything. Wouldn't
> want to discriminate here.

No one would be "giving" cigarettes to people under 18.  The law would just
acknowledge that it has no right to make judgements about people because of
their age.  The legislators who would repeal that law would do so because
they would realize that it is none of the government's business to regulate
anybody's private behavior.  When you say *let's* give cigarettes, you're
implying that everyone would condone under-18ers smoking.  This is false. 
If you wish to discourage it, teach by example, talk to people about the
dangers of smoking, then by all means, that is your right.  

However, there is a difference between society condemning smoking and the
government forcing people to reject smoking.  The government is not the
same thing as society.  Government plays a role in society, but is not the
society itself.  If government were the society, that would mean that the
majority of society would have a right to tell a minority of society to do
anything that majority wishes.  However, even James Madison commented that
we could not let American government become a "tyranny of the majority". 
There are things in society that the government has no intrinsic right to
enter into (therefore, why government is not society).  Choices about
consentual private behavior is one of them.  

> >To say that our law and by inference our government makes such a
distiction
> >is not in and of it self validating to your point of view.  Our
government
> >has before made such distictions to blacks, and indians and the interned
> >japanese durring WWII, the imprimeur of government does not necessarily
> >convey legitimacy, this was the whole thrust of Nueremburg.
> 
> I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. Nuremberg? That might
> count as a Nazi reference, which means it's time for this debate to
> die its natural death.

You misunderstand his reference.  He's not saying, "Well, those mean, nasty
bouncers at the bar are just a bunch of Nazis anyway."  His point is that
just because your viewpoint is the same as the government's lawbooks does
not mean that your point is any more justified than if it opposed the
government's policy.  A viewpoint cannot be justified all because more
people agree with you than disagree with you.  I've read MADD's literature
on why the over-21 drinking age is so right.  Mainly in centers on "Well,
it's the law.  Therefore, it's right."  It's very lazy to think in those
terms.  It's the easiest thing to just agree with the government's policy,
because, after all, if all of those legislators and government agencies
agree with you, then you must be correct, right?  Wrong.  I won't use the
old "40 million Frenchmen can't be wrong" anecdote, but I think you see
what I'm getting at.  

Brent  

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Robert Rodgers) wrote:

>Since we wont be pushing responsibility down the age ladder, what
>we'll get is not people learning to drink responsibly (drinking
>doesn't encourage responsible drinking) but rather another 3 years of
>them drinking irresponsibly.

Well, the experience of countries with lower drinking ages or none at
all contradicts that. 

I think your belief that 18-21 year olds have no responsibilities is
more than a little patronizing. 
---
John Whiteside  |  Washington, DC
whiteside at mindspring.com
(to reply by email, remove .NOSPAM from my address)

Jack Dracula wrote:
> 
> Tim Reed  <tr264695@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote:
> 
> > I can be drafted, I can vote, I can drive and I can buy a shotgun,
> > but I'm not allowed to drink?  Thats ridiculous.
> 
> Well, we don't want you drafted drunk, voting drunk, driving drunk
> or shooting drunk, so we better keep things like they are.

However for people 21 and over its ok for this to happen.

> 
> > I think a better idea
> > would be to let people run their own lives especially after they
> > reach the age of 18.
> 
> Uh, I have not met that many 18 year olds that are capable of running
> their own lives.
>                                                         JD


Then you must not know that many 18 yr olds. I'm at OU which has about
20,000 people.  If statistics held true 5000 of them would be freshman
(although thats not true freshmen are always the biggest class due to
dropouts).  Come meet one of them then you'll know.

>Since we wont be pushing responsibility down the age ladder, what
>we'll get is not people learning to drink responsibly (drinking
>doesn't encourage responsible drinking) but rather another 3 years of
>them drinking irresponsibly.

	I am European, from Spain. The first time I tried alcohol
I was 8 or 9, when my father let me taste beer -"taste", as opposed
to "drink". The point was, kids do not like beer because it is sour,
and having alcohol was not a big deal. I'm not going to say that it
worked so well that I never again tried alcohol, but since it wasn't
forbidden that much, you didn't care.
	The first time I went into a bar with classmates and ordered
beers I was 14. Yes, the bar was filled with people, and each of us
8th graders had two beers. But if we had not had a "serious pizza
dinner" to celebrate a birthday, I'm pretty sure that the waiter
would not have served us the second one.
	Can this happen in the States ?  I'm not so sure...  are the
waiters expected to decide how much can you drink?   Would you or 
your bar be willing to risk a lawsuit if you let a kid get drunk?
	And I can not imagine somebody in Washington seeing a drunk
person in the street and saying "shame on you". But if you get drunk
in Spain, people are definitely going to give you the stares; and if
you are a kid, you can be scolded by perfect strangers. (I'm talking
Madrid, a city of 4 millions).
	When you have that age, you have to be back home at 10 pm or
so. You'd rather not be drunk, or your parents are going to teach 
you some. This would be the same in the States, I guess; it's
different when you are 21 and you are "a grown up" at college.
	By the way, people get driving licenses quite late in Spain;
I got mine at 25, when I was studying at Maryland.
	Just my two cents,

	Santi

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Robert Rodgers) wrote:

>Because drunk driving tapers off with the age of drivers, and in
>particular, in the age range from 18 to 25.  Raising the legal age to
>25 is impractical from a legal standpoint and raising it higher would
>do little or nothing to discourage drunk driving.

How about we raise the driving age to 21 and drop the drinking age? 

How about if we actually teach people to drive, instead of checking
for a pulse and then giving them licenses? I realize this would mean
revoking the drivers' licenses of the entire state of Maryland, but
hey, I think it would be worth it. 
---
John Whiteside  |  Washington, DC
whiteside at mindspring.com
(to reply by email, remove .NOSPAM from my address)

vampire@wam.umd.edu (Jack Dracula) wrote:


>Do the majority of 18 year olds work full time? No.
>Do the majority run their own households? No.
>Do the majority pay for their own tuitions? No.

Sources, please. 

---
John Whiteside  |  Washington, DC
whiteside at mindspring.com
(to reply by email, remove .NOSPAM from my address)

david, AT, visix, DOT, com wrote:
> 
> If you want a glass of wine with dinner, you can have that right now -
> if your parents approve.
> 
> None of the drinking laws prohibit a parent from giving a drink to his
> child.  The law prohibits the child from buying and drinking it on his
> own, which is something very different.

Wrong.  Here in the state of Michigan, it's known as furnishing alchohol
to a minor, and many an underage drinking party host/ess has been thrown
in jail for buying the booze, parents especially included.

-- Brian Ream                                         Kalamazoo Michigan
-- mailto:osiris@net-link.net            http://www.net-link.net/~osiris
-- Oh, we _live_ to see fuel for the flames, don't we !!

Adam T. Michalski wrote:
> 
> Jack Dracula wrote:
> >
> > Tim Reed  <tr264695@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > I can be drafted, I can vote, I can drive and I can buy a shotgun,
> > > but I'm not allowed to drink?  Thats ridiculous.
> >
> > Well, we don't want you drafted drunk, voting drunk, driving drunk
> > or shooting drunk, so we better keep things like they are.
> 
>         So, what you're saying is is that every single teenager that drinks
> automatically will get drunk?
> 
anyone that drinks will get drunk. The perception is that someone who is
18 doesn't have as good judgement as someone who is 21. Of course this
perception is held by people over 21. The difference in those three
years  is the difference between completing High school and almost
completing college. I don't really agree with the draft. Voting seems as
token as the Queen of England, although it really isn't. It doesn't take
any brains to get a drivers license in the US. And the right to bear
arms is an Amendment. There is no right to drink. just to make and sell.
Kniffler
I may be burned out, but I have one brain cell that still works.

Tim Reed wrote:

> Of course the ironic thing is that its easier for me to get pot than it
> is to get alcohol.  Way to go with that whole sober thing.

Hey, when pot's legal, it'll be just as hard for you to get as alcohol
:)
Kniffler

Robert Rodgers wrote:
> 
> Kevin <kniffler@cris.com> wrote:
> >anyone that drinks will get drunk. The perception is that someone who is
> >18 doesn't have as good judgement as someone who is 21. Of course this
> >perception is held by people over 21.
> 
> You know what the nicest thing about being mature is?  It means you
> can look at people older and more experienced than you and appreciate
> that they *are* older and that they *are* more experienced than you.
> This is a nice thing because these people are more than willing to
> share their experience with you, which is both interesting and quite
> useful.
> 
> This doesn't just apply to you teenies, in fact.  A large portion of
> the twentysomething crowd could stand to be a little more humble about
> their actual background and start listening to their elders.

Age doesn't necesarily bring with it wisdom.  A fool will be a fool his
entire life.

Robert Rodgers (rsrodger@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: spanglrc@wam.umd.edu (Charles Spangler) wrote:
: >First comment:  IMHO, punishing the kids who are actually responsible
: >enough to handle drinking is idiotic.

: Not allowing them to drink is "punishment"?  My god, they're so
: deprived.

Whether or not it's a severe "punishment" is not what I'm getting at - I'm
just saying that they are responsible enough to handle drinking alcohol
without harming others, and yet they aren't allowed to do this... why?

: >I'll conclude with this... I don't think prohibition can exist in a free
: >society.

: It depends on how you define prohibition.  Some people (including
: extreme libertarians) define it as an absolute right to (e.g., they
: classify DUI laws under "prohibition").  

Ok, I'll clarify what I meant.  Basically I mean prohibition of
*consentual* activities.  DUI is not a consentual activity - you're
endagering others on the road/sidewalk with your behavior.  However, a 16
year old, or a 19 year old, or a 33 year old, who is simply drinking
alcohol peacefully, is not harming anyone.

- Chip Spangler

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "We must hold forth a vision of a freer, more tolerant America. We
  must show the American people the great benefits of a society based on
  mutual, voluntary exchange where coercion and fraud has been
  banished... We will only be satisfied when we have a truly free
  society. But we will not wait for that to happen -- we will make it
  happen."
   
   -- the late Jim Lewis, America Reclaimed.

<kaustin@wam.umd.edu> wrote:

>Jack Dracula <vampire@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>>	Do not underestimate the power of inertia. Actually getting 
>>	something changed takes a great deal of work, especially an
>>	unfavorable position like this (let's face it, most lawmakers
>>	are older, and would balk greatly at this idea. The powerful
>>	lobbies of groups like MADD will also be against it.)

> That is silly.  Just because something is damn near impossible, that
> doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.  Anything is possible with the will 
> to do it.

I didn't say it shouldn't be done. To be honest, I could care less. I'm
over 21, and that's exactly where my caring stopped (not that I minded
the limit before then.) I'm just saying that this is not a new issue, nor
is it new in people's attempts to rally to change it. The opposition is
entrenched and in charge. I'm just letting people know what they'll be
up against: beautiful American conservatism in all its inertial glory.
So, good luck. I recommend starting a petition instead of posting online,
start garnering support of local politicians, that sort of thing.

						JD

The Heretical Republican <Clemsonguy@msn.com> wrote:

> A viewpoint cannot be justified all because more
> people agree with you than disagree with you. 

No, but you can conclude that that is the majority opinion.

> I've read MADD's literature
> on why the over-21 drinking age is so right.  Mainly in centers on "Well,
> it's the law.  Therefore, it's right."  It's very lazy to think in those
> terms. 

But it's also very common.

> It's the easiest thing to just agree with the government's policy,
> because, after all, if all of those legislators and government agencies
> agree with you, then you must be correct, right?  Wrong.  I won't use the
> old "40 million Frenchmen can't be wrong" anecdote, but I think you see
> what I'm getting at.  

So, you'll take one majority opinion (French) but not another (USA).

Whatever. Like I said before, I don't see a problem with it, once 
society changes, which I don't forsee happening. Yah wanna prove me
wrong, feel free, but I ain't holding my breath.
						JD

Jack Dracula wrote:
> 
> > Of course the ironic thing is that its easier for me to get pot than it
> > is to get alcohol.  Way to go with that whole sober thing.
> 
> So it's easier to break one law than another. Your point?
> 
>                                                 JD

Point being that even if the alcohol laws were perfectly enforced no one
could stop anyone from being self destructive if they wanted to.  Hell,
even if they couldn't get pot Morning Glory (a hallucinogen) seeds are
always available.  Whats right and whats the law aren't always the same.

In article <E7Auow.FLA@boss.cs.ohiou.edu>,
Tim Reed  <Don'twriteme@I'llwriteyou> wrote:
!Jack Dracula wrote:
!> 
!> > Of course the ironic thing is that its easier for me to get pot than it
!> > is to get alcohol.  Way to go with that whole sober thing.
!> 
!> So it's easier to break one law than another. Your point?
!> 
!>                                                 JD
!
!Point being that even if the alcohol laws were perfectly enforced no one
!could stop anyone from being self destructive if they wanted to.  Hell,
!even if they couldn't get pot Morning Glory (a hallucinogen) seeds are
!always available.  Whats right and whats the law aren't always the same.

are you trying to imply that if destructive behaviour is possible, then it
should not be illegal?  that if someone can get pot or alcohol, then it should
be legal to do so?  sorry to disappoint you, but it doesn't follow that way.

sometimes what is right and what is the law do overlap.  sometimes, also, a
right law is not uniformly enforceable.  that is not a flaw in the law.

-D-
-- 
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meet the
definition of a telephone fax machine.  By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to
send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to
recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation.

Matthew T. Russotto <russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote:
>In article <5gkj7m$q86@shelby.visix.com>,  <david AT visix DOT com> wrote:
>}
>}If you want a glass of wine with dinner, you can have that right now -
>}if your parents approve.
>}
>}None of the drinking laws prohibit a parent from giving a drink to his
>}child.  The law prohibits the child from buying and drinking it on his
>}own, which is something very different.
>
>The law is "contributing the the delinquency of a minor".

If you get your kid drunk, or throw parties and get his friends drunk,
then yes.

But if you use any good judgement at all, and restrict his consumption
to a reasonable level (perhaps a glass at dinner during family events,
etc.) nobody's going to care at all.

The law allows parents to decide what's best for their children.  It
only steps in when the parents prove that they are not acting in their
child's best interests.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Charlap          | The contents of this message are not the opinions
david AT visix DOT com | of Visix Software, nor of anyone besides myself.
Visix Software, Inc.   |---------------------------------------------------
Member of Team-OS/2    | If you send me unsolicited e-mail advertising, I
-----------------------| will notify your postmaster and ask him to delete
                       | your net access.  You have been warned.
                       ----------------------------------------------------

In article <332EA8CC.3DAE@net-link.net>, Aeoleus  <osiris@net-link.net> wrote:
>david, AT, visix, DOT, com wrote:
>> 
>> If you want a glass of wine with dinner, you can have that right now -
>> if your parents approve.
>> 
>> None of the drinking laws prohibit a parent from giving a drink to his
>> child.  The law prohibits the child from buying and drinking it on his
>> own, which is something very different.
>
>Wrong.  Here in the state of Michigan, it's known as furnishing alchohol
>to a minor, and many an underage drinking party host/ess has been thrown
>in jail for buying the booze, parents especially included.

Throwing wild booze parties for all the kids on the block is not the
same thing as a parent giving a drink to his child during a meal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Charlap          | The contents of this message are not the opinions
david AT visix DOT com | of Visix Software, nor of anyone besides myself.
Visix Software, Inc.   |---------------------------------------------------
Member of Team-OS/2    | If you send me unsolicited e-mail advertising, I
-----------------------| will notify your postmaster and ask him to delete
                       | your net access.  You have been warned.
                       ----------------------------------------------------

Donald DiPaula wrote:
> 
> are you trying to imply that if destructive behaviour is possible, then it
> should not be illegal?  

	Are you saying that smoking pot and drinking alcohol will destroy our
whole society?
-- 
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Adam Michalski                              
mradam@execpc.com 
smilinadam@juno.com                         
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/3286/ 
St. Francis, Wisconsin U.S.A.

> What exactly would drinking encourage other than teenyboppers starting
> their "I can drink legal woo-woo let's go out and get plastered this
> weekend" phase 3 years sooner?

18 year olds are adults, not "teenyboppers", Fonzy.


> Because drunk driving tapers off with the age of drivers, and in
> particular, in the age range from 18 to 25.  Raising the legal age to
> 25 is impractical from a legal standpoint and raising it higher would
> do little or nothing to discourage drunk driving.

Why not?  Is supposedly works for those under 21 (that's why we have it,
right?) so why wouldn't it discourage it for those under 25?

> I wonder what would happen, however, if we let the under-21 crowd
> choose between a driver's license and a drinker's license.  That would
> be an interesting social experiment -- allow the state to issue one,
> or the other, but not both, until age 21.

HA!  That would be an interested social experiment in getting the
legislature to do something *really* stupid.


Corey

-- 
Corey Heim--$caheim@students.wisc.edu (Remove $ to send mail)
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Department of Political Science
The law is only as effective as those that create, enforce, and interpret it.

> Lets see, just what exactly would happen if somehow the state decided
> to repeal this law and bring back the pre 1982 age of 18 for beer and
> wine purchases.  Well lets see, as far as I can tell the only
> difference would be more drunk driving offenses committed by
> teenagers, more misdemeanor offenses like loitering, public
> drunkeness, disturbing the peace and a higher alcohol addiction rate
> amongst the under 21 crowd!!!  Sounds like you have a good cause on
> your hands... I for one, wouldn't mind sharing the road with drunken
> teenagers...

I suppose sharing the road with millions and millions of drunken *adults*
makes you feel better somehow?  Lest you have forgotten, if the drinking
age were reduced to 18 or 19, those people would be adults!  Oh, yeah! 
Missed that one, did you?

> 
> Wake up Matt, enjoy your youth without a fog of drunkeness!!

So suddenly all those under 21 who would enjoy alcohol in moderation as it
should be would suddenly become alcoholics?  Funny, that hasn't happened
to me.  Does something change in me at 21 that allows me to use alcohol
without becoming an alcoholic?  Tell me about it--you must know.  
 
Corey

-- 
Corey Heim--$caheim@students.wisc.edu (Remove $ to send mail)
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Department of Political Science
The law is only as effective as those that create, enforce, and interpret it.

Hi, I am from the Philippines and alcohol there is no big deal, an 8 year
old child can buy cigarets and alcohol from the shops and nobody would
care. This is why its no big deal because there is no restriction on what
age you should be drinking or smoking there's not even a restriction on
what age you can enter a nightclub as long as you've got the cash.  As for
driving license it is not necessary as long as you've got the car and you
know how to drive you'll be just fine. Now do you see why its no big deal?
Because there aren't much restriction no one pays attention to this
subject. No one goes out to get pissed and ran a muck, no one tries too
hard to get into clubs and no one really cares if you have your license or
not.But they do care if you cause too much havoc.

Lover
 







On 18 Mar 1997, Santiago Arteaga wrote:

> >Since we wont be pushing responsibility down the age ladder, what
> >we'll get is not people learning to drink responsibly (drinking
> >doesn't encourage responsible drinking) but rather another 3 years of
> >them drinking irresponsibly.
> 
> 	I am European, from Spain. The first time I tried alcohol
> I was 8 or 9, when my father let me taste beer -"taste", as opposed
> to "drink". The point was, kids do not like beer because it is sour,
> and having alcohol was not a big deal. I'm not going to say that it
> worked so well that I never again tried alcohol, but since it wasn't
> forbidden that much, you didn't care.
> 	The first time I went into a bar with classmates and ordered
> beers I was 14. Yes, the bar was filled with people, and each of us
> 8th graders had two beers. But if we had not had a "serious pizza
> dinner" to celebrate a birthday, I'm pretty sure that the waiter
> would not have served us the second one.
> 	Can this happen in the States ?  I'm not so sure...  are the
> waiters expected to decide how much can you drink?   Would you or 
> your bar be willing to risk a lawsuit if you let a kid get drunk?
> 	And I can not imagine somebody in Washington seeing a drunk
> person in the street and saying "shame on you". But if you get drunk
> in Spain, people are definitely going to give you the stares; and if
> you are a kid, you can be scolded by perfect strangers. (I'm talking
> Madrid, a city of 4 millions).
> 	When you have that age, you have to be back home at 10 pm or
> so. You'd rather not be drunk, or your parents are going to teach 
> you some. This would be the same in the States, I guess; it's
> different when you are 21 and you are "a grown up" at college.
> 	By the way, people get driving licenses quite late in Spain;
> I got mine at 25, when I was studying at Maryland.
> 	Just my two cents,
> 
> 	Santi
> 
> 
> 


----------------------------------------------------------------
  From: Redcliffe State High School       Ph:  +61 7 3283 2033 
        zzredshs@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au        Fax: +61 7 3283 2755
        Oxley Avenue
        REDCLIFFE  QLD  4020
        AUSTRALIA.

  WWW:  http://www.uq.oz.au/~zzredshs
----------------------------------------------------------------

Guys, what is the big deal? There is no point in this arguement what so
ever, it is up to you to be "cool" if  you want to drink and it is also up
to you if you want to be the "sensible " type.  





On 18 Mar 1997, Santiago Arteaga wrote:

> >Since we wont be pushing responsibility down the age ladder, what
> >we'll get is not people learning to drink responsibly (drinking
> >doesn't encourage responsible drinking) but rather another 3 years of
> >them drinking irresponsibly.
> 
> 	I am European, from Spain. The first time I tried alcohol
> I was 8 or 9, when my father let me taste beer -"taste", as opposed
> to "drink". The point was, kids do not like beer because it is sour,
> and having alcohol was not a big deal. I'm not going to say that it
> worked so well that I never again tried alcohol, but since it wasn't
> forbidden that much, you didn't care.
> 	The first time I went into a bar with classmates and ordered
> beers I was 14. Yes, the bar was filled with people, and each of us
> 8th graders had two beers. But if we had not had a "serious pizza
> dinner" to celebrate a birthday, I'm pretty sure that the waiter
> would not have served us the second one.
> 	Can this happen in the States ?  I'm not so sure...  are the
> waiters expected to decide how much can you drink?   Would you or 
> your bar be willing to risk a lawsuit if you let a kid get drunk?
> 	And I can not imagine somebody in Washington seeing a drunk
> person in the street and saying "shame on you". But if you get drunk
> in Spain, people are definitely going to give you the stares; and if
> you are a kid, you can be scolded by perfect strangers. (I'm talking
> Madrid, a city of 4 millions).
> 	When you have that age, you have to be back home at 10 pm or
> so. You'd rather not be drunk, or your parents are going to teach 
> you some. This would be the same in the States, I guess; it's
> different when you are 21 and you are "a grown up" at college.
> 	By the way, people get driving licenses quite late in Spain;
> I got mine at 25, when I was studying at Maryland.
> 	Just my two cents,
> 
> 	Santi
> 
> 
> 


----------------------------------------------------------------
  From: Redcliffe State High School       Ph:  +61 7 3283 2033 
        zzredshs@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au        Fax: +61 7 3283 2755
        Oxley Avenue
        REDCLIFFE  QLD  4020
        AUSTRALIA.

  WWW:  http://www.uq.oz.au/~zzredshs
----------------------------------------------------------------