🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3554b5b8.728325@news.wam.umd.edu>,
	rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Rob Rodgers) writes:
> merrell@eng.umd.edu (Brian C. Merrell) wrote:
>>It *is* one group forcing a law upon another without making it 
>>apply to itself, 
> 
> This isn't a valid line of reasoning.   For an extreme case of "one
> group vs. another) onsider, say, property rights framed in that
> context. Or national sovereignty.
> 

Hmmm.  But wouldn't that be different because it's a defense against an
outside force?

> Or are you thinking more along the lines of crime?  How about jailing
> felons (one group -- that being non-criminally-engaged society --
> forcing a law upon another -- like outlawing mail fraud)?  Or
> something more traditional ( telling good ol' boys they can't have a
> few six packs on their long drive back from fishin' )?
> 

Not the same.  Someone shooting another person is an active threat. 
Alcohol abuse is just a sad thing.  The only time it turns into an active
threat is when some drunk runs over a kid or beats up his family.  That's
when it affects someone else.  Then the non-criminally-engaged members of
society can force a law upon the criminally-engaged members.

> Did you miss the last few weeks of news reports on those idiot
> embarassments who populate some campuses?
> 
> The evidence is on the side of those who believe that 18-20 year olds
> apparently *can't* make responsible decisions about alcohol.  They not
> only can't handle the responsibility, but they're damn close to
> throwing riots and running out of control because of an addiction.  
> 

Some (many) of them were drunks, yes.  But some of them, according to CNN
at least, were trying to protest peacefully until someone brought out a
couch and torched it.  Then the violence started.  At the other schools, I
imagine it was the same; just a bunch of yelling until someone "fired the
first shot," (not literally, of course).

>>And, just to point out something, the law doesn't apply to you, so your 
>>input has a certain bias. :)  
> 
> The law doesn't apply to me now, but it applied to me at a time not so
> far back.  No matter how the under-21 crowd wants to try and frame it,
> it's not a rights issue any more than being allowed to posess firearms
> or marry under age-10 are rights issues for children.  
> 

But both are allowed at the age of 18.  So why not for drinking?

> many countries is to be an adult, with adult responsibilites (working
> full time or fully supporting oneself, etc.).  Far cry from here.
> 

[Sorry, got too quick with dd in vi, so some of the previous comments were
lost.]

This is a generalization (BIG TIME) and isn't valid.

> The real problem is that the people who are most insistent that they
> can "handle" their drinks are those who are the least responsible. 
> 

Yes.  So once they show signs of a problem, mark their ID or something. 
But don't punish the whole group.  And the above problem doesn't have any
inherent link to the 18-20 group anyway.

> Really, who are we kidding?  College kids want to be able to drink
> because they like getting a buzz or going all the way to plastered.
> It's not for their health, it's not for the "calm, relaxing
> atmosphere" or to relieve stress (not in any healthy way, that is) or
> because they enjoy a glass of vino with their meal (thought I'd head
> that one off).  It's because boozing is fun _specifically_ because of
> the lack of self-control that it involves.
> 
> At that point, the whole rights/oppression issue is right out the
> window.
> 

Ummm...Why does it take out the rights issue?  

-- 
Brian Merrell        U. of Maryland       brian@brianmerrell.com
merrell@eng.umd.edu   College Park   http://www.brianmerrell.com