🚀 go-pugleaf

Finally my last statement of this thread....... All of you proponants to
decreasing the age to drink.... How many of you are actually under 21......
With the exception the the anarchist that claims to be 27 I believe most of
you are btween the ages of 18 and 22.... The under 21 want to drink to GET
DRUNK no other reason and the 21 and over proponants to lower the drinking
age want to get drunk with their younger friends. Fine admit why you want
the age lowered and then you wouldnt look like such asses by bringing up
some stupid constitional arguement that does not apply. Under the law we
are not preventing you from drinking. We are preventing others from
facilitating your consumption.... In the state of maryland it is not
illegal to be under 21 and intoxicated. It is illegal to be intoxicated in
public but what you do on your property is your own business and drinking
in or on your own property is not illegal granted you are over the age of
18. Also if you really want to drink, brew your own beer.... In maryland it
is not illegal to drink alcohol that you have brewed in a legal fashion. In
that I mean distilleries are out but worts are ok. Wort is what you brew
beer in. You  may brew your own beer and consume it on your property, but
not in public. So all we are doing is protecting public safety and many
laws have been developed that work against the constition but I think we
all would agree they are good laws. Laws the go against the constition
include the right to bear arms. This has been modified to exclude loaded
concelled weapons which is illegal. Also the consumption of alcohol and the
possesion of a loaded firearm is illegal.... Why dont all you people that
argue for lowering the age of alcohol argue to carry your concelled weapons
too.... Your about as likely to get to drink as you are to legally carry a
concelled weapon....
                            OH YEAH, to the guy who said they did not catch
any underage drinkers in that roadblock your wrong they actually did not
catch any people  over 21 and 5 underage people for DWI..... GO figure

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

> In article <35563b2f.16538764@news.wam.umd.edu>,
> Rob Rodgers <knave@acm.org> wrote:
> }russotto@wanda.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> }>One who is 18 is already required to take responsbility for his
> }>actions -- he may be sued in civil court, he is always tried as an
> }>adult in criminal court.  If he has a job, he pays taxes.  So what's
> }>your excuse for forbidding drinking for those 18-21 again?
> }
> }Their irresponsibility has shown itself in previous decades.  Hence
> }the drinking age laws.
>
> OK, so lets raise the age where one may be sued or tried as an adult
> to 21.  After all, if those 18-20 are inherently irresponsible because
> of their age, it is hardly fair to expect them to be responsible.
>
> }few groups (MADD, etc.)  But I don't think the issue is 18 instead of
> }21 -- if we all agreed that 18 was an acceptable age, the sub-18
> }teenies would come out squealing that they're allowed to drive, so why
> }not drink?
>
> They'd have a point, too, though not nearly as strong.  There's
> already a move on, if you hadn't noticed, to solve _that_ problem by
> effectively raising the driving age.
>
> }It never ends -- the line (arbitrary) needs to be drawn, and here we
> }ware today.
>
> The line doesn't really need to be drawn.  But if it's going to be
> drawn, age 21 is far too high.
> --
> Matthew T. Russotto                                russotto@pond.com
> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
> of justice is no virtue."