🚀 go-pugleaf

mwalcoff@wam.umd.edu (Matt Walcoff) wrote:
>>>It *is* one group forcing a law upon another without making it 
>>>apply to itself, 
>
>It is perfectly good reasoning. 

No, I'm sorry, it isn't.  ALL laws which do not focus directly on
individual rights are laws in which one group is affected by the
desires of another, and most of these laws are both necessary and
desirable.  

>In most instances, those affected by a
>law can vote for the same legislators who make it. 

Resident and illegal aliencs can't vote on the laws that affect them.

[...]

>>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.  
>
>How many people were rioting? 

Too many.  The number isn't the issue, the fact that they were
apparently proud of their addiction-inspired pathetic stupidity is the
issue.

>Total, a few thousand. Since my guess is
>a lot of them are over 21, 

Quite probably.  Over-21s can be just as stupid and irresponsible as
under-21s when they want to be.

>that means something like .001% of
>18-20-year-olds were involved. 

What's your point?  The evidence in question isn't the riots, it's the
DWI & reckless driving statistics.


>Ten-year-olds are not physically capable of holding down even a little
>alcohol. 

But they can marry.

>Teenagers drink alcohol the world over, usually without
>problems.

Unfortunately for us, that's not the case here.

>"Minimum legal drinking age is not a significant � or even a
>perceptible � factor in the fatality experience of all drivers or of
>young drivers," wrote Rutgers University economists Peter Asch and
>David T. Levy after rigorously examining traffic fatality statistics.

Misleading: That's because young drivers also engage in incredibly
reckless behavior behind the rule.  The resulting traffic fatality
rate for the 16-21 set is so high that DWI isn't even a visible
factor.   Or, more clearly: Teenage drinkers drink irresponsibly, and
teenage drivers drive irresponsibly, but there are a lot more teenage
drivers tnan there are drinkers.

>"In short, drinking age laws discourage rather than encourage a
>transition period between youthful abstinence and adult use of
>alcoholic beverages," writes journalist and sociologist Mike A. Males.

Let's try these on for size:

"In short, driving age laws discourage rather than encourage a
transition period between youthful carlessness and adult use of
automobiles,"

"In short, firearms posession age laws discourage rather than
encourage a transition period between youthful abstinence and adult
use of firearms,"


>>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.
>
>Um, I don't drink. 

So are you actually telling me that you really believe this isn't what
the teenies are all up in arms about?