# College presidents want drinking age lowered to 18



## R y a n

*Should the drinking age be lowered from 21 to 18?*​
Yes, it will likely reduce binge drinking.1328.26%No, allowing teenagers to drink is not the solution1532.61%It probably won't affect the amount of drinking by young people.1839.13%


----------



## R y a n

I'm sure many of you might have already heard about this...

But many prominent college presidents are advocating for this.



> http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/08/18/college.drinking.age.ap/index.html
> 
> August 19, 2008
> 
> College presidents from more than 100 schools across the country are calling on lawmakers to do something about binge drinking: Consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18.
> 
> "Twenty-one is not working," says the group's statement, signed by presidents from prominent colleges such as Dartmouth, Duke and Syracuse. "A culture of dangerous, clandestine 'binge drinking' - often conducted off-campus - has developed."
> 
> Over the strong objection of federal safety officials, a quiet movement to lower the legal drinking age to 18 is taking root as advocates argue that teenagers who are allowed to vote and fight for their country should also be able to enjoy a beer or two.
> 
> The proposal, which is the subject of a national petition drive by the National Youth Rights Association, has been studied in a handful of states in recent years, including Florida, Wisconsin, Vermont and Missouri, where supporters are pushing a ballot initiative.
> 
> Opponents of the idea point to a reported rise in binge drinking as teenagers increasingly turn to hard liquor as proof that minors should not be allowed to drink, but proponents look at the same data and draw the opposite conclusion.
> 
> Even before the presidents begin the public phase of their efforts, which might include newspaper ads in the coming weeks, they face sharp criticism.
> 
> Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting research and looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem, and urges parents to think carefully about safety at colleges whose presidents have signed on.
> 
> "It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses," said Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of MADD.
> 
> Duke officials would not directly respond to that criticism but released a statement from university president Richard Brodhead: "Possessing and consuming alcoholic beverages is against the law under the age of 21, and we are all obliged to uphold the law."
> 
> The current law, he said, "pushes drinking into hiding, heightening its risks, including risks from drunken driving, and it prevents us from addressing drinking with students as an issue of responsible choice."
> 
> The two sides agree alcohol abuse by college students is a huge problem, but disagree on whether raising the legal drinking age to 21 has saved lives.
> 
> A survey of research from the U.S. and other countries by the Centers for Disease Control and others showed that raising the drinking age reduced drunken driving deaths.
> 
> John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont who started the initiative, cited research by Alexander Wagenaar, a University of Florida epidemiologist. But Wagenaar himself sides with MADD in the debate.
> 
> Some officials at local universities say lowering the drinking age would have little impact.
> 
> "From the research studies that I've seen ... 50 percent of the students who are drinking have had their first drink before they're 17," said Jenny Hwang, associate dean and director for prevention and outreach at Stony Brook University. "So I don't know that changing the age from 21 to 18 would make much of a difference."
> 
> Hofstra University spokeswoman Melissa Connolly said in a statement that there "doesn't now appear to be enough data to conclude that lowering the age would lead to less rather than more drinking."
> 
> But a national discussion, she said, might lead to some constructive suggestions.
> 
> *Setting limits*
> 
> In 1984, Congress voted to penalize any state that set its legal drinking age lower than 21 by rescinding 10 percent of that state's federal highway funding. Here are some pros and cons of lowering the drinking age, according to organizations that have studied the issue, such as like Mothers Against Drunk Driving; CRC Health Group, which operates drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers; and Choose Responsibility, a nonprofit organization dedicated to lowering the drinking age to 18.
> 
> *PROS*
> 
> The United States has the oldest drinking age in the world. Most nations allow alcohol consumption at 16 or 18, and some have no minimum drinking age at all.
> 
> A lower drinking age could lead to less binge drinking, experts say, since 18- to 20-year-olds won't have to imbibe surreptitiously.
> 
> At 18, Americans can marry, serve in the military, vote and enter into legally binding contracts.
> 
> *CONS*
> 
> Safer roads. Laws setting the drinking age at 21 cut traffic fatalities involving drivers age 18-20 by 13 percent, according to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study.
> 
> Since states' laws differ on the drinking age, the result could be 18- to 20-year-olds traveling across state lines to buy or consume alcohol with sometimes disastrous results.
> 
> Adolescents' brains, some studies say, are still developing past the age of 18 and significant alcohol use can interfere in that process.


I respect MADD and their side, but when are you going to wake up and realize that an 18-year old is an adult. He or she is old enough (or this country and the rest of the world deems them old enough) to be in the military, to give their lives for a cause they may or may not believe in. They can vote on the person who will be running their country for four years. They can be held legally liable and responsible for all of their actions in a court of law. As a parent, you are not consuming the alcohol and deciding to get behind the wheel. Just like you are not trying their first joint, or smoking cigarettes for them. You can guide them, and warn them, but soon you have to face the fact that they are capable of making their own decisions and facing the consequences ON THEIR OWN.... Cut the cord already.

MADD and NHTSA have been shouting their lies about drinking and driving deaths for so long that people don't eve question them any more. They are he ones who have been misrepresenting science and inventing fake statistics to support it.

For example NHTSA's defines an alcohol-related traffic fatality as "A motor vehicle crash is considered to be alcohol-related if at least one driver or non-occupant (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash is determined to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatality that occurs in an alcohol-related crash is considered an alcohol-related fatality. The term 'alcohol-related' does not indicate that a crash or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol."

Thus, if a sober driver runs a red light and kills a couple, walking across the street, who have just had a glass of wine with dinner, you have 2 "alcohol-related" fatalities. But MADD then includes them in the number of people "Killed by Drunk Drivers."

That's bad enough, but the NHTSA number aren't even real. they never say approximately 14,000 people have been killed it's always a specific number, such as 15,829 in 2006. What they do not tell you is that this very specific number is AN ESTIMATE. They count certain crashes as "alcohol-related" even when there is NO EVIDENCE of alcohol consumption at the scene or in the police report (For example, if you're in a fatal accident at night and you're a male drive in a pick-up and under 25, you're counted as a drunk-driver even if you've NEVER had a drink.) And now MADD claims the college presidents are "misrepresenting science?" Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

I believe I read an article a couple years ago which kind of follows this drinking debate. A middle school had banned candy because of the obesity "epidemic". The administration had taken the candy machines out of the school. This led to a black market on candy and it made the problem worse. More kids were eating candy and going against the rules because it was forbidden fruit. This is how most humans work. Now when people say that other countries have a lower drinking age and that we should as well, I think it is in relation to original point. European countries have far lower abuse rates because there is no true restriction. Also, the states are the ones who should decide what they want to limit. Most states were forced (or risk losing Federal money for highways) into accepting this. Lastly, think about this. We send 18-20 year olds to die for our country and we allow them to vote to decide our leaders, but we don't let them decide if they can drink or not. That is ridiculous.

MADD is seriously risking their credibility here, although I can't help but question the credibility of an organization that would happily turn people under 115 pounds into criminals for having a glass of wine with dinner at a nice restaurant. If MADD is not willing to engage in an honest debate about whether an 18 drinking age can reduce drunk driving, then they lose all credibility. After all, isn't reducing drunk driving their mission? And hasn't MADD wondered why it is that the country with the highest drinking age in the world also has the highest rate of binge drinking among young people? If their mission is to eliminate drinking altogether instead of just drunk driving, then they lose all credibility as well.(I think a fair argument can be made that it should simply be "MAD - Mothers Against Drinking.")

I remember being on the interfraternity council in college (roll your eyes if you wish; I'll be here when you get back), and they were talking about outlawing booze on campus. Then we saw a news story about another university that had done just that and had seen a noticeable increase in drunk driving incidents among its students, including fatalities. Why? Because after the campus went dry, the students were getting in their cars and driving off campus to drink instead of risking disciplinary action by drinking on campus. Needless to say, that university soon reversed its dry campus policy. So please, wake up, MADD: students do NOT simply shrug their shoulders and stay at home playing Monopoly on Saturday nights because of the drinking age. They hop in their cars and go someplace where they CAN drink without fear getting in trouble with the law, their parents, or their university. They also make sure they do a darn good job of boozing when they get the chance, because (a) who knows when the next time they'll get their hands on some alcohol will be, and (b) if the people in charge don't want you doing it, it MUST be cool.

If MADD is truly interested in reducing drunk driving, then it should be encouraging discussion on ways to achieve that rather than simply releasing a knee-jerk statement condemning anyone who tries to engage in an honest debate. If MADD just wants to eliminate drinking, then it deserves to be marginalized in the same way that the prohibitionists were in the 1930s.

Ryan


----------



## rmh

A few years ago the university presidents were advocating raising the drinking age. I grew up in PA where the age has always been 21 and went to a public college where there was a no alcohol on campus (frat houses were all off campus) rule. Booze in dorms =expulsion. That didn't stop anyone. Think about when you first went to a bar legally. Would you really want to be sitting there with high school seniors and juniors if the age is lowered to 18? I'm old enough to remember the "get drafted but can't drink arguments" and when a guy had to have his parents sign the marriage license if he wasn't 21 and his pregnant 18 y/o girlfriend could sign it herself. No, not me. The college presidents just don't want to deal with the issue.


----------



## huntin1

I have always maintained that if a person is old enough to vote and be sent off to war, they should damn sure be allowed to walk into a bar and have a beer, or whatever else they want to drink.

:beer:

huntin1


----------



## Bustem36

I agree with the thought that if you can fight for the country you should be able to drink. But you should have to be signed up for the millitary. I just graduated college and yes underage kids drink yes they drank in high school but, I dont know if its me or what but it seems 90% of kids this age are not responsible enough to have a job let alone drink. I can with out a doubt say not only will drinking and driving accidents increase but deaths would. Also I couldnt image an 18 year old in a bar.

Our campus was a dry campus and yes some drinking did occur on campus. Binge drinking does not result because of age laws. It occurs because people are stupid and for some reason kids cant just go and hang out at a college buddies house and have a few. Nope they gotta get hammered and drink till they pass out. When you get into college your basically free to drink whenever you want to anyways.

I think it should stay like it is unless you are signed up for service. I think lowering the age now would be a huge mistake. I guess I may be bias because I dont drink. I have no problem with people that have a few now and then but honestly I dont see the point in drinking at all anyways. MHO :roll:


----------



## blhunter3

Being that I graduated from high school in 2007. I am a little baised. I voted no. It is easier the get beer then drugs(no I dont do drugs or drink) What the problem is kids don't know how to drink and when they do they go crazy with it and thats when problems happen.(bp people know). Part of me think that they should lower the age to 18 but have strings attached. Such as no drinking at bars or things like that. Its weird that a person can die for their country but cannot drink.

Agian I am not an expert but I USA has the highest drinking age and the highest alcohol abuse rate in the world. Funny how that goes hand in glove. :beer:


----------



## bluebird

I graduated from CSU a couple years ago and yes I believe that DUI's and deathes would increase for a short time but once it became a social norm to drink at 18 it wouldn't be an issue. I have been to a lot of differnt counties in Europe where you can drink almost at any age and those people don't go nuts and drink until they die because drinking alchohol is a social norm.

During my time in college we had 2 people die from drinking to much  . If people didn't think it was such a big deal to drink then they would do it less. And having people drinking at bars is a lot safer then drinking at a house party, when you are at the bar you can atleast be cut off by the bar tender, unlike drinking at a house party were you have only hammered people around you that couldn't tell if you were going to die or just pass out. The bars are safe cops are are around and you have to atleast stay some what coherent or you are asked to leave.

Over all 18 should = :beer: :bartime:


----------



## Bobm

Its got nothing to do with kids drinking its just a cop out, they dont want liability of dealing with underage drinking.

Drinking age should stay 21, driving age should be raised to 18 or severely restricted before 18.


----------



## swift

Maybe in Georgia the driving age should be 18. The kids in the Dakotas are smart enough to drive at 14. And we see very few serious accidents by the 14-16 y/o group. The whole big brother deciding your an adult for some things and not others is stupid. Lower the drinking age and enforce the laws. I think there should be a legal component to alcohol involved crimes like there is with weapons. Assault without alcohol misdemenor II, with alcohol misdemenor I second offense = felony assault.


----------



## Bobm

> In 2006, just under 65 percent of all alcohol-related crashes in North Dakota were due to drivers between 17 and 34 years of age. When looking only at those impaired drivers of the legal age to consume alcohol (ages 21 to 34), they make up 47 percent of all alcohol-related crashes in our state (ND Crash Summary, 2006).


this means 53% of the alchohol involved accidents in North Dakota involved underage drinking drivers, I am impressed with their great Judgement :roll: Way way better than kids in other states.

So yes Swift great idea, lower the age to 18 so high school kids can get it for their buddies. Yes lots of high school kids turn 18 their senior year, thats a great combination isn't it??? high school kids,liquor and driving.

The effects of this idea is not limited to college campi

I am sure that young people willing to drink themselves into drunkeness and drive (a highly illegal act) will be very impressed with the law you advocate. I mean their judgement is so finely tuned to avoid risk at that age.

great Idea :withstupid:

http://www.dot.nd.gov/divisions/dlts/docs/dot-male-driver-report-final.pdf


----------



## buckseye

I'm old and sticking with my conviction that if you can fight and die for your country you are an adult. Not even debatable in my world!

It's a crazy country that will send teens to war and tell them they are but children that are not yet responsible. What a krock of krap that is.

Big azz double standard!! :beer:


----------



## blhunter3

Bobm said:


> In 2006, just under 65 percent of all alcohol-related crashes in North Dakota were due to drivers between 17 and 34 years of age. When looking only at those impaired drivers of the legal age to consume alcohol (ages 21 to 34), they make up 47 percent of all alcohol-related crashes in our state (ND Crash Summary, 2006).
> 
> 
> 
> this means 53% of the alchohol involved accidents in North Dakota involved underage drinking drivers, I am impressed with their great Judgement :roll: Way way better than kids in other states.
> 
> So yes Swift great idea, lower the age to 18 so high school kids can get it for their buddies. Yes lots of high school kids turn 18 their senior year, thats a great combination isn't it??? high school kids,liquor and driving.
> 
> The effects of this idea is not limited to college campi
> 
> I am sure that young people willing to drink themselves into drunkeness and drive (a highly illegal act) will be very impressed with the law you advocate. I mean their judgement is so finely tuned to avoid risk at that age.
> 
> great Idea :withstupid:
> 
> http://www.dot.nd.gov/divisions/dlts/docs/dot-male-driver-report-final.pdf
Click to expand...

Bobm it is so easy to get alcohol, so getting it is never a problem, thanks to either some parents or people who think they are still in high school even though they are in there late 20's. Like I said earlier and so did buckeye. How can a person die for this country but the cannot drink?


----------



## Bobm

Ever consider the possibility that the very reason we use 18 year old kids as soldiers is because their ability to assess risk is very low? They can be easily molded to do what is necessary because of that fact.

They have adult strength bodies and undeveloped risk assessment. Risk assessment is not developed until late 20's to early 30's.

Fighting in war has nothing to do with endangering innocent citizens with reckless behavior.

Dave I am a veteran and used to think the same way, then my brother was killed by a drunk driver on the way home from work, a drunk kid.

I changed my mind.


----------



## blhunter3

So how kieds need to learn how to drink with adults. How ever brought up Europeans drink at alomst every age because they know how to drink.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
There are no right answers for this question, damn you R Y A N


----------



## swift

Bob :withstupid: Read my post. We see very few accidents in the 14-16 age group is what I said. Kids are going to drink. Give them a place so it doesn't have to be so clandestine and the driving component will decrease. Bob your arguement that young soldiers are too stupid to realize the danger their in is pretty stupid too. Maybe you should get off the porch and start interacting with the young of today they are alot smarter than we were at their age. :withstupid:


----------



## Bgunit68

My nephew was killed by a drunk driver. His wake was on his 6th birthday. He was killed by a 43 year old man. I think drunk drivers should carry the sentence of attempted man slaughter regardless if they were in an accident or not. That being said I also agree with huntin1 and Buckseye. Does having the drinking age at 21 it cuts down alcohol related accidents? Absolutely. But on the same what if the drinking age was 30. Hell, I think the majority of us can say we are more responsible in our 30's and 40's than when we were in our 20's. That will also cut alcohol related accidents. Well, hell why don't we just bring back prohibition? Not only can they be sent off to war at the age of 18. Just the simple fact that the government says they are responsible enough to be issued an automatic weapon (which in the US a civilian can not own without special permits) but they can't have a beer which most any civilian over the age of 21 can have. I was at a local Olive Garden. There was a bunch of people at a table. Three of them were in uniform and just back from Iraq. I saw that 2 were drinking Heineken the other, I thought, was drinking a mixed drink. I asked the waitress to give the 2 drinking a beer another one and another of what ever the other guy was drinking. She said it was soda he was only 20. He was risking his life defending our freedom and couldn't have a beer with his fellow heroes. That Sucks!


----------



## Bgunit68

Also, great topic Ryan.


----------



## swift

Bob here are the hard numbers from your citation.
2006 46 ETOH related fatalities.
47% age 21-34=14
53% under 21 = 16
That leaves 16 35years and older.

ND had 16 people killed with a drunk teen behind the wheel. ND had 30 people killed with a drunk over 21 driver behind the wheel.

Doesn't sound as ominous when you break down the percentages.

source 2006 nd crash summary.


----------



## MSG Rude

Guess I have to weigh in on this one too....

As most of you know, I just retired after 20+ years of active duty....I will be 40 this October...do the math, I was 17 when I joined the Army...

Could I drink legally, no. Did I? He11 yes as we all did. When I turned 18 I could vote. Did I still drink? He11 ya I did as we all did.

Could I tell right from wrong...yes. Did I feel like I was invinceable? Guess the tattoo on my right arm of the Grim Reaper answers that question. the youth always feels unstopable.

Here is the deal as I see it...those that do join the service have a better developed (for the majority as I saw it) "ability to deduce risk" then others. Others are immature well into their 40's and 50's...look at some posts here on NoDak for proof.

I was in severel 'other countries' that have lower drinking (or none for that matter) ages then us. Their society as a WHOLE is different. You can not point out the drinking age as a sole experience for 'proof' for your debate! Heck, some countries have naked breasts on posters advertising perfume located in the shop windows. They have nude or semi-nude public pools. Try that here in the States...never happen and why is that? Different "morels".

I have gotten a beer with my Big Mac and I have had a beer with my popcorn at a movie. I have also sun burned my back to a crisp because we would hang out at the public pools in Europe.

Bottom line: some can handle while others can't and I mean that all the way around...drinking and the military.

As someone that was on both of these fronts I can only foresee many more deaths with a lower drinking age.


----------



## MSG Rude

swift said:


> Bob here are the hard numbers from your citation.
> 2006 46 ETOH related fatalities.
> 47% age 21-34=14
> 53% under 21 = 16
> That leaves 16 35years and older.
> 
> ND had 16 people killed with a drunk teen behind the wheel. ND had 30 people killed with a drunk over 21 driver behind the wheel.
> 
> Doesn't sound as ominous when you break down the percentages.
> 
> source 2006 nd crash summary.


Swift,

What do you think the numbers would be if the drinking age was lowered and the "under 21" categorey was influxed with another 76,000 people between the ages of 18-21 that were all of a sudden 'legal' to drink?

I am not a mathmatician but I can resonably deduce that the given number would increase significantly.


----------



## R y a n

So how does Europe do it? How do alllllll those kids from alllll those different countries manage to behave responsibally? How?

Are they more mature? If so whose fault is that?

Are their teenage brains of their youth more advanced than the teenage brains of our youth?


----------



## MSG Rude

I guess I don't know "how they do it". I don't even know if their numbers are lower then ours as far as fatalities and ages and stuff like that...no idea.

I can tell you though that it is a different culture that is cultivated over there then here......when I was there at that time.


----------



## Bobm

I have to admit that Ryan and Swift are a great example of judgement not improving with age :lol: :lol: :lol: . J/K


----------



## seabass

I spent 13 months in a university town in the Netherlands living in basically the equivalent of a dorm. The drinking age is 16 or 18, I'm not sure. Two things I thought were interesting -- kids drank (of course), but by and large it seemed like it was more in control than my experiences in my undergrad days (which was a dry campus, get caught with booze, big trouble). Secondly, the university basically made it easy for the students to drink... each dorm had a bar in the basement. I've seen the same thing in Munich.

It's unclear to me if it is the lowered drinking age or the easy access, but my sense is that there wasn't the binge drinking that I've seen in the states.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

If you can vote to elect the leaders and die for your country then you should not be descriminated based on age!

Pretty simple IMO!


----------



## R y a n

I'm simply amazed that this hasn't come up to face Constitutional review before the Supreme Court.

This law clearly violates the Equal Protection clause under the Constitution.

You can NOT have one class of adults (over 21 years old) , having a different set of rules than another class of adults (Those between 18-21)

It is a patently illegal law on its face IMO.


----------



## swift

MSG in my opinion the numbers wouldn't change. The majority of underage etoh accidents are cars full of kids. A rolling party to avoid getting caught. When the 18 year old can go to an establishment and interact with other adults and have a beer the need to continue moving to avoid getting caught goes down. That will not make a difference with the under 18 group so you will still have the rolling parties with 14-17 y/o's. The many years of having the drinking age at 21 has not affected underage drinking. If anything it promotes additional risk taking when you consume alcohol. With the logic of Bob and MSG all alcohol should be illegal, (which would make my job alot easier) afterall more legal age drinkers kill others and themselves than underage drinkers. Sorry if I don't buy into your arguements but they are not valid by the numbers.


----------



## swift

bobm said:


> Its got nothing to do with kids drinking its just a cop out, they dont want liability of dealing with underage drinking.


Another thing that amazes me are the people that think they are smarter than those in the profession. These are University presidents that are advocating this. Not a bunch of 18 year-old Frat boys. To see posts that say they just don't want to deal with it is rediculous. Get off your high horses and look at things objectively.


----------



## MSG Rude

swift said:


> MSG in my opinion the numbers wouldn't change. The majority of underage etoh accidents are cars full of kids. A rolling party to avoid getting caught. When the 18 year old can go to an establishment and interact with other adults and have a beer the need to continue moving to avoid getting caught goes down. That will not make a difference with the under 18 group so you will still have the rolling parties with 14-17 y/o's. The many years of having the drinking age at 21 has not affected underage drinking. If anything it promotes additional risk taking when you consume alcohol. With the logic of Bob and MSG all alcohol should be illegal, (which would make my job alot easier) afterall more legal age drinkers kill others and themselves than underage drinkers. Sorry if I don't buy into your arguements but they are not valid by the numbers.


Nope...don't put words in my mouth....I don't think all alcohol should be illegal.....I don't think ANY alcohol should be illegal!

I think that it needs to stay where it is...that is what I said.


----------



## Bustem36

Just a thought but....

I may be mistaking but dont less peopel in europe drive especially younger kids...Also they have a completely different culture than the US. In this country for some reason kids think its cool to be party animals, drink all the time. Remember I just graduated college and have visited many friends at college it is not just the underage kids "bing drinking". There are 23-24 year old students dong the same thing, but I will say the younger they are it seems the dumber they are.

These so called dangerous drinking situations are caused be the idiots pouring the alcohol in their own mouths. Ill say it again this Bing drinking is not caused by laws its dumb kids plain and simple. Everyone knows what alcohol does and aftera few times you can pretty much figure it out.

We should legalize meth, heroin, and pot because its so easy to get and people are doing it anyways. Maybe if we let them they will use it responsibly. :wink:


----------



## Doogie

I was told a millitary member that is 18 can buy beer at the PX with a millitary id is that correct? or are people just feeding me a line of bull?


----------



## rmh

Legally, line of bull. Who knows what happens off the books? It's also a court-martial offense now to fraternize with known ladies of the evening.


----------



## Bgunit68

what if they're not known?


----------



## buckseye

Here's one for ya... I am proud of breaking this law, I have bought plenty of beer for certain 19 year olds who are now in Iraq fighting terrorists. Come get me.. I'm guilty!! :beer:


----------



## Plainsman

buckseye said:


> Here's one for ya... I am proud of breaking this law, I have bought plenty of beer for certain 19 year olds who are now in Iraq fighting terrorists. Come get me.. I'm guilty!! :beer:


Oh, Oh, knock knock, who's there?


----------



## MSG Rude

Doogie said:


> I was told a millitary member that is 18 can buy beer at the PX with a millitary id is that correct? or are people just feeding me a line of bull?


Nope...pure B.S. Now I will not say that it doesn't happen but it is not legal.

edited to add:

The base has to follow the legal stance of the host country...now. I was able to buy beer at the class VI in germany because of West Germany's laws.


----------



## MSG Rude

rmh said:


> Legally, line of bull. Who knows what happens off the books? It's also a court-martial offense now to fraternize with known ladies of the evening.


Sodomy, even between a husband and wife is illegal in the military too.

I am full of useless knowledge...just like R Y A N.


----------



## drjongy

I usually agree with Bob, but not this time.

Many countries have lower drinking ages than the US and also have
much lower alcohol related auto accidents.

Just like with guns...it's not the gun that kills.


----------



## MSG Rude

drjongy said:


> Just like with guns...it's not the gun that kills.


I have to add that I agree. We were using rocks and sticks long before guns.

But also, I do understand personal conviction due to circumstances and if the shoe were on the other foot I would probably feel the same way.


----------



## Gun Owner

ya know, I drank from the age of 15 on. If someones gonna drink, they are gonna drink.

What about a compromise though? 18 yrs old you can purchase beer, save the bars and hard liquor for 21. Being 18 allows you to have hard liquor, but not purchase it. Sorta like the laws regarding pistols and shotgun/rifles.


----------



## Bobm

You just have to watch your mother looking at her dead child to realize there is nothing to be gained by drinking period. Swift made light of the fact it was "only" 16 kids in ND. Thats 16 families that will forever feel pain they cannot resolve.

It was 22 years ago he was my little brother, my best friend and hunting buddy

For what?? so some immature dumbass can drink?

Like everything in life until you walk in their shoes you just really don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## blhunter3

People are going to drink at any age. IT is so easy to get. If they dropped the drinking age I think it would there would be less accidents. Because when do alot of the accidents happen? When kids are coming home from parties or running from the cops.


----------



## swift

Bob, I didn't "make light" of anything. I pointed out your numbers are not as high as you were trying to make believe. Bob I'm sorry your little brother was victimized by a drunk. But don't tell me what it's like to deliver the news to a family. I've been there done that many times and it sucks. Over 21 year old drunk drivers kill way more than underage drunk drivers. Having the drinking age at 21 didn't save your brother and it promotes kids to drive when they drink. Look at the past to learn what we have done is not working. It's time to try something else. Tougher prosecution is really needed, Oh, you think non-violent drug offenses shouldn't be prosecuted as you posted many times on the medical marijuana thread.


----------



## barebackjack

18 to 20 somethings are gonna binge drink no matter the legal age. Thats what they do.


----------



## rmh

If you look at some of the comments from the Univ. Presidents you'll see a common thread. The President for the University of MD flat out said that he doesn't want to have to enforce the underage drinking laws, hence his support for this His college has historically had a lot of alcohol problems and a few years ago was rated the most unsafe large university in the country.


----------



## R y a n

barebackjack said:


> 18 to 20 somethings are gonna binge drink no matter the legal age. Thats what they do.


That is such an American attitude. It is not true, and is only a recent phenomenon that the "ME" generation has taken to new heights. Even since I was in high school/college, this wasn't nearly the problem it is now. Sure we had kids get occasionally staggering drunk... but in the last 10 years it has become the norm.

When I visit other countries, you simply don't see this kind of stuff happening. Why?

It is because that the adults and by extension their governments, don't make drinking such a taboo issue. For example, my friends in Germany have children who are 8 and 10. Those kids are served wine or beer at dinner if they choose to have it with their meal. They have been exposed to alcohol as just being a normal beverage choice, no big deal. The kids preferred to have juice instead.

The point is, that since noone makes a big deal out of drinking over there, it loses much of its "hip" "cool" factor, and becomes ho-hum every day normal.

Part of the blame on the binge drinking by teens can be placed squarely on the back of the alcohol adverstisements we have here. Having a taboo product (just like tobacco) that is advertised to adults, but viewed by teens, gives it a "cool" factor for those trying to emulate adults they perceive as cooler than them.

Lastly a percentage of the blame goes towards college campuses that are glorified dance clubs that occasionally hold classes a few mornings a week. Many colleges have simply become clearinghouses for high school students who aren't the most dedicated, yet provide the college a steady supply of tuition money (in order to pay for tenured professors ever burgeoning ridiculously high salaries). Many of those kids are simply in college for the party. Colleges offer majors that are easy to obtain and basically useless upon graduating. If colleges actually made college more academically challenging (like universities are around the rest of the world), American college students wouldn't have so much time or interest in attending parties and binge drinking.

The reasons are many and varied as to why American kids can't seem to behave like other more responsible kids around the world. There is no one perfect answer, but rather is a blend of the reasons above...

Ryan


----------



## Bobm

Swift said


swift said:


> Bob here are the hard numbers from your citation.
> 2006 46 ETOH related fatalities.
> 47% age 21-34=14
> 53% under 21 = 16
> That leaves 16 35years and older.
> 
> ND had 16 people killed with a drunk teen behind the wheel. ND had 30 people killed with a drunk over 21 driver behind the wheel.
> 
> Swift said
> *Doesn't sound as ominous when you break down the percentages.*
> source 2006 nd crash summary.


Trust me it sounds ominous when its your family.

Swift said


> Bob I'm sorry your little brother was victimized by a drunk. But don't tell me what it's like to deliver the news to a family. I've been there done that many times and it sucks


Telling someoe else they're loved one had been killed by an irresponsible drunk kid is not even close to being the person you are telling, thats what you dont know and I hope you never do.

Swift said


> Tougher prosecution is really needed, Oh, you think non-violent drug offenses shouldn't be prosecuted as you posted many times on the medical marijuana thread.


Fnd a post on here showing me advocating drug use or legalizing drug use for 18 year olds.......I'll save you some time there isn't one.

IF you are advocating tougher sentencing for drunk driving I'm with you however, a drunk kids judgement is so unbeliveably poor all we will end up with is a bunch of kids in jail.

IF it was up to me drunk driving would be a permanent loss of driving priviledges I mean forever.... lifetime. Just like the innocent folks they kill.

RMH said


> If you look at some of the comments from the Univ. Presidents you'll see a common thread. The President for the University of MD flat out said that he doesn't want to have to enforce the underage drinking laws, hence his support for this His college has historically had a lot of alcohol problems and a few years ago was rated the most unsafe large university in the country.


 exactly right thats what I said also from the start


----------



## buckseye

When it comes to drunks and driving and kids getting killed of course I don't like it when someone is killed but by no means do I stand behind any law regulating me because somebody else had an accident.

It's like helmet laws, they are laws against probability not fact. Meaning yes I could get hurt today but no I didn't get hurt today. Probability kicks in and yes I could get hurt tomorrow.. we'll know the answer at the end of tomorrow. But then I'm old school and think more like we all say at funerals, God must have wanted their precious souls. Hypocracy.. not for me!!


----------



## Bobm

I agree with helmets being optional but only if the rider can show proof of insurance to cover all costs of injury and disability and that society is off the hook for the bills.

Thats rarely the case, people use poor judgement and it affects other people.


----------



## buckseye

> I agree with helmets being optional but only if the rider can show proof of insurance to cover all costs of injury and disability and that society is off the hook for the bills


.

Actually it should be illegal to get old, we spend a lot of money on medicare and stuff for old people. They should pay their own bills and hope they die in a crash so it's fast and we are not burdened by their costs.  J/K


----------



## swift

> Pot should be legal for adults and especailly for medical reasons. Our drug laws are insane.


 dated 5/22/08 by BobM.

Here is your quote advocating drug use Bob. You are too hard headed to realize that just because it was a minor that killed your brother the problem is much more wide spread than that. Adult drunks (those over 21) kill many more than minors. Having a 21 year-old drinking age has not curbed alcohol related deaths. DUI in the USA should be a felony for the first offense just like it is in Canada. One DUI means no voting rights, No firearm ownership. No rights period.


----------



## buckseye

OK now.. what kills more people guns or booze. I'm pretty sure guns do, It confuses me how people think... we all like our guns God forbid somebody regulating us and our guns. But beer now oh the deadly killer it has become should be scourged and exterminated from society. I think there are way more responsible people with guns and beer and outweighs the irresponsible ones.

Although I'm not heartless, BobM you have my most sincere condolences for your loss. But there is a time to get over it and let it become good memories instead of harboring the negativity of it all. Peace Brother. :beer:


----------



## Bobm

swift said:


> Pot should be legal for adults and especailly for medical reasons. Our drug laws are insane.
> 
> 
> 
> dated 5/22/08 by BobM.
> 
> Here is your quote advocating drug use Bob. You are too hard headed to realize that just because it was a minor that killed your brother the problem is much more wide spread than that. Adult drunks (those over 21) kill many more than minors. Having a 21 year-old drinking age has not curbed alcohol related deaths. DUI in the USA should be a felony for the first offense just like it is in Canada. One DUI means no voting rights, No firearm ownership. No rights period.
Click to expand...

I'm not hardheaded, as usual you try to twist the topic, like I said you cannot find a post saying I would allow minors to use any kind of drug or alchohol. That post does not exist.

This topic is about allowing minors to use alchohol ( it has absolutely nothing to do with adults), minors get it, 18 year olds, high school kids.

Your stupid argument that somehow because some adults have bad judgement with alchohol, we should extend the same priviledge to minors most of whom have bad judgement is pathetic.

Just keep digging youself in deeper, the notion that kids high school kids have good judgement is well excepted :roll:

Heck everybody knows that :withstupid:


----------



## swift

Bob 18 year olds ARE ADULTS. Thats the part you can't get through your hard head.

Whats pathetic is you paint all kids under 21 with the same brush. There are plenty out there more resposible than you or me. Your pompous holier than thow attitude is a bit straining. NOBODY is advocating minors be able to purchase alcohol and again 18 years old constitutes adulthood.


----------



## Bobm

swift said:


> Bob 18 year olds ARE ADULTS. Thats the part you can't get through your hard head.
> 
> Whats pathetic is you paint all kids under 21 with the same brush. There are plenty out there more resposible than you or me. Your pompous holier than thow attitude is a bit straining. NOBODY is advocating minors be able to purchase alcohol and again 18 years old constitutes adulthood.


18 years olds are not adults many are high school kids they are minors, but using your logic how do you feel about grown men having sex with 18 year old high school girls after all according to your logic they are adults

:eyeroll:


----------



## swift

WOW.

Are you saying an 18 high school senior can't vote?
Cant get married? Cant buy a rifle? Cant buy cigarettes?

YOU ARE WRONG. in your mind 18 y/o's aren't adults in the eyes of the law they are. I now understand why you can't comprehend this you make up the rules as you go.

And yes if you want to have sex with an 18 year-old high school senior you will not be prosecuted. Why? Because she is a consenting ADULT.


----------



## Plainsman

> And yes if you want to have sex with an 18 year-old high school senior you will not be prosecuted. Why? Because she is a consenting ADULT.


Wheeeew, Bill Clinton will sleep better knowing that.


----------



## drjongy

Sorry about your loss Bobm, and I certainly don't mean any disrespect, but I can certainly have a valid opinion on a subject I haven't experienced personally. What about a child that is killed by a gun accident, or a child that is killed by a driver talking on the cell phone or changing a radio station in the car...should we get rid of all these too?

The underage drinker that kills someone in a vehicle accident are breaking many laws already. Again, it's not the alcohol but the disregard of the consequences of doing something like this. Most people drink responsibly, the small minority cause problems for everyone else.

How many decades do we need to witness before we come to a conclusion that young people are going to drink alcohol? We can either sweep it under the rug and ignore it like we've been doing, or we can get proactive about it.

The problem in my opinion is lack of education for younger people, and most of all, the penalties for driving drunk apparently are not stiff enough where it becomes a significant deterrent.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

Bobm said:


> 18 years olds are not adults many are high school kids they are minors, but using your logic how do you feel about grown men having sex with 18 year old high school girls after all according to your logic they are adults
> 
> :eyeroll:


Your wrong Bob.

18 year olds are legal adults. The draft board says so! :wink:


----------



## MSG Rude

HUNTNFISHND said:


> The draft board says so! :wink:


No, the draft board, (which there has been none of for over 30 years) says that they can join the service, or will join the service. Never called them adults.

And to be quit honest 18 year old are NOT adults...everyone brings up the service, well guess what screw-balls? Before these KIDS get a gun and can go 'die for their country' they are given extensive training. Exhaustive training. Repetative training. You want to give them alcohol and car keys with out ANY training!

Stop and think about it. Kids with alcohol do not mix....you want proof? Look at how many ADULTS can't handle the responsibility and you want to give kids alcohol?

What is really interesting is how many people on here saying to give them alcohol might have an alcohol charge on _*their*_ record!

Come on...give me your full name and info, I'll run a back ground check on you and we'll see if you can handle the responsibility...

Plain and simple for the most part they are not ready and you know it.


----------



## buckseye

> No, the draft board, (which there has been none of for over 30 years) says that they can join the service, or will join the service. Never called them adults.


So what is that they sign up for when they turn 18.. it used to be selective service or draft. Last I heard 18 year olds were still doing that.


To many blanket statements in this debate for it to get anywhere it looks like. All 18 year old people are not alike, but you may be onto something. Parents are doing a poor job of parenting these days so well maybe its all true... they be babies until 25 or so. I know a few in Iraq that would beg to differ though.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

MSG Rude,

Selective service then, whatever you want to call it. In the U.S. you are considered a legal adult at age 18. You can vote, enter into a contract, have fun with someone else, ect. ect. without parental consent.


----------



## MSG Rude

HUNTNFISHND said:


> MSG Rude,
> 
> Selective service then, whatever you want to call it. In the U.S. you are considered a legal adult at age 18. You can vote, enter into a contract, have fun with someone else, ect. ect. without parental consent.


I will not argue with you on that point. I will argue with you that AS A WHOLE 18-21 year old kids are NOT mature enough to handle the responsibility.

Also, you can reference those in Iraq, Aftganistan, etc. etc. etc all you want...I was one of those 'kids' too and I STILL disagree with changing the age to 18. I have been on both sides and as an almost 40 year old now I have a better 'well rounded' perspective on this mater.

Like it or not and debate it all you want but the truth is the truth....18-21 year olds FOR THE MAJORITY can not handle the responsiblity. They have enough problems with groups that SHOULD be reponsibile enough.


----------



## blhunter3

Well I think they should try lowering the drinking age because like I said earlier USA has the highest drinking and and the highest alcohol abuse rate. (Sorry I cannot get teh exact number but it was the the first fay of college last year) They should lower it and see what happends.

Having alot of friends grow up in ND in small towns and they were drinking at the bar and at home before the legal age. The bar owners and parents all came to the conclusion that if drinking ins't such a taboo then kids would learn how to respect it. Well I agree with that thinking. Sure there are going to be people that will always do stupid shat when drinking but if drinking isn't a taboo then it will lose its glamour.


----------



## MSG Rude

buckseye said:


> I know a few...


Operative word my friend...few.

I was Infantry for 10 years. I was a Team Leader, Squad Leader, I had Platoon Leader time as an E-5(P) and even 1SG time as an E-5(P) (rear-'d'). I was one of these kids, then I trained with these kids, then I trained these kids, then I led these kids. I had leadership positions the whole way through. There are even users in this web site that I was there Station Commander! One user here is the one that showed me this web site way back when.

All I am saying is that again, and for the last time, the MAJORITY can not handle the responsibility.

Argue all you want, it is the truth and our laws are to be based for the good of the majority.


----------



## blhunter3

MSG Rude, I agree that laws are made to protect the people, but just consider and laws can and should be tweaked once in awhile and I do think that this is law that should be tweaked. It isn't working so maybe they should try it and just see what happends. I do think that alot of kids/adults how ever you view an 18 year old, are not ready to drink. Hell even some 30,40,50 year old shouldn't drink. But having the drinking age lets say 19 might help. Who knows? Drunk drivers are always still going to be there. Maybe the penelties need to be more sevre. I think so.


----------



## MSG Rude

Ok...so where does it stop?

Those of you that get to chanting the mantra, "Ya but if he can go to war and die for his country then he should be allowed to drink" right? That is what you are chanting right?

THEN WHAT ABOUT 17 YEAR OLDS? They can join the service. 

So now what? Lets have beer shots for your Sophomore graduation Jimmy! Hey, you finished 11th grade, you are an ADULT now and RESPONSIBILE and a Jack-Coke on me buddy.

What, sound silly? That is what you are saying.

Don't be dumb, 18-21 year old for the most part are not responsible enough to handle booze. Plain and simple.


----------



## buckseye

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



> buckseye wrote:
> I know a few...
> 
> Operative word my friend...few.


Put in perspective we both only know a few as compared to how many are there (Iraq). The few I know drink beer, their dads drink beer, their grampas drink beer, and so on to the beginning of drinking beer.

maybe if all the dads in the world stopped drinking beer the 18-21 year olds wouldn't drink either... see what you are up against.. drinking is acceptable in most families. how you going to change that? :beer:



> THEN WHAT ABOUT 17 YEAR OLDS? They can join the service.


 The 17 year olds I know couldn't do anything but join with parental consent. They couldn't train untill they were 18.


----------



## MSG Rude

buckseye said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> buckseye wrote:
> I know a few...
> 
> Operative word my friend...few.
> 
> 
> 
> Put in perspective we both only know a few as compared to how many are there (Iraq). The few I know drink beer, their dads drink beer, their grampas drink beer, and so on to the beginning of drinking beer.
> 
> maybe if all the dads in the world stopped drinking beer the 18-21 year olds wouldn't drink either... see what you are up against.. drinking is acceptable in most families. how you going to change that? :beer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THEN WHAT ABOUT 17 YEAR OLDS? They can join the service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 17 year olds I know couldn't do anything but join with parental consent. They couldn't train untill they were 18.
Click to expand...

Here are a couple thoughts and please, please, please take the time to read it all....:smile:

My nephew and my daughter both left for basic this summer as you all know and I could not be prouder of both of them. He is 11B, Infantry and she went 31B, Military Police. Both of these kids just graduated. He was 18 and she was 17. She shipped July 9th and her 18th B-Day was 28 July. She was in training before her 18th b-day.

I let both of them drink around me. He came to stay with me and my family a few times because of different issues and just because. When they drank with me it was sitting around the fire at night or after some hard chore or just BS'ing around.

When I went to my sisters and he was around his friend and his other family members he brought out the bottle of Wild Turkey he got from someone and was slamming and acting the arse, so was my daughter.

See the difference? While in one environment they acted one way and in another situation they acted totally different...just like ALL age groups do.

Both of those kids will be in the/a sand box within the next 12 months. That is why I let them have a beer or three with me...and they knew it and they respected me too. If they were allowed to drink with hteir friends before they left for the Army, they could both be dead right now.

Why take the chance of killing more of our youth?

Why take the chance?


----------



## buckseye

> Both of those kids will be in the/a sand box within the next 12 months. That is why I let them have a beer or three with me...and they knew it and they respected me too. If they were allowed to drink with hteir friends before they left for the Army, they could both be dead right now


.

So then whats different about you and all the dads and uncles out here. One big difference is they are not on here debating this, other than that we all love and respect our brave young adults who are protecting our foreign interests for us. :beer:

Oh yeah it was the same for one of my Nephews over there, he graduated HS at 17, went in Army end of July turned 18 beginning of August. He now drives a tank around over there tearing it up real good.


----------



## swift

MSG, when did the military start giving all this exhaustive training to 18 year-olds they don't give to 21 year olds. By your own example 21 year olds should'nt need the training because they are much more mature than 18 year olds. Those 18 y/o's sit right next to the 21, 25, and 30 year old enlistees and learn at the same level and same rate as the older ones.

Another thing MSG, How you can come on here and admit to contributing to the delinquency of a minor. But tell me my 18 y/o (if I had one) can't drink is hypocritical. You broke the law because you felt it was okay for your kid to drink underage.

If the drinking age is to remain at 21, and handgun purchasers must me 21 than all adult privlege should be 21.


----------



## buckseye

NEWS FLASH

pay close attention to photo 2.. photo one is gay..yuk

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Most-Emai ... 799756.jpg


----------



## MSG Rude

swift said:


> MSG, when did the military start giving all this exhaustive training to 18 year-olds they don't give to 21 year olds. By your own example 21 year olds should'nt need the training because they are much more mature than 18 year olds. Those 18 y/o's sit right next to the 21, 25, and 30 year old enlistees and learn at the same level and same rate as the older ones.
> 
> Another thing MSG, How you can come on here and admit to contributing to the delinquency of a minor. But tell me my 18 y/o (if I had one) can't drink is hypocritical. You broke the law because you felt it was okay for your kid to drink underage.
> 
> If the drinking age is to remain at 21, and handgun purchasers must me 21 than all adult privlege should be 21.


swift, I am not in the mood for you right now as I am leaving for the weekend but I will tell yout his:
1) Don't act like the very age group we are talking about.
2) Don't put words in my mouth and put a spin on what I say.
3) Better brush up on the law son as you are making a fool of yourself. Get yourself a big dictionary or use the one on line and look up what you are saying...

Don't look now but your ignorance is showing under your slip.

I never broke the law and I will say it again and again and again..I LET ME CHILD DRINK ALCOHOL AT MY HOME IN NORTH DAKOTA.

Grow-up swift.

Rest of you guys...have a great weekend.


----------



## Bobm

Whats really funny is that same person that claims the govt is wrong making the decision the drinking age should be 21, is using the fact that the govt's makes the decision driving should be 16, handguns at 21, age of consent is 18, ect.

The govt ( society) is wrong on one, yet its judgement is sound on the other :eyeroll:


----------



## swift

Sorry MSG if you get all hot and bothered BUT it is ILLEGAL to provide your under 21y/o alcohol anywhere in ND. In your home or not. And you are guilty of contributing if you do that. You are the one looking foolish.I don't need a dictionary to figure that out. Have a good weekend maybe we can discuss this more when you can look objectively at it. And as far as the training arguement you made, HERE ARE YOUR WORDS what did I twist and what words did I put in your mouth?

"And to be quit honest *18 year old *are NOT adults...everyone brings up the service, well guess what screw-balls? Before these *KIDS* get a gun and can go 'die for their country' they are given extensive training. *Exhaustive training. Repetative training*. You want to give them alcohol and car keys with out ANY training!"

The problem is Msg Rude I am in the mood for you right now. And your not going to bully me into going along with you because you are wrong. I lived with a career Army SFC on Army posts for the first 21 years of my life. And I know the get in your face tactics you are employing. For the record I am 42 and spend the last 23years either as an EMT, ER nurse, or ER Physician Assistant. I see the problems with alcohol almost daily. And I dont see having a drinking age at 21 doing anything to prevent those problems. AND again for the record I dont drink. And I don't buy my under 21 y/o kids booze either.

Bob What are you talking about. I never said the age should be 21 for those other things. I plainly tried to point out that there should be consistency in adult privlege. All those things should permitted at 18. And the driving age in ND and SD is 14. The driving age and the drinking age are set by the states. BUT with drinking the Feds held the states hostage with highway funds if they didn't change to 21. Since your the master of the emoticon here you go. :eyeroll: :withstupid: :beer: uke: :******: [/quote]


----------



## Bobm

Not so swift, I didn't say you said 21 is the magic age, my point should be simple to see, even for you.

If the govts judgement is to be accepted in when they decide driving rights (apparently 14 in your state) then their judgement about drinking at 21 is also correct, and to be accepted.

But no, if societies position doesn't a happen to coincide with your peronal opinion, then its wrong.

Fortunately for the children of ND you opinion doesn't count.


----------



## Bobm

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/categor ... 13246.html

No so Swift , as long as your so "experienced working in the medical field" heres the *report from the AMA and it refutes every moronic position you've held on this topic*

So when you get to work today make sure you explain to all the doctors how bad their judgement is we all realize how with your vast knowledge you will be able to refute the %) studies relied upon by the American medical association.

You may be 42 but you dont have the common sense of a 12 year old.

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ARTICLE STARTS HERE

AMAMinimum legal drinking age

Brief history of the minimum legal drinking age

After Prohibition, nearly all states restricting youth access to alcohol designated 21 as the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA). Between 1970 and 1975, however, 29 states lowered the MLDA to 18, 19, or 20. These changes occurred when the minimum age for other activities, such as voting, also were being lowered (Wechsler & Sands, 1980). Scientists began studying the effects of the lowered MLDA, focusing particularly on the incidence of motor vehicle crashes, the leading cause of death among teenagers. Several studies in the 1970s found that *motor vehicle crashes increased significantly among teens when the MLDA was lowered *(Cucchiaro et al, 1974; Douglas et al, 1974; Wagenaar, 1983, 1993; Whitehead, 1977; Whitehead et al, 1975; Williams et al, 1974).

*With evidence that a lower drinking age resulted in more traffic injuries and fatalities among youth, citizen advocacy groups pressured states to restore the MLDA to 21.* Because of such advocacy campaigns, 16 states increased their MLDAs between September 1976 and January 1983. *Resistance from other states, and concern that minors would travel across state lines to purchase and consume alcohol, prompted the federal government in 1984 to enact the Uniform Drinking Age Act, which mandated reduced federal transportation funds to those states that did not raise the MLDA to 21.*

TAKE BREAK FROM THE ARTICLE and reread that last line above

Now lets allow Not so Swift to catch up hes obviously a slow reader, so let me point out this little bitty fact he has once again distorted :wink:

Not to "hold the states hostage" :roll: as Not so Swift claims here I quote 
Not so Swift



> The driving age and the drinking age are set by the states. BUT with drinking the Feds held the states hostage with highway funds if they didn't change to 21. Since your the master of the emoticon here you


OK not so swift you with us again? Good boy!

The AMA postion continues from here

Among alcohol control policies, the MLDA has been the most studied: since the 1970s, at least 70 studies have examined the effects of either increasing or decreasing the MLDA.

*Research findings*

*A higher minimum legal drinking age is effective in preventing alcohol-related deaths and injuries among youth. When the MLDA has been lowered, injury and death rates increase, and when the MLDA is increased, death and injury rates decline (Wagenaar, 1993). 
A higher MLDA results in fewer alcohol-related problems among youth*, and the 21-year-old MLDA saves the lives of well over 1,000 youth each year (Jones et al, 1992; NHTSA, 1989). Conversely, when the MLDA is lowered, motor vehicle crashes and deaths among youth increase. *At least 50 studies have evaluated this correlation (Wagenaar, 1993). *A common argument among opponents of a higher MLDA is that because many minors still drink and purchase alcohol, the policy doesn't work. The evidence shows, however, that although many youth still consume alcohol, they drink less and experience fewer alcohol-related injuries and deaths (Wagenaar, 1993). 
Research shows that when the MLDA is 21, people under age 21 drink less overall and continue to do so through their early twenties (O'Malley & Wagenaar, 1991).

The effect of the higher MLDA occurs with little or no enforcement. Historically, enforcement has focused primarily on penalizing underage drinkers for illegal alcohol possession and/or consumption. For every 1,000 minors arrested for alcohol possession, only 130 merchants have actions taken against them, and only 88 adults who supply alcohol to minors face criminal penalties (Wagenaar & Wolfson, 1995). 
Researchers conducted an in-depth review of enforcement actions in 295 counties in Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, and Oregon. The review showed that in a three-year period, 27 percent of the counties took no action against licensed establishments that sold alcohol to minors, and 41 percent of those counties made no arrests of adults who supplied alcohol to minors. Although the majority of the counties took at least one action against alcohol establishments and/or adults who provided alcohol to minors, many did not take such actions frequently (Wagenaar & Wolfson, 1995). 
*Regarding Europeans and alcohol use among youth, research confirms that Europeans have rates of alcohol-related diseases *(such as cirrhosis of the liver) similar to or higher than those in the U.S. population (Single, 1984). However, drinking and driving among youth may not be as great a problem in Europe as in the U.S. Compared to their American counterparts,* European youth must be older to obtain their drivers' licenses, are less likely to have a car, and are more inclined to use public transportation (Wagenaar, 1993). *
References

Cucchiaro S, Ferreira Jr J, Sicherman A. The Effect of the 18-Year-Old Drinking Age on Auto Accidents. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Operations Research Center; 1974.

Douglass RL, Filkins LD, Clark FA. The Effect of Lower Legal Drinking Ages on Youth Crash Involvement. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Highway Safety Research Institute; 1974.

Jones NE, Pieper CF, Robertson LS. The effect of legal drinking age on fatal injuries of adolescents and young adults. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:112-115.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The Impact of Minimum Drinking Age Laws on Fatal Crash Involvements: An Update of the NHTSA Analyses. NHTSA Technical Report No. DOT HS 807 349. Washington, DC: NHTSA; 1989.

O'Malley PM, Wagenaar AC. Effects of minimum drinking age laws on alcohol use, related behaviors and traffic crash involvement among American youth: 1976-1987. J Stud Alcohol. 1991;52:478-491.

Single E. International perspectives on alcohol as a public health issue. J Public Health Policy. 1984;Sum:238-259.

Wagenaar AC. Minimum drinking age and alcohol availability to youth: Issues and research needs. In: Hilton ME, Bloss G, eds. Economics and the Prevention of Alcohol-Related Problems. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) Research Monograph No. 25, NIH Pub. No. 93-3513. Bethesda, MD: NIAAA; 1993:175-200.

Wagenaar AC. Alcohol, Young Drivers, and Traffic Accidents. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1983.

Wagenaar AC, Wolfson M. Deterring sales and provision of alcohol to minors: A study of enforcement in 295 counties in four states. Public Health Rep. 1995;110:419-427.

Wechsler H, Sands ES. Minimum-age laws and youthful drinking: An introduction. In: Wechsler H, ed. Minimum Drinking Age Laws. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; 1980:1-10.

Whitehead PC. Alcohol and Young Drivers: Impact and Implications of Lowering the Drinking Age. Ottawa: Department of National Health and Welfare, Health Protection Branch, Non-medical use of Drugs Directorate, Research Bureau; 1977.

Whitehead PC, Craig J, Langford N, MacArthur C, Stanton B, Ferrence RG. Collision behavior of young drivers: Impact of the change in the age of majority. J Stud Alcohol. 1975;36:1208-1223.

Williams AF, Rich RF, Zador PL, Robertson LS. The Legal Minimum Drinking Age and Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes. Washington, D.C: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; 1974.

Last updated: Feb 12, 2008
Content provided by: Alcohol & Drug Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Privacy Statement | Advertise with us
Copyright 1995-2008 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.


----------



## Bobm

and heres Another AMerican Medical associations opinion on underage drinking

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/3566.html

Facts about youth and alcohol

*Wasted youth*

Approximately 11 million American youth under the age of 21 drink alcohol. Nearly half of them drink to excess, consuming five or more drinks in a row, one or more times in a two week period.

Alcohol is the most frequently used drug by high school seniors, and its use is increasing. Boys usually try alcohol for the first time at just 11 years old, while the average age for American girls' first drink is 13. In short, our nation's youth are flirting with disaster. Consider the facts:

*Underage drinking is a factor in nearly half of all teen automobile crashes, the leading cause of death among teenagers.*

*Alcohol use contributes to youth suicides, homicides and fatal injuries - the leading cause of death among youth after auto crashes. *

*Alcohol abuse is linked to as many as two-thirds of all sexual assaults and date rapes of teens and college students.*

*Alcohol is a major factor in unprotected sex among youth, increasing their risk of contracting HIV or other transmitted diseases. *


----------



## Bobm

Now all the rest of you can also click on this link to see all the damage underage drinking causes in this country.

Again from the American medical Association, FACTS

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload ... _sheet.pdf


----------



## Bobm

SO now "not so Swift" that you have let us in on your great judgement go lecture your coworkers at the hospital about how poor their judgement is.

I am positive the doctors will be just as impressed with your mature judgement as we are.


----------



## swift

hey, nice personal attack and cute name calling there moderator BOB. Way to set an example. The AMA also backs the Brady Bill and Handgun INC and so on. It doesn't mean I have to agree with their stance. Once again you missed the point but I forgot your from Georgia so I have to type real s-l-o-w. The drinking age is 21 years old right. What exactly has that done to curb the drinking problem in the US? Answer is nothing. Your arguement has been all over the place. First 18 y/o's weren't adults. Wrong, then you have to be 21 to show responsibilty, Wrong Now you quote the AMA but can't see that in their KEY FINDINGS they support what I have been saying. Here it is for you.


> Key findings from "Reducing Underage Drinking - A Collective Responsibility"
> · *Patterns and consequences of underage drinking are closely related to the overall extent and patterns of
> drinking in society and are affected by the same factors that affect adult consumption.*· Underage drinking cannot be successfully addressed by focusing on youth alone. Efforts to reduce and
> prevent underage drinking need to focus on parents and other adults and include strategies that engage
> the society at large.


The Statistics you like to go to all the time from the article you posted,


> In a survey of Americans age 12-17, the average person took their first drink before age 13.





> Youth who use alcohol before 15 are four times more likely to be alcohol dependent than adults whose
> first drink is at the legal age of 21.


It seems the problem starts well before 18 and lasts well after 21. Do you get that?

I didn't see a statistic that said 18 year olds that start drinking have any different outcomes than 21 year olds.

21 y/o drinking age is an arbitrary number that does not have statistics to back it. Your article is outdated,can you find a source newer than 15 to 34 years old that supports your arguement? We have had 15 to 34 years of education on the topic and that is how the problems will be fixed.

Now Bob I like a rebuttle without the personal attacks.


----------



## Plainsman

It would be statistically valid to extrapolate from that an age link to alcoholism. There would be a high confidence level to that extrapolation also. It would follow as you quoted:


> Youth who use alcohol before 15 are four times more likely to be alcohol dependent than adults whose
> first drink is at the legal age of 21.


I would guess that if your four times more likely to be alcohol dependent if you start drinking at 15 then at 16 it would be slightly less. A scale could be developed that perhaps followed a linear regression. At 16 it might be 3.5 times more likely, at 17 perhaps 3.0 times more likely, at 18 perhaps 2.5 times more likely at 19 years, 2.0, at 20 years 1.25 times more likely etc.
I am aware of no data that supports this, but I would guess the study that generated the data that indicated that you were four times more likely to be alcohol dependent if you drank before 15 years old has data that would support the idea, but perhaps not in the same percentages I assigned to each age.

Yes, you would think that if you can die for your country you could drink. That would appear as logical, but actually there is no logic involved. That's an emotional decision. I'm not going to take any sides, but I couldn't pass on the faulty interpretations. I would hope that someone somewhere has some data that would coincide deaths per 10,000 people, drinkers at 18 years and drinkers at 21 years. We have concentrated on 18 year old veterans old enough to die for their country, but we have forgotten the number that could be killed on the roads. First you must decide what increase in traffic death rates is tolerable to you.

Perhaps the big problem with youth drinking is the advertisements you see on TV. They should be more truthful. The guy is always muscle and tough, and women are always thin and sexy. The truth is that may be what they look like when they start, but at 30 they should show the average drinker with a big beer gut. They should show the active people that have turned into couch potatoes, and if you want a wife that looks like she has four breasts just keep feeding her lots of beer.


----------



## swift

Plainsman good post. the AMA article Bob posted supports what your saying.

From the AMA article 


> The power of advertising
> · The alcohol industry spends approximately $4.8 billion every year on advertising, a powerful medium
> that has proven extremely persuasive to young people.
> · A study of 12 year-olds found that children who were more aware of beer advertising held more
> favorable views on drinking and expressed an intention to drink more often as adults than did children
> who were less knowledgeable about the ads.
> (Source: Grube, J.W. (1995). "Television alcohol portrayals, alcohol advertising and alcohol expectancies
> among children and adolescents." Effects of the Mass Media on the Use and Abuse of Alcohol.
> S.E. Martin and P. Mail. Bethesda: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 105-121.)
> · A 1996 study of children ages nine to eleven found that children were more familiar with Budweiser's
> television frogs than Kellogg's Tony the Tiger, the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, or Smokey the
> Bear.
> (Source: Leiber, L. Commercial and character slogan recall by children aged 9 to 11 years:
> Budweiser frogs versus Bugs Bunny. Berkeley: Center on Alcohol Advertising, 1996.)
> · A federally-funded study of 1,000 young people found that exposure to and liking of alcohol
> advertisements affects whether young people will drink alcohol.


Maybe I haven't been clear with my message. I truely believe that we (society) have fostered the "It's not my fault" mentality for too long. By having two different legal ages of adulthood we are telling our young adults we have to look after them. That they are not responsible enough to make their own decisions. Therefore its not their fault when the screw up. For me being an adult is black and white. You either are or are not. And so goes the privleges with adulthood.

And for the tired arguement of driving age nowhere does anything say you have to be an adult to drive a car. Before you come back with the same goes for alcohol think of what the 20 y/o gets charged with when caught with alcohol. MINOR in posession. 18-19-20 year-olds are not minors.


----------



## swift

These opinions are from an article by MSNBC titled Debate on Lowering Drinking Age Bubbling Up. Dated August 14th 2007. A full year ago. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249460/

Here are some highlights.

"Raising the drinking age to 21 was passed with the very best of intentions, but it's had the very worst of outcomes," said David J. Hanson, an alcohol policy expert at the State University of New York-Potsdam. "Just like during national Prohibition, the law has pushed and forced underage drinking and youthful drinking underground, where we have no control over it."

This next example is probably what Msg Rude was thinking when he thought is was okay to give his 18 y/o daughter beer in his home. But...

Different laws in different states
As it happens, there is no such thing as a "federal legal drinking age." Many states do not expressly prohibit minors from drinking alcohol, although most of those do set certain conditions, such as its use in a religious ceremony or *in the presence of a parent or other guardian*.

state-by-state DRINKING LAWS

"All states ban selling alcohol to minors, and nearly all prohibit possession, but many do not expressly bar minors from consuming it. Click on a state to see its restrictions." 
I clicked on ND and Minnesota this came up.

North Dakota
"Under 21 may not possess or consume alcohol." 
Minnesota
"Under 21 may consume alcohol only if married AND if spouse or guardian is present."

So if you live in East Fargo i.e. Moorehead your okay.

Bob I thought you might like this one.

*Libertarian groups and some conservative economic foundations*, seeing the age limits as having been extorted by Washington, have long championed lowering the drinking age. *But in recent years, many academics and non-partisan policy groups *have joined their cause for a different reason: The age restriction does not work, they say. Drinking has gone on behind closed doors and underground, where responsible adults cannot keep an eye on it.

"It does not reduce drinking. It has simply put young adults at greater risk," said John M. McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont, who this year set up a non-profit organization called Choose Responsibility to push for a lower drinking age."

I do believe I said that same thing above with my rolling party analogy.

Another thing my "moronic" mind came up with that is substantiated in this article.
"The law was changed in 1984, and the law had a very specific purpose, and that was to prohibit drinking among those under the age of 21," he said. "The only way to measure the success of that law is to ask ourselves whether, 23 years later, those under 21 are not drinking."

"So are they?"
"The federal government's National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that in 2005, the most recent year for which complete figures are available, 85 percent of 20-year-old Americans reported that they had used alcohol. Two out of five said they had binged - that is, consumed five or more drinks at one time - within the previous month."

""The evidence is very clear," McCardell said. "It has had no effect."

More from prof. Hanson, "In fact, he said, alcohol-related traffic fatalities among minor drivers were already declining before 1984, when the drinking-age measure was passed."

And more of what I've been saying.

"Adults 'written out of the equation'

To McCardell, however, the real problem is that we are not teaching teenagers how to drink responsibly.

*Choose Responsibility* proposes lowering the drinking age to 18, but only in conjunction with "drinking licenses," similar to driver's licenses, mandating alcohol education for those ages 18 to 21.

"Education works," McCardell said, but "it's never been tried. Now it's mandatory only after you've been convicted of DUI. That is not an act of genius."
"Choose Responsibility and its allies face a tough task convincing the public. In a Gallup poll released last week, 77 percent of Americans opposed lowering the drinking age to 18. But Seaman argued that it was the wisdom of the drinker that mattered, not his or her age.

"The problem we have is that since the 21-year-old age limit has been in effect, we have effectively written adults out of the equation, so that they really have nothing to do with young people who are drinking alcohol furtively, viewing alcohol as a forbidden fruit and drinking to excesses that I don't think were evident back in the years before the law was passed," said Seaman, who lived on the campuses of 12 U.S. and Canadian colleges while researching his book.

"If you lower that drinking age - make drinking no longer a forbidden fruit but rather something that younger adults do with older adults who have learned how to handle alcohol responsibly - then you reduce those behaviors rather than increase them," he said."


----------



## huntingdude16

I didnt read the whole topic, but I did see this on the first page:



> Drinking age should stay 21, driving age should be raised to 18 or severely restricted before 18.


You DO realize how illogical this is, right?


----------



## barebackjack

R y a n said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 to 20 somethings are gonna binge drink no matter the legal age. Thats what they do.
> 
> 
> 
> That is such an American attitude. It is not true, and is only a recent phenomenon that the "ME" generation has taken to new heights. Even since I was in high school/college, this wasn't nearly the problem it is now. Sure we had kids get occasionally staggering drunk... but in the last 10 years it has become the norm.
> 
> When I visit other countries, you simply don't see this kind of stuff happening. Why?
> 
> It is because that the adults and by extension their governments, don't make drinking such a taboo issue. For example, my friends in Germany have children who are 8 and 10. Those kids are served wine or beer at dinner if they choose to have it with their meal. They have been exposed to alcohol as just being a normal beverage choice, no big deal. The kids preferred to have juice instead.
> 
> The point is, that since noone makes a big deal out of drinking over there, it loses much of its "hip" "cool" factor, and becomes ho-hum every day normal.
> 
> Part of the blame on the binge drinking by teens can be placed squarely on the back of the alcohol adverstisements we have here. Having a taboo product (just like tobacco) that is advertised to adults, but viewed by teens, gives it a "cool" factor for those trying to emulate adults they perceive as cooler than them.
> 
> Lastly a percentage of the blame goes towards college campuses that are glorified dance clubs that occasionally hold classes a few mornings a week. Many colleges have simply become clearinghouses for high school students who aren't the most dedicated, yet provide the college a steady supply of tuition money (in order to pay for tenured professors ever burgeoning ridiculously high salaries). Many of those kids are simply in college for the party. Colleges offer majors that are easy to obtain and basically useless upon graduating. If colleges actually made college more academically challenging (like universities are around the rest of the world), American college students wouldn't have so much time or interest in attending parties and binge drinking.
> 
> The reasons are many and varied as to why American kids can't seem to behave like other more responsible kids around the world. There is no one perfect answer, but rather is a blend of the reasons above...
> 
> Ryan
Click to expand...

BS!

Ill take the "american attitude" comment as a compliment. We're not european anymore. We DONT think the same way as them. Thank god for that.

Americans drink to get drunk, we have that "old west" mentality when it comes to drinking. Its not the "me" generation, its my parents generation, their parents generation, the X generation, the Y. To say that teenagers and such have only been binge drinking "the last ten years" is pretty naive.

Legal or not, it wont make ONE LICK of difference. I agree with MSG Rude. 18-20 year olds just DONT have the maturity level as A WHOLE to handle it. Their kids, plain and simple, i dont care what the "law" says. Kids do stupid stuff, heck, adults do stupid stuff.

And ya, they can vote, they can enlist, they can go fight for their country, and you know what their doing in-between all that, their DRINKING!

I honestly dont care one way or the other as to the age, im just saying I dont see dropping the age to 18 having any significant impact on binge drinking.

Ive also got to question your comment on "foreign universities" and their program levels in relation to our own.
I agree with you that college, at least in my experience, seems to have "dummied down" so to speak. But, I work with alot of foreign students at a University, and one thing I routinely hear is that our undergraduate courses are on par with their graduate level courses. (Which is why their is a extremely high number of foreign grad students).


----------



## blhunter3

Here's why they should lower the drinking limit. The cops dont enforce to too much. When I was in high school, I called in parties every week.(I was in sports and alot of my teammates where out drinking while I stayed home or fished or hunted) Almost all of those parties got busted and the cops always let everyone go home. They did nothing. While I was living in ND this summer the cops again did nothing. Lower the drinking age to 18, quite wasting the cops time chasing down minors and let them catch the sex predators or the druggies or the killers.

Guess what a party at BL got busted and the cops let eberyone walk. ANd this was just this past weekend. :roll:


----------



## barebackjack

blhunter3 said:


> Here's why they should lower the drinking limit. The cops dont enforce to too much. When I was in high school, I called in parties every week.(I was in sports and alot of my teammates where out drinking while I stayed home or fished or hunted) Almost all of those parties got busted and the cops always let everyone go home. They did nothing. While I was living in ND this summer the cops again did nothing. Lower the drinking age to 18, quite wasting the cops time chasing down minors and let them catch the sex predators or the druggies or the killers.
> 
> Guess what a party at BL got busted and the cops let eberyone walk. ANd this was just this past weekend. :roll:


That used to be common practice when I was in HS, the sheriff deputy (sometimes the sheriff himself) would roll out and say we had a half hour to leave.....and than he'd never come back.

But the times they is a changin. 18, 21, doesnt matter, their gonna drink their pants off.


----------



## Bobm

Well, I've said all I'm going to on this topic you all have a nice safe hunting season and think before you drink. If you have to drink don't drive, do it on your couch so all you have to do is pass out.

:beer:


----------



## swift

HuntingDude, open your mind and read the posts. You may be suprised at the logic out there on both sides.

Bob have a good hunting season too.


----------



## huntingdude16

I was refering to the 18 y/o age limit for driving. I'm 17, and not having my license is simply not an option. How am I suppose to have a job? Have mommy and daddy drive me there? What about random things I need? Do I ask them to give me a ride every time I need something? How about having a girlfriend? How awesome would that be to have your parents drive you to the movies or to dinner?


----------



## buckseye

Was in Canada for the corn and apple fest over the weekend, ended up in a bar called Rocks in Morden Manitoba. Well I'm pretty sure I was the oldest person there with many many 18-21 year old people in there. What I saw was all positive for lowering the drinking age. Alot of them were not even drinking, I never saw a drunk person in there. Just alot of good music and alot of dancing going on.

Although it is evident that 18 year olds are not as mature physically as 21 year olds. Actually at my age an 18 year old looks like a 12 year old... but I suppose we all did at one time. :beer:


----------



## swift

Sorry Dude, I missed the driving part. That was just another ill conceived arguement like many on here.


----------



## MSG Rude

> Sorry MSG if you get all hot and bothered


Sorry swift, but you don't do it for me. Takes a lot more to get me "hot and bothered".



> BUT it is ILLEGAL to provide your under 21y/o alcohol anywhere in ND. In your home or not.


Wow swift...I was unaware that you are also a legal expert. I can give you the N.D. Cent. Code for this but it is more fun to see you make a fool of yourself...please keep posting..you provide comic relief for me and others.



> And you are guilty of contributing if you do that.


Along with your other titles...Judge too huhh? Wow, I am impressed.



> Have a good weekend maybe we can discuss this more when you can look objectively at it. And as far as the training arguement you made, HERE ARE YOUR WORDS what did I twist and what words did I put in your mouth?
> 
> "And to be quit honest *18 year old *are NOT adults...everyone brings up the service, well guess what screw-balls? Before these *KIDS* get a gun and can go 'die for their country' they are given extensive training. *Exhaustive training. Repetative training*. You want to give them alcohol and car keys with out ANY training!"


ALL ages get training...get someone to help you read what you wrote that I am relating to when I said do not put words in my mouth. Like with everything else...I am not going to go back and find it for you and take you by the hand to it to read it.



> The problem is Msg Rude I am in the mood for you right now.


Kind of you but not interested.



> And your not going to bully me into going along with you because you are wrong.


Now I am a 'bully'...please inlighten me as to the how of it.



> I lived with a career Army SFC on Army posts for the first 21 years of my life. And I know the get in your face tactics you are employing.


I don't believe that I am "in your face" or employing those "tactics". Sounds scary though.

So your dad was Army...and? I have four 'Army brats' and they are proud of that. What is your point? You moved out..so what?



> For the record I am 42 and spend the last 23years either as an EMT, ER nurse, or ER Physician Assistant. I see the problems with alcohol almost daily. And I dont see having a drinking age at 21 doing anything to prevent those problems. AND again for the record I dont drink. And I don't buy my under 21 y/o kids booze either.


For the record, I am 40 (almost), I do drink when it moves me and I don't "buy my under 21 y/o kids booze" either.

For a seemingly some-what educated health care semi-professional and reportedly seen what alcohol can do, you say that allowing even more people and younger people the legal right to drink is ok or what are you rambling on about?

I guess you are right though, having a beer or two with me in my house is a lot worse then hiding out at someones farm and drinking then driving back into town. That is really smart.

Here is a little hint for you "swift"...do research...then type. Just trying to help you out here.


----------



## swift

Nice spin sarge According to the ND Century code 5-01-08 quote "*Individuals under 21 years of age prohibited from using alcoholic beverages or entering licensed premises *; except as permitted in this section and section 5-02-06, an individual under 21 may not manufacture or attempt to manufacture, purchase or attempt to purchase, consume or recently consumed other than a religious service, be under the influence of, be in posession of, or furnish money to any indivual for the purchase of an alcoholic beverage."

As for the exceptions I could not find the one you speak of. Because it is not there. I took the time to check now it's your turn to "show me the century code."

Now more from the century code.
5-01-09 *Delivery to certain persons illegal.*
Any individual knowingly delivering alcoholic beverages to an individual under twenty-one except as allowed under section 5-02-06, or to a habitual drunkard, an incompetent or obviously intoxicated individual is guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor, subject ot sections 5-01-08 and 5-01-08.1

Section 5-02-06 has to do with Retail licensing.

The funny thing is we don't disagree really. We both think it should be okay for 18 year olds to drink alcohol. And we both think doing it at an abandoned farmstead is a bad idea.

Like others when your wrong you just get mad and poke fun but your posts loose substance Msg Rude. I'm not the foolish one. And if you can prove that I misread the century code I will apologize. But I wont wait for you to man up.

And no I'm no legal expert or judge but I can admit when I'm wrong, I'm married I have lots of practice at that.


----------



## swift

> Quote:
> Have a good weekend maybe we can discuss this more when you can look objectively at it. And as far as the training arguement you made, HERE ARE YOUR WORDS what did I twist and what words did I put in your mouth?
> 
> "And to be quit honest 18 year old are NOT adults...everyone brings up the service, well guess what screw-balls? Before these KIDS get a gun and can go 'die for their country' they are given extensive training. Exhaustive training. Repetative training. You want to give them alcohol and car keys with out ANY training!"
> 
> ALL ages get training...get someone to help you read what you wrote that I am relating to when I said do not put words in my mouth. Like with everything else...I am not going to go back and find it for you and take you by the hand to it to read it.


Your words that you didn't want to go back and find were in your post Msg Rude. I guess since they were so silly you didn't remember they were your words.

No reply to the ND Century code either.

I am not suprised you didn't respond, it's clear that when you run out of intelligent debate you go to demeaning personal attacks.

Back to the original topic the drinking age should be lowered or even abolished. Decades of minimum age for alcohol have not had an impact on alcohol related problems. Teach the young to respect alcohol and take away the mystique of the forbidden fruit and we can start training the age groups that actually learn, instead of sticking our heads in the sand and thinking the problems will go away.

Interestingly Msg Rude I applaud you for taking the risk of teaching your daughter and nephew about responsible alcohol usage. Your way is much better than the laws way denying there is a need for youth to be educated in alcohol usage. Just like with Sex education, Alcohol education will not be effective if it is done with abstinance as the theme.


----------



## seabass

swift said:


> Just like with Sex education, Alcohol education will not be effective if it is done with abstinance as the theme.


Way to go Swift, opening a new can of worms with your concluding statement! :lol:


----------



## MSG Rude

swift said:


> Quote:
> Have a good weekend maybe we can discuss this more when you can look objectively at it. And as far as the training arguement you made, HERE ARE YOUR WORDS what did I twist and what words did I put in your mouth?
> 
> "And to be quit honest 18 year old are NOT adults...everyone brings up the service, well guess what screw-balls? Before these KIDS get a gun and can go 'die for their country' they are given extensive training. Exhaustive training. Repetative training. You want to give them alcohol and car keys with out ANY training!"
> 
> ALL ages get training...get someone to help you read what you wrote that I am relating to when I said do not put words in my mouth. Like with everything else...I am not going to go back and find it for you and take you by the hand to it to read it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your words that you didn't want to go back and find were in your post Msg Rude. I guess since they were so silly you didn't remember they were your words.
> 
> No reply to the ND Century code either.
> 
> I am not suprised you didn't respond, it's clear that when you run out of intelligent debate you go to demeaning personal attacks.
> 
> Back to the original topic the drinking age should be lowered or even abolished. Decades of minimum age for alcohol have not had an impact on alcohol related problems. Teach the young to respect alcohol and take away the mystique of the forbidden fruit and we can start training the age groups that actually learn, instead of sticking our heads in the sand and thinking the problems will go away.
> 
> Interestingly Msg Rude I applaud you for taking the risk of teaching your daughter and nephew about responsible alcohol usage. Your way is much better than the laws way denying there is a need for youth to be educated in alcohol usage. Just like with Sex education, Alcohol education will not be effective if it is done with abstinance as the theme.
Click to expand...

swift....

If you were to brush-up on my posts over the past FIVE years on this site, you will see that when things get out of hand with folks....I don't do the "get in your face type of tactics" that you acused me of earlier. For you see lady, I am very well educated and can continue on any venue of speech that you should choose to engage me on, my spelling does suck though and I would love a spell check built into this web site. Otherwise I type it in word, cut, paste here and then post.

However, I will not get into crap like you were acusing me of earlier. If you would peruse my other posts you will see that I either go to PM'ing the person I am in a debate with or I stop and let them have the last word like I did with you but that wasn't good enough for you. You had to keep going with two in a row.

Now, if you want to keep going we can go to PM or you can have another 'last word' and move on again. _



Demeaning personal attacks

Click to expand...

,_ swift. ***edited by me**** replaced with****:shake:


----------



## Plainsman

Swift wrote:


> I am not suprised you didn't respond, it's clear that when you run out of intelligent debate you go to demeaning personal attacks.


MSG Rude wrote:


> Now, if you want to keep going we can go to PM or you can have another 'last word' and move on again.


No offense to anyone, but you have the best idea Rude. Thanks.


----------

