View Poll Results: At what age should people be allowed to start drinking?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • Currently, 21.

    5 20.00%
  • Should be, 18.

    17 68.00%
  • Let's start them young! 16.

    3 12.00%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: Too young to drink, but old enough for war!

  1. #1

    Too young to drink, but old enough for war!

    This thread is inspired by the other thread talking about the Miss Universe and her under age drinking.


    So what do you guys think about the whole "You must be 21 to drink. War? Oh. You're 18? That sounds about right to me! Here's you tank now go shoot up an Iraqi!"


    As you can clearly see, my say, United States is retarded to be on their high and mighty horse of, "Our Country have morals, you're not allowed to drink until you're 21 because we do not want to corrupt our children with booze."

  2. #2
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,168
    I don't think you know what you are talking about. The drinking age at 21 has absolutely nothing to do with morals, it has to do with liability claims (and drunk driving deaths) caused by those drinking under the age of 21. If you have worked in the insurance industry or the legal profession you would understand what I am talking about. You obviously haven't.

    I was in college when the drinking age was 18 and my dormitory set the school record that year for property damage done in the aftermath of keg parties. The drinking age changed to 21 soon thereafter.

    Has nothing to do with morals dude, has to do with $ (specifically, insurance $), so please stop reading (or believing) the bullshit you read in the Canadian media. Insurance companies and their lobbyists have driven all of these laws regarding the drinking age.

    18 or up serve in our military also for economic reasons, and for historical reasons that are apparently beyond your comprehension. One has nothing to do with the other.

    Your poll is meaningless because it is based on incorrect and faulty assumptions.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 12-22-2006 at 02:19 PM.

  3. #3
    Amor est vitae essentia
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    In the depths of Dante's Second Circle
    Posts
    193
    You can drink at 18 in the US Armed Forces, with the exception that you have to drink on base.
    She was up a stair to nowhere
    A room forever I'll remember
    She stared as though I should have known her
    Tell me what's your pain or pleasure
    Every little thing you find here
    Is simply for the thrill you're after
    Loneliness or hearts of fire
    I am here to serve all masters

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by EagerBeaver
    I don't think you know what you are talking about. The drinking age at 21 has absolutely nothing to do with morals, it has to do with liability claims (and drunk driving deaths) caused by those drinking under the age of 21. If you have worked in the insurance industry or the legal profession you would understand what I am talking about. You obviously haven't.

    I was in college when the drinking age was 18 and my dormitory set the school record that year for property damage done in the aftermath of keg parties. The drinking age changed to 21 soon thereafter.

    Has nothing to do with morals dude, has to do with $ (specifically, insurance $), so please stop reading (or believeing) the bullshit you read in the Canadian media.

    18 or up serve in our military also for economic reasons, and for historical reasons that are apparently beyond your comprehension.

    Your poll is meaningless because it is based on incorrect and faulty assumptions.
    I may be wading into a swamp of aligators here but I here a few comments.

    You are certainly correct in in the issue being about liability. But everything in the US is about liability. This may explain why the drinking age is still 18 in Quebec and 19 elsewhere in Canada. You just don't have the ability to sue someone here and get the same kind of awards as in the US. I would also make this observation. As a teenager, I spent my summer vacationing in the Northern US - this would be in the 70s, and the drinking age at the time being was 18. While there, I also went to those keg parties. The level of drinking I saw there as well as drunken joy-riding surpassed what I saw at home here in Montreal. There may have been many reasons for this but there certainly was a lot damage going on in the summer. However, a lot of the drinkers were underage but could drive at 15 which I thought was nuts. This is recipe for disaster and it was - putting a lethal weapon like a car (or 5000lb pick-up) in the hands of a 15 year-old is stupid. Evtn this summer a saw a 15 year-old total a big Dodge pick-up because he did something stupid while driving. No booze, broad daylight, hits a tree. In the 80s everything changed with drinking ages being raised to 21. Furthermore, enforcement of selling alcohol to minors was also markedly toughened. Today, you have to look 40 to not be carded (good for us older guys). But the drinking age is not the problem - its drinking and driving by far. In my opinion, the real problem was(is) allowing kids to drive at 15. They should toughen driving laws so that you must be at least 16. I would also say until 18, you cannot drive without a supervising adult after dark as well. Until 21, any serious traffic infraction should result in automatic 6 month suspension. DUI should be suspension until at least 21. Of course the car manufacturers lobby would never allow this to happen - after all they contributes 100 times more revenue to the US economy than booze does so they win.

    Finally, I have to disagree with your shot on the Canadian media - I have a very low opinion of journalists but singling Canadian media for being moralistic is like saying George Bush is an aetheist. The Canadian media is the opposite and lacking in any morals in my opinion. Actually, its the US that has a worldwide patent on morals with every form of right-wight, bible-thumping, born-again, right-to-lifers and liberty, militia-madness yahoos (and googles) one can imagine. To make things more interesting, many of these folks are elected government officials.
    I don't necessarily agree with everything I say - Marshall McLuhan

  5. #5
    Merber
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    montreal
    Posts
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by EagerBeaver
    The drinking age at 21 has absolutely nothing to do with morals, it has to do with liability claims
    EB: Putting money before freedom and consistency between laws IS a moral issue.
    Unless that beyond your comprehension.
    o . o . b . e

  6. #6
    I apologize for not having known about the liability issue when you are not liable for it if you are not above 21.

    But you figure that a person that is 18 y/o cannot be liable for his own action so you cannot trust him when he is on a night out with friends drinking at a club, but he is old enough so that you can trust him with a m-16, rocket launcher, and a tank etc etc....? Now you tell me if there's a problem with the system or not. You think he is not liable for doing something stupid when he is drunk at the age of 18, but he is smart enough to know how to handle weapons that take other peoples' lives at that age....?

    And yes, alcohol does kill you in the long run, but what the hell doesn't? You're telling me an 18 y/o kid in a foreign country he's never been to with bullets flying around won't kill him any faster? If i was the kid, hell, i'd risk dying from alochol poisoning anyday over spending a year in Iraq.

    Just my opinion.
    Last edited by MontrealAsian; 12-22-2006 at 04:18 PM.

  7. #7
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,168
    Have any of you guys ever heard of Audie Murphy? Probably not. Most decorated member of the U.S. armed forces in World War II. All of his heroic actions were done under the age of 21. Go rent the move "To Hell And Back" and please educate yourselves so that you can conduct yourselves on this Board in a better informed manner. It will save embarassment.

    There is no inconsistency in these laws except to those who don't understand them.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 12-22-2006 at 04:33 PM.

  8. #8
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,168
    Here is a link to the Wikipedia bio on Audie Murphy that even a simplistic mind can understand:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy

    It's because of people like Audie Murphy that you guys are not speaking German and saluting Hitler's image right now.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 12-22-2006 at 04:44 PM.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    446
    Quote Originally Posted by EagerBeaver
    It's because of people like Audie Murphy that you guys are not speaking German and saluting Hitler's image right now.
    There you go with your typical American "we saved the world" bullshit again, it gets tiresome after a while.

    Listen up Beaver, WW2 was won by primarily the Russians attacking Germany from the East and the Allied forces attacking Germany from the West.
    Notice how I said Allied, thats because the allies consisted of Australian, Canadian, British and U.S. forces.

    The war was actually primarily won by Russia, its highly doubtful the Allies could have done it alone (and I'm not Russian, I'm English).


    *Puts on flame suit*

    .
    Last edited by Esco!; 12-22-2006 at 05:33 PM.

  10. #10
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,168
    Quote Originally Posted by MontrealAsian
    I apologize for not having known about the liability issue when you are not liable for it if you are not above 21.
    Apart from making the statement quoted above which makes no sense, you are venturing into an area that you know nothing about and which is far more complex than what you imagine.

    You are liable if you injure someone's person or property, both civilly and criminally, if you do so while driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 or greater (in most jurisdictions), whether you are under or over 21. It just so happens that an overwhelming number of incidents occurred with individuals under the age of 21. A group called MADD (mothers against drunk driving) formed in the 1980s as a results of a series of well publicized fatalities that resulted from underage drinking (I should say, drinking by persons under age 21). Whether or not this group has a moral agenda is irrelevant. They are a powerful political force, and I think their members are more driven by anger over the loss of a loved one than they are due to a personal moral issue.

    I have been intimately involved in the consequences of underaged drinking, both on a professional and a personal level. My own personal opinion is that the drinking age should be age 21 or arguably even higher. However, despite the legal drinking age, underage drinking persists. As a result, I get business. What happens is there are bars that do not card or ID, especially in the inner cities. They let in people under the age of 21, sometimes under the age of 18 (I got one case involving a 17 year old). They do it for one reason, to make money. These kids drink, they get into fights, they go out on the road, and the result is death, injuries, lawsuits, increased insurance premiums, and heartbreak for the families involved.

    One former bartender once told me, and I do quote: "when it was peak time on a Saturday night and someone stuck a glass in my face I wouldn't know whether he was 80 or 12. And I wouldn't have the time to care."

    I don't understand the argument that automatically equates an 18 year old's ability to responsibly drink with that same 18 year old's ability to serve the military of his country. We have a long tradition of military service in the USA, at that age, that certainly predates the advent of the automobile. It is really the advent of the automobile and underaged drinking coupled with driving that has created the problem. If we did not invent the automobile, the drinking age would still be 18.

    Statistics and my own personal experience prove that those under 21 cannot handle the responsibility of drinking and driving. Statistics and the long experience of our military (with individuals like Audie Murphy) prove that those under the age of 21 can handle the resposibility to serve their country in combat. So your underlying premise compares an apple with an orange. Just because some journalist made a statement does not mean it's correct. Learn to use your minds, analyze the evidence, and reason your way to proper conclusions based on empirical evidence.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 12-22-2006 at 06:47 PM.

  11. #11
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Esco!
    There you go with your typical American "we saved the world" bullshit again, it gets tiresome after a while.
    Uh, you missed the point of the post. Did you read the Audie Murphy bio? The point is that our military succeeds and has always succeeded with soldiers under age 21. I think you missed that.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    446
    Quote Originally Posted by EagerBeaver
    Uh, you missed the point of the post. Did you read the Audie Murphy bio? The point is that our military succeeds and has always succeeded with soldiers under age 21. I think you missed that.
    Oops

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    446
    Drinking ages dont mean much anyways, most kids will get their hands on liquor somehow.

    I started going to bars when I was 16 with fake ID

  14. #14
    I have no problem with soldiers under the age of 21. They tend to be among the bravest and most effective fighters in an armed force. I just feel that if we can trust those who are 18 and over to pick the leader of the country, hold a job and raise a family, and fight and die for a country, we should allow them to drink at the age of 18. As far as drunk driving is concerned, bring in zero tolerance laws such as in Sweden, with very stiff penalties and actually enforce them. And don't tell me that's bullshit, or that it can't be done, because it can be done here if it has been done elsewhere.

    Besides, a drunk 21 year old can be just as, if not more, dangerous and irresponsible as a drunk 18 year old. Especially when they've been waiting those three years to be able to do it legally.

  15. #15
    I believe in Quebec because of the no fault insurance, you aren't civilly responsible for anything the occurs because of a moving vehicle (i.e. you can't be sued or sue anyone for anything that occurs because of a moving vehicle regardless of the circumstances).

    An organization for crime victims tried to change this but the strong insurance lobby stopped it. I believe that the provincial (Quebec) liberal justice minister resigned after he was roadblocked on this issue when he campaigned heavily on it.

    On the topic of drinking, even if a person drinks and causes damage or kills someone, he/she can't be sued in Quebec. He/She can go to jail (criminal offense) but suing for anything involving a moving vehicle is not possible in Quebec. Even if someone stole a car and caused damage, he/she cannot be sued.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •