OK, this is weird...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, but that has nothing to do with my point at all... in studies done ages 18-21 were involved in many more drunken driving accidents than any other age group. So they figured to raise the drinking age. Interesting drunk driving fatalities did fall.

The only way that Alberta stats counter mine in any way, shape, or form is if there was an age group that had a higher amount of drunk driving accidents than 18-21.

The problem here is you're not thinking enough about it.

Why could the 18-21 groups be higher in the US? Well, perhaps it's because they usually have to be rather sneaky about it.

In places like Alberta where the law is 18, when you're smashed and you can't drive, you can call your parents and stuff to get a ride home. In the US, where the laws state 21 as the age, an 18 year old is less likely to call his parents for a ride home when he's smashed, right?

Theres many implications which severaly taint the studies that you discussed, because they're under conditions where the 18-21 have to be sneaky about it and (surprisingly!) drive drunk more.

[Lonestar]

Serves you right for drinking underage.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My problem is that the government is telling adults what they can and cannot put in their bodies.

That's a different issue altogether. I'm not arguing against that, per say.

The point is, though, what is the fundamental difference between discriminating based upon race and age?

One is stated, one isn't. That's about it really .

Good question. I can tell you that when breathing directly on my friends to test it, only one of them could smell anything, and neither of them had had anything to drink.

Give me some credit, though - I'm not gonna lie about how much I had to make a silly point on the Internet. If I was totally smashed I would say so.

The problem is that it seems farfetched, a bit. Maybe the bouncer had a hard-on about it, who knows. But since he did smell something or says he did, who knows.

Why could the 18-21 groups be higher in the US? Well, perhaps it's because they usually have to be rather sneaky about it.

In places like Alberta where the law is 18, when you're smashed and you can't drive, you can call your parents and stuff to get a ride home. In the US, where the laws state 21 as the age, an 18 year old is less likely to call his parents for a ride home when he's smashed, right?

You seem to be

These stats were taken when there WASN'T a national 21 drinking age! So in many of these states you had an 18 year old drinking age... and even in those states you had a the 18-21 crowd involved in more drunk driving accidents. In fact these studies, showing that 18-21 were more likely to be involved in drunk driving accidents LED to the national drinking age.

[DinoDoc]

*ahem*

[Imran Siddiqui]

*ahem* what?

It's your opinion that tougher DUI statutes could have done the same thing. The legislators thought differently... and statistically they seem to be right.

[David Floyd]

Serves you right for drinking underage.

I'm not underage. I'm as much an adult as you are.

If I'm not an adult, then I'm a child.

If I'm a child, then I can't enter into most contracts. Therefore, I don't have to pay car payments, right?

If I'm a child, I don't have to sign up with Selective Service, and, for that matter, anytime the US drafted anyone under the age of 21, they were drafting children into the military - something we would certainly condemn Iraq, for example, for doing.

Drinking underage, indeed. As if there is any difference between a 20 year old and a 21 year old, physically speaking.

Now, there could be a maturity-level difference, but that leads us to a different direction. First, I could be more mature at 17 than you at 21. Secondly, women mature quicker than men, so if it's a simple maturity issue, shouldn't the drinking age for women be lower?

And finally, we both know there is nothing wrong with me having drinks at home, or anywhere else. The problem comes in if I commit an actual crime - that is, hurt someone. But drinking and a criminal act are two separate things. Don't combine the two.

[David Floyd]

Imran,

One is stated, one isn't. That's about it really

OK, so morally speaking, the drinking age is as bad as a law based upon racial discrimination. I'm glad we're in agreement.

The problem is that it seems farfetched, a bit. Maybe the bouncer had a hard-on about it, who knows. But since he did smell something or says he did, who knows.

Well, you can believe me or not. But let me put it this way - why would I waste my time posting a thread if I actually was stumbling around drunk? If I wanted to ***** about the drinking age, I would have started a thread specifically about that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not underage. I'm as much an adult as you are.

Um.. yes you are underage. The drinking age is 21, and you aren't. You are also underage for social security. You cannot argue that you are not underage. Being an adult and being underage are two seperate issues entirely.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I'm not underage. I'm as much an adult as you are.

If I'm not an adult, then I'm a child.

If I'm a child, then I can't enter into most contracts. Therefore, I don't have to pay car payments, right?

If I'm a child, I don't have to sign up with Selective Service, and, for that matter, anytime the US drafted anyone under the age of 21, they were drafting children into the military - something we would certainly condemn Iraq, for example, for doing.

Drinking underage, indeed. As if there is any difference between a 20 year old and a 21 year old, physically speaking.

Now, there could be a maturity-level difference, but that leads us to a different direction. First, I could be more mature at 17 than you at 21. Secondly, women mature quicker than men, so if it's a simple maturity issue, shouldn't the drinking age for women be lower?

And finally, we both know there is nothing wrong with me having drinks at home, or anywhere else. The problem comes in if I commit an actual crime - that is, hurt someone. But drinking and a criminal act are two separate things. Don't combine the two.

We live in a society of Laws. You broke a just one.

[David Floyd]

Um.. yes you are underage. The drinking age is 21, and you aren't. You are also underage for social security. You cannot argue that you are not underage. Being an adult and being underage are two seperate issues entirely.

Underage for drinking and underage for social security are two different things. The drinking age prohibits me from doing something, social security gives me something. While I don't agree with SS, I do understand that the point is a social safety net after retirement. On the other hand, saying that I am too young to decide what to drink is the same thing as calling me an immature child who has to be led around by mommy and daddy. If I make irresponsible decisions, put me in prison for committing a crime. But the act of drinking is not irresponsible, in and of itself.

[David Floyd]

We live in a society of Laws. You broke a just one.

An unjust law is no law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

OK, so morally speaking, the drinking age is as bad as a law based upon racial discrimination.

Not quite. I'd still put a law based on racial discrimination on a MUCH higher peg than a silly drinking age .

Well, you can believe me or not. But let me put it this way - why would I waste my time posting a thread if I actually was stumbling around drunk? If I wanted to ***** about the drinking age, I would have started a thread specifically about that.

I'm not saying you are lying. When we are inebriated stuff tends to get streached and exaggerated in our minds.

Underage for drinking and underage for social security are two different things. The drinking age prohibits me from doing something, social security gives me something. While I don't agree with SS, I do understand that the point is a social safety net after retirement. On the other hand, saying that I am too young to decide what to drink is the same thing as calling me an immature child who has to be led around by mommy and daddy. If I make irresponsible decisions, put me in prison for committing a crime. But the act of drinking is not irresponsible, in and of itself.

Doesn't matter... this is a simply legal definition. You are either declared underage or above age to do something. You are underage, and it isn't really open to debate after that .

An unjust law is no law.

Except that it is... and is enforced just the same .

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd


An unjust law is no law.

It was just. There was a reason for such a law. Now take the consequences of your action like a mature adult.

[David Floyd]

Imran,

Not quite. I'd still put a law based on racial discrimination on a MUCH higher peg than a silly drinking age

Yes, and robbing a bank is worse than purse snatching, in a manner of speaking, but fundamentally they are the same.

I'm not saying you are lying. When we are inebriated stuff tends to get streached and exaggerated in our minds.

I understand this, yet I was not inebriated, and I had exactly the amount I claimed to have had.

Doesn't matter... this is a simply legal definition.

Speaking morally, or just using reason and common sense, I am not underage to decide what to do with my body. The law, for example, allows me to smoke, and smoking is certainly more harmful to my health than alcohol. I can own firearms, and I can do more damage with a rifle than with a shot of vodka. I can join the military and operate heavy military ordnance, and, for that matter, I can be forced to join the military to do the same (yes, conscription is not the law now, but if it was the law I seriously doubt you would argue against its Constitutionality).

Lonestar,

It was just. There was a reason for such a law.

Yes, and if we looked at crime rates, decides that black people committed a disproportionate amount of violent crime, and locked all blacks up as a preventive measure, you could also call that just on the same argument, because you are basically making the argument that the end justifies the means.

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by David Floyd


An unjust law is no law.

I'll have to remember that.
thanks