Drinking Age

guns don't kill people

Ok, and alcohol doesn't kill people, the people abusing it do.

ReconToaster wrote:

Ok, and alcohol doesn't kill people, the people abusing it do.

pretty much.




accountability: it's needed

ReconToaster wrote:

guns don't kill people

Ok, and alcohol doesn't kill people, the people abusing it do.

But using a gun doesn't kill you.
Using alcohol does.

And as I said, not many people use alcohol for self defence.

CivBase wrote:
But using a gun doesn't kill you.
Using alcohol does.

I've used alcohol

and I don't think I'm dead.

BBJynne wrote:

CivBase wrote:
But using a gun doesn't kill you.
Using alcohol does.

I've used alcohol

and I don't think I'm dead.

*smacks head*
It doesn't instantly kill you, obviously.

Well, using a gun can kill you, or at least get you killed.

you people are going off topic here

Lord Pheonix wrote:you people are going off topic here

I thought you said you wouldn't come in this section.

CivBase wrote:

BBJynne wrote:

I've used alcohol

and I don't think I'm dead.

*smacks head*
It doesn't instantly kill you, obviously.

I'm gonna go out of a limb and say (because it is so very true) that unless BBJynne has a history of alcoholism in his family, he will never have any problems from his use of alcohol (aside from the impaired judgement results...but not like liver failure or anything)

BBJynne wrote:

Lord Pheonix wrote:you people are going off topic here

I thought you said you wouldn't come in this section.

someone has to maintain the peace

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:

BBJynne wrote:

I've used alcohol

and I don't think I'm dead.

*smacks head*
It doesn't instantly kill you, obviously.

I'm gonna go out of a limb and say (because it is so very true) that unless BBJynne has a history of alcoholism in his family, he will never have any problems from his use of alcohol (aside from the impaired judgement results...but not like liver failure or anything)

I fail to see your reasoning...
Is it that because he's not dead yet that alcohol will never effect him? If so then, are you drunk? Because it sure will.

Being irresponsible with alcohol can kill you just like being irresponsible with a gun can kill you. People need to be held accountable for their own lives. We don't need the government stepping in and throwing out restrictions. What ever happened to republicans being for small government...

CivBase wrote:
I fail to see your reasoning...
Is it that because he's not dead yet that alcohol will never effect him? If so then, are you drunk? Because it sure will.

reasoning wasn't involved. just common sense. The dangerous effects of alcohol in the long term are greatly exaggerated.

ReconToaster wrote:Being irresponsible with alcohol can kill you just like being irresponsible with a gun can kill you. People need to be held accountable for their own lives. We don't need the government stepping in and throwing out restrictions. What ever happened to republicans being for small government...

Do I have to repeat myself?

Outlawing drugs does not prohibit freedom, in fact it enforces it. Our constitution guarentees us freedom untill it infringes upon anothers freedom. This substance is outlawed because it can do no good and is very harmful to users and those around it. As I said in the other thread, DUIs are the 2nd leading cause in preventable deaths. If I recall, on of our natural rights is life. Our government would be ensuring this right.

KristallNacht wrote:reasoning wasn't involved. just common sense. The dangerous effects of alcohol in the long term are greatly exaggerated.

You know, something about several of my family members dying because of the long term effects of alcohol tells me otherwise. Once again, you are going off of bits and pieces of other peoples lives while the textbooks are going off of repeated tests and studies.

Civ wrote:Do I have to repeat myself?

You can if you want, but to my knowledge, I didn't say anything that could contradict your statement. Alcohol is manufactured and sold by corporations, and if the government disallowed the sale of it, that would be a restriction. That would be unnecessary.

It vexes me why someone who is so strongly against helping others through national health care would be all for giving up privileges to insure the health of others.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Do I have to repeat myself?

You can if you want, but to my knowledge, I didn't say anything that could contradict your statement. Alcohol is manufactured and sold by corporations, and if the government disallowed the sale of it, that would be a restriction. That would be unnecessary.

It vexes me why someone who is so strongly against helping others through national health care would be all for giving up privileges to insure the health of others.

Did you read my orriginal idea?
My orriginal idea was to alow sales of alcohol, but the government would place a restriction on how drunk you can get. As in, you can't go above a .40 BAC or something like that.

Civ wrote:Did you read my orriginal idea?
My orriginal idea was to alow sales of alcohol, but the government would place a restriction on how drunk you can get. As in, you can't go above a .40 BAC or something like that.

and how would be monitor such a law? Do you think this law should be implemented on private residences as well?

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Did you read my orriginal idea?
My orriginal idea was to alow sales of alcohol, but the government would place a restriction on how drunk you can get. As in, you can't go above a .40 BAC or something like that.

and how would be monitor such a law?

If a policeman has sufficiant reason to do a BAC test, they will do it. If this person is above the legal limit, then they will be punished accordingly. Sorta like DUIs, except no longer restricted to the road.

ReconToaster wrote:Do you think this law should be implemented on private residences as well?

Yes, but previous laws still stand, so police can't just barge into a house and force people to do a BAC test. It would be very rare for it to happen in private residences, but say if a policeman comes to your door and you are staggering and have extreamly slurred speach, then they could have you do a BAC test.

However, I wouldn't mind too much if they didn't enforce it in private.

how much liquor does it honestly take to get tom tbhat kinda BAC level?
Bars wouldnt be able to sell enough dom to less sales.
no luck there....

Don Corleone wrote:how much liquor does it honestly take to get tom tbhat kinda BAC level?
Bars wouldnt be able to sell enough dom to less sales.
no luck there....

I'm guessing around 15 shots for an average person
I say this because many people OD when they do the '21 shots on your 21st birthday' thing. That and 8 12oz shots bring you to about .2 BAC

CivBase wrote:
You know, something about several of my family members dying because of the long term effects of alcohol tells me otherwise. Once again, you are going off of bits and pieces of other peoples lives while the textbooks are going off of repeated tests and studies.

See, HISTORY in the family.

And I'm going off MY life, MY experiences and everyone around me.

CivBase wrote:
If a policeman has sufficiant reason to do a BAC test, they will do it. If this person is above the legal limit, then they will be punished accordingly. Sorta like DUIs, except no longer restricted to the road.

otherwise known as public drunkenness which is already enforced.

Furthermore, this isn't a substance that has no upsides.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:
You know, something about several of my family members dying because of the long term effects of alcohol tells me otherwise. Once again, you are going off of bits and pieces of other peoples lives while the textbooks are going off of repeated tests and studies.

See, HISTORY in the family.

And I'm going off MY life, MY experiences and everyone around me.

A. You're not around everyone else that is drunk/high/whatever all the time, you don't see all of their lives.
B. Judgement is the first thing to go. So you using your experiences would be pretty inacurate as well.
C. Being as you seem to enjoy alcohol (even though I honestly think it tastes like s***) you are of course going to be more biased twards keeping it, and keeping it at a low age. This is why proabition doesn't work.

(plz don't say I'm biased. Just because I think something tastes bad doesn't mean that I'm going to try to make it illegal. I'm arguing based on research and facts)

A. You're not around everyone else that is drunk/high/whatever all the time, you don't see all of their lives.

He's saying that he can make his own decisions without govt. regulation or threat.

B. Judgement is the first thing to go. So you using your experiences would be pretty inacurate as well.

Have you ever been even the slightest bit intoxicated? It sounds to me like you don't have much, if any, experience with drinking any significant amount of alcohol. You are completely exaggerating the facts.

You don't just get drunk and think "Hey, it'd be cool if I cut my dick off!" it's much more subtle than that. Maybe you'll think it's a good idea to drive drunk, but that's why you get a friend to be a designated driver. There are ways of working out our own problems without having the government step in.

ReconToaster wrote:Have you ever been even the slightest bit intoxicated?

No I haven't because frankly, even without the negative reprocussions, it doesn't sound like fun to me.

ReconToaster wrote:It sounds to me like you don't have much, if any, experience with drinking any significant amount of alcohol. You are completely exaggerating the facts.

Exaggerating the facts?
If you're judgement is the first thing that's impared, wouldn't it make sence that using your own experiences is invalid as your judgement was impared?

ReconToaster wrote:You don't just get drunk and think "Hey, it'd be cool if I cut my dick off!" it's much more subtle than that.

I realize that.

ReconToaster wrote:Maybe you'll think it's a good idea to drive drunk, but that's why you get a friend to be a designated driver. There are ways of working out our own problems without having the government step in.

But Americans are born stupid. You cannot trust that everyone will do the right thing, the reason that Communism failed time and time again.

CivBase wrote:
If you're judgement is the first thing that's impared, wouldn't it make sence that using your own experiences is invalid as your judgement was impared?

For the most part you can still remember it. In hindsight all vision is 20/20. I'm not using my judgment at the time as reference but looking back.