Drinking Age

CivBase wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:

though previous laws still prevent cops from unwanted search and seasure

*cough* Patriot Act *cough*

*cough* and? *cough*

And that was one of the foundries of our nation?

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:I'm going to mark proabition

The thing is, during the Prohibition, MORE people drank, MORE people died from alcohol, and MORE people had DUIs (or the times equivalent)

I say leave it at 21 since its easy enough to get anyway, plus once its legal, its a lot less fun.

Well, like I said, I'm marking proabition, but my idea is not the same as it.
I still think alcohol sales should be okay, but a cirtain level of intoxication to be illigal.

*DRINK RESPONSIBLY*

i belive the limit should be 18.

but i also say if your with family its ok in small amounts, since most likely they wont let you leave the house.

CivBase wrote:
Because they have no control over their actions. Any person could harm someone else in a second as a drunk.

My guess is you've never been drunk. As people have plenty of control, maybe not a shitload, but if its not in their nature otherwise, its not going to be when they are drunk.

Second, i remember a case where a guy had a BAC of over .4 (over 40% of his blood was alchohol) and he was driving. He got pulled over, NOT for driving erratically, speeding, driving too slow or anything, but because his registration had expired. Even doing the alcohol tests, the cops said he was doing pretty good.

lol i had 3 1/2 cups of vodka and i could barely walk i haade my mind but my body was going in a different direction

3 1/2 cups compares to how many shots? I can handle myself very easily up to 15 shots of Grey Goose.

KristallNacht wrote:

CivBase wrote:
Because they have no control over their actions. Any person could harm someone else in a second as a drunk.

My guess is you've never been drunk. As people have plenty of control, maybe not a shitload, but if its not in their nature otherwise, its not going to be when they are drunk.

Second, i remember a case where a guy had a BAC of over .4 (over 40% of his blood was alchohol) and he was driving. He got pulled over, NOT for driving erratically, speeding, driving too slow or anything, but because his registration had expired. Even doing the alcohol tests, the cops said he was doing pretty good.

That is because his body built up an abnormal tollerance to the alcohol. That means that he has been drunk on many occasions, not a good thing. That also means that his organs have taken extensive damage thanks to his habbit and he has probably ODed by now.

KristallNacht wrote:3 1/2 cups compares to how many shots? I can handle myself very easily up to 15 shots of Grey Goose.

i have no i dea all i know is that i slept like a baby that night and i my hardest liquer i have drank is vodka

no Bicardi 151?

KristallNacht wrote:no Bicardi 151?

nope my parents don't drink much anymore since they became diabetic.

CivBase wrote:That is because his body built up an abnormal tollerance to the alcohol. That means that he has been drunk on many occasions, not a good thing.

not necessarily. Many people genetically tolerate more alcohol than others.

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:That is because his body built up an abnormal tollerance to the alcohol. That means that he has been drunk on many occasions, not a good thing.

not necessarily. Many people genetically tolerate more alcohol than others.

Bodies build up tollerance to alcohol, some very high. It's true that not everyone starts at the same area, some it takes more to phase than others. However, the longer you drink or do any drug, the more tollerant you'll get and the more you'll need to create that feeling. While you won't feel any different than usual, you're body will be taking even more of an impact each time, not to mention the adding from all the times you got drunk before.

Prohibition is not good, bad shit happens with that.

LP, you are correct.... in short term effects.
However, in the long run, it helps. The problem is, none of us will live long enough to see those effects if we start it this very second. Too many people already addicted...

While I believe I marked 18, I understand Civ's point. Alcohol impairs people. While I'm sure there are a select few out there who can drink their weight in alcohol and still pass the line test, we shouldn't build rules to cater to the exceptions rather than the majority. Among the first things to go, when drunk, is your spacial perception, the understanding of where your body is compared to the world. The next things to go are basically all functions of the frontal lobe (ability to recognize the consequences of an action, ability to make moral decisions, ability to determine what is and isn't socially acceptable, short term memory). While you might not necessarily cause anyone else harm, you won't necessarily not cause anyone harm, since you lose the ability to determine whether or not you should cause someone harm. And it's great that some people are more resistant than others, but what Civ is basically saying is that there should be a limit on how drunk one can get, rather than who can get drunk. So if you are born resistant to alcohol, good for you, you can drink more than someone else.

And remember, alcohol, the best times you'll never remember. ;)

Yes, rot, you're very right.

Rotaretilbo wrote:While you might not necessarily cause anyone else harm, you won't necessarily not cause anyone harm, since you lose the ability to determine whether or not you should cause someone harm.

Oww.... my brain!

Of course you're speaking to excess. Many don't drink to excess.

CivBase wrote:LP, you are correct.... in short term effects.
However, in the long run, it helps. The problem is, none of us will live long enough to see those effects if we start it this very second. Too many people already addicted...

Short terms effects may include getting impeached, something less to tax, and a redneck rebellion.

Long term effects may include destruction of freedom, loosing civilian rights one by one, and the transformation from free America to Nazi America.

Do not prohibit alcohol if you are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant, ect...

Hopeful looking end of drug commercial here with smiley faces.

Short term effects: those who drink get very very mad (dunno so much about a rebellion though...)
Long term effects: less drinkers

As for distruction of freedom, 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.

Guns kill people Civ. Should all guns be banned?

ReconToaster wrote:Guns kill people Civ. Should all guns be banned?

Guns are also used for self defence.
How many criminals would try to attack someone knowing that there's a decent chance that he/she or someone around has a gun?
You don't see many people using alcohol for self defence, do you?

ReconToaster wrote:Guns kill people Civ. Should all guns be banned?

guns don't kill people. people kill people. guns just help

AND

guns don't kill people. bullets kill people. unless you strike them with the butt of the weapon... which seems like a waste

AND

but sah, how we gonna get der turkeyz shot if we ain't got no rifles ta shoot dem wit?

BBJynne wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:Guns kill people Civ. Should all guns be banned?

guns don't kill people. people kill people. guns just help

AND

guns don't kill people. bullets kill people. unless you strike them with the butt of the weapon... which seems like a waste

AND

but sah, how we gonna get der turkeyz shot if we ain't got no rifles ta shoot dem wit?

AND

guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills people

AND

in soviet russia, guns do kill people

CivBase wrote:
in soviet russia, guns do kill people

in soviet russia, gun shoot YOU!!*