mead107 Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 The guy was dealing drugs. He was arrested for DUI. Ran because of dealing drugs not because he had a few beers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibran Chandan Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 It doesn't make sense that you can vote and get drafted but can't enjoy a cold beer once in a while. This kills me...everyone uses this argument like it's a great idea. No one is disturbed by the fact that the age at which you can be sent to war and die in a foreign country is lower than the drinking age? It's always the other way around? Screw it. Keep making 'em wait until they're 21 before they can drink, and raise the age at which you can decide you're going to take an assault rifle and go get shot at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolstoy Posted August 12, 2012 Author Share Posted August 12, 2012 Here is a novel idea, right out of the libertarian playbook: get rid of the drinking age altogether. Let parents raise their children--not big father government. And let the hammer come down on those who disturb the public in their alcohol consumption, or drive while intoxicated. For the latter--they lose their license for 10 years, no exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Syracuse Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 (edited) Here is a novel idea, right out of the libertarian playbook: get rid of the drinking age altogether. Let parents raise their children--not big father government. And let the hammer come down on those who disturb the public in their alcohol consumption, or drive while intoxicated. For the latter--they lose their license for 10 years, no exceptions. Unfortunately I don't see that happening. One party feels that the government needs to be involved in legislating behavior and the other feels that's it's the government's right to legislate morality. It's a no win. This kills me...everyone uses this argument like it's a great idea. No one is disturbed by the fact that the age at which you can be sent to war and die in a foreign country is lower than the drinking age? It's always the other way around? Screw it. Keep making 'em wait until they're 21 before they can drink, and raise the age at which you can decide you're going to take an assault rifle and go get shot at. That's not really an apples to apples comparison though. Eighteen year olds who are drafted don't usually take their M16's to the sidewalk and mow down a family of four. Eighteen year olds who go to a Bills game, get hammered and try to drive home do. Draftee's aren't usually a menace to society. That said, it does seem to be a rather inequitable position. Edited August 12, 2012 by Mike in Syracuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 That's not really an apples to apples comparison though. Eighteen year olds who are drafted don't usually take their M16's to the sidewalk and mow down a family of four. Eighteen year olds who go to a Bills game, get hammered and try to drive home do. Draftee's aren't usually a menace to society. That said, it does seem to be a rather inequitable position. Exactly. Another thing that people who make this tired argument forget is that our servicemen/women get the best training in the world before they are sent into harm's way overseas. The average underage drinker has a hard time correctly spelling the word "responsibility", much less putting it into practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 What made this a sting? I saw that the ages were all 19 and 20, who were able to drink when I was that age. So, it's not like they busted 16 year olds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Unfortunately I don't see that happening. One party feels that the government needs to be involved in legislating behavior and the other feels that's it's the government's right to legislate morality. It's a no win. That's not really an apples to apples comparison though. Eighteen year olds who are drafted don't usually take their M16's to the sidewalk and mow down a family of four. Eighteen year olds who go to a Bills game, get hammered and try to drive home do. Draftee's aren't usually a menace to society. That said, it does seem to be a rather inequitable position. I'm not sure I follow your argument. You make far too many sweeping generalizations without a shred of evidence to support them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Unfortunately I don't see that happening. One party feels that the government needs to be involved in legislating behavior and the other feels that's it's the government's right to legislate morality. It's a no win. That's not really an apples to apples comparison though. Eighteen year olds who are drafted don't usually take their M16's to the sidewalk and mow down a family of four. Eighteen year olds who go to a Bills game, get hammered and try to drive home do. Draftee's aren't usually a menace to society. That said, it does seem to be a rather inequitable position. There hasn't been a draft in this country in 39 years. The last draftees are in the AARP now. They can drink as they please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Exactly. Another thing that people who make this tired argument forget is that our servicemen/women get the best training in the world before they are sent into harm's way overseas. The average underage drinker has a hard time correctly spelling the word "responsibility", much less putting it into practice. I think you missed the point of that arguement. No one said that the training they receive isn't top notch. The arguement being brought forward is that if your old enough to fight for your country you should be able to enjoy a beer when you want to. Maybe that is the solution, if your in the service then you can drink a beer at the age of 18. If your not in the service you have to wait till your 21. I don't really care either way, just thought I'd throw in my $0.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 I think you missed the point of that arguement. No one said that the training they receive isn't top notch. The arguement being brought forward is that if your old enough to fight for your country you should be able to enjoy a beer when you want to. Maybe that is the solution, if your in the service then you can drink a beer at the age of 18. If your not in the service you have to wait till your 21. I don't really care either way, just thought I'd throw in my $0.02 No, I understood the argument perfectly. I don't think you understand my point. You can volunteer to fight for the country, but until you prove that you are responsible enough and have had the requisite training, you aren't doing it. Therefore, the argument that because you can fight for your country you should be able to drink doesn't fly. Its apples and oranges. I think that your point of lowering the age for military personnel may have some merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 If enforced properly these laws are fine. They only pose a problem with overzealous and self-righteous cops decide to go above and beyond to make sure it's enforced. When I go to a public part of the river or go to a public play in the park, drinking is banned for minors and adults alike. When I pop a bottle of beer or pour a glass of wine discreetly with my wife and daughter no one cares. If I have my beer in a coozy so as not to advertise it, the cops at the river say nothing. It's good to have laws like that so that if people abuse it and act up the cops can dispense with them. Cops, however, have a responsibility to know their role when keeping the peace. I'm all for the 18 year old drinking age. You must be thinking of someone else, or you misunderstood me.. "Back in the day", I had my first drink in a bar when I was 14. Yes, I did look that much older at the time. Responsible drinking was by default, taught in our home, and that's the way it should be. I'll say it again: If you are old enough to get your nuts shot off in Afghanistan, you are certainly old enough to have a drink. Treating 18 year olds like they are barely out of the crib is nonsense. Hey little fella, you ought to come over to PPP. You'll be forced to defend your political views, but they'll be far more welcome than they are here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 I'm all for the 18 year old drinking age. You must be thinking of someone else, or you misunderstood me.. "Back in the day", I had my first drink in a bar when I was 14. Yes, I did look that much older at the time. Responsible drinking was by default, taught in our home, and that's the way it should be. I'll say it again: If you are old enough to get your nuts shot off in Afghanistan, you are certainly old enough to have a drink. Treating 18 year olds like they are barely out of the crib is nonsense. This is what you said - "Alcohol laws are B.S., and are all about raising $$$" I took that to mean that having the drinking age at 21 instead of 18 is making somebody money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 No, I understood the argument perfectly. I don't think you understand my point. You can volunteer to fight for the country, but until you prove that you are responsible enough and have had the requisite training, you aren't doing it. Therefore, the argument that because you can fight for your country you should be able to drink doesn't fly. Its apples and oranges. I think that your point of lowering the age for military personnel may have some merit. So your idea is to take responsible alcohol use classes? Sounds good to me, it can only help the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 So your idea is to take responsible alcohol use classes? Sounds good to me, it can only help the situation. No, my idea is to stop having people comparing serving in the military with the ability to consume alcohol legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOUSE Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I am telling you guys, The Bills are looking for an excuse to ban drinking in the parking lot. If they nab more kids, it could happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffNixonFan Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Certainly, it was an over generalization. In my mind's eye I had a picture of an 18 year old kid just back from a long day at work who comes home and kisses the wife and kids, and sits down to "enjoy a cold beer". This picture was completely contrary to my personal experiences of 18 year olds drinking beer, which usually involves fighting, vomiting, naked women, and jail (not necessarily in that order). Loved this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 In my state you are inferred to be intoxicated at .06 with indicators from your SFSTs. I've participated in a number of control drinking studies/training and can say that there is a loss of motor, sensory and reaction functions at .08. No, you aren't falling down drunk, and your probably don't feel it, but it's there. But he used to drive waaaay more buzzed and nothing happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Not that I don't agree that the drinking age Gould be lowered but the law is the law. Unfortunately there are the few in the crowd that ruin it for everyone. I have personally never understood paying $50 (on the low end) to go to an event an get so messed up you don't even know what's going on. Doesn't make sense to me. You should try it sometime. It is kind of fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullim4 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I don't understand why there's even a debate about this... and I just got back from a weekend of wine/beer tasting so I'm not exacty a prohibitionist. The experience at RWS is out of control, mainly because of men in the 19-25 age range that have been drinking like fish since 6am. I have no problem with someone having a beer at the game but these folks have been drinking like crazy and aren't exactly shining examples of why we should lower the drinking age. They were the same group of idiots smoking outside their high school while they were under 18. I honestly think it's sad that alcohol plays such a large part in the culture of our fanbase as well as others around the NFL. To be clear - I don't advocate banning alcohol in the lots, but I do think that enforcing underage laws for those under 21 and cracking down on those in their 20s that can drink legally but do so to excess greatly enhances the experience for those who simply want to have one or two beers and enjoy the game. Bottom line - if an underage person's judgment while sober is so impaired that they decide to drink in public yards away from police cars, what does that say about their judgment while drunk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opfball91 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 How soon we forget. Perhaps the police are trying to prevent a situation like this, when 4 police officers and 3 fans were hit by a drunk and underage driver. http://www.wkbw.com/...l/63972522.html Per the article 'Police arrested 19-year-old Brandon McLean of Williamsville and charged him with DWI. Its likely more charges will be added on because the injury count is high: 4 officers and 3 pedestrians, all victims of what some called erratic and reckless driving.' That could have just as easily been a 21 year old driver, or a 45 year old one for that matter. Under 21=/=stupid and reckless. Stupid and reckless=stupid and reckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts