21's a Bust? Seven States Debate Lowering Drinking Age

Byrdie714 said:
I can understand it being morally wrong in the state of Alabama but it's a little different in Washington State due to the historical significance of this law.

Afterall Washington state was settled by Scandinvians. :)
Click to expand...

Oh Pul-lease!!!! I ain't no lawyer.... Just the stupid lawmakers, being weak, and passing these ridiculous laws... It's a sorry joke... but to me... I wouldn't tolerate drinking by any kid, until they are 21! It's a damn shame what Washington State is doing.. to their citizens with kids when it come to alcohol!
 
There is nothing wrong with some alcohol (unless it conflicts with a health problem, or you ABUSE it)

Nothing wrong with a responsible adult allowing a child to experience it, it helps educate and removes the 'mystery' of it. I think a lot of kids resent being prevented from drinking without proper explanation or education. No kid likes 'just don't do it. We can do it, but you can't!' and some will end up abusing it out of resentment or rebellion.

Alcohol used to be an important part of living for many cultures, as it had health benefits and nutritional value, and children did drink it, under guidance from the parents. It is abuse of alcohol that gives it the bad image.
 
jenni-m said:
There is nothing wrong with some alcohol (unless it conflicts with a health problem, or you ABUSE it)

Nothing wrong with a responsible adult allowing a child to experience it, it helps educate and removes the 'mystery' of it. I think a lot of kids resent being prevented from drinking without proper explanation or education. No kid likes 'just don't do it. We can do it, but you can't!' and some will end up abusing it out of resentment or rebellion.

Alcohol used to be an important part of living for many cultures, as it had health benefits and nutritional value, and children did drink it, under guidance from the parents. It is abuse of alcohol that gives it the bad image.
Click to expand...

Well, I think it is morally wrong, and VERY WRONG by the states that permit that kind of activity... Wait until you are 21, then that's up to you to test the fate of alcohol!
 
gmcman1996 said:
Well, I think it is morally wrong, and VERY WRONG by the states that permit that kind of activity... Wait until you are 21, then that's up to you to test the fate of alcohol!
Click to expand...

You have the right to think that, and nobody can take it from you. It is how you feel and that is just fine. At the same time, you alone can't decide for everyone, especially based on morality alone, that is not how law works in this country. Other views have to be considered... you might be 'unlucky' and not get what you want, but that is one of the prices you pay for living in a society like this one.

Edit:
And, if you want the age to stay at 21, vote to keep it that way and get your friends who agree to vote also... get enough votes and you may get what you want, that is how it works here (or at least how it is supposed to) I'm not sure if it in question in your state, but if it comes up there, that is what you do. Or even if it is not up for vote, make your opinion known, you have that right.
 
jenni-m said:
You have the right to think that, and nobody can take it from you. It is how you feel and that is just fine. At the same time, you alone can't decide for everyone, especially based on morality alone, that is not how law works in this country. Other views have to be considered... you might be 'unlucky' and not get what you want, but that is one of the prices you pay for living in a society like this one.

Edit:
And, if you want the age to stay at 21, vote to keep it that way and get your friends who agree to vote also... get enough votes and you may get what you want, that is how it works here (or at least how it is supposed to) I'm not sure if it in question in your state, but if it comes up there, that is what you do. Or even if it is not up for vote, make your opinion known, you have that right.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion... but yes we all have our rights... :)
 
gmcman1996 said:
Very True! That is 99.9% the main reason for that! Ahh, if they (states) lowered it.. Then up goes the numbers of drunk young drivers! Bad enough... Not a good idea!:dunno:
Click to expand...
How would the numbers increase?

There are already minors drinking alcohol. One reason why a lot of these minors are tempted to drink alcohol is because it's a "bad thing". When drinking alcohol isn't a "bad thing" cuz they're of legal age, then there's no temptation in drinking.

So, the numbers would likely be the same or less.

Either way, it would likely encourage politicians to make stricter DUI laws. :)
 
VamPyroX said:
How would the numbers increase?

There are already minors drinking alcohol. One reason why a lot of these minors are tempted to drink alcohol is because it's a "bad thing". When drinking alcohol isn't a "bad thing" cuz they're of legal age, then there's no temptation in drinking.

So, the numbers would likely be the same or less.

Either way, it would likely encourage politicians to make stricter DUI laws. :)
Click to expand...

Any one under 21, found to be legally drunk, has to be 0.02 , by law,... but if 21, or older, it is 0.08 by all states.. so in case you forgot!
 
if cities in the us were planned a bit better and had better public transportation, dui's would be pretty rare...
 
gmcman1996 said:
Any one under 21, found to be legally drunk, has to be 0.02 , by law,... but if 21, or older, it is 0.08 by all states.. so in case you forgot!
Click to expand...

Semantics.
If you are impaired at 0.02, you are still impaired at 0.08 (and impaired even worse). What is 'legally' drunk is irrelevant, there is simply more tolerance within the law at 21, by what you are saying. That does not indicate more drinking, it only indicates possibly a higher number of cases being classified as 'legally drunk' (if it even does that).
 
jenni-m said:
Semantics.
If you are impaired at 0.02, you are still impaired at 0.08 (and impaired even worse). What is 'legally' drunk is irrelevant, there is simply more tolerance within the law at 21, by what you are saying. That does not indicate more drinking, it only indicates possibly a higher number of cases being classified as 'legally drunk' (if it even does that).
Click to expand...

Simply that law was made, so that any one, aged 17-20 fall in that 0.02 category... but anyone from 21 and up, fall in the 0.08 category... Guess drunk driving isn't worth your license... Is it?
 
gmcman1996 said:
Oh Pul-lease!!!! I ain't no lawyer.... Just the stupid lawmakers, being weak, and passing these ridiculous laws... It's a sorry joke... but to me... I wouldn't tolerate drinking by any kid, until they are 21! It's a damn shame what Washington State is doing.. to their citizens with kids when it come to alcohol!
Click to expand...

Damn shame that Washington State is doing what? Not being puritanical like....Alabama, Ohio or some bible-thumping state?

Just because we do things a little different doesn't mean that its right or wrong.

Secondly, I haven't seen you address the issue of an 18 year-old who is enlisted in the military not being able to drink. If they are old enough to die for our country, they are old enough to drink.
 
Byrdie714 said:
Damn shame that Washington State is doing what? Not being puritanical like....Alabama, Ohio or some bible-thumping state?

Just because we do things a little different doesn't mean that its right or wrong.

Secondly, I haven't seen you address the issue of an 18 year-old who is enlisted in the military not being able to drink. If they are old enough to die for our country, they are old enough to drink.
Click to expand...

Some laws are so bizarre, that it's always up for debate.....
 
Byrdie714 said:
Damn shame that Washington State is doing what? Not being puritanical like....Alabama, Ohio or some bible-thumping state?

Just because we do things a little different doesn't mean that its right or wrong.

Secondly, I haven't seen you address the issue of an 18 year-old who is enlisted in the military not being able to drink. If they are old enough to die for our country, they are old enough to drink.
Click to expand...

Not being puritanical AND hypocritical, I might add.
 
gmcman1996 said:
Simply that law was made, so that any one, aged 17-20 fall in that 0.02 category... but anyone from 21 and up, fall in the 0.08 category... Guess drunk driving isn't worth your license... Is it?
Click to expand...

But that goes against what you are trying to say from earlier.
Nobody should drink and drive... and for under 21, it would be EASIER to get caught, therefore more deterrent from doing it (one could hope).

I don't understand what you are trying to say with this.
Also don't understand how it is or isn't 'worth your license' or how that even relates to blood alcohol or legal age.
 
jenni-m said:
But that goes against what you are trying to say from earlier.
Nobody should drink and drive... and for under 21, it would be EASIER to get caught, therefore more deterrent from doing it (one could hope).

I don't understand what you are trying to say with this.
Also don't understand how it is or isn't 'worth your license' or how that even relates to blood alcohol or legal age.
Click to expand...

Didn't anybody tell you that having a driver's license is a privilege... Meaning if you are caught driving drunk... your driving privileges are taken away...

Simply what I am saying is your license is worth more, than drinking and driving...

I have been driving for 25 years... so take that from an experienced driver, who understands the facts that a driver's license is a privilege....

Oh, and one more thing... I damn sure not losing it either!
 
gmcman1996 said:
Didn't anybody tell you that having a driver's license is a privilege... Meaning if you are caught driving drunk... your driving privileges are taken away...

Simply what I am saying is your license is worth more, than drinking and driving...

I have been driving for 25 years... so take that from an experienced driver, who understands the facts that a driver's license is a privilege....

Oh, and one more thing... I damn sure not losing it either!
Click to expand...

Well, yes, I agree. I still don't see how the blood levels you posted relates to this, except to actually enforce what you just said here...
 
jenni-m said:
Well, yes, I agree. I still don't see how the blood levels you posted relates to this, except to actually enforce what you just said here...
Click to expand...

Now, the BAC business is a bit tricky.. depending on which police department you had the run-in with, for possible DUI, or BUI... but see, most states require a 0.08 BAC, in order to consider you illegally drunk, so 99.9 of the time, a driver has a BAC of 0.08 or higher, is going to be arrested, and charged with DUI, provided if he hasn't wrecked up, or injured other people... Consider additional charge, of Felony DUI! That is really BAD!

The worst case scenario would be a driver with a 0.20 and has killed someone.. is facing Vehicular Manslaughter, and Felony DUI.. so bye bye !
 
Back
Top