Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I think the drinking age, in comparison to the smoking age, is pretty stupid. At age 18, America will allow you to start smoking. Smoking has this magical thing called nicotine. It's an addictive drug... thing... that literally gets you hooked, and makes you crave it. Although alcohol can be very dangerous in big doses, one cigarette can start a chain leading to horrible cancers. Remember, I'm not saying alcohol is not bad for you at some points, but I don't believe it's worst than Smoking. Thoughts? [/b]

The difference is that alcohol actually changes you, when you drink it. Cigarettes don't make you as much of a dangerous driver as alcohol does. And they don't make you violent or unpredictable.

In Australia, the drinking age is 18. Woooo, three years to go.

Don't worry, everyone. I won't have a car.

_________________
NOT A SIGNATURE!

Alcohol can be really bad if you drink as much as, say, a smoker smokes. The amount of damage your liver will take is unreal. I bet if you replaced a smoker's cigarettes with beer or (God forbid) hard liquor, he wouldn't last as long.

And people can be just as addicted to alcohol as they are to cigarettes. Sure, alcohol doesn't have nicotine, but the addiction is more of a mental thing. People can get hooked on depressants.


So wait...you're saying the drinking age should be lowered? Then I wholeheartedly disagree. Teens that drink illegally cause enough problems as it is. I don't think I need to tell you how bad drunk driving is. And if you make the drinking age younger, more inexperienced drivers will be allowed to purchase alcohol. Leading to more drunk driving.

If anything, they should raise the smoking age. (This is probably what you meant)

_________________

Sorta. I just think that anyone stupid enough to drink that much will have that problem at any age.

Personally, I think the legal age for both should be 20, along with the age for military recruitment, voting, and so on.

Why? Well, see, I think it should be at the very end of teenagerhood. I honestly don't think it makes sense as is.

_________________

It should be fourteen. The age that you vote, drink, and everything.
My main argument for this is:
A: I'm fourteen, and I deserve to vote and even drink if I want, the Man is getting me down and...
B: Many cultures use fourteen as the age you turn into on adult, coming of age ceremonies in many different older cultures for people happened around that age.

If we were to legalize these things for people even younger than 14 it would make them less of a "forbidden fruit", and everyone knows it's human nature to love to go for that "forbidden fruit". Besides, it's a parent's job to keep kids out of things like alcohol and tobacco, not the government's.

_________________

I disagree. Germany and England have less strict attitudes toward drinking and smoking, but that doesn't prevent teenage drinking and smoking. Believe me I know: I used to live in both places. While it does remove the "forbidden fruit" aspect, it simultaneously gives license to abuse them. So, no, lower drinking/smoking ages does not help prevent abuse at all, and if anything, makes abuse more prevalent.

And while other cultures may use fourteen as a guideline for such things, our culture has chosen higher ages, and that for pragmatic reasons, namely public safety. So what other cultures might do has very little significance when addressing how our states set their laws. What might work fine in a low-tech agrarian or primitive society might not work at all in a suburban or urban culture. I really don't care if it's legal for a 12-year old German kid to get drunk: I still don't think ours should be allowed to.


No you don't.


I agree with the first part. So far, the experience of our nation is that either parents are failing miserably or the kids just aren't getting it. But if parents aren't teaching their kids to use alcohol and tobacco responsibly, then the government has a responsibility to take control for the sake of public safety. I shouldn't have to live in fear of crossing the street because some plastered 14-year old decided to hijack his mom's car.

_________________

Your opinion's well and good, but I disagree. I just have one question for you, why do I not deserve to vote? I thought all people were created equal.

_________________

You are too young and not mature enough to make choose who the leader of the free world will be.

_________________

I know this is going to sound personal, but it's because you have not demonstrated the maturity level to handle making these kinds of decisions, Wes. Heck, you were advocating the reinstating of dueling not long ago, despite the numerous sane people who presented you with arguments why it should not be allowed. I shudder to think how you might handle a fifth of vodka and a set of car keys.

But as I stated before, our nation has already had plenty of opportunity to examine its culture, and from it, to determine that there are just some things that children your age are not mature enough to handle yet. Drinking and smoking are two of those things. Heck, there are some legal adults who can't handle drinking responsibly, but if anything, I would prefer stricter laws against them (DUI = automatic loss of license and impounding of vehicle for no less than one year, with no leniency - that's what I think). But why should we open up those doors to kids, who for the most part don't exhibit the maturity necessary to handle them?

But as far as "deserve" goes, as my parents used to tell me, "If you want to be treated as an adult, then act like one." It means that, before you can start talking about what you "deserve", you have to show that you have the ability to handle those things responsibly. That's one of the reasons our nation has educational systems in place: because we want to at least try to help kids develop some responsibility (even if the systems often fail to do so).

_________________

*palmface* I can see that you are CLEARLY not understanding what the other people in this thread are saying.

And as far as I've seen, you don't want to.

_________________

Thank you, Mandy. As a matter of fact, I was just about to edit my previous post to express my own frustration at Wes' clever refutation of my position there.

Wes, I'm going to tell you straight up: I don't buy into all this "That's just your opinion" nonsense. To me, "That's just your opinion" is just a clever way of saying, "I can't actually refute your position, so I'm just going to marginalize your argument."

Opinions are not all equal, Wes. That is why we weigh evidence and present arguments: to help us determine which of two opinions is more correct. If you cannot refute an argument, then your responsibility as a rational human being is to consider that the argument might be correct.

Let me put it to you this way: if I see two opposing opinions, and one of them has sound reasoning, evidence, and maybe some pragmatics to support it, I'm going to consider it much more seriously than I will one that is based entirely on sentiment.

So if you expect me to take your opinions seriously, then my recommendation is to start supporting your opinions with reason. That, and when a sound argument has been presented against your opinion, then either refute it with sound argumentation of your own or adjust your opinion based on it.

Otherwise, there's no point in even discussing it, in which case, you should save your time and ours by not bothering to do so.

_________________

And, in addition to that, drinking alcohol changes you much worse the younger you are, because your brain is developing more. If you wait 'till at least 21 to start drinking, you have a much smaller change of changing your brain chemistry because your brain is almost done growing.

_________________

Stop right there.

You're argument that everything should be legal at 14 seems to resolve around the fact that you are 14 and think you're ready for everything the real world will throw at you. You think "the Man" is trying to strip your rights and freedoms from you. Guess what: he's not. Laws restricting underage drinking are to protect people. I myself would personally sleep better at night with restrictions on drinking for underage drivers than if these laws were not there or not enforced.

I could list all the reasons why I think the drinking age should not be lowered, but I've already listed them in my first post. Along with that, many people have stated perfectly valid reasons in this thread. It seems you don't want to listen to them, though, so I guess to you, my whole argument is debunked on the basis that "this is all my opinion".

_________________

I believe that:
As long as people are not violating others property they should be left to do as they may. People's property are their body and their material possessions, so therefore they should have the right to do whatever the heck they want with them, even to the point of hurting themself or allowing others to destroy it too.

A lot of things might be correct, evolutionism and creationism both might be correct. Which do you, and I choose? The one based purely on faith, repeatedly refuted by mainstream science.

If you heard someone's opinion, a person who said that if elderly people were all killed it would help the economy, and he was able to, without a doubt, prove it. Would you support it?
I wouldn't, but that's just based on the sentiment that life has some sort of value beyond economic gains.
And I know you wouldn't too, or rather, I have read many of your posts about your opinion and have concluded that you more than likely would oppose that person's position.

_________________

That's what we like to call a strawman, Wes.

Didymus didn't say anything like that. Essentially what you've done is create something that was not the issue (and likely something everyone would disagree with) and disagreed with it.

Also, if I read his post correctly, Didymus said he would SERIOUSLY CONSIDER a supported opinion. "Seriously consider" and "agree with" are two VERY different statements.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Except that, in the case of underage drinking, it DOES pose a risk to the lives and properties of other individuals.


This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. But I choose one based on relevant information available to me, which centers around the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Frankly, evolution isn't that big of an issue to me anyway. So what if God chose to create us through an extended process? Doesn't make us any less the products of his hands.

But that's not the issue we're discussing here and now, and quite frankly, I feel it's a diversionary tactic on your part.

Wes, my experience of your posting in R & P is that you offer very little support for your own positions, but you completely dismiss sound arguments and evidence offered to you by other people. The one exception to this was when you changed your mind regarding chemical treatment of homosexuality. Every other topic you post on, you take this dismissive attitude towards the opinions of others, even when they offer reasons to refute you. And while I don't want to sound like I'm simply dismissing your opinions without due consideration, the fact is you rarely give me (or anyone else who reads your posts) very much to give serious consideration to. If you want us to take you seriously, you've got to convince us. And part of what you need to convince us is to show that you actually do take into consideration yourself our contributions to the conversation.


You are correct. I would oppose such a position. But my position would not be based on mere sentiment. It would be based on two facts:

(1) that God himself values all human life. While I understand that many people would take exception to this reason, I would still state it. And if anyone were to contend that my faith is based on mere sentiment, I would ask them to start a separate topic on that so I could discuss why I do not concur with their assumption.

(2) our United States Constitution guarantees the right to life, of which no other human being has the authority to supersede. If an elderly person were to have advanced directives that prohibited life support, then that's their choice to make, and I would support them in it. But for someone else to suddenly decide they have the right to deprive others of life is a violation of our nation's laws, and I would contend, our nation's values.

But as Rad points out, this is yet another diversionary tactic on your part. We are not discussing whether or not elderly people have the right to live (our nation's laws already state that they do), but whether you as an under-aged minor have, as you put it, "deserved" the right to smoke, drink, watch pron, or any other thing that our nation's laws have already stated that you are not responsible enough to handle.

We have already looked at the pragmatics of this issue: risk to the individual's health, as well as risks to the lives and property of others. You yourself admitted that such risk must be considered. My question to you, then, is why aren't you therefore taking them into consideration?

_________________

Wait pron is illegal? :/


In all seriousness though Wes, you aren't gonna beat Dids on this one. I'm fourteen as well and I think your insane if you truly believe you are mature and experienced enough to make major decisions like that.

_________________

Well this is the same dude that said homosexuality could be cured with hormone treatments.

_________________

Lol, legalism.

Making stricter punishments doesn't actually work; if there were more government-funded program for cab rides for drunks and such, the problem would be stopped from ever happening, however.

Smoking age should be increased.

Wes doesn't deserve to drink or vote.

/thread

_________________

Actually, my "punishment" is simply and pragmatically to address at least part of the problem: if a person drinks and drives, you take away their means of driving. Period. Don't even let them out on the road anymore. While that might not prevent them from driving illegally or stealing a car, it will make it a lot harder for them to get away with.

The real problem is enforcement: there are stiff penalties for drunk driving, but judges are too quick to show leniency. If there's anything I've learned at my time in the rehab clinic, it's that, the more you take away the negative consequences of someone's poor decisions, the more you enable them to do it.

Also, I'm not so sure that government cab-rides would solve the problem, either. You have to keep in mind: a person who has been drinking typically doesn't realize how much the alcohol has impaired them. Plus, there's a certain amount of bravado that alcohol induces in people that makes them think they're better than they actually are. Also, keep in mind, some of those folks will simply just want to have their car back so they can drive to the club the next day; a free cab ride won't automatically give them their vehicle back.

_________________

By that logic, we should let 1-year-olds vote. People who don't have any capacity for language, let alone any understanding of politics. The line's gotta be drawn somewhere. Now, you can make legitimate arguments for moving that line around, but "all people are created equal" ain't one of them. That applies to gender and race, but not to age, because different ages simply are not equal. Not physiologically, not emotionally, not from experience... on what grounds are they equal? Somebody who has just learned how to use a paintbrush isn't equal to a professional who has worked for ten years. Why would somebody who is just becoming aware of politics be equal to those of us who have been around a long time?

I do think many teenagers are as informed as many adults in politics, if mostly because the adults aren't setting the bar very high. And some 14-year-olds are indeed exceptionally well-informed in politics. But are they representative of most 14-year-olds? Of course not. I just don't understand this equality argument.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Actually, I think they should make you take some test before voting to show you're not an idiot at politics.

And yes, I know this was done to blacks in the olden times and was completely unrelated to politics, but if they regulated them better, I think this would work.

Therefore, more informed 14-year-olds such as Wes and many people here would be able to vote, given that they had the capacity to do so.

_________________

One reason I think there needs to be a voting age where it is is the whole issue of taxes. Last time I checked, minors don't pay taxes. They're going to be less informed about things like that, and taxes seem to be a big issue during elections.

_________________

That's a hypothetical statement in my opinion to demonstrate how things aren't as black and white as they seem.


Ok, back on topic.
I think that the age limits of all things should be lowered, not drastically at one time, but lowered to an age around 14, 15, or 16 slowly, but not too slowly.

I also think people have the right to ownership of themself. I think that if people DUI under any substance they should be prosecuted, but if the don't every substance should be legal. I know little kids really don't understand things and it was just plain stupid of me for posting that "All people are created equal." thing.
I apologize.

I would just like to state one fact:
I base the majority of my opinions on the Libertarian creed of property. That as long as you do not harm other's property to themself, land, and other goods they own(unless, of course, they give you permission to) then you should be free to do what you want to your own property. Just to get that cleared up.

I just think people are mature enough around 14 or 15, if raised in a society that doesn't treat them like children, to make the choice to drink and smoke.

_________________

I actually agree with this. Humans have capacity for maturity at younger ages, but our society isn't set up to cultivate this anymore. On one hand, there'd be a lot of problems if you gave current teenagers full rights, including drinking and smoking rights, because they haven't been raised for maturity at those ages. On the other hand, isn't it circular to say they can't have rights because they're not mature when they're not mature partly because they don't have rights? Though that's definitely not the only reason, but I'm not sure this thread is the right place for a rant on all that.

I will just say, though, that the best way for teenagers to get rights is for them to start showing that they can handle them. The problem with this is that people aren't teenagers long enough for them to realize there's a problem, get organized, and effect change before they're past the magic milestones and don't have to worry about it anymore. And then, even if that crop of teens was worthy, now you have a totally new set of different people in just a few years time. So the only solution I can see to that is a complete overhaul of the way we as individuals and a society treat children, treating them in a way that expects maturity of them at all times and then rewards them for that with rights and responsibilities at an earlier age. I... don't see billions of people and so many entrenched structures completely changing in our lifetimes. It's not fair, but it's the way it is. Dunno what to do about that.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

The thing is it's easy to think they should lower the age to 14-16 when you're in that age range. When you get older, you'll be less inclined to feel that way. There's probably a reason for that, and not just "I'm old enough now, so I don't care anymore".

Looking back at myself, I still think I was mostly mature enough to handle such things back then, but for people in general at that age, I really don't know.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

I can look back on my life and see a point at which I did achieve the maturity to have a lot of these rights: somewhere around 19 or 20. And I can point to specific things that helped me to develop the responsibility.

First, my enlistment in the US Air Force. To a large degree, the discipline that was fostered upon me during Basic Training prepared me, at least in part, to begin to take life seriously. Of course, I can't say that it all immediately took. More like the seed was planted, and began to bear fruit after about a year of actual experience in the field. As well as some new life experiences that changed my outlook outlook on life - most of which centered around me learning to take responsibility for my own actions rather than expecting everyone to cater to my needs.

See, that's part of the problem I have with a lot of your philosophy, Wes. You expect - actually, more like demand - rights, and yet you don't seem to have even a basic concept of the responsibility that goes along with those rights.

Let me put it to you in the words of Jesus himself: "He who is faithful with little will be entrusted with much. But he who is unfaithful with little will lose even what he is given." As I stated in the Compulsory Education thread, to me, it fully depends on how much responsibility you are willing to accept for your own life, how much initiative you are willing to show in shaping your own future here and now. If you demand rights without showing a certain level of responsibility (like getting a job, contributing to your household, and even working within the flawed education system we have), then how do you expect me to think you're ready to handle these other things?

What gets me, Wes, is that at least some of the opinions you've expressed on this forum show a distinct tendency to emphasize individual rights, but simultaneously to deny individual responsibility. This leads me to conclude that you're not ready for the responsibility for the rights you demand.

Back in the 1800 and early 1900's, children were expected to contribute to their households, either by working on their family farm, helping in the family business, or getting a job. And that in addition to going to school and getting an education. That model placed a great deal of responsibility on those teenagers, and certainly helped them to reach maturity. That model is not in place anymore.

In know that when I was a teenager, I was a spoiled brat. But I've had plenty of life experience to shape me into a responsible adult. So believe me, I'm speaking not from mere sentiment here, but from experience and observation.

_________________

I'm glad I can sit back and watch others argue. It makes me feel like no one disagrees with me.

I would like to target that specific point in his argument.

Under this equality:
ALL PEOPLE are required to be 21 years of age before they may legally consume alcoholic beverages.
ALL PEOPLE are required to be 18(or 19?) years of age before they may legally smoke cigarettes.
ALL PEOPLE are required to be 18 years of age before they may legally register to vote.
ALL PEOPLE are required to be 18 years of age before they may legally enlist in the armed forces.

ALL PEOPLE are created equal and therefore ALL PEOPLE must adhere to these restrictions. Being allowed to do these things because of being of legal age isn't special treatment. Didy was not allowed to drink until he was 21 and neither will you be, Wes.