Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Drinking Age vs. Smoking Age
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12566		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  Beardo [ Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't know if it's different where you guys live, but I think you're getting the legal age of consumption and the legal age of purchase confused for cigarettes (here it's 16 to smoke and 19ish to buy), but that doesn't really matter.

I think everything's fine how it is. Drinking gives you a much more powerful sensation then smoking does and it lasts much longer so, clearly it's going to be more dangerous to society. Most people who smoke start before their allowed to anyways so I doubt changing anything would make any significant difference.

Lastly, Wes, you think way too highly of yourself. If you want to really prove your maturity why not accept that maybe you aren't as mature as you think you are.
Author:  Einoo T. Spork [ Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
Did he sell eggs? wrote:
I'm glad I can sit back and watch others argue. It makes me feel like no one disagrees with me.

WRONG!!!!!
Author:  Mako275 [ Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
Schmelen wrote:
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.


You are right cigarettes don't make you violent or unpredictable while you are using them. The problem lies when you run out of cigarettes.

My dad was a smoker for 6 years and at the time he quit he was smoking 3 packs a day. He quit because one time during a camping trip he ran out of cigarettes and he happened to remember that there were some in his old truck. There was a pack but it was wedged in the space between the windshield glass and the top of the dashboard. After spending an hour trying to get them out he decieded he couldn't take it any more and smashed a hole in the windshield with a hammer.

He got the cigarettes but came to his senses and decided that they were not worth it, and quit soon after.

I think the drinking/smoking age is a myth and doesn't work. I have personally seen a 5 year boy light up a cigeratte for his 6 year old sister and then share it with her. I know for a fact that 90% of my high school (900 people) smoke/drink. I don't have a solution for this problem because the only thing I can think of would be banning the products which would be Prohibition all over again.
Author:  The Noid [ Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Mako275 wrote:
I have personally seen a 5 year boy light up a cigeratte for his 6 year old sister and then share it with her.


Where the crap do you live? That's kinda early to start smoking.
Author:  Vitruvian Dude [ Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
I, for one, am angry that I could, at any moment, be called upon to die for my country, yet cannot enjoy the nice refreshing taste of a Killian's. Legally.
Author:  The Noid [ Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Oh yeah that's something I go on rants about when we debate in school.
Author:  Didymus [ Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
Vitruvian Dude wrote:
I, for one, am angry that I could, at any moment, be called upon to die for my country, yet cannot enjoy the nice refreshing taste of a Killian's. Legally.

If, like me, you are assigned to an overseas station, you can legally drink on base.

So there you go: if you ever actually are called on to fight, you will be allowed to have that Killian's (although you'd be much better off with a Caffrey's or a Boddington's).
Author:  furrykef [ Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
Whether you're actually called upon to fight strikes me as a somewhat arbitrary criterion. I think the idea is more that if you're old enough to fight in the first place, you're old enough to have a drink; whether or not you get called upon is irrelevant. After all, it's not as if the military can only choose the most mature members to fight; they're selected randomly.

That said, being able to do it if you are called up does take a bit of weight out of the argument. I just don't think it negates it completely.

- Kef
Author:  Mako275 [ Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
The Noid wrote:
Mako275 wrote:
I have personally seen a 5 year boy light up a cigeratte for his 6 year old sister and then share it with her.


Where the crap do you live? That's kinda early to start smoking.


I live in the southern part of Illinois about two hours south of St. Louis, Missouri. I saw the little kids smoking when I went on a mission trip with my church to East St. Louis, IL. I was sent to a government housing community and as we were waiting for the people to unlock the doors for the activity center (which had shatter resistant windows with bullet holes in them) when we saw this happen.
Author:  StrongRad [ Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
furrykef wrote:
Whether you're actually called upon to fight strikes me as a somewhat arbitrary criterion. I think the idea is more that if you're old enough to fight in the first place, you're old enough to have a drink; whether or not you get called upon is irrelevant. After all, it's not as if the military can only choose the most mature members to fight; they're selected randomly.

That said, being able to do it if you are called up does take a bit of weight out of the argument. I just don't think it negates it completely.

- Kef

As someone who is above drinking age, and has been for a while, I think that males should be allowed to drink at 18.

Like was said earlier, you can be called up to die for your country, you should be allowed to drink.
Other things you can do at (or before 18):
*Buy a rifle or shotgun
*Buy rifle or shotgun ammunition
*Buy cigarettes
*Go to a strip club
*Get a home loan
*Get a car loan
*Join the military

Why did I say "males", mainly because of the draft thing. If girls had to register for selective service, then I'd say they should be allowed to drink at 18, too.

Yes, I'm tying draft eligibility to drinking.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
My whole sophomore research paper in high school was about lowering the drinking age to 18, for pretty much all the reasons Sree and others have.
Author:  Mako275 [ Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm was kinda curious why the drinking age was raised to 21 after being 18 for so long anyway.

I asked my mother about it and she remembers that when she was 19 they raised the drinking age in Illinois to 21. One day she could legally drink the next she couldn't.

I found this info about the minimum drinking age on the AMA (pretty sure that stands for the American Medical Association) website.

Brief history of the minimum legal drinking age

After Prohibition, nearly all states restricting youth access to alcohol designated 21 as the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA). Between 1970 and 1975, however, 29 states lowered the MLDA to 18, 19, or 20. These changes occurred when the minimum age for other activities, such as voting, also were being lowered (Wechsler & Sands, 1980). Scientists began studying the effects of the lowered MLDA, focusing particularly on the incidence of motor vehicle crashes, the leading cause of death among teenagers. Several studies in the 1970s found that motor vehicle crashes increased significantly among teens when the MLDA was lowered (Cucchiaro et al, 1974; Douglas et al, 1974; Wagenaar, 1983, 1993; Whitehead, 1977; Whitehead et al, 1975; Williams et al, 1974).

With evidence that a lower drinking age resulted in more traffic injuries and fatalities among youth, citizen advocacy groups pressured states to restore the MLDA to 21. Because of such advocacy campaigns, 16 states increased their MLDAs between September 1976 and January 1983. Resistance from other states, and concern that minors would travel across state lines to purchase and consume alcohol, prompted the federal government in 1984 to enact the Uniform Drinking Age Act, which mandated reduced federal transportation funds to those states that did not raise the MLDA to 21. Among alcohol control policies, the MLDA has been the most studied: since the 1970s, at least 70 studies have examined the effects of either increasing or decreasing the MLDA.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13246.html
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/