Post by: gunsmith on January 13, 2008, 01:50:45 PM
I think we should return to this, the MJ thread made me remember how
angry the youth were in the 80's when the law changed.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 13, 2008, 02:16:46 PM
Post by: wooderson on January 13, 2008, 02:26:32 PM
Quote
If it isnt effective then it ought to be dropped.
hehe
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 13, 2008, 02:44:45 PM
Quote
If it isnt effective then it ought to be dropped.
hehe
+1
Post by: The Rabbi on January 13, 2008, 03:10:28 PM
Quote
If it isnt effective then it ought to be dropped.
hehe
We have a long history with drinking ages below 21.
We do not have any history with legalized marijuana in the modern age.
So they arent comparable in any way.
But have it your way.
Post by: gunsmith on January 13, 2008, 03:25:29 PM
back to 18 age limit.
Spring break would rule.
Post by: The Viking on January 13, 2008, 03:30:14 PM
I love thinking about how much more money NV would have if they alone went
back to 18 age limit.
Spring break would rule.
More customers for you? back to 18 age limit.
Spring break would rule.
Post by: gunsmith on January 13, 2008, 03:36:18 PM
Post by: The Viking on January 13, 2008, 03:46:34 PM
yup! its all about me!
I didn't say it was wrong 
.I'm all for people eating meat. Means I've got a job
.
Post by: wooderson on January 13, 2008, 03:57:21 PM
Quote
We do not have any history with legalized marijuana in the modern age.
We don't? There are no nation-states with legalized marijuana? There are no states or provinces that have essentially decriminalized it?None at all?
Quote
So they arent comparable in any way.
Aside from being mind- and body-altering chemicals, you mean? Weren't you comparing marijuana to 'hard drugs' and opium in the other thread? Why are those 'better' comparisons than alcohol?
Why is marijuana 'worse' than alcohol?
But you didn't base your argument on anything but effectiveness. The exact statement was that prohibition has been ineffective in curbing underage alcohol use, so it should be abolished. Do you have any data that prohibition has been ineffective in curbing marijuana use?
Do you know how marijuana use and alcohol use by under-18 and under-21 individuals compares?
Ironically, I know that when I was 15-18, it was a lot easier (and cheaper) to score a dime bag than it was to find enough cheap booze to get a group of us drunk.
Post by: gunsmith on January 13, 2008, 10:32:49 PM
weed then beers.
By 12 years old I could buy pot...and that was a looooooonnnngg time ago.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 13, 2008, 10:39:27 PM
Quote
We do not have any history with legalized marijuana in the modern age.
We don't? There are no nation-states with legalized marijuana? There are no states or provinces that have essentially decriminalized it?[/qupte]Decriminalize and legalize are not the same thing. The answer to your question is no.
Quote
So they arent comparable in any way.
Aside from being mind- and body-altering chemicals, you mean? Post by: SteveS on January 14, 2008, 04:39:03 AM
I wouldnt have a problem with it in general except that my recollection is that the program wasnt effective in curbing drunk driving by teenagers. If it isnt effective then it ought to be dropped.
Not that I am a big supporter of this kind of federalism, but the number of under 21 people involved in fatal crashes involving drinking dropped 61% from 1982 to 1998.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/FewerYoungDrivers/iii__what_happened.htm
Post by: Bigjake on January 14, 2008, 10:34:13 AM
Theres that whole tax issue too, why should I pay the full, 21 year old taxes without the full rights of a person 21 or over.....??
Post by: The Viking on January 14, 2008, 10:42:39 AM
Yup, back to 18. Uncle Sam can call you up to defend your country, throw you the keys to a tank and say best of luck, but no booze for you!
Theres that whole tax issue too, why should I pay the full, 21 year old taxes without the full rights of a person 21 or over.....??
It's almost the same here. 18-year olds can be SERVED alcohol. But they can't buy it at the liquour store. Theres that whole tax issue too, why should I pay the full, 21 year old taxes without the full rights of a person 21 or over.....??
I buy beer for my brother when he asks me to. He pays taxes just like me...he should be able to have a beer or three with his buddys.
Post by: jefnvk on January 14, 2008, 11:58:32 AM
And want to take care of the kids drunk driving issue? Get caught drunk driving under 21, you're license dissappears until you are 21.
Post by: The Viking on January 14, 2008, 12:04:17 PM
I personally wouldn't mind it going to even under 18, under parental supervision.
And want to take care of the kids drunk driving issue? Get caught drunk driving under 21, you're license dissappears until you are 21.
Heck, why not. Germans got their at 16 I think. Other countries even lower. And everyone knows how effecient and productive germans are. Must be because they can sit down and have a civilized beer at an early age And want to take care of the kids drunk driving issue? Get caught drunk driving under 21, you're license dissappears until you are 21.
.
Post by: Firethorn on January 14, 2008, 12:47:57 PM
Lower it below 18 for all I care. That way it's not a big deal and parents can get their kids help if it turns into a problem before they're technically an adult and the parents have no say.
Post by: Warren on January 14, 2008, 01:20:22 PM
Oh, and free pot for toddlers!
Post by: wooderson on January 14, 2008, 01:26:37 PM
Quote
Decriminalize and legalize are not the same thing. The answer to your question is no.
Decriminalization is de facto legalization - if you ain't going to jail for possession, and selling is permitted on a small-time basis, it's legal.That aside, you're going to stick to your argument that there are no states/provinces or nation-states where marijuana is 'legal'?
Quote
Yes, aside from the fact that they do not work the same way
List the meaningful differences for us.Quote
have completely different social and economic histories and are used in different ways by different socio-economic groups.
Circular logic - Why is marijuana illegal and booze isn't?
Because they're used by a different groups.
Why are they used by different groups?
Because marijuana is illegal and booze isn't.
Quote
But other than being completely unlike and unrelated they are similar.
Why are they unalike? Because marijuana is illegal and booze isn't.
Why is marijuana illegal and booze isn't?
Because they are unalike.
You really have no facts or evidence to support your position, do you?
Post by: Tuco on January 14, 2008, 01:28:27 PM
If we got caught and squealed (never happened), the store owner would testify we stole it. He never gave us a bag.
If a store owner didn't want to play ball, we walked past the counter with a 12 dollar case and $20, left the $20 and walked out without saying a word.
A high drinking age means pure profit for liquor stores.
Post by: thebaldguy on January 14, 2008, 03:48:17 PM
I wouldnt have a problem with it in general except that my recollection is that the program wasnt effective in curbing drunk driving by teenagers. If it isnt effective then it ought to be dropped.
Not that I am a big supporter of this kind of federalism, but the number of under 21 people involved in fatal crashes involving drinking dropped 61% from 1982 to 1998.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/FewerYoungDrivers/iii__what_happened.htm
I have heard this arguement before; if raising the drinking age to 21 was good, maybe raising the drinking age to 25 will save even more lives!
Post by: Ryan in Maine on January 14, 2008, 05:27:55 PM
Not that I am a big supporter of this kind of federalism, but the number of under 21 people involved in fatal crashes involving drinking dropped 61% from 1982 to 1998.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/FewerYoungDrivers/iii__what_happened.htm
Could have something to do with technological advancements coming from crash testing.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/FewerYoungDrivers/iii__what_happened.htm
Post by: 209 on January 14, 2008, 11:01:41 PM
Does anyone see a problem with the logic used in both of those laws? Not that I'm insinuating many of our laws are well-reasoned. Come to think about it, maybe the laws are written for 18yos since the gov't views them as mature (well... not really) adults (well... not really).
Post by: Strings on January 15, 2008, 01:11:01 AM
Go ahead and lower the drinking age to 18. However, change the drunk driving laws a bit...
Get caught driving at <insert level here: BAC is another messed-up issue>, and not only do you loose your license for a few years, but the vehicle you're driving is confiscated.
If nothing else, it'll help reduce the number of folks doing the repeat thing...
Post by: Firethorn on January 15, 2008, 03:30:35 AM
Get caught driving at <insert level here: BAC is another messed-up issue>, and not only do you loose your license for a few years, but the vehicle you're driving is confiscated.
Some problems, as some states already do this. The response is to drive the cheapest beater you can find.
Or borrow/rent/steal a different vehicle.
Not exactly fair. I'd simply tack another $5k onto the fine.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 15, 2008, 06:17:35 AM
You can purchase alcohol at 18 with a valid military ID, 21 otherwise.
If we hand them a rifle and expect them to go fight for us, we can sure trust them to enjoy a cold one when they get back.
Post by: The Viking on January 15, 2008, 09:55:21 AM
My idea?
You can purchase alcohol at 18 with a valid military ID, 21 otherwise.
If we hand them a rifle and expect them to go fight for us, we can sure trust them to enjoy a cold one when they get back.
Is that a part in your plan to get Americas youth to sign up for service? You can purchase alcohol at 18 with a valid military ID, 21 otherwise.
If we hand them a rifle and expect them to go fight for us, we can sure trust them to enjoy a cold one when they get back.
Post by: Bigjake on January 15, 2008, 10:45:54 AM
Quote
My idea?
You can purchase alcohol at 18 with a valid military ID, 21 otherwise.
If we hand them a rifle and expect them to go fight for us, we can sure trust them to enjoy a cold one when they get back.
You can purchase alcohol at 18 with a valid military ID, 21 otherwise.
If we hand them a rifle and expect them to go fight for us, we can sure trust them to enjoy a cold one when they get back.
I couldn't agree more.
I'd ever take that as far as the Robert A. Heinlein approach and not allow voting without service of some sort..
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 15, 2008, 10:48:54 AM
My idea?
You can purchase alcohol at 18 with a valid military ID, 21 otherwise.
If we hand them a rifle and expect them to go fight for us, we can sure trust them to enjoy a cold one when they get back.
You can purchase alcohol at 18 with a valid military ID, 21 otherwise.
If we hand them a rifle and expect them to go fight for us, we can sure trust them to enjoy a cold one when they get back.
That's pretty much the was it used to be, at least on a military installation. Didn't matter what the state laws were.
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on January 15, 2008, 12:07:41 PM
It would need to be thought out a bit, but that's a damn good idea....
I never understood the 18 is good to die, and good to vote, but not good to have a beer.
Post by: jefnvk on January 15, 2008, 01:03:24 PM
Quote
My idea?
You can purchase alcohol at 18 with a valid military ID, 21 otherwise.
If we hand them a rifle and expect them to go fight for us, we can sure trust them to enjoy a cold one when they get back.
I couldn't agree more.
I'd ever take that as far as the Robert A. Heinlein approach and not allow voting without service of some sort..
You can purchase alcohol at 18 with a valid military ID, 21 otherwise.
If we hand them a rifle and expect them to go fight for us, we can sure trust them to enjoy a cold one when they get back.
I couldn't agree more.
I'd ever take that as far as the Robert A. Heinlein approach and not allow voting without service of some sort..
Yep, thats a great idea. Give the military special privileges. It has worked so well for so many countries so far.
Tell me this. How do you geniuses handle like me, who is physically medically ineligible for the military? Do I get to live like a second class citizen the rest of my life?
Great idea.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 15, 2008, 03:06:18 PM
Post by: Strings on January 15, 2008, 05:59:10 PM
Although military service is specifically mentioned, the term used is "Federal Service". Nothing to say that couldn't just as well be served doing public works jobs, or pushing paper, or what have you. Ways CAN be found...
Post by: Manedwolf on January 16, 2008, 04:51:35 AM
I like the idea of running things ala Starship Troopers. But I don't think most people fully understand the concept...
Although military service is specifically mentioned, the term used is "Federal Service". Nothing to say that couldn't just as well be served doing public works jobs, or pushing paper, or what have you. Ways CAN be found...
Although military service is specifically mentioned, the term used is "Federal Service". Nothing to say that couldn't just as well be served doing public works jobs, or pushing paper, or what have you. Ways CAN be found...
Just be sure you specify the book and not the "movie".
Some people don't read.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 16, 2008, 05:13:26 AM
Quote
My idea?
You can purchase alcohol at 18 with a valid military ID, 21 otherwise.
If we hand them a rifle and expect them to go fight for us, we can sure trust them to enjoy a cold one when they get back.
I couldn't agree more.
I'd ever take that as far as the Robert A. Heinlein approach and not allow voting without service of some sort..
You can purchase alcohol at 18 with a valid military ID, 21 otherwise.
If we hand them a rifle and expect them to go fight for us, we can sure trust them to enjoy a cold one when they get back.
I couldn't agree more.
I'd ever take that as far as the Robert A. Heinlein approach and not allow voting without service of some sort..
Yep, thats a great idea. Give the military special privileges. It has worked so well for so many countries so far.
Tell me this. How do you geniuses handle like me, who is physically medically ineligible for the military? Do I get to live like a second class citizen the rest of my life?
Great idea.
OK, we're sorry. We also want to include people who are physically medically ineligible for the military to the "get to drink at 18" club.
Post by: Joe Demko on January 16, 2008, 05:19:39 AM
Post by: Tecumseh on January 16, 2008, 06:01:16 AM
Quote
My idea?
You can purchase alcohol at 18 with a valid military ID, 21 otherwise.
If we hand them a rifle and expect them to go fight for us, we can sure trust them to enjoy a cold one when they get back.
I couldn't agree more.
I'd ever take that as far as the Robert A. Heinlein approach and not allow voting without service of some sort..
You can purchase alcohol at 18 with a valid military ID, 21 otherwise.
If we hand them a rifle and expect them to go fight for us, we can sure trust them to enjoy a cold one when they get back.
I couldn't agree more.
I'd ever take that as far as the Robert A. Heinlein approach and not allow voting without service of some sort..
Yep, thats a great idea. Give the military special privileges. It has worked so well for so many countries so far.
Tell me this. How do you geniuses handle like me, who is physically medically ineligible for the military? Do I get to live like a second class citizen the rest of my life?
Great idea.
I agree. If we are going to give the military special priveledges because they serve, then take all those 18 year old and 19 year olds who pay taxes and give them their money back. Give the tax payers a break. They do pay the salaries of military personal.
Oh and...
Robert Heinlein did not take this approach. He used it in a book.
Post by: Bigjake on January 16, 2008, 09:14:34 AM
Quote
Yep, thats a great idea. Give the military special privileges. It has worked so well for so many countries so far.
Tell me this. How do you geniuses handle like me, who is physically medically ineligible for the military? Do I get to live like a second class citizen the rest of my life?
Great idea.
Tell me this. How do you geniuses handle like me, who is physically medically ineligible for the military? Do I get to live like a second class citizen the rest of my life?
Great idea.
Read the whole quote, I never once said "military" service.
Post by: jefnvk on January 16, 2008, 09:17:44 AM
Post by: Bigjake on January 16, 2008, 09:31:59 AM
Quote
Oh and...
Robert Heinlein did not take this approach. He used it in a book.
Robert Heinlein did not take this approach. He used it in a book.
Have you even read Heinlein?? The assertion that He just "used that approach in a book" is not only ill informed, it's ludicrous. The whole bloody book is more an advocacy of the virtues of service and how Marxism is a Bad Thing than it is a Sci Fi novel. Heinlein wrote this book as clarification of his own beliefs, and Colonel Dubois is just a vehicle for Heinlein's thoughts and voice.
Post by: Joe Demko on January 16, 2008, 09:36:47 AM
It has always seemed to me that the folks who are most enamoured with the way things are done in Starship Troopers love it because they see it as a fantastic way to disenfranchise people with whom they disagree.
Post by: Bigjake on January 16, 2008, 09:41:37 AM
So how do I get a military ID without service? And what service do you have in mind for the right to vote? I'm sorry I assumed you meant military service, but that was what the rest of your post was about.
I guess I meant in the context of the book itself, MI wasn't the only federal service that got you a franchise, it was just the only one the book centered on.
Guess that validates your assumption, and that is what I meant in that post. As for you not physically able to serve in a combat MOS, maybe some sort of support job fitting your mental ability's rather than physical, I duno. I wasn't trying to imply you need to be a 2nd class citizen, just tossing an idea up.
Lack of physical would screw all kinds of otherwise good folks if that idea was implemented in our current system.
Post by: Bigjake on January 16, 2008, 09:46:21 AM
It has always seemed to me that the folks who are most enamoured with the way things are done in Starship Troopers love it because they see it as a fantastic way to disenfranchise people with whom they disagree.
I do disagree with utter morons on a pretty regular basis, so you're right.
but Heinlein puts it best; "the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans", (ch. XII), instead of anyone "...who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37?C."[
yes, I did have to dig that up, couldn't remember perfectly
Post by: Firethorn on January 16, 2008, 02:43:43 PM
but Heinlein puts it best; "the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans", (ch. XII), instead of anyone "...who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37?C."
One of the qualifiers in the books was that the feds were REQUIRED to allow anybody willing to work to the best of their ability to sign up for a term of service.
You could be a deaf-mute cripple and they'd be required to find you a job if you asked.
Post by: SteveS on January 16, 2008, 03:10:47 PM
but Heinlein puts it best; "the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans", (ch. XII), instead of anyone "...who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37?C."
One of the qualifiers in the books was that the feds were REQUIRED to allow anybody willing to work to the best of their ability to sign up for a term of service.
You could be a deaf-mute cripple and they'd be required to find you a job if you asked.
So these are essentially gov't employees in addition to the military? A system where these are the only people that can vote? This sounds really unstable and just as prone to corruption adn problems as our current system. No thanks.
Post by: Strings on January 16, 2008, 07:19:21 PM
Post by: gunsmith on January 16, 2008, 09:20:37 PM
Quote
Heinlein was a science fiction author. No more, no less.
Heresy! Blasphemer
Friends! We have a heretic in our midst!
Fetch me "THE COMFY CHAIR!!!"
Post by: Joe Demko on January 17, 2008, 03:09:42 AM
Quote
I do disagree with utter morons on a pretty regular basis, so you're right.
So anybody who disagrees with you is an utter moron?
Post by: Bigjake on January 17, 2008, 03:17:57 AM
Post by: Joe Demko on January 17, 2008, 03:18:54 AM
Post by: Bigjake on January 17, 2008, 03:35:57 AM
Post by: seeker_two on January 17, 2008, 03:37:58 AM
However, I disagree with making any type of "federal service" a criteria for voting. Instead, I would make it contingent on one's citizenship status, age (18+), and education status (HS diploma/GED required). Of course, I'd also want to do a complete overhaul on how US schools teach history, civics, and economics education.
IR: medical disability preventing military service: considering the need for personnel that the military has now, there's not a lot of medical conditions that would disqualify one from service in a support/logistics position. Also, if one has a medical condition serious enough to prevent service, I would imagine that one shouldn't be drinking alcohol in the first place......
Post by: Firethorn on January 17, 2008, 06:47:59 AM
IR: medical disability preventing military service: considering the need for personnel that the military has now, there's not a lot of medical conditions that would disqualify one from service in a support/logistics position. Also, if one has a medical condition serious enough to prevent service, I would imagine that one shouldn't be drinking alcohol in the first place......
However, at least in the USAF we're moving towards a 100% deployable model. If you're a military member, you're required to be deployable. You might have a job back home, but a major part of your function is to go into the hotter areas to perform functions.
So the physical standards haven't actually dropped all that much.
Those support/logistic positions are fast disappearing, to be replaced by GSs and contractors.
As for requiring a HS diploma/GED, that has some bad points if people want to start controlling the vote by controling who passes those tests. Most without already don't vote, so you wouldn't be DQ'ing many.
Post by: jefnvk on January 17, 2008, 09:47:24 AM
Quote
IR: medical disability preventing military service: considering the need for personnel that the military has now, there's not a lot of medical conditions that would disqualify one from service in a support/logistics position. Also, if one has a medical condition serious enough to prevent service, I would imagine that one shouldn't be drinking alcohol in the first place......
Type I diabetes. IE, I'm fine until the SHTF, in which case I'm probably dead.
Maybe I shouldn't be drinking. But do you really want to tell people that jsut because they shouldn't, tehy can't? Personally, the underage Marines I know sure as hell shouldn't be drinking.
Post by: LAK on January 20, 2008, 11:18:51 PM
---------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: grislyatoms on January 21, 2008, 05:12:41 AM
"Federal Service" = vote
So, in order to accomodate all those who wish to perform that service in order to vote, .gov would have to be expanded. Using my tax dollars.
No, thank you.
If folks are really that concerned about frivolous votes, institute a poll tax.
Anyway, either the drinking age needs to drop, or the age to serve in the military and to vote needs to rise. They should all be on par.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 21, 2008, 05:22:54 PM
Nope, you read my post, and deliberately took it out of context. that, or you fall into the category already mentioned.
Maybe it is my strict Christian upbringing but this does not seem to be polite.
Post by: Firethorn on January 21, 2008, 07:27:43 PM
So, in order to accomodate all those who wish to perform that service in order to vote, .gov would have to be expanded. Using my tax dollars.
What if we simply made so many of the 'career' jobs a 2 year tour? Oh, and combined some stuff, so things like the DMV counts as service.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on January 21, 2008, 07:37:47 PM
Quote
We do not have any history with legalized marijuana in the modern age.
We don't? There are no nation-states with legalized marijuana? There are no states or provinces that have essentially decriminalized it?[/qupte]Decriminalize and legalize are not the same thing. The answer to your question is no.
Quote
So they arent comparable in any way.
Aside from being mind- and body-altering chemicals, you mean? so we make the chemical that is physically addictive and which withdrawal from can kill you legal and the more benign substance illegal? why?
bear in mind that i use neither anymore but in my day drank a quart of liquor a day and smoked pot 10 or more times a day. so my opinions are not at all abstract