A lower legal drinking age?

i allowed my daughter to have a glass of wine, or wine cooler when she was 16...i never thought it a big deal, and she never abused drinking, either...once she "came of age" she would and does call if she needs a ride in the middle of the night because she's had too much, or she is sober cab because it is no big deal to her...of course, everyone is different, she is just amazing all around(ahem)...seriously, my friends in england always allowed a glass of wine or whatever...it starts in the home...unfortunately, not all homes are equally responsible

Mary wrote:

Lowering the drinking age will affect brain development, cause these children to use other drugs, increase fatality and accident rates on our highways, cause more teen abortions. We cannot have this. Alcohol is immoral and people who use it discust me! If it has to be legal at the very least protect our young from it! We need to raise the age of consumption, not lower it. Ronald Reagan raised it to 21 from 18/19 for our own protection! We need patriots like him again to protect our children even furthur!

Get real, I hope for your sake and the sake of your family you are being facetious. First of all Ronald Regan will go down in history as the second most criminal president we ever had only because of the laws George W. Bush has broken. If you are a blind person I would be glad to furnish a Braille, or book on tape for you to read about the Iran Contra scandal and the now de-classified information of the first hand knowledge and presidential orders the Gipper gave, that were unconstitutional, immoral, and un-patriotic.
Raising the age of legal drinking is what has caused the increase in drug use! I am from a small town (not Menomonie, I'm not at all certain why it says so)in the past 15 years when you read the local paper their are equal amounts of ticket for under-age drinking and possession of a controlled substance for kids 17 - 20 years old. I was stunned to see this. I asked a group of college kids why this is the case, there response made a lot of sense. It is harder to get a 21 year-old to purchase alcohol for the underage kids than it is for them to purchase marijuana. Marijuana can be found any day any time, while alcohol takes considerable planning to get enough for a group of kids. But being alcohol is far more harmful and dangerous than marijuana perhaps it should remain illegal for 18 to 20 year olds to drink. After all, when is the last time anyone died from a pot overdose? And the ads on TV where they state people who are high kill people on the roads fail to mention in 87% of the cases of a fatal accidents involving drug use also, the driver also had alcohol content over .10
The fact 18 year olds can fight for this country, own their own home and vote but not have a drink is about as un-American as it gets. Democracy my ****.

Dick In Dixie wrote:

Responsible drinking starts at a young age. Parents should be the ones deciding when their children start drinking. Keeping alcohol away from teenagers and college kids just makes it that much more appealing to them. The sooner we show children responsible adult behavior, the sooner they will start acting like responsible adults.

I guess it is rather obvious you were never in the military.

I somehow switched the words there and their around in my fit written above. My apologies.

Bill Clinton wrote:

<quoted text>Let's keep politics out of this. But I'd like to have a drink with the neighbor girl. Once she fills out, she will be hot.

Agreed. Kacy threw out her Ultra-Left-Winged, off-topic opinion without considering those pesky details like facts....again. I was just trying to enlighten her to the fact that her theory was unfounded and biased opinion stated as fact.

Maybe they should make it so there is no legal drinking age. Just that you have to be a certain age to actually PURCHASE alcohol or to drink in a bar. I agree that its ridiculous that you can drive at 16 and fight for your country and vote at 18, but can't drink a beer.

Platea Aequitas wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmmmm.
The 3 states that are HIGHEST in percentage of alcohol-related fatal trafic crashes:
1) Wisconsin (Blue State) 49%
2) Hawaii (Blue State) 48%
3) Rhode Island (Blue State) 46%
The 3 states that are LOWEST in percentage of alcohol-related fatal traffic crashes:
48) Alaska (Red State) 31%
49) North Carolina (Red State) 31%
50) Utah (Red State) 22%
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-sta...
WOW! The three states that are LOWEST in killing themselves by means of drunk driving are being run by which party? I'll give you a hint....it DOES rhyme with DEPUBLICANS!
And the three states that are killing themselves at the highest rate by means of alcohol-related fatal crashesb are being run by which party? Another hint....it DOES rhyme with "Remocrats".
:-0

Pretty pointless when you look at the what those numbers represent.
It can also be looked at as Wisconsin has better sober drivers than other states, after all 78% of fatal accidents in Utah are caused by sober people??? Just what is causing sober people to get in this many accidents? Oh wait, you said it was a Red State, so it must be an intelligence thing, never mind.

Platea Aequitas wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed. Kacy threw out her Ultra-Left-Winged, off-topic opinion without considering those pesky details like facts....again. I was just trying to enlighten her to the fact that her theory was unfounded and biased opinion stated as fact.

Being this is coming from the KING of useless facts really dampens my enthusiasm for higher education.

USELESS FACTS wrote:

<quoted text>Pretty pointless when you look at the what those numbers represent.
It can also be looked at as Wisconsin has better sober drivers than other states, after all 78% of fatal accidents in Utah are caused by sober people??? Just what is causing sober people to get in this many accidents? Oh wait, you said it was a Red State, so it must be an intelligence thing, never mind.

Again, I was squashing Kacy's weak theory. But your's is actually weaker. I can't believe someone was able to come up with a more idiotic idea, but you did it..congratulations.

In reality it has NOTHING to do with politics, I was just showing Kacy that the liberal mindset is an illness.....and you helped prove it....THANKS LEFTY!

USELESS FACTS wrote:

<quoted text>Being this is coming from the KING of useless facts really dampens my enthusiasm for higher education.

Your name says it all..."useless facts". Hmmmm, facts are useless? Yes! The liberal mindset at it's finest! Ignore facts and rational thought....go with what feels good regardless of what it costs or what the consequences are.

Case in point: Al Franken's brilliant idea of giving free medical care to all the vets. All the liberal zombies were standing up cheering at what a kind man Al is. In reality, idiot Al never gave a thought to how it could possibly be paid for of even what it would cost. Now that is TRUE liberal thinking at its finest.

Platea Aequitas wrote:

<quoted text>
Your name says it all..."useless facts". Hmmmm, facts are useless? Yes! The liberal mindset at it's finest! Ignore facts and rational thought....go with what feels good regardless of what it costs or what the consequences are.
Case in point: Al Franken's brilliant idea of giving free medical care to all the vets. All the liberal zombies were standing up cheering at what a kind man Al is. In reality, idiot Al never gave a thought to how it could possibly be paid for of even what it would cost. Now that is TRUE liberal thinking at its finest.

48.63% of all the posts here have Useless Facts.

Bill Clinton wrote:

<quoted text>48.63% of all the posts here have Useless Facts.

"Useless facts". If that is not an oxymoron I don't know what is.

Teacher: "Johhny, what is does 2+2 equal".
Johnny: "5".
Teacher: "No, if you have 2 apples and I give you 2 more, you will now have 4 apples".
Johnny: "Teacher, my dad Al Franken says those are just useless facts".

The new Liberal slogan: "Don't bother use with the useless facts....we want what feels good...regardless of consequence".

Sorry: it should read 'don't bother us"

USELESS FACTS wrote:

<quoted text>It can also be looked at as Wisconsin has better sober drivers than other states.

Wisconsin has sober drivers?

Platea Aequitas wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmmmm.
The 3 states that are HIGHEST in percentage of alcohol-related fatal trafic crashes:
1) Wisconsin (Blue State) 49%
2) Hawaii (Blue State) 48%
3) Rhode Island (Blue State) 46%
The 3 states that are LOWEST in percentage of alcohol-related fatal traffic crashes:
48) Alaska (Red State) 31%
49) North Carolina (Red State) 31%
50) Utah (Red State) 22%
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-sta...
WOW! The three states that are LOWEST in killing themselves by means of drunk driving are being run by which party? I'll give you a hint....it DOES rhyme with DEPUBLICANS!
And the three states that are killing themselves at the highest rate by means of alcohol-related fatal crashesb are being run by which party? Another hint....it DOES rhyme with "Remocrats".
:-0

Well, that's lovely that you went to so much trouble to find these statistics, although I don't know what they have to do with the topic.

I was simply agreeing with someone who I believe was disagreeing with someone who had claimed liberal "nanny states" had strict liquor laws. That's all.

But, again, thanks for doing all this homework for everyone.

Platea Aequitas wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed. Kacy threw out her Ultra-Left-Winged, off-topic opinion without considering those pesky details like facts....again. I was just trying to enlighten her to the fact that her theory was unfounded and biased opinion stated as fact.

We're talking about two completely different things here. You are talking about states with the highest number of alcohol-related traffic falatities, and I am talking about states with the most strict liquor laws. AND I was simply responding to someone who had originally thrown politics into the mix. That's all.

You are obviously confused, but let me make it real simple:

We are talking about two different things.

The Original Kacy wrote:

<quoted text>
We're talking about two completely different things here. You are talking about states with the highest number of alcohol-related traffic falatities, and I am talking about states with the most strict liquor laws. AND I was simply responding to someone who had originally thrown politics into the mix. That's all.
You are obviously confused, but let me make it real simple:
We are talking about two different things.

Wrong: You were responding to this comment:

"Someday you'll figure out it's not the party thats in power, because no matter who it is, nothing ever changes".

You responded by going off and saying that the republican states have the strictest liquor laws.

I replied by showing that those states that are run by republicans are much safer than those that are rujn by democrats....drunk driving related.

You responded to a comment about how it's not the party that is in power that matters by stating that the republicans have the strictest liquor laws. I was showing you that those "strict laws" seem to work.

Platea Aequitas wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong: You were responding to this comment:
"Someday you'll figure out it's not the party thats in power, because no matter who it is, nothing ever changes".
You responded by going off and saying that the republican states have the strictest liquor laws.
I replied by showing that those states that are run by republicans are much safer than those that are rujn by democrats....drunk driving related.
You responded to a comment about how it's not the party that is in power that matters by stating that the republicans have the strictest liquor laws. I was showing you that those "strict laws" seem to work.

So what's the problem? We agree that the states with the most strict liquor laws are republican.

Again, the original comment was something about a "liberal nanny state" - then someone responded to that (the post you quoted)- then I responded to that.

Regardless, I no longer care. You clearly just want to argue with me, even though you are agreeing with me, which makes you insane.

The Original Kacy wrote:

<quoted text>
So what's the problem? We agree that the states with the most strict liquor laws are republican.
Again, the original comment was something about a "liberal nanny state" - then someone responded to that (the post you quoted)- then I responded to that.
Regardless, I no longer care. You clearly just want to argue with me, even though you are agreeing with me, which makes you insane.

Your mind is playing tricks on you. Must be from leaning so far to the left. I don't think the phrase "nanny state" was used. You responded to a comment stating party had nothing to do with it by calling out republicans for having the strictest liquor laws.

I'm not agreeing with you...don't flatter yourself. I have no idea which states have the strictest liquor laws, but you apparently do. I was simply stating that your beloved blue states are the deadliest to be driving in after bar closing...that's all.

I stand corrected. Consistent called Minnesota a nanny state. Regardless, the rest of my previous post stands.