Hal, I am beginning to think you should just go on and adopt a certain clueless blogger. Without you to point out the ridiculous aspects of the things he says, he would be completely hopeless.
The reduction in drinking by youths caused by limiting advertising venues and raising the age to 21 in most states has been a great success story. Before the advent of the changes, for which much credit should be given to MADD, the situation was a product-fueled epidemic, like gun violence.
It is not true that people are really adults at 18. Many youths are still growing, for Chrissakes. (Take a look at the data whenever there is an E-coli outbreak, for example. You will see college students among the victims -- along with children and the elderly -- because their digestive systems are not fully mature yet.)
Robbie Port did not say which far Right site he copied this screed (probably verbatim) from. However, I suspect it is one where a reactionary outlook propels the content. Thinking people know that ending the epidemic of teenagers killed in alcohol-related incidents is not something to gripe about.
Indeed parents ought to be more involved in their kids' lives. But I have experienced too much death and destruction because of parents who didn't. And let's not forget good parents whose kids refuse to listen and obey. The law exists to protect people, right? There is no reason for kids to drink and no reason for drunk kids to be driving. What is the justification for dropping the age restriction that, in my state, has been in existence for 20 years -- and has been statistically proven to be worthwhile? There is none that I can see. So why do it? Why take that risk just so 18-year-olds -- and their younger pals; let's be realistic -- can "have fun" using a lethal drug?
Sad and cynical? Perhaps I am; I have seen too many parents carefully teach their kids horrid things, so yeah, I am wary. But my view on this issue is based solidly on reality.
Mac, how can I be from the far right if I support gay marriage and am an atheist? Don't label me.
And I'll add plagiarism to the litany of accusations you've made against me.
Thanks for chiming in though.
Natalie, some parents do teach their kids horrid things, but I don't really see what that has to do with getting rid of the drinking age. Alcoholic parents are going to set a wrong example for their kids whether there's a drinking age or not. Dropping the law would let good parents, in good conscience, teach their kids how to deal with alcohol in a responsible manner in stead of forcing them to wait until 21.
Its not about letting gets "have fun" at an earlier age, its about teaching them to handle a legal drug responsibly while there's still someone to control them.
Rob is "far right"? Puh-lease. I'm supposed to be the Blogcritics poster child for right wing extremism.
However, lowering the drinking age would not seem like particularly a "right wing" position- certainly not one for all the supposed fundamentalist Christian extremists. Social permissiveness classically would be more a hallmark of left-wingers.
Still, I would tend to argue for lowering drinking ages on several counts. One is the general principle of personal autonomy. That is, I don't think it's any of the government's damned business if a 19 year old wants a drink- though I understand some of the concerns about DUI in particular.
Also, prohibition laws are notoriously ineffective, and tend to create many more problems than they solve.
It seems like the worst problems with booze come from families or cultures where it is most stigmatized and verbotten. Some hard core churchgoing families seem to have far worse problems with children irresponsibly indulging in that forbidden fruit and getting into trouble, vs families such as mine where we started doing a little drinking at home at a young age. A simple glass of wine with Italian meals early on took much of the mysterious allure out of drinking, and set up a concept of moderation. We got good modeling from Dad for responsible drinking habits, and didn't have near the rebellious thrill attached to it than some do.
Plus, some reasonable amount of concession to the reality that teenagers are going to drink encourages dialogue and intelligent behavior. A teenager who doesn't fear parental wrath merely for drinking will be more likely to call home for a ride rather than getting under the wheel themselves, for example.
…
Article comments
26 - Mac Diva
Hal, I am beginning to think you should just go on and adopt a certain clueless blogger. Without you to point out the ridiculous aspects of the things he says, he would be completely hopeless.
The reduction in drinking by youths caused by limiting advertising venues and raising the age to 21 in most states has been a great success story. Before the advent of the changes, for which much credit should be given to MADD, the situation was a product-fueled epidemic, like gun violence.
It is not true that people are really adults at 18. Many youths are still growing, for Chrissakes. (Take a look at the data whenever there is an E-coli outbreak, for example. You will see college students among the victims -- along with children and the elderly -- because their digestive systems are not fully mature yet.)
Robbie Port did not say which far Right site he copied this screed (probably verbatim) from. However, I suspect it is one where a reactionary outlook propels the content. Thinking people know that ending the epidemic of teenagers killed in alcohol-related incidents is not something to gripe about.
27 - Natalie Davis
Thanks!
Indeed parents ought to be more involved in their kids' lives. But I have experienced too much death and destruction because of parents who didn't. And let's not forget good parents whose kids refuse to listen and obey. The law exists to protect people, right? There is no reason for kids to drink and no reason for drunk kids to be driving. What is the justification for dropping the age restriction that, in my state, has been in existence for 20 years -- and has been statistically proven to be worthwhile? There is none that I can see. So why do it? Why take that risk just so 18-year-olds -- and their younger pals; let's be realistic -- can "have fun" using a lethal drug?
Sad and cynical? Perhaps I am; I have seen too many parents carefully teach their kids horrid things, so yeah, I am wary. But my view on this issue is based solidly on reality.
28 - Rob
Mac, how can I be from the far right if I support gay marriage and am an atheist? Don't label me.
And I'll add plagiarism to the litany of accusations you've made against me.
Thanks for chiming in though.
Natalie, some parents do teach their kids horrid things, but I don't really see what that has to do with getting rid of the drinking age. Alcoholic parents are going to set a wrong example for their kids whether there's a drinking age or not. Dropping the law would let good parents, in good conscience, teach their kids how to deal with alcohol in a responsible manner in stead of forcing them to wait until 21.
Its not about letting gets "have fun" at an earlier age, its about teaching them to handle a legal drug responsibly while there's still someone to control them.
29 - Al Barger
Rob is "far right"? Puh-lease. I'm supposed to be the Blogcritics poster child for right wing extremism.
However, lowering the drinking age would not seem like particularly a "right wing" position- certainly not one for all the supposed fundamentalist Christian extremists. Social permissiveness classically would be more a hallmark of left-wingers.
Still, I would tend to argue for lowering drinking ages on several counts. One is the general principle of personal autonomy. That is, I don't think it's any of the government's damned business if a 19 year old wants a drink- though I understand some of the concerns about DUI in particular.
Also, prohibition laws are notoriously ineffective, and tend to create many more problems than they solve.
It seems like the worst problems with booze come from families or cultures where it is most stigmatized and verbotten. Some hard core churchgoing families seem to have far worse problems with children irresponsibly indulging in that forbidden fruit and getting into trouble, vs families such as mine where we started doing a little drinking at home at a young age. A simple glass of wine with Italian meals early on took much of the mysterious allure out of drinking, and set up a concept of moderation. We got good modeling from Dad for responsible drinking habits, and didn't have near the rebellious thrill attached to it than some do.
Plus, some reasonable amount of concession to the reality that teenagers are going to drink encourages dialogue and intelligent behavior. A teenager who doesn't fear parental wrath merely for drinking will be more likely to call home for a ride rather than getting under the wheel themselves, for example.
30 - Mac Diva
Yes, Rob is a parrot of far-Right propaganda. But, though he is far Right, he is farther wrong.
31 - Al Barger
Oh beloved Diva, I would be remiss if I let the Thanksgiving holiday pass without giving thanks to you for being you. XOX.
Do you think that Rob is farther right or wrong than me?