Boise State quarterback Finley arrested early Saturday

[Brayden Green]

I in no way meant to imply that the milatary is perfect. Far from it; however, you're the guy who equated drinking to joining the military, not me. I was just pointing out that drinking and joining the military are two very different things. As many faults as the military has it's not just giving a gy a uniform and a gun. But lowering the drinking age, as I understand to be the subject of your first post, is like slapping a beer in the hand of a teenager and telling him "good luck." Frankly a lot of luck would be needed for a significant segment of society if and when that ever hapens.

I'm saying that at age 20, I think that you are an adult, and should therefore be able to put whatever in your body you wish, providing that you don't hurt anyone else in the process. Or maybe you aren't... Maybe we should be considered adults legally at 21, for everything.

"Kids" already are drinking before 21. If you were to do a survey about "kids" who drink before the age of 21, it would be a huge percentage. I think you would find a very, very, small number that intend to drink but wait until 21. There needs to be a clear delineation. Right now it isn't clear.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[snoscythe]

Don't forget the minimum ages of 25, 30, and 35 to serve in elected federal offices.

[Brayden Green]

Don't forget the minimum ages of 25, 30, and 35 to serve in elected federal offices.

Right, because before age 35 you aren't mature enough to be POTUS. And the last 3 presidents and the also rans demonstrate the effectiveness of that rule.

#OneBelievedHeHadBeenAbductedByAliens

#OneCheatedRepeatedlyOnHisCancerStrickenWifeAndHadABabyWithHisMistressAndPaidHerOffWithCampaignMoney

#CrotchetyOldMen

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ABYUFAN]

I in no way meant to imply that the milatary is perfect. Far from it; however, you're the guy who equated drinking to joining the military, not me. I was just pointing out that drinking and joining the military are two very different things. As many faults as the military has it's not just giving a gy a uniform and a gun. But lowering the drinking age, as I understand to be the subject of your first post, is like slapping a beer in the hand of a teenager and telling him "good luck." Frankly a lot of luck would be needed for a significant segment of society if and when that ever hapens.

I'm saying that at age 20, I think that you are an adult, and should therefore be able to put whatever in your body you wish, providing that you don't hurt anyone else in the process. Or maybe you aren't... Maybe we should be considered adults legally at 21, for everything.

"Kids" already are drinking before 21. If you were to do a survey about "kids" who drink before the age of 21, it would be a huge percentage. I think you would find a very, very, small number that intend to drink but wait until 21. There needs to be a clear delineation. Right now it isn't clear.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I'm not sure that I'm following what you are saying, are you saying that by lowering the drinking age we will be benefiting our youth, or that it is unfair to make those who drink before 21 drink illegally? Or are you saying something else entirely? Do people (especially teenagers) die from drinking in your world? And do you beleive that the situation is benefited by lowering the drinking age? Sorry, but your posts lead me to beleive that you beleive drinkng alcohol has about the same propensity for danger as drinking red bull.

[Brayden Green]

I in no way meant to imply that the milatary is perfect. Far from it; however, you're the guy who equated drinking to joining the military, not me. I was just pointing out that drinking and joining the military are two very different things. As many faults as the military has it's not just giving a gy a uniform and a gun. But lowering the drinking age, as I understand to be the subject of your first post, is like slapping a beer in the hand of a teenager and telling him "good luck." Frankly a lot of luck would be needed for a significant segment of society if and when that ever hapens.

I'm saying that at age 20, I think that you are an adult, and should therefore be able to put whatever in your body you wish, providing that you don't hurt anyone else in the process. Or maybe you aren't... Maybe we should be considered adults legally at 21, for everything.

"Kids" already are drinking before 21. If you were to do a survey about "kids" who drink before the age of 21, it would be a huge percentage. I think you would find a very, very, small number that intend to drink but wait until 21. There needs to be a clear delineation. Right now it isn't clear.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I'm not sure that I'm following what you are saying, are you saying that by lowering the drinking age we will be benefiting our youth, or that it is unfair to make those who drink before 21 drink illegally? Or are you saying something else entirely? Do people (especially teenagers) die from drinking in your world? And do you beleive that the situation is benefited by lowering the drinking age? Sorry, but your posts lead me to beleive that you beleive drinkng alcohol has about the same propensity for danger as drinking red bull.

I'm just going to take a step back and let you re-read my answers, and see if any of those questions you just posed to me you would like me to actually answer, or perhaps you are just performing for an audience, or reacting to something emotionally that I don't know of.

Your last couple questions warrant a response. I believe that adults should be allowed to take whatever substance into their body as they would like, provided it doesn't harm anyone else in the process either physically or financially. The subject at hand, is at what age are kids adults. Legally, the law is 18. Should that be pushed back? Maybe.

I'm not sure why you are twisting everything I have said into stupid strawman arguments.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Mars]

I believe that adults should be allowed to take whatever substance into their body as they would like, provided it doesn't harm anyone else in the process either physically or financially.

Such as? Heroine? Drain-O? Does an individual's overdose or death harm society in your opinion? How does a government's responsibility to protect its citizens come into play?

[Schmoe]

Not just overdose and death, either, but altered state of mind and rabid addiction to such substances.

[hawkwing]

Anyone who doesn't think putting alcohol or other substances into their bodies can be harmful should have to volunteer at a rehab clinic for a month. Hearing stories of families completely torn apart by harmless substances like alcohol or drugs is brutal.

[BoiseBYU]

Anyone who doesn't think putting alcohol or other substances into their bodies can be harmful should have to volunteer at a rehab clinic for a month. Hearing stories of families completely torn apart by harmless substances like alcohol or drugs is brutal.

Amen. The harm various substances, meth, cocaine, tobacco, alcohol inflict on families, children, and our communities is heartbreaking and staggering. The financial costs we pay as taxpayers is significant too. I've seen it up close. Society is wel within its rights to regulate and or ban these substances

[Brayden Green]

I don't see how you can ban what a person chooses to put in his own body, in a free society. Perhaps we move this discussion to the Lounge, because it is well of topic, and looks to become even more so.

Just because things can become addictive doesn't mean that we need an all-empowered agency that governs and controls them. Football is addictive. How many people come to this site 3 or 4 (or more) times a week? Facebook is addictive for people. Pornography is addictive. People have destroyed their own lives in about every way possible. It doesn't mean that everything should be banned or made illegal. If any of you haven't (I would wager that many of you haven't) check out Portugal's story about decriminalizing drugs. Heroin has a 15,000 percent markup from grower to end user. If we did things the way they do in Portugal, there would be a lot less pain and hurt, and a lot more people getting actual help. (And also a lot less militarized police, breaking down doors and shooting innocent people... )

Edit: I'm not sure why the video starts at 3:00 for me, start watching at the beginning to get full context.