Lower Drinking Age?

[filihok]

OFG, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying allow people the choice.

Give people the choice to use it. Give people the choice to live free of it.

Because we don't know all the answers. We aren't going to agree on a subject this gray. So instead of getting everyone all riled up over it, give people the choice.

[HoustonGM]

Give people the choice to use it. Give people the choice to live free of it.

Uh, isn't that exactly what OFG (and me, and ohms, etc.) has always been in favor of?

[filihok]

Nobody's said that.

In the context of this discussion, people are discussing simply the taking of drugs...which does only affect the person taking the drug. Actions taken while under the influence of the drug may harm or put others in danger, and those actions should be (and are) illegal.

So should DUI be legal? DUI doesn't harm others. It's fine to DUI but it's not ok to wreck? We'll only punish people and deal with the problem after the fact? I don't see much sense in that.

[filihok]

Uh, isn't that exactly what OFG (and me, and ohms, etc.) has always been in favor of?

Uh, Yes. So I dunno why I feel like everyone is fighting me on it.

[HoustonGM]

So should DUI be legal? DUI doesn't harm others. It's fine to DUI but it's not ok to wreck? We'll only punish people and deal with the problem after the fact? I don't see much sense in that.

I never said anything of the sort. In fact, I don't have any idea how you even inferred that considering I said:

Actions taken while under the influence of the drug may harm or put others in danger, and those actions should be (and are) illegal.

[filihok]

I never said anything of the sort. In fact, I don't have any idea how you even inferred that considering I said:

So, you think that drinking and driving puts OTHERS in danger.

Then is it really that far of a stretch to see how some people could come to the conclusion that drinking itself is the root cause of the problem?

[ohms_law]

So should DUI be legal? DUI doesn't harm others. It's fine to DUI but it's not ok to wreck? We'll only punish people and deal with the problem after the fact? I don't see much sense in that.

DUI isn't the same as the actual ingestion of some drug which impares the ability of a driver to drive, simply because there's no way to drive on public streets without interacting with other drivers in some manner.
While using drugs, it's very easy to isolate yourself from negative consequences. Not everyone does, which is certainly a problem, but it's easy to choose to avoid bad situations while intoxicated in some manner with most chemicals. It's still bad for you, but only for you.
Driving is fundamentally different. You're unable to control the behavior of others in anything really, and while driving that becomes the key problem. You may be able to control your vehicle, but you can't control the ones around you at all. Therefore, lowered reaction times is a real problem.

As I said above, their fundamentally different questions which are only related because one component of each question is the same.

[HoustonGM]

Then is it really that far of a stretch to see how some people could come to the conclusion that drinking itself is the root cause of the problem?

To me, yes, that's a huge stretch, because drinking, by itself, doesn't put anybody in danger (besides the person drinking, and even then, only if they drink continually or too much at once).

[ohms_law]

Then is it really that far of a stretch to see how some people could come to the conclusion that drinking itself is the root cause of the problem?

Using this sort of logic, there are hundreds of things which should be illegal.
Coffee, soda, sugar in general... hell, McDonald's and the vast majority of other fast food places should then be illegal.

Is that really the sort of thing that you're advocating?

[filihok]

Well drinking and driving doesn't put anyone else in danger, only if they wreck.

Is everyone really that stubborn that they can't admit it's just a matter of where to arbitrarily draw the line between personal responsibility and personal freedom?

[HoustonGM]

Well drinking and driving doesn't put anyone else in danger, only if they wreck.

Not true. You put others IN DANGER by drinking and driving. You HARM others if you wreck.

Is everyone really that stubborn that they can't admit it's just a matter of where to arbitrarily draw the line between personal responsibility and personal freedom?

Sure. What exactly are you trying to prove?

This is why it seems like "everyone's fighting you on it." Because you're, for lack of a better term, attacking our points (and I don't mean that in a negative way). So, we're going to stand by our points, and thus "fight you on it."

[filihok]

Using this sort of logic, there are hundreds of things which should be illegal.
Coffee, soda, sugar in general... hell, McDonald's and the vast majority of other fast food places should then be illegal.

Is that really the sort of thing that you're advocating?

Filihok being Houston: I don't know where you'd get the idea I said anything like that when I said:

I'm saying allow people the choice.

Give people the choice to use it. Give people the choice to live free of it.

More on point, this is what I believe:

The U.S., the World, The Universe, The multiverse, however large a unit we want to define as the overseeing government body, needs to have minimal regulation.

Currently the US gov. needs to have less restrictive laws and do what was initially intended. Let communities decide their laws.

Hundreds of millions of people cannot agree on, let alone live by, specific sets of laws. Specific laws (ie. drinking age, legalization of drugs, gun ownership, etc) need to be set at smaller levels. This allows people to have input, which they crave more than outcome a lot of times, and a choice.

If certain communities allowed certain behaviors, and you want to engage in that behavior...go there (Prostitution in Nevada for example) . If certain communities don't want a behavior, and you don't want that behavior, go there (When DC had banned hand guns, for example). It's free market economics applied to government. It's what was intended. And it's really the only feasible solution for everyone to get along.

[HoustonGM]

Filihok being Houston: I don't know where you'd get the idea I said anything like that when I said:

But you're saying BOTH things.

When you say:

Then is it really that far of a stretch to see how some people could come to the conclusion that drinking itself is the root cause of the problem?

You seem to be advocating exactly what it is ohms is talking about, whether or not you actually believe that. You're not arguing for your point of view. You're just...arguing.

[StreetMedic]

Well drinking and driving doesn't put anyone else in danger, only if they wreck.

Um, not picking a fight, here, Filihok, but, said another way, couldn't that statement read as follows:

You're not in danger of wrecking, until you actually wreck?

That's a pretty heavy dose of reductionism, even for me.

[filihok]

Not true. You put others IN DANGER by drinking and driving. You HARM others if you wreck.

Not necessarily, there are plenty of wrecks where no one is harmed. A wreck only increases the chance of someone being harmed, much as drinking increases the chance of a wreck.

This is why it seems like "everyone's fighting you on it." Because you're, for lack of a better term, attacking our points (and I don't mean that in a negative way). So, we're going to stand by our points, and thus "fight you on it."

Well, let's everybody state our point as I just did, because I know that I've had a lot of people assuming they know my point, and been flat out wrong. And Houston has mentioned something similar as well...