Drinking age

So drinking is a right but driving is a privilege? So where are you placing the defining line? Many of my friends say that having rights recognized at all is a privilege.

The right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights but does that mean we should have no gun control at all? Even rights need to have control.

 

oh i dint see that actually. i don't understand why you would think drinking is the right and driving is a privledge, i would think it would be the other way around.

 

Because driving is even told to you in testing etc, drivers' ed and more that it is a privilege. You drive because you are permitted to do so. You pay to have a drivers' license that declares you know how to drive, you are maintaining a safe vehicle, and that you know the laws regarding safety and what to do in case of accidents etc. You are taught to not drive off if you hit someone. You are taught not to go above the speed limit or drive too slow. You are taught to adhere to the law and drive in the lines, remain sober while driving, etc. When you fail to comply with all of these things and more, you are in violation and that driver's license can easily be revoked, suspending your privilege to drive.

Drinking - When you are of age to drink, you don't have to go out and buy a special license to drink, you just have to prove you are 21 or 18 or whatever it is in your area. You can go out and buy whatever. Even if you get in big brawls etc or do stupid things and you might go to jail for disorderly conduct, you can still drink when not incarcerated. You can drink yourself to oblivion. You are not forced to go to rehab etc. You can walk out at any time. Therefore, if you want to rot your liver, you are perfectly capable of it so long as you can afford the alcohol. That is a -right-. The only thing that stops someone from drinking is the legal age in which someone may purchase it (though how well is a debate). Once you are 21 or 18 (depending where you are located) have fun because there is no law that I know of which forbids you to absolutely stop drinking alcohol even if judges try to scare you with words.

The Right to Bear Arms - This is now more of a privilege than a right, though it kind of sits on the fence between them. You can indefinitely lose your right to 'bear arms' if you are stupid enough. Not everyone can get one. If you have been a felon in the past, no one is 'supposed' to sell you a gun. If a ex-con is found with a weapon, it means automatic jail time again. However, on the 'right' side of things, if you go through the process of getting the weapon legitimately (which generally takes a couple weeks), you can keep it indefinitely and no one has the right to take it away from you unless you do something stupid with it out in public. You can have it to defend your home and life. This 'right' really is moving more the way of being a 'privilege' because access is not as easy, people can lose the ability to have guns etc and well, there's a black market of guns which a lot of gang people buy or military collectors. I hardly see it as a right anymore.

Well there we have my daily essay, but the freest thing out of the 3 options we have really...is to get blitzed out of our minds on alcohol. Driving and Bearing Arms are much more controlled. And they have to be. What is sad is that we have 'rights' that are really not rights anymore so much.

 

The reason that driving is a privilege is that it is not inherent to your life. You aren't born with the ability to drive. You have to prove that you are capable of doing so. This makes it a right as not everyone has the correct skills to drive.

Consuming liquids is essential to life. People have the right to do whatever they want to their own bodies. As alcohol is not illegal (and may it never become so again) people should have every right to drink it. It is their conscious choice to do so.

Also, the point about the right to bear arms is an extremely dodgy one. The American Supreme Court (I think it was that one) is reconsidering giving Americans the right to bear arms for the first time in hundreds of years, possibly the first time ever. Just because something was decided way back when doesn't mean it is still applicable. In this case (the gun thing) especially so.

I just think that treating teenagers as children until they turn 18 is bad enough without raising the age to 21 and saying that they aren't trusted by the rest of society to not drink dangerously.

I for one am sick of it.

EDIT: @Repliku: What's happened to you lol I was expecting longer xD Oj. I just thought my post would have been drowned out by your usual amazing and mind-bogglingly long posts *salutes you*

 

It's a brief short essay this time. =:) I agree with your points too. If you can't prove you can drive and have the minimum physical requirements, that isn't happening. That's one I missed! Anyone can drink and requires liquid to survive so it's easy to do that. Another point on drinking...they found how fun it was once to try to take away drinking rights during the Prohibition. No one wants a repeat of that, so it's doubtful alcohol consummation will ever be made illegal again.

 

Lol, also governments make too much off of alcohol in duty to ban it again. Almost certainly the reason why cigarettes aer still around. Most of the price of cigarettes (in the UK at least) is from high taxes both to discourage people from buying them and to make the government a quick buck.

Anyway, could there also be medical benefits? It has been proven that (even though this is an extreme example <_>) small amounts of radiation help you to build up an immunity to radiation. Could drinking in small amounts help your body protect itself from the negative side-effects? Also, there is a thing called the resilience of youth. I have never had a proper hangover to date xD But then again I'll probably be crying some time down the line with cirrhosis of the liver. Meh

 

Repliku disappoints. You are defining right vs. privilege as how rules have been set up for it. This started with me suggesting that you would need a permit for alcohol; saying that it is wrong because you don’t need one now is foolish. Neither good nor bad can come from staying where we are, and the vast majority of the time if we wind up wrong we simply return to the way they were with no lasting damage dealt.

@ Bunterx: That’s along the lines of saying that pot should be legal because breathing is a necessity, just a choice of what you inhale.


And you both proved my gun control point. We have the right to bare arms. Written clear in paper and there to stay for a long time I imagine (debated, but there). But it has never been the case that someone would be handed a gun when they became an adult, there are safety practices that come with it.

(I’m considering another point but there are too many side debates as is)

 

How is it the same as the pot argument? With that you have to light up. Breathing involves little or no effort. It is also not an hallucinogenic. Now you are just being pedantic >_>

 

there is a chemical process for alcohol (especially if you want it pure. though few people do) pot would just befinding a type of leaf wrapping it up and burning it. If you want to bring effort into the equation, by natural means pot is far easier if you ask me. It just becomes harder in society because it is illeagal which isn't even what I was suggesting.

 

This makes no sense. The 'Right' to Bear Arms has been obtaining 'attachments' to it in the last two or more decades because of abuse of it. It isn't really a 'right' anymore. That doesn't win the argument here. Most people can tell the 'Right' to Bear Arms is an illusion now and if it is passed that it is no longer something that will be in our Constitution and abolished, well that shows how much of a 'Right' has been lost already. The point stands as proof.

With drinking, you can drink your life away and it is a well proven fact. No one can force someone to not touch another drop of alcohol. It is a right. You do not have to do anything and can in fact become homeless and drinking in the streets with no job etc. There is a great difference here. You can be sick, poor, with disease from drinking etc and still drink as long as you can afford it. Even if you drink yourself to all sorts of health issues, you will be treated for them and advised to not drink but no one can force it. That is a Right without question. The worst thing that happens to people who drink in excess is they might be tossed in the drink tank to sleep off the night or two. When charged with things, it usually goes with disorderly conduct or abuse etc, not with 'drinking'. Note though that Drinking and Driving..it doesn't also take away your right to -drink-. It takes away your right to -drive-.

Driving is only a right because you can hop in your car if it is properly set up to go and drive nearly anywhere within the confines of your territory without problem as long as you have a license. However, the roads are maintained by the government or toll roads are by whoever runs the tolls. They do have the right to deny you use of roads and also can remove your license and privilege at any time. If you do not have proper insurance or registration for your car you cannot drive it. If you are caught you are fined and must fix these things before the state will issue you another driver's license. Your license can be suspended for various reasons.

This is not a freedom to go do whatever you want. You have responsibilities and if they are not met, you are not allowed to drive. That is the difference. It is a point of validity. I said the Right to Bear Arms is sort of in an in between stage of being a right or privilege anymore because of all the gun control and legal routes one must go to in order to have a weapon and also there is a restriction on who can get a gun legally. Name to me please what restrictions there are on alcohol consumption beyond age? There isn't one. Therefore it is a right. Name to me the restrictions on driving. There are plenty. Therefore it is a privilege.

 

Again you are explaining the way things are. I know the way things are, I'm explaining how they could be. One has no influence over the other except in initiation.

 

Again, it does not matter how things will be. It matters how they -are-. As it stands, this is the way things are. If you want to make someone get a 'permit' to drink, that is making that a privilege too, should it pass and btw who is legit to drink and who is not? How would you even control such a thing? No one would tolerate it. Explain things more, please?

 

With something like drinking, as I have previously stated before, everyone is different. Not only in their ability to drink responsibly (or lack thereof) but of their natural physical limits on how much alcohol they can drink. Are you saying that every person who wants to drink would be tested to see if they are capable of the "privilege" of drinking? That is unworkable. I agree that in theory it is a good idea, but would never be a practical option.

 

That is the problem I am seeing but want him to explain how this 'permit' would even work. Many people can drink properly and responsibly realizing their own lives could be at stake, let alone other peoples, if they are stupid. However, there are just people that will abuse nearly anything. There are people who abuse eating food, exercise etc. It seems very hard to make something legit that others would care about to control something that people do not want controlled but by their own determinations. As much as I know plenty of people who drink and handle alcohol well, I know others who don't but I can only force so much on them, as in if they drink at my place or a bar etc, I take their keys away and set them up for the night to sleep or I drive them home and make sure they are safe. As much as I can say I might agree some people -should- not do what they do when under the influence of alcohol, I don't think a permit will ever work, but I want to see what this permit Mixt is suggesting would do and provide.

 

You can't just raise the age or limit the amount you can have in the way it is now. In the UK it's pretty much a part of the culture, especially student culture. Everything advertised to us is about the cheap drinks, it's what raises revenue for the government and for business. With it being such a vital part of the student life raising the age would damage bars, clubs and also the freedom. Also how can you limit it? In big clubs it's impossible to tell who has drunk what and also how would a license for alcohol work? How can you prove you are worthy? Drink carefully for 6 months, and then when you get the license drink to your hearts content. This things won't work.

To stop underage drinking is more partenal action, parents let there kids drink, or they don't know they are or simply don't care. It's up to the parents and schools to teach them about it and enforce more action.

 

For getting it in the first place I was mainly thinking that people should at least know how what they are drinking affects them and others. There are too many people that don't understand it and are just drinking because it's cool. There is no absolute way to tell if someone will abuse it just like with driving; but what I liked about this system is that by licensing it you give the option to remove that ability on a person-by-person basis. When some drives drunk, gets in a fight, or some other dangerous activity influenced by alcohol, you would be able to suspend that license to stop them from hurting themselves or others.

 

Yes, but it would never happen because you cannot always prove by just someone's nature that he or she is going to abuse it. Also, people can take tests etc for this permit and fill in whatever but it doesn't mean they actually care about the answers. No one wants to pay to get a license to drink responsibly and have it revoked etc. It's not also going to run into corruption of judging some people wrongfully. I could only see problems implementing it. This is why if someone is dumb enough to drink and drive, they are still going to find a way to drink but you take away their driver's license and make it illegal for them to drive. If someone has a temper and gets into assault charges and aggravated assault charges, they will find a way to drink but you can get orders of protection, sentence jail time on the person and punishments and fines for it otherwise. These people have issues and already know that the law is there for beating on people or driving drunk. Drinking doesn't -cause- people to do stupid things. It lets go of inhibitions to prevent people from doing what they are already thinking of doing any way. If someone is a jerk when drunk, they just mask it better when not.

As for underage drinkers...well, parents even more than schools need to start caring more and know that the reality is that a kid will probably try to do it. Schools pretty much do all they can to help with all of these responsibilities that parents are getting out of. I don't see what else they can do. Jobs also send people home and can fire people if they are wasted coming to work. The real problem is that kids aren't being disciplined by parents and spoken to realistically. There are way too many things forced on schools to teach that parents need to do. Also, some kids just don't give a crap what parents say so they may have to learn the hard way. Underage drinkers are the only ones really who can be punished for drinking directly and I think that's about as severe as it's ever going to be or it will be unfair to every other citizen.

 

Let's humour the idea of strictly policing alcohol consumption for a moment. Say we do require a license, what manner of scale or system is going to prove that some people are able to drink and some people (regardless of age) are not? At least with a license to operate a motorized vehicle there is a definitive competence required. A number of complex factors go into determining people who are at risk for consuming alcohol, and that's regardless of age too; just because teens will consume alcohol does not imply that they will become susceptible to the countless risk factors associated with drinking. So with all that in mind you're proposing that everyone who desires to consume alcohol endure some form of capability screening? That's like schools discriminating and denying students simply because of their IQ scores.

 

I actually hate alcohol.After what happened to my dad I hate it.If they were to lower the drinking age that wouldn't be right.They are putting more innocent people at risk of getting injured.They should keep the drinking age at 21.

 

I made sure to say that people are influenced by alcohol. I know very well that people aren't controled (so to speak) by alcohol, they just have less control over themselves.

For example my brother wrestles with me on a near daily basis, but we stop before anyone is really hurt or we break anything. But when he comes home runk he will flat out attack me leaving me with scars and several things broken arround the house.

Leading me to my other point. My brother goes from lovable to violent over a few drinks. So it's not safe to have him drink, but he shouldn't nessecarily be in jail since he's completely fine (almost idealistic) without alcohol.


There isn't a way to prove (in getting the license to begin with) that some one will or will not abuse alcohol, it's more so about the knowledge of what alcohol is. It's more so that someone could have their license suspened when they show that they have abused it.