Because of what you said. Why even have any laws or regulations based on your argument? Why not just let 24 year olds have consensual sex with 10 year olds?

 

 

I am by no means an anarchist. I am just perturbed by the concept of the nanny state. I feel that regulations for the sake of public safety are one thing such keeping things such as rape, stautory rape (although I think an age gap might be better than an arbitrary age for gauging it) , burglary, murder and so on prosecutable offenses.

 

However things that can be easily avoided by others are a definite infringement on others rights. If a bar wants to sell liquor to people of any age then it is their prerogative to do so. If an establishment wants to allow smoking that is their right. If someone wants to avoid it then it is their choice to go elsewhere. Much like it is an employees right to find a different(non-smoking) establishment to work at if they have problems with the smoke.

 

I think you are comparing apples to oranges here though. A 16 year old buying a 6 pack of Bud(disgusting a beer it may be) compared to a 24 year old having sex with a 10 year old are not quite congruent examples. Of course we must also take into account the fact that our societal indoctrination has much to do with the revulsion we have at certain acts. There are societies out there that would not bat an eye at the example you cited. To the drinking age, there are countries out there with no drinking age that have little to no trouble comparitively to how we handle it in the U.S.

 

I should have illustrated my point more clearly since you clearly want to work with absolutes.

I am by no means an anarchist. I am just perturbed by the concept of the nanny state. I feel that regulations for the sake of public safety are one thing such keeping things such as rape, stautory rape (although I think an age gap might be better than an arbitrary age for gauging it) , burglary, murder and so on prosecutable offenses.

 

However things that can be easily avoided by others are a definite infringement on others rights. If a bar wants to sell liquor to people of any age then it is their prerogative to do so.

 

I think you are comparing apples to oranges here though. A 16 year old buying a 6 pack of Bud(disgusting a beer it may be) compared to an adult having sex with someone who is clearly underage. Of course we must also take into account the fact that our societal indoctrination has much to do with the revulsion we have at certain acts. There are societies out there that would not bat an eye at the example you cited. To the drinking age, there are countries out there with no drinking age that have little to no trouble comparitively to how we handle it in the U.S.

 

 

So you don't believe that allowing 16 year olds to buy alcohol will increase the number of alchol related fatalities?

So you don't believe that allowing 16 year olds to buy alcohol will increase the number of alchol related fatalities?

 

 

Evolution in action. If they are stupid enough to do something then it is probably best that their genes not make it to the next generation and that their parents take it as a lesson for the future.

 

Even so I think it is best to take note of many of the drinking laws in Europe. While I understand that most people, such as yourself, abhor the idea of a no legal drinking age. I would be willing to compromise. 18 would be acceptable to me, especially since you are considered a legal adult at that point. Considering many European countries have far more laxed drinking laws than ours and don't have this knee-jerk reaction to the same concept.

 

If you are wanting to reduce the number of alcohol related fatalities are you in favor of a return to prohibition? That certainly reduced the number of alcohol related fatalities.

Evolution in action. If they are stupid enough to do something then it is probably best that their genes not make it to the next generation and that their parents take it as a lesson for the future.

:laugh::laugh:

So you see no problem with liquor stores legally being able to see alcohol to 16 year olds?

I know that tons of people will be upset when they are unable to comfort themselves with the silly notion that they are protecting America's youth. But other than that, I don't really see any problems. Being closer to 16 than you, I can tell you that getting alcohol at that age is insanely easy and the laws do nothing but make it "cooler".

There was one part of the study that I saw on MSNBC that said the hospitals in Pueblo, I think it was, had lower reports of heart issues with the banning.

 

It seems that smoking puts more of a strain on your heart than the problem of lung cancer. Heart disease problems are seeing a decrease in Colorado since the ban.

Evolution in action. If they are stupid enough to do something then it is probably best that their genes not make it to the next generation and that their parents take it as a lesson for the future.

 

Even so I think it is best to take note of many of the drinking laws in Europe. While I understand that most people, such as yourself, abhor the idea of a no legal drinking age. I would be willing to compromise. 18 would be acceptable to me, especially since you are considered a legal adult at that point. Considering many European countries have far more laxed drinking laws than ours and don't have this knee-jerk reaction to the same concept.

If you are wanting to reduce the number of alcohol related fatalities are you in favor of a return to prohibition? That certainly reduced the number of alcohol related fatalities.

ANd when this argument was presented over a year ago, I believe, I responded with a thread that showed they had a lot more drinking problems, alchoholism, and other such drinking issues in those countries.

There was one part of the study that I saw on MSNBC that said the hospitals in Pueblo, I think it was, had lower reports of heart issues with the banning.

 

It seems that smoking puts more of a strain on your heart than the problem of lung cancer. Heart disease problems are seeing a decrease in Colorado since the ban.

 

 

The bolded is of no surprise. The body's systems are interconnected, something goes wrong with one, it will affect others. Especially when carcinogens are regularly ingested.

The bolded is of no surprise. The body's systems are interconnected, something goes wrong with one, it will affect others. Especially when carcinogens are regularly ingested.

 

And I think what you are pointing out here is the point of the study. Or at least the numerous things I saw on tv reports was about.

There was one part of the study that I saw on MSNBC that said the hospitals in Pueblo, I think it was, had lower reports of heart issues with the banning.

 

It seems that smoking puts more of a strain on your heart than the problem of lung cancer. Heart disease problems are seeing a decrease in Colorado since the ban.

Take out all the McDonald's in CO and you will see heart issues go down as well.

Take out all the McDonald's in CO and you will see heart issues go down as well.

You can also force all subjects to exercise a min of one hour per day and it would down even more.

Take out all the McDonald's in CO and you will see heart issues go down as well.

 

I am not for banning the McDonald't but rather if you choose that lifestyle, than you are going to have to pay a higher tax rate to offset the cost that lifestyle is forcing (IF Democrats get their way and through already in place government programs) upon the taxpayers of this country.

As with many issues, majority rule is not always the underwriter of common sense.

 

So that's a "no" on democracy?

 

"Y'all go ahead and vote and then we'll determine whether that was a good choice or not."

 

FWIW, Hearsay, I agree that majority rule isn't always the underwriter of common sense but you can't have it both ways. Either let the people make all of the choices or don't complain when the government institutes their own rules.

There was one part of the study that I saw on MSNBC that said the hospitals in Pueblo, I think it was, had lower reports of heart issues with the banning.

 

It seems that smoking puts more of a strain on your heart than the problem of lung cancer. Heart disease problems are seeing a decrease in Colorado since the ban.

 

But how do they know its attributable to the smoking ban, particularly in one year? Colorado also passed an obesity tax, maybe the heart numbers are better because there's less fat people. There's no way of calculating that.

So that's a "no" on democracy?

 

"Y'all go ahead and vote and then we'll determine whether that was a good choice or not."

 

FWIW, Hearsay, I agree that majority rule isn't always the underwriter of common sense but you can't have it both ways. Either let the people make all of the choices or don't complain when the government institutes their own rules.

 

That, of course, was why the Bill of Rights was written, so there was NOT tyranny of the majority on many issues.

 

I assume if a ballot measure passed that banned the use of all guns, that would be OK, too? After all, don't complain when the people make the choices?