Ther is no definition for the age 21 in the constitution.There is no such thing as the young people, or the older people. It is not morale or productive to blur the line. When will we as Americans who crave a fair and just democracy understand that there is no groups within the people because the people, 18 to 100, must be one. We can never allow the people to be seperated into characteristics. Manipulating the definition of the people threatens democracy because people will forget to at some point where to draw the line for the sake of preventing oppression. Blacks commit crimes, put them in jail beforehand, Women can't take care of money, take away their credit cards, younger people drink and drive, take away their rights.When you turn a man or women into a stat, you forget that under the law they are men and women just like yourself. We commit crime, we mismanage money, we drink and drive. A society where a man can be punished in anticipation of a crime is neither fair nor just.
2007-12-31 16:21:54 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
This isn't to defend drunk driving in any way, IT IS A SERIOUS CRIME. It's simply to make people think about the boundaries of statistical generalizations of people in legislation.
2008-01-01 03:24:19 · update #1
Someone got their bottle opened and finished early tonight.
Happy New Year all.
2007-12-31 16:26:40 · answer #1 · answered by Songbyrd JPA ✡ 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, here is the problem with those rights to drink. It can be dangerous for others around them...especially if the person gets behind the wheel.
Prove to me that 18-20 year olds have the maturity to understand and to comply with drinking and driving laws and I will agree to support your decision. By that, I don't mean just a promise, but prove to me that 18-20 year olds are less likely to cause an accident, especially when impaired with alcohol.
Back in the 1970s, many states did lower the drinking age to 18 or 19. But they found another situation. Too many 18 year olds were still in high school and would purchase alcohol for their friends. A 21 year old is a lot less likely to want to provide alcohol for their 16 year old friends, versus an 18 year old who may have 16 or 17 year old classmates.
There are simply too many cases of teens who die in a vehicle crash because alcohol was involved.
So, I cannot support lowering the drinking age, just because there is no constitutional law stating the appropriate age to drink. This is more than your rights...it's the rights of people like myself and my family to able to drive our cars without worrying about yet another driver who did not know their limitations.
Speaking of limitations...how many teens truly understand their limits so they don't drink above the blood alcohol levels.
It's just too risky.
2008-01-01 01:25:50 · answer #2 · answered by Searcher 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
trying to make any argument that validates a "right to drink and drive" is idiotic. no one of any age has a right to drink and drive. the fact that you have tried to put the two together just validates how wrong you are. laws and regulations serve to protect society. minors drinking is something that society needs to be protected from.
2008-01-01 00:54:06 · answer #3 · answered by michr 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
because they like to piss off the young people and make us feel that our vote doesnt count.. those damn jerks
2008-01-01 00:50:05 · answer #4 · answered by David 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Your either a 1st year psych major, or an under age person who wants to get hammered.
21 is considered the customary age of maturity and reason. Persons under that age are usually too immature to handle the delirious effects of alcohol.
Where you say. "A society where a man can be punished in anticipation of a crime is neither fair nor just." I'm assuming your reference and desire is to drinking under the age of 21.
I'd have to disagree with you. I've yanked more young drunk persons out of wrecks, than I care to count.
2008-01-01 00:42:11 · answer #5 · answered by Joker 1 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Fairness and justice are two totally different things. For 90% of our history, 21 has been considered the 'age of majority', as opposed to a minor. You had to be 21 to vote, drink, etc. Current laws are a readjustment, with regards to alcohol, based on many years of imperical evidence suggesting that 18 year olds cannot handle alcohol as well as 21 year olds.
2008-01-01 00:39:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Drinking and driving is not a characteristic. It is a choice. I personally think a DWI or DUI should be classified as attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon. I am not a prude. I was a hard core partyer for years. But are you suggesting that we should just wait for every drunk driver to kill someone before charging them with a crime?
You prove the point by your immature, irrational "argument". I'm sorry but you sound more like a child having a temper tantrum. Isn't it past your bedtime?
2008-01-01 00:32:35 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well teenage drivers have a higher accident rate than any other age group, also the human brain can take up to age 21 to become fully matured. The legal drinking age used to be 18 they probably changed it for a reason.
2008-01-01 00:27:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋