LancasterOnline.com:News:College presidents want lower alcohol age

Exactly my original point. Angel, Would you rather college try to define drinking for your kid or yourself? The colleges will do nothing. The kids go out and get loaded and come home to a dorm where there is nobody to answer to. If the drinking age is lowered the kid deals with coming to a parent who just might be awake and able to point the kid in the right direction.

QUOTE(InterestRP08 @ Aug 20 2008, 11:21 PM)

Then what is a PARENT? If you don't want your 14 year old doing stupid things, then take responsibility for being a PARENT, and PARENT your 14 year old!!

Government is NOT a nanny system, although most of the population still answers to it...

Sure, the presidents of colleges are being outspoken, probably being pushed to the edge on this issue. What do you expect when they have thousands of lemmings running around whos parents allow them to believe what they see on Fox News, and during commercials?! (beer commercials!!) Come on. Parent your own kid, don't worry about anyone elses kids. Realize the drinking age is generating income for the government AT THE EXPENSE of parents who expect the nanny state, because they won't question the god who is government.

QUOTE(InterestRP08 @ Aug 20 2008, 11:21 PM)

Then what is a PARENT? If you don't want your 14 year old doing stupid things, then take responsibility for being a PARENT, and PARENT your 14 year old!!

Government is NOT a nanny system, although most of the population still answers to it...

Sure, the presidents of colleges are being outspoken, probably being pushed to the edge on this issue. What do you expect when they have thousands of lemmings running around whos parents allow them to believe what they see on Fox News, and during commercials?! (beer commercials!!) Come on. Parent your own kid, don't worry about anyone elses kids. Realize the drinking age is generating income for the government AT THE EXPENSE of parents who expect the nanny state, because they won't question the god who is government.

Only it isn't MY kid who is the problem. It is the kids who all you macho guys want to teach how to hold their liquor at age 14, who drink regularly at 16, and who kill people driving under the influence, or kill themselves and their friends doing shots and end up with alcohol poisoning.

The law was changed to 21 for a reason. Too many dead kids and too many traffic fatalities. Let's leave it there.

QUOTE(PedroHead @ Aug 20 2008, 11:39 PM)

Exactly my original point. Angel, Would you rather college try to define drinking for your kid or yourself? The colleges will do nothing. The kids go out and get loaded and come home to a dorm where there is nobody to answer to. If the drinking age is lowered the kid deals with coming to a parent who just might be awake and able to point the kid in the right direction.

You can do that NOW! No matter what the age is, you can TEACH YOUR KIDS. And you don't have to have them drunk, or GET them DRUNK to teach them about alcohol!
You don't have to SERVE your kids alcohol to EDUCATE your kids. God only knows, the newspapers, the nightly news, and their fellow students offer MORE than enough cautionary tales to do the job quite nicely.

P.S. Lower the drinking age, and those kids are MORE OFTEN going to binge drink (it's legal now!!!), and STILL come back to a dorm with nobody to answer to. Mr. College Prez now has ZERO responsibility for students' drinking.

QUOTE(AngelFace @ Aug 20 2008, 01:10 PM)

Only people who are not LIVING LIFE and LOVING LIFE and ENGAGED WITH REAL LIFE look for "mind altering" substances. And merry-go-rounds, roller coasters etc. are HARDLY examples of that. They are doing REAL LIFE.

Stop excusing checking out of reality using POISONS.

Note in my original post I used the word Experiences, and I still stand by that, and accept that many people, and cultures, have found Substances to provide this experience.

QUOTE(AngelFace @ Aug 21 2008, 02:06 AM)

Only it isn't MY kid who is the problem. It is the kids who all you macho guys want to teach how to hold their liquor at age 14, who drink regularly at 16, and who kill people driving under the influence, or kill themselves and their friends doing shots and end up with alcohol poisoning.
The law was changed to 21 for a reason. Too many dead kids and too many traffic fatalities. Let's leave it there.

You can do that NOW! No matter what the age is, you can TEACH YOUR KIDS. And you don't have to have them drunk, or GET them DRUNK to teach them about alcohol!
You don't have to SERVE your kids alcohol to EDUCATE your kids. God only knows, the newspapers, the nightly news, and their fellow students offer MORE than enough cautionary tales to do the job quite nicely.

P.S. Lower the drinking age, and those kids are MORE OFTEN going to binge drink (it's legal now!!!), and STILL come back to a dorm with nobody to answer to. Mr. College Prez now has ZERO responsibility for students' drinking.

Nah, it's not reason for a law. So, it's everyone elses kids? Well then let those kids and their parents deal with the consequences. And no, the history that someone shared earlier in the thread didn't prove that the law was because of fatalities.

What you are trying to prove, is that we need 'protection law' to protect us from ourselves and our parents. ?? No thanks.

QUOTE(InterestRP08 @ Aug 21 2008, 09:09 AM)

Nah, it's not reason for a law. So, it's everyone elses kids? Well then let those kids and their parents deal with the consequences. And no, the history that someone shared earlier in the thread didn't prove that the law was because of fatalities.

What you are trying to prove, is that we need 'protection law' to protect us from ourselves and our parents. ?? No thanks.

No. WE need a protection law from lousy parents and bad kids who are left to run amok and inflict carnage on the innocent. Plain enough?