No one can enjoy a Miller in a bar...there's no such thing as a Miller.
Miller Lite, MGD, Miller 64, Miller High Life, Miller Chill, Miller Fortune....but no Miller.
Agree with the bolded. Because none of those Millers listed are enjoyable.
No one can enjoy a Miller in a bar...there's no such thing as a Miller.
Miller Lite, MGD, Miller 64, Miller High Life, Miller Chill, Miller Fortune....but no Miller.
Better yet, don't keep it off school grounds. Arm every teacher with alcohol. Keeping it out of the hands of the good guys just makes it that much easier for the bad guys to win.
jbhtexas and CycloneErik are both non-drinkers who would probably prefer that there not be alcohol at all. That's not something that's going to happen since alcohol has been around as long as civilization, and whether they like it or not, many people have enriched their life with it. You can have a good life without it, but that doesn't mean that the government should force that on you.
We aren't debating whether alcohol should exist or not; we're debating whether or not the 21 year old drinking age is a good thing for this country. Most people seem to think it isn't. The rest of the civilized world agrees.
Ehhh. It's fine where it is at 21. I could maybe get on board with 19, but there are more important things to worry about.
jbhtexas and CycloneErik are both non-drinkers who would probably prefer that there not be alcohol at all.
Who mentioned the government?
I don't abstain from alcohol. But I also don't repeatedly bash athletic (and other) venues and events on message boards because there isn't enough drinking going on prior to the actual event. If that makes me a non-drinker, then so be it.
Your comments in this thread (and many others like it) indicate a very conservative view point on alcohol/drugs, and a belief that there should be stricter governmental controls in regards to those things. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think it's good to be above-board with your biases. My biases are that I like alcohol and firmly believe that attempts by government to control social behavior as it pertains to individuals creates more problems than it solves, and attempts at stricter control only further said problems.
Aside from the questionable statistic on hospital beds, the links I posted earlier show that US federal, state, and local governments bear significant costs (both healthcare costs and economic costs) because of excessive alcohol consumption. So, to me, it seems reasonable that the government would be looking for ways reduce excessive alcohol consumption, and thus the money lost because of it.
In general, I don't support the government dictating social policy, but when a certain harmful activity imposes significant costs on society and the government, I think it is a legitimate role for the government to be involved with other social organizations to curb the harmful activity.
A drinking age limit is one way that the government can be involved in. It may or may not be the best way. The drinking age in Iowa was 18 at one time. Perhaps one could do a study comparing the the time when the limit was 18 and the present limit of 21 to see if there have been any measurable benefits to society.
My experience is completely different. I grew up in rural community were Saturday night was for drinking that would by today's standards result in ending up well over the legal limit. Many adults did it as well as their kids. In fact, a couple of my classmates had parents who would by them the beer. And there was no adult supervision when the kids were drinking. For the most part, the kids who avoided it had parents who drank sensibly.
Just curious, even though your parents didn't drink in front of you, did they hold the belief that drinking to get plastered was accpetable or unnacceptable behavior?
Europe doesn't have the problems associated with excessive alcohol consumption that the United States does.
They also don't treat alcohol as taboo, and encourage people to learn at a young age how to responsibly use it.
I think there's pretty good evidence that they have a superior approach to alcohol than we do. The tighter controls we've exercised on alcohol have created the environment that leads to our increased social cost.
Europe doesn't have the problems associated with excessive alcohol consumption that the United States does.
They also don't treat alcohol as taboo, and encourage people to learn at a young age how to responsibly use it.
I think there's pretty good evidence that they have a superior approach to alcohol than we do. The tighter controls we've exercised on alcohol have created the environment that leads to our increased social cost.
Europe doesn't have the problems associated with excessive alcohol consumption that the United States does.
They also don't treat alcohol as taboo, and encourage people to learn at a young age how to responsibly use it.
I think there's pretty good evidence that they have a superior approach to alcohol than we do. The tighter controls we've exercised on alcohol have created the environment that leads to our increased social cost.
Alcohol in the EU: The Basics
Europe is the heaviest drinking region in the world, with the average European consumption accounting for twice that of the global alcohol intake. Over 1/5 of the European population aged 15 and older binge drink at least once a week. Alcohol is the third leading risk factor for disease and death after tobacco use and high blood pressure. Globally, the European Region has the highest proportion of ill health (7%) and early death due to alcohol.3,4,5
the USA isn't Europe and never will be. Move there if you prefer their social laws.
For a country based on freedom and individual liberty, we sure have a ton of restrictions on it. But hey, if it doesn't affect me, why should I care? I know that's basically your thought on the matter.
I'm not saying Europe is a better place than the US, but this is one area where they have a better approach than the United States. They aren't utopia, but when it comes to alcohol, they're in better shape.