Forums | MacLife

Daniel wrote:

Pithecanthropus wrote:

It is a vast conspiracy to keep people under the age of 21 from drinking alcoholic beverages.

It is.  It's but the first step taken by the neo-prohibitionist lobby known as MADD.

So let's be vocal about them directly.

I can't see my piercing, tattoo'd, almost goth-like bartender being part of the grand conspiracy where MADD pulls the strings.

Underage Dumb Asses Mad About Not Drinking Alcohol Nightly

Or U DA MAN DAN for short.

Chickenhawk wrote:

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Daniel wrote:

It is.  It's but the first step taken by the neo-prohibitionist lobby known as MADD.

Then form your own lobby of like-minded people and get the law changed, that's what they did.

I'd say the issue with that is while the majority of the US's adult population does not agree with the 21 year old drinking age, they mostly don't care enough to take any action, because it does not affect them any more. So that only leaves the under 21 crowd, which has no money, and nobody listens to.

It was Vietnam and the draft that got the voting age pushed down to 18.  One would think that a similar movement could effect some change in this area-- i.e. they are adult enough to enlist in the military, be given a great responsibility, and get killed or maimed but not adult enough to drink alcohol? 

18-21 year olds are a sizeable portion of the population.  Their political ineffectiveness is just as much on their refusal to consistently vote than anything else.

user wrote:

More their refusal to posess large sums of money and hold influential positions.

Dammit, we need our video games.

KHannon wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Then form your own lobby of like-minded people and get the law changed, that's what they did.

I'd say the issue with that is while the majority of the US's adult population does not agree with the 21 year old drinking age, they mostly don't care enough to take any action, because it does not affect them any more. So that only leaves the under 21 crowd, which has no money, and nobody listens to.

It was Vietnam and the draft that got the voting age pushed down to 18.  One would think that a similar movement could effect some change in this area-- i.e. they are adult enough to enlist in the military, be given a great responsibility, and get killed or maimed but not adult enough to drink alcohol? 

18-21 year olds are a sizeable portion of the population.  Their political ineffectiveness is just as much on their refusal to consistently vote than anything else.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this (honestly), but the draft age was reduced to 18 first, which brought the voting age down with it next, and shortly thereafter the drinking age.  For a period of time starting at approximately the last quarter of the Vietnam War, all three ages were 18.

In 1980, Candy Lightner lost her daughter to a drunk driver.  She subsequently proceeded to form Mothers Against Drunk Driving in an effort to pressure legislatures across the nation and at the federal level to take stronger measures to prevent drunk driving.  As a result of flawed data and manipulated statistics, a moral panic was induced culminating in the passage of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, establishing a de facto minimum drinking age of 21, raising it from the 18 it formerly had been, through the blackmail previously discussed.

So it's important to note that the drinking age was not always 21, and was only made so as a result of MADD making a pointed shift towards neo-prohibitionism so contrary to its original goal that Candy Lightner left in 1985 and has since criticized her creation for its decidedly prohibitionist ramblings.

After the constitutionality of the 1984 NMDAA was upheld, all states capitulated, and despite inital objections from people and organizations such as President Ronald Reagan and the Conservative Party of New York, as happens far too often the fight for the protection of an oppressed minority was relegated to a footnote, an afterthought, and is no longer considered worth pursuing by nearly all groups with the power to do something.

Here is some general information on the history and impact of the NMDAA84, as well as an insightful look into the situation by a former university president.

Dr. John McCardell wrote:

The 21-year-old drinking age is bad social policy and terrible law.

Last edited by Daniel (2007-08-09 4:58 pm)

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Daniel wrote:

So it's important to note that the drinking age was not always 21, and was only made so as a result of MADD making a pointed shift towards neo-prohibitionism so contrary to its original goal that Candy Lightner left in 1985 and has since criticized her creation for its decidedly prohibitionist ramblings.

No one ever claimed that the drinking age wasn't always 21, I myself was able to drink legally when I was 19.  Big deal, that's not the law now.

And I object to your use of the word "prohibitionist."  To prohibit something is to ban its possession and use altogether, the drinking age law limits the use of alcohol to people over the age of 21, it's not the same thing at all.

Thanks for the history lesson, but again, if you want the law changed, then change it.  It's not written in stone.

Dan is actually correct, in the same way PETA's ultimate goal is the elimination of domesticated animals, MADD's  goal is prohibition and both groups employ a rather effective baby steps approach.

Aqua OS X wrote:

My thoughts... it keeps kids out of bars and concerts that I go to. smurf them. I don't want to hang out with them. Most drunk 21 year olds are annoying enough. I'd shoot myself if I had to deal with a bunch of drunk 18 year olds.

Get a fake ID, buy booze for your friends, and party in a Holiday Inn or your dorm. Moreover, by the time you're in your mid 20's you'll agree with me and understand why that law is great.

Possession of a fake ID is a 3rd degree felony in the state of Florida.

But thank you for your massively elitist post that didn't address the topic of discussion at all, and made rampant assumptions about people's character and circumstances.

And thanks (without the sarcasm) to whichever mod split this off into its own thread.

Last edited by Daniel (2007-08-09 7:54 pm)

Daniel wrote:

But thank you for your massively elitist post that didn't address the topic of discussion at all, and made rampant assumptions about people's character and circumstances.

Well check back with us in a few years and let us know what you think then.

Daniel wrote:

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Daniel wrote:

So it's important to note that the drinking age was not always 21, and was only made so as a result of MADD making a pointed shift towards neo-prohibitionism so contrary to its original goal that Candy Lightner left in 1985 and has since criticized her creation for its decidedly prohibitionist ramblings.

No one ever claimed that the drinking age wasn't always 21, I myself was able to drink legally when I was 19.  Big deal, that's not the law now.

And I object to your use of the word "prohibitionist."  To prohibit something is to ban its possession and use altogether, the drinking age law limits the use of alcohol to people over the age of 21, it's not the same thing at all.

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse here just to aggravate me, or even after my really long explication on the issue you still don't understand what I'm going on about.  The fact that you went on to raise an (invalid) semantic issue leads me to believe it's the former.

I'll spell it out as succinctly as possible:  If you don't like the law, get it changed.

And I'm done with you.

Daniel wrote:

But thank you for your massively elitist post that didn't address the topic of discussion at all, and made rampant assumptions about people's character and circumstances.

Umm no. Being around a bunch of drunk 18 year old kids is annoying. Saying that is not elitist, it's simply sane.

Now if you'll excuse me, my chauffeur must take me to pick-up my new monocle lanyard from the local haberdasher.

davic3 wrote:

I agree, if the law is that offensive and unconstitutional then instead of complaining about it here get out and do something. Organize get it on the ballot have these unjust laws repealed. If you need cash talk to Budwiser, Jack Daniel's, Miller or any of the dozens of other alcohol companies to sponsor you. Otherwise you simply sound like an whinny underage kid who is simply pissed that he can't drink and is looking for any way to justify that anger

It's a little arrogant for you to make assumptions about what I have and have not done outside this forum, no?

You have no right to call anyone else arrogant!

You've certainly given us no cause to think that you've done anything constructive about this.  Basically you've given me the impression that you are a whiner who would rather bitch than act in a positive manner (and stiffing some poor slob behind a bar who's just doing his job is NOT positive -- hey, I hate toll roads, but I don't flip off the guy in the booth).

Oh, that's right, I'm done with you.

Last edited by Pithecanthropus (2007-08-10 9:05 am)