Drinking Age

**pritch** · 8th November 2006, 09:38

Originally Posted by WarlockNZ

Here's a point .. if you fight for your country .. you are legally allowed to buy and drink alcohol (on base), funny how no one ever mentions that huh ??

I've heard that a lot most recently from a politician last night.
Basically it's bollocks.

Kiwis fighting for their country at 18 would be rare. Nineteen was the minimum age at which the Army sent people away and most were 21 plus.

The navy might have sent children away on ships, but other than the contretemps off the River Plate there are very few instances where the Navy could be said to have been actually fighting.

**James Deuce** · 8th November 2006, 10:02

Originally Posted by pritch008

The navy might have sent children away on ships, but other than the contretemps off the River Plate there are very few instances where the Navy could be said to have been actually fighting.

That's not true at all, and the Achilles was only seconded to the RNZN. It had a mostly Brit crew at the time of the River Plate.

My grandfather was RN in WWII and RNZN in Korea. How many Commonwealth frigates with 2x4.7in guns took on multiple shore batteries of 16in guns from 200 yds? 1. An RNZN one. It won.

**Bartman10** · 8th November 2006, 12:22

My question:

What is wrong with getting pissed and doing stupid stuff?

All these anti drinking things say 'drinking is bad', apart from drink driving and wiping out entire families, which has fallen dramatically in the last 20 years anyway, I can't really see what the problem is.

I used to like getting pissed and acting like an idiot when I was 16. I still enjoy it now at 29. My boss still enjoys it at 42. I don't see what the problem is.

Sure a few people will die and suffer ill health as a result.

Some other people die sniffing LPG and lighting a fag.

Other people get hit on their motorbikes by fucktards in 4X4's

Other people have heart attacks while playing social hockey.

More than 6 billion people WILL die in the next 100 years which is 164,384 people PER DAY (which is about 50 x the number that Hitler killed on average per day!) an there ain't nothing you can do about it. Tinkering with the drinking age won't even register as a statistical blip.

Time to get pissed!

**scumdog** · 8th November 2006, 16:31

Originally Posted by Bartman10

My question:

What is wrong with getting pissed and doing stupid stuff?

Sure a few people will die and suffer ill health as a result.

Time to get pissed!

But what about the people that the drunks stab/rape/run over/beat with lumps of wood - not to speak of the property they vandalise etc - all stuff that wouldn't happen if the drunks were sober.

Young drunks are worse than old drunks, more impulsive, more quick to violence.

**James Deuce** · 8th November 2006, 16:44

Aargh Scumdag. That argument is based in fact and frontline experience and much respect for that. However we're not ALL like that. That argument is used by all sorts of politicians and is garnered from people working in hospitals, the Police, Firemen, Ambos, Prison workers, and Pub workers. In other words the people that are in more frequent contact with the losers and drop kicks in the world. What about the rest of us whose worst crime is yelling that wife sometimes, or forgetting to pay for a bottle of milk while rounding up rowdy kids? We're not all like that. Why do the "silent" majority have to bear the brunt of the punishment? We're the people who obey these laws. Not the drongos that you're pointing out.

There are also people who do stuff like that sober and spend five minutes in prision and then get out to do it again in a couple of years.

**Ixion** · 8th November 2006, 17:28

That is a good point . It is argued that there must be restrictions on all because of the stupid or antisocial actions of a minority.

But, how many of those minority actions would occur without alcohol at all? I suspect many of them would. The losers and bashers and psychopaths don't need alcohol to be violent and nasty or stupid. Odds are that when they do do such things they will be "under the influence". But that's not what causes the nastiness. They're just nasty people. Sober, they're nasty sober people, drunk they're nasty drunk people.

And, once again, we see laws passed because of actions by people who don't obey laws anyway. So they will only affect the lawabiding who were not the reason for the original justification

**Grahameeboy** · 8th November 2006, 17:37

Originally Posted by Jim2

Aargh Scumdag. That argument is based in fact and frontline experience and much respect for that. However we're not ALL like that. That argument is used by all sorts of politicians and is garnered from people working in hospitals, the Police, Firemen, Ambos, Prison workers, and Pub workers. In other words the people that are in more frequent contact with the losers and drop kicks in the world. What about the rest of us whose worst crime is yelling that wife sometimes, or forgetting to pay for a bottle of milk while rounding up rowdy kids? We're not all like that. Why do the "silent" majority have to bear the brunt of the punishment? We're the people who obey these laws. Not the drongos that you're pointing out.

There are also people who do stuff like that sober and spend five minutes in prision and then get out to do it again in a couple of years.

Yep need I mention that 30% of accidents are caused by drunks and 70% are caused by sober people!!!!

**Lou Girardin** · 8th November 2006, 17:54

The old, "join the army at 18" argument doesn't wash. If every teenager was subject to army discipline, you could let them drink at 16.
The fact is that they had their chance and blew it, as teens always do.

**scumdog** · 8th November 2006, 17:57

Jim2, Ixion, Grahameboy, see my comment on post#36 re this sort of stuff.
Your whole life is penalised by laws catering for the lowest common denominator - the fuckwit who is generally a minority.

Us 'sensible' majority pay for it by speed limits, 250cc limits. gun laws, breath alcohol levels, eta al.

Why should the legal age of alcohol possesion etc be any different???

**James Deuce** · 8th November 2006, 19:06

Because we need to start putting our foot down before we're not allowed to go outside any more. Our freedom within the scope of the society we've created out of religious conflict and global empire is in danger of being removed because of a society becoming stale and decadent, one that has turned so far in on itself that it is in danger of turning inside out.

We need to remind those that govern us that they are our servants, not we theirs.

It's just alcohol. If you abuse it you're a dickhead, but how do teenagers become adults? By being dickheads. Their mistakes give them the chance to become parents who teach their kids how to deal with the mistakes they will make. Instead we try to remove all personal responsibility in helping teenagers learn from their dickhead mistakes by legislating every aspect of their life, but we now have a society that threatens and blusters with no consequences, and parents are excluded from the process both by law and at the dickhead's, errr, teenager's request.

All I want is the right to make mistakes and learn from them. If I hurt people making mistakes I deserve the punishment society metes out, and if I'm equipped with one, the conscience to evaluate the consequences of my actions. I'm tired of being punished every time 3 people out of 4 million make a bigger dickhead of themselves than usual, probably just once too, and then I have to accept that people I respect have to enforce a law of dubious moral and ethical foundation.

**Ixion** · 8th November 2006, 19:57

Originally Posted by scumdog

Jim2, Ixion, Grahameboy, see my comment on post#36 re this sort of stuff.
Your whole life is penalised by laws catering for the lowest common denominator - the fuckwit who is generally a minority.

Us 'sensible' majority pay for it by speed limits, 250cc limits. gun laws, breath alcohol levels, eta al.

Why should the legal age of alcohol possesion etc be any different???

Because a bad law about one thing should not be used as justification for more bad laws about other things.

**Hitcher** · 8th November 2006, 19:59

Have "They" voted yet?

**scumdog** · 8th November 2006, 20:00

I'm sure the drunk businessman in Christchurch that was fatally bashed over the head by drunk teenagers aged about 17yrs a couple of monthe ago will be feeling the same sentiments as you guys.

Alcohol? If none remained on this earth I would be a happier man - even though I like the stuff myself.

**WarlockNZ** · 8th November 2006, 20:01

Originally Posted by pritch008

I've heard that a lot most recently from a politician last night.
Basically it's bollocks.

Kiwis fighting for their country at 18 would be rare. Nineteen was the minimum age at which the Army sent people away and most were 21 plus.

You just have to be in the armed forces .. you don't have to be on combat duty.