The Imperial Dominion of the South's Legislature

[Associate Justice PiT]

     On the Creation of a Budget and Tax Committee Act: by the powers vested in me as Emperor of this region, I thus sign it into law.

     Be it resolved, X Emperor PiT

[Dancing with Myself]

Following a request of our Emperor, I am going to introduce the following bill:


Freedom to Consume Alcohol in Public Bill

1) Possession of open containers of alcohol, the consumption of alcohol, and public intoxication by persons eighteen years of age or older in public open space and when riding on public transportation shall no longer be prohibited. All laws prohibiting the above are hereby repealed.

2) This act shall not be construed to allow possession of open containers of alcohol, the consumption of alcohol, or public intoxication in public buildings or in private vehicles. 

[Associate Justice PiT]

     While I don't expect that the bill will be passed in its current form, perhaps we could pass a scaled back version? I don't see any particular need for a prohibition on possessing an open container of alcohol in public, at the least.

[Yelnoc]

As it is, nay.  I would consider voting for it if it was amended thusly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a side note, do we have any laws on alcohol, public intoxication, or the like?  I could not find anything in the wiki but that doesn't mean much.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     That reminds me, the age in the text should probably be amended to eighteen since that is the legal drinking age in the region.

[Yelnoc]

     That reminds me, the age in the text should probably be amended to eighteen since that is the legal drinking age in the region.

It was eighteen but I changed it to twenty-one because letting high school get sh**tfaced probably isn't the best idea.

Freedom to Consume Alcohol in Public Bill

1) Possession of open containers of alcohol and the consumption of alcohol by persons twenty-one years of age or older in public open space shall no longer be prohibited. All laws prohibiting the above are hereby repealed.

2) This act shall not be construed to allow possession of open containers of alcohol, the consumption of alcohol, or public intoxication in public buildings or in private vehicles.

3) This act changes the legal drinking age in the Imperial Dominion of the South from 18 to 21 as stated in section 1.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am not opposed to some restrictions on people between the ages of 18-21 consuming alcohol, though I do take issue with banning it outright.

[Yelnoc]

     I am not opposed to some restrictions on people between the ages of 18-21 consuming alcohol, though I do take issue with banning it outright.

It would just ban alcohol consumption for people ages 18-20.  That's seniors in High School and the first two (or three) years of college.  Noting that college students tend to binge drink, even when compared to people only just a few years older, I would say 21 is perfectly reasonable.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am not opposed to some restrictions on people between the ages of 18-21 consuming alcohol, though I do take issue with banning it outright.

It would just ban alcohol consumption for people ages 18-20.  That's seniors in High School and the first two (or three) years of college.  Noting that college students tend to binge drink, even when compared to people only just a few years older, I would say 21 is perfectly reasonable.

     Not really. It's based on the supposition that proscribing alcohol consumption would lead to a decrease thereof, which is far from clear given the combination of the taboo factor increasing demand for alcohol among persons under the age of 21 & the ability of persons over the age of 21 to legally purchase alcohol.

     To put it into perspective, I saw a study that claimed that 5/6ths of high school students knew places where they could purchase marijuana. When you consider that alcohol enjoys a status of greater legality than marijuana, it seems highly dubious to me to suggest that the drinking age actually reduces alcohol consumption amongst youths.

[Yelnoc]

     I am not opposed to some restrictions on people between the ages of 18-21 consuming alcohol, though I do take issue with banning it outright.

It would just ban alcohol consumption for people ages 18-20.  That's seniors in High School and the first two (or three) years of college.  Noting that college students tend to binge drink, even when compared to people only just a few years older, I would say 21 is perfectly reasonable.

     Not really. It's based on the supposition that proscribing alcohol consumption would lead to a decrease thereof, which is far from clear given the combination of the taboo factor increasing demand for alcohol among persons under the age of 21 & the ability of persons over the age of 21 to legally purchase alcohol.

     To put it into perspective, I saw a study that claimed that 5/6ths of high school students knew places where they could purchase marijuana. When you consider that alcohol enjoys a status of greater legality than marijuana, it seems highly dubious to me to suggest that the drinking age actually reduces alcohol consumption amongst youths.

Marijuana and Alcohol are two different subjects.  To take Marijuana first, most high school kids know a dealer.  That one loser who carries around pot in his bag and sells it for a quick buck at lunch under the table.  The reason that it such a common situation is the massive flow of illegal drugs northward from Central and South America. 

Alcohol, on the other hand, is a "made in America" substance, with all of the regulation and legal restriction that implies.  The laws against selling alcohol to minors is much more strictly enforced then marijuana control laws because the people who sell alcohol run a legitimate business and cannot afford to break the law in such a manner.  Of course, some kids raid their parents' refrigerators or go to parties with older kids or do something else to get it. 

These are the kids can generally be broken into two categories.  The first either want to be rebellious and get drunk with their friends; the second have deep emotional problems that they try to drink away.  Lower the drinking age will prompt the first to move onto harder drugs and only hurt the second by making cheap booze more readily available.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am not opposed to some restrictions on people between the ages of 18-21 consuming alcohol, though I do take issue with banning it outright.

It would just ban alcohol consumption for people ages 18-20.  That's seniors in High School and the first two (or three) years of college.  Noting that college students tend to binge drink, even when compared to people only just a few years older, I would say 21 is perfectly reasonable.

     Not really. It's based on the supposition that proscribing alcohol consumption would lead to a decrease thereof, which is far from clear given the combination of the taboo factor increasing demand for alcohol among persons under the age of 21 & the ability of persons over the age of 21 to legally purchase alcohol.

     To put it into perspective, I saw a study that claimed that 5/6ths of high school students knew places where they could purchase marijuana. When you consider that alcohol enjoys a status of greater legality than marijuana, it seems highly dubious to me to suggest that the drinking age actually reduces alcohol consumption amongst youths.

Marijuana and Alcohol are two different subjects.  To take Marijuana first, most high school kids know a dealer.  That one loser who carries around pot in his bag and sells it for a quick buck at lunch under the table.  The reason that it such a common situation is the massive flow of illegal drugs northward from Central and South America. 

Alcohol, on the other hand, is a "made in America" substance, with all of the regulation and legal restriction that implies.  The laws against selling alcohol to minors is much more strictly enforced then marijuana control laws because the people who sell alcohol run a legitimate business and cannot afford to break the law in such a manner.  Of course, some kids raid their parents' refrigerators or go to parties with older kids or do something else to get it. 

These are the kids can generally be broken into two categories.  The first either want to be rebellious and get drunk with their friends; the second have deep emotional problems that they try to drink away.  Lower the drinking age will prompt the first to move onto harder drugs and only hurt the second by making cheap booze more readily available.

     Given that the kids who want alcohol seem to be able to get it, I'd suggest that getting it from older kids is typically not a problem.

     The issue is, kids who go to parties & binge drink often do so because it is illegal (the taboo factor), & they move on to harder drugs because those are illegal too. I don't see that as being a big problem for us, since almost all drugs have been decriminalized in the region. Those kids would have to move on to the hardest drugs, such as Meth & Heroin, which would be quite difficult for them to obtain.

     While I see no real couterpoint to your example of people drinking due to emotional problems, I am not sure how big of an impact a difference of three years would have on them, especially considering that 18 has been the status quo in the region for some time now. It seems more to me like an argument for outlawing alcohol altogether, which didn't really work the last time it was attempted.

[Yelnoc]

     I am not opposed to some restrictions on people between the ages of 18-21 consuming alcohol, though I do take issue with banning it outright.

It would just ban alcohol consumption for people ages 18-20.  That's seniors in High School and the first two (or three) years of college.  Noting that college students tend to binge drink, even when compared to people only just a few years older, I would say 21 is perfectly reasonable.

     Not really. It's based on the supposition that proscribing alcohol consumption would lead to a decrease thereof, which is far from clear given the combination of the taboo factor increasing demand for alcohol among persons under the age of 21 & the ability of persons over the age of 21 to legally purchase alcohol.

     To put it into perspective, I saw a study that claimed that 5/6ths of high school students knew places where they could purchase marijuana. When you consider that alcohol enjoys a status of greater legality than marijuana, it seems highly dubious to me to suggest that the drinking age actually reduces alcohol consumption amongst youths.

Marijuana and Alcohol are two different subjects.  To take Marijuana first, most high school kids know a dealer.  That one loser who carries around pot in his bag and sells it for a quick buck at lunch under the table.  The reason that it such a common situation is the massive flow of illegal drugs northward from Central and South America. 

Alcohol, on the other hand, is a "made in America" substance, with all of the regulation and legal restriction that implies.  The laws against selling alcohol to minors is much more strictly enforced then marijuana control laws because the people who sell alcohol run a legitimate business and cannot afford to break the law in such a manner.  Of course, some kids raid their parents' refrigerators or go to parties with older kids or do something else to get it. 

These are the kids can generally be broken into two categories.  The first either want to be rebellious and get drunk with their friends; the second have deep emotional problems that they try to drink away.  Lower the drinking age will prompt the first to move onto harder drugs and only hurt the second by making cheap booze more readily available.

     Given that the kids who want alcohol seem to be able to get it, I'd suggest that getting it from older kids is typically not a problem.

Not a problem for them to get it but that doesn't refute any of my arguments.


     

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would argue that binge drinking happens more because there's a lot of alcohol to be had and everyone else is doing it rather than actively thinking about the law (though I'm sure there are exceptions).  Everyone else is doing it because this demographic is still young, either seniors in high school or just out of their parents' house; plain and simple, they're still stupid.  With that said, if alcohol is more difficult for this age group to obtain then there won't be an excess (hopefully none but little is better than) at parties so binging becomes physically impossible.

As to decriminalization, that's unfortunate.  I'll try to fix that after we finish with the budget.

     

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People in the 18-20 range are more emotionally insecure than 21-29.  The first group is leaving or has just left their parents house and is on their own in the world.  Obviously, different people take that differently and everyone is in a different situation but, generally, this is one of the more unstable demographics.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am not opposed to some restrictions on people between the ages of 18-21 consuming alcohol, though I do take issue with banning it outright.

It would just ban alcohol consumption for people ages 18-20.  That's seniors in High School and the first two (or three) years of college.  Noting that college students tend to binge drink, even when compared to people only just a few years older, I would say 21 is perfectly reasonable.

     Not really. It's based on the supposition that proscribing alcohol consumption would lead to a decrease thereof, which is far from clear given the combination of the taboo factor increasing demand for alcohol among persons under the age of 21 & the ability of persons over the age of 21 to legally purchase alcohol.

     To put it into perspective, I saw a study that claimed that 5/6ths of high school students knew places where they could purchase marijuana. When you consider that alcohol enjoys a status of greater legality than marijuana, it seems highly dubious to me to suggest that the drinking age actually reduces alcohol consumption amongst youths.

Marijuana and Alcohol are two different subjects.  To take Marijuana first, most high school kids know a dealer.  That one loser who carries around pot in his bag and sells it for a quick buck at lunch under the table.  The reason that it such a common situation is the massive flow of illegal drugs northward from Central and South America. 

Alcohol, on the other hand, is a "made in America" substance, with all of the regulation and legal restriction that implies.  The laws against selling alcohol to minors is much more strictly enforced then marijuana control laws because the people who sell alcohol run a legitimate business and cannot afford to break the law in such a manner.  Of course, some kids raid their parents' refrigerators or go to parties with older kids or do something else to get it. 

These are the kids can generally be broken into two categories.  The first either want to be rebellious and get drunk with their friends; the second have deep emotional problems that they try to drink away.  Lower the drinking age will prompt the first to move onto harder drugs and only hurt the second by making cheap booze more readily available.

     Given that the kids who want alcohol seem to be able to get it, I'd suggest that getting it from older kids is typically not a problem.

Not a problem for them to get it but that doesn't refute any of my arguments.

     My point of saying that it was not a problem for them to get alcohol was to suggest that having a drinking age of 21 has failed miserably at actually keeping alcohol out of their hands. I take issue with a law that works sub-optimally at achieving its ends.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would argue that binge drinking happens more because there's a lot of alcohol to be had and everyone else is doing it rather than actively thinking about the law (though I'm sure there are exceptions).  Everyone else is doing it because this demographic is still young, either seniors in high school or just out of their parents' house; plain and simple, they're still stupid.  With that said, if alcohol is more difficult for this age group to obtain then there won't be an excess (hopefully none but little is better than) at parties so binging becomes physically impossible.

As to decriminalization, that's unfortunate.  I'll try to fix that after we finish with the budget.
[/quote]

     But people have reasons for doing things that are not entirely explained by mass stupidity & all trends in youth behavior catch on for a reason. The effect of a legal drinking age is that it makes young people feel like drinking indicates maturity (the same is true for tobacco, hence popular culture frequently depicting smoking as cool). If anything, the best course might be to eliminate the drinking age altogether, so that alcohol would lose its mystique of maturity.

     As it happens, I do know that some countries have no legal drinking age. Later, when I have the time, I'll try to look up statistics on them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People in the 18-20 range are more emotionally insecure than 21-29.  The first group is leaving or has just left their parents house and is on their own in the world.  Obviously, different people take that differently and everyone is in a different situation but, generally, this is one of the more unstable demographics.
[/quote]

     It's also a demographic that is highly undersupported. I agree that there are issues there, but I think instituting counseling programs for young adults would be a better reaction to the situation than prohibiting alcohol, since the latter just punishes the ones who don't have adjustment issues by seeking to take away their choice to drink.

[Yelnoc]

     I am not opposed to some restrictions on people between the ages of 18-21 consuming alcohol, though I do take issue with banning it outright.

It would just ban alcohol consumption for people ages 18-20.  That's seniors in High School and the first two (or three) years of college.  Noting that college students tend to binge drink, even when compared to people only just a few years older, I would say 21 is perfectly reasonable.

     Not really. It's based on the supposition that proscribing alcohol consumption would lead to a decrease thereof, which is far from clear given the combination of the taboo factor increasing demand for alcohol among persons under the age of 21 & the ability of persons over the age of 21 to legally purchase alcohol.

     To put it into perspective, I saw a study that claimed that 5/6ths of high school students knew places where they could purchase marijuana. When you consider that alcohol enjoys a status of greater legality than marijuana, it seems highly dubious to me to suggest that the drinking age actually reduces alcohol consumption amongst youths.

Marijuana and Alcohol are two different subjects.  To take Marijuana first, most high school kids know a dealer.  That one loser who carries around pot in his bag and sells it for a quick buck at lunch under the table.  The reason that it such a common situation is the massive flow of illegal drugs northward from Central and South America. 

Alcohol, on the other hand, is a "made in America" substance, with all of the regulation and legal restriction that implies.  The laws against selling alcohol to minors is much more strictly enforced then marijuana control laws because the people who sell alcohol run a legitimate business and cannot afford to break the law in such a manner.  Of course, some kids raid their parents' refrigerators or go to parties with older kids or do something else to get it. 

These are the kids can generally be broken into two categories.  The first either want to be rebellious and get drunk with their friends; the second have deep emotional problems that they try to drink away.  Lower the drinking age will prompt the first to move onto harder drugs and only hurt the second by making cheap booze more readily available.

     Given that the kids who want alcohol seem to be able to get it, I'd suggest that getting it from older kids is typically not a problem.

Not a problem for them to get it but that doesn't refute any of my arguments.

     My point of saying that it was not a problem for them to get alcohol was to suggest that having a drinking age of 21 has failed miserably at actually keeping alcohol out of their hands. I take issue with a law that works sub-optimally at achieving its ends.

I understand what you are saying but, it does do a better job then no law at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would argue that binge drinking happens more because there's a lot of alcohol to be had and everyone else is doing it rather than actively thinking about the law (though I'm sure there are exceptions).  Everyone else is doing it because this demographic is still young, either seniors in high school or just out of their parents' house; plain and simple, they're still stupid.  With that said, if alcohol is more difficult for this age group to obtain then there won't be an excess (hopefully none but little is better than) at parties so binging becomes physically impossible.

As to decriminalization, that's unfortunate.  I'll try to fix that after we finish with the budget.
[/quote]

     But people have reasons for doing things that are not entirely explained by mass stupidity & all trends in youth behavior catch on for a reason. The effect of a legal drinking age is that it makes young people feel like drinking indicates maturity (the same is true for tobacco, hence popular culture frequently depicting smoking as cool). If anything, the best course might be to eliminate the drinking age altogether, so that alcohol would lose its mystique of maturity.

     As it happens, I do know that some countries have no legal drinking age. Later, when I have the time, I'll try to look up statistics on them.[/quote]

I'd say that's just as true as peer pressure.  Drinking responsibly indicates maturity, binging indicate immaturity though I understand what you are saying by the perceptions of young people.  Eliminating a drinking age would work much better if alcohol wasn't so deeply ingrained in human behavior.  That's the perfect solution to a perfect world but in our world, getting rid of the drinking age would cause drinking as an early teen or preteen to becomes socially acceptable.  Imagine how DUI's and alcohol related traffic accidents will skyrockets as this hypothetical group of teens hits the driving age.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People in the 18-20 range are more emotionally insecure than 21-29.  The first group is leaving or has just left their parents house and is on their own in the world.  Obviously, different people take that differently and everyone is in a different situation but, generally, this is one of the more unstable demographics.
[/quote]

     It's also a demographic that is highly undersupported. I agree that there are issues there, but I think instituting counseling programs for young adults would be a better reaction to the situation than prohibiting alcohol, since the latter just punishes the ones who don't have adjustment issues by seeking to take away their choice to drink.
[/quote]

This is a secondary issue to the above in the grand scheme of things.  I agree, counseling programs are great and should be used in conjunction to drinking ages.  However, many of these people who choose to drink away their problems come from families with one or both parents dependent on alcohol.  If stricter drinking laws were in place (drinking age at 21 instead of 18), the parent(s) might have started later, when they were more mature, and thus not become hooked on the bottle.  This leads to a higher socio-economic status and a stable home life for their children to grow up in.  A win-win.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am not opposed to some restrictions on people between the ages of 18-21 consuming alcohol, though I do take issue with banning it outright.

It would just ban alcohol consumption for people ages 18-20.  That's seniors in High School and the first two (or three) years of college.  Noting that college students tend to binge drink, even when compared to people only just a few years older, I would say 21 is perfectly reasonable.

     Not really. It's based on the supposition that proscribing alcohol consumption would lead to a decrease thereof, which is far from clear given the combination of the taboo factor increasing demand for alcohol among persons under the age of 21 & the ability of persons over the age of 21 to legally purchase alcohol.

     To put it into perspective, I saw a study that claimed that 5/6ths of high school students knew places where they could purchase marijuana. When you consider that alcohol enjoys a status of greater legality than marijuana, it seems highly dubious to me to suggest that the drinking age actually reduces alcohol consumption amongst youths.

Marijuana and Alcohol are two different subjects.  To take Marijuana first, most high school kids know a dealer.  That one loser who carries around pot in his bag and sells it for a quick buck at lunch under the table.  The reason that it such a common situation is the massive flow of illegal drugs northward from Central and South America. 

Alcohol, on the other hand, is a "made in America" substance, with all of the regulation and legal restriction that implies.  The laws against selling alcohol to minors is much more strictly enforced then marijuana control laws because the people who sell alcohol run a legitimate business and cannot afford to break the law in such a manner.  Of course, some kids raid their parents' refrigerators or go to parties with older kids or do something else to get it. 

These are the kids can generally be broken into two categories.  The first either want to be rebellious and get drunk with their friends; the second have deep emotional problems that they try to drink away.  Lower the drinking age will prompt the first to move onto harder drugs and only hurt the second by making cheap booze more readily available.

     Given that the kids who want alcohol seem to be able to get it, I'd suggest that getting it from older kids is typically not a problem.

Not a problem for them to get it but that doesn't refute any of my arguments.

     My point of saying that it was not a problem for them to get alcohol was to suggest that having a drinking age of 21 has failed miserably at actually keeping alcohol out of their hands. I take issue with a law that works sub-optimally at achieving its ends.

I understand what you are saying but, it does do a better job then no law at all.

     I don't know about abolishing it altogether myself, but my gut tendency is to err against a higher drinking age unless really substantial detriments can be linked to the lower age.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would argue that binge drinking happens more because there's a lot of alcohol to be had and everyone else is doing it rather than actively thinking about the law (though I'm sure there are exceptions).  Everyone else is doing it because this demographic is still young, either seniors in high school or just out of their parents' house; plain and simple, they're still stupid.  With that said, if alcohol is more difficult for this age group to obtain then there won't be an excess (hopefully none but little is better than) at parties so binging becomes physically impossible.

As to decriminalization, that's unfortunate.  I'll try to fix that after we finish with the budget.
[/quote]

     But people have reasons for doing things that are not entirely explained by mass stupidity & all trends in youth behavior catch on for a reason. The effect of a legal drinking age is that it makes young people feel like drinking indicates maturity (the same is true for tobacco, hence popular culture frequently depicting smoking as cool). If anything, the best course might be to eliminate the drinking age altogether, so that alcohol would lose its mystique of maturity.

     As it happens, I do know that some countries have no legal drinking age. Later, when I have the time, I'll try to look up statistics on them.[/quote]

I'd say that's just as true as peer pressure.  Drinking responsibly indicates maturity, binging indicate immaturity though I understand what you are saying by the perceptions of young people.  Eliminating a drinking age would work much better if alcohol wasn't so deeply ingrained in human behavior.  That's the perfect solution to a perfect world but in our world, getting rid of the drinking age would cause drinking as an early teen or preteen to becomes socially acceptable.  Imagine how DUI's and alcohol related traffic accidents will skyrockets as this hypothetical group of teens hits the driving age.
[/quote]

     It was more of an idea than anything serious. On another note, I found this site suggesting that informing youths would go a long way towards curbing the negative effects of drinking. It covers a few different tacks, so here is the relevant section:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People in the 18-20 range are more emotionally insecure than 21-29.  The first group is leaving or has just left their parents house and is on their own in the world.  Obviously, different people take that differently and everyone is in a different situation but, generally, this is one of the more unstable demographics.
[/quote]

     It's also a demographic that is highly undersupported. I agree that there are issues there, but I think instituting counseling programs for young adults would be a better reaction to the situation than prohibiting alcohol, since the latter just punishes the ones who don't have adjustment issues by seeking to take away their choice to drink.
[/quote]

This is a secondary issue to the above in the grand scheme of things.  I agree, counseling programs are great and should be used in conjunction to drinking ages.  However, many of these people who choose to drink away their problems come from families with one or both parents dependent on alcohol.  If stricter drinking laws were in place (drinking age at 21 instead of 18), the parent(s) might have started later, when they were more mature, and thus not become hooked on the bottle.  This leads to a higher socio-economic status and a stable home life for their children to grow up in.  A win-win.
[/quote]

     I doubt it has much of an impact. As this Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration report bears out, though there is an increase in use that occurs after one's 21st birthday (initial spike aside, it seems to correspond to a 10% rise in drinking in general as well as binge drinking), 86% of people have their first drink before their 21st birthday & 63% before their 18th birthday.

     For people predisposed to alcoholism, there isn't much difference between taking their first drink & getting hooked on the bottle. Delaying the legal drinking age by three years would most likely correspond to a later average age of addiction, but probably by quite a bit less than three years.

[Dancing with Myself]

I agree that the Drinking age should stay at 21, mainly because most people are not fully developed brain wise until they are at/over 21. Not only will lowering the age mess up their development, the addict totals will grow.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     As all the Legislators have spoken, it seems clear to me that this bill will pass with a veto-proof majority. I would like to congratulate you on your victory, Imperial Speaker Yelnoc.

[Dancing with Myself]

Are we going to have a vote on the bill?

[Yelnoc]

     As all the Legislators have spoken, it seems clear to me that this bill will pass with a veto-proof majority. I would like to congratulate you on your victory, Imperial Speaker Yelnoc.

Thank you, Emperor.  The following bill is now up to vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Yelnoc]

Aye.

[Dancing with Myself]

Aye

[Yelnoc]

The vote is closed.

Nay

What the hell?  You say you are going to vote for it and then you vote against it?  With no explanation as to why?!  Why did you bother putting your name on the ballot last month if you were going to behave this way?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I never said I wouldn't, so...

VETO

[Dancing with Myself]

Can I say one more thing...I came here and put my name on the ballot to work for the what I thought were the best interests of the southeast region and Atlasia...just because my votes might be different than the others is not and should not be the problem...

On this specific piece of legislation...you might remember a senate campaign where I attacked the current senator representing our region for wanting to turn the children of the region and Atlasia into drug addicts...it was obviously not the most useful campaign tool, but I got my message across and this vote is a representatoin of that...I support a bill that bans drinking of alchocol until age 28...I believe that 28 is a safe age for people to begin to drink...their minds are certainly more developed by then compared to age 18 or 21...that is why, Mr. Speaker, I voted in the negative on this bill...

You are full of it. You barely mentioned supporting the increase to 28, and you act like you the spokesman for the whole movement.  What's is up with that?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

what is that i don't even...