What should be done about laws that everyone breaks?

[CJK]

Maybe we should legalize robbery and murder too. After all "everyone" breaks those laws. And clearly people who don't rob and kill now won't do so once it's legalized sine they're not that type of person.

[CJK]

Maybe we should legalize robbery and murder too. After all "everyone" breaks those laws. And clearly people who don't do now won't do so once it's legalized.

Robbery and murder aren't victimless crimes.

Going too fast on the road greatly increases the chance of an accident. Allowing drinking before 21 increases drunk driving accidents substantially. Smoking is bad for one's health. Of course none of these things involve direct victimization but society has deemed that the costs of allowing this clearly outway the benefits, which consist mainly of short-term pleasure.

[CJK]

Maybe we should legalize robbery and murder too. After all "everyone" breaks those laws. And clearly people who don't do now won't do so once it's legalized.

Robbery and murder aren't victimless crimes.

Going too fast on the road greatly increases the chance of an accident. Allowing drinking before 21 increases drunk driving accidents substantially. Smoking is bad for one's health. Of course none of these things involve direct victimization but society has deemed that the costs of allowing this clearly outway the benefits, which consist mainly of short-term pleasure.

Allowing alcohol consumption at all greatly increases the risk of accidents....why draw the line at 21? Why can't we just reinstate prohibition?

And speed limits don't have much effect on accident rates, as evidenced by most other countries that have sensible speed regulations.

Prohibition increased organized crime. Younger people are much more likely to be involved in drunk driving than older people.

If you're talking about on the highway, you're right, but on residential streets... no.

[CJK]

Maybe we should legalize robbery and murder too. After all "everyone" breaks those laws. And clearly people who don't do now won't do so once it's legalized.

Robbery and murder aren't victimless crimes.

Going too fast on the road greatly increases the chance of an accident. Allowing drinking before 21 increases drunk driving accidents substantially. Smoking is bad for one's health. Of course none of these things involve direct victimization but society has deemed that the costs of allowing this clearly outway the benefits, which consist mainly of short-term pleasure.

Allowing alcohol consumption at all greatly increases the risk of accidents....why draw the line at 21? Why can't we just reinstate prohibition?

And speed limits don't have much effect on accident rates, as evidenced by most other countries that have sensible speed regulations.

Prohibition increased organized crime. Younger people are much more likely to be involved in drunk driving than older people.

If you're talking about on the highway, you're right, but on residential streets... no.

You're certainly right about prohibition, but why should 21 be the limit? Why does every other country manage with a lower limit? And you know perfectly well that very few under 21s (like me when I'm in the U.S.) actually refrain from drinking. Why should a legal adult that can drive, vote, work, sign a contract, own a gun, and fight for his country not be able to have a beer legally?

I accept 18 as a sensible age for being able to purchase alcoholic beverages, as it would then be directly tied to the age of majority.

It's true 21 is a rather arbitrary number. But if anything it should be raised, not lowered.

Comparing drinking beer to driving, voting, working, and military service just degrades the latter. No one needs to drink beer, we do need transportation, responsive government, income, and national defense.

[CJK]

Speed limits haven't been increased in 30+ years while vehicle safety has increased exponentially during that same period. A speed limit of 75mph for sealed two-lane highways under normal driving conditions is perfectly safe. It's pretty funny that we rely on thirty year old laws to determine what speed is "too fast" rather than science.

But we are not just talking about highways. We're talking about the speed limit in general.

Allowing underage drinking does not increase DUI rates. People driving while intoxicated increases DUI rates. Just because someone is drinking underage does not mean they are going to drive more often than those 21+. Seeing that, there is no reason to deny alcohol to under 21s just because of that.

Of course, but enabling it further will worsen the situation. "Just because you have a bazooka doesn't mean you're going to harm people with it."

Smoking pot is bad for you, yes. But so is drinking, smoking cigarettes, and eating unhealthy food. None of that is universally banned.

I'm not familiar with the reason that pot is considered worse than alcohol. But most people think the pot ban should be maintained because the benefits outway the costs. If we legalize it should be because there's a new public consensus, not because "everyone breaks" the law.

Please stop acting like a sheep.

The smart sheep were the ones in the herd that stuck together. The dumb sheep were the ones who strayed off the path because they though it was hip and cool--only to be eaten by the wolf.

[CJK]

I don't like the state telling me what is necessary or unnecessary. Perhaps you do.

I don't need the state to tell me either. Anyone with common sense should know.

[CJK]

Common sense doesn't appear to be your strength.

Says the guy who apparently thinks drinking a beer is as important as driving, voting, and working.

I won't respond to any more of your posts if your purpose is just to insult me.

[CJK]

Common sense doesn't appear to be your strength.

Says the guy who apparently thinks drinking a beer is as important as driving, voting, and working.

I won't respond to any more of your posts if your purpose is just to insult me.

lol, that's an easy way out, isn't it?

I never stated that drinking beer is as "important" as the things you mentioned. I simply stated that prohibition for people under 21 is illogical, and doesn't really have any positive effects. The U.S. is the one of the only countries to have a drinking age higher than the age of majority. Many European countries' drinking ages are lower than 18.

I don't consider something to be right just because it's the current law, as you appear to think.

It's well documented that it has saved lives. But that's not the point. The point is that most people support it because they believe that less young people drinking is preferable to more accidents. If you want to overturn it you need public opinion on your side. It shouldn't be overturned just because "everyone breaks it".

[CJK]

Common sense doesn't appear to be your strength.

Says the guy who apparently thinks drinking a beer is as important as driving, voting, and working.

I won't respond to any more of your posts if your purpose is just to insult me.

lol, that's an easy way out, isn't it?

I never stated that drinking beer is as "important" as the things you mentioned. I simply stated that prohibition for people under 21 is illogical, and doesn't really have any positive effects. The U.S. is the one of the only countries to have a drinking age higher than the age of majority. Many European countries' drinking ages are lower than 18.

I don't consider something to be right just because it's the current law, as you appear to think.

It's well documented that it has saved lives. But that's not the point. The point is that most people support it because they believe that less young people drinking is preferable to more accidents. If you want to overturn it you need public opinion on your side. It shouldn't be overturned just because "everyone breaks it".

You're going around in circles here. You're seriously using public opinion as an argument? That's pretty dangerous in my opinion, to claim that something is correct simply because most people think it's correct.

I don't believe that the drinking age has very much to do with accident rates. As previously stated, other countries manage....or are you saying that Americans simply can't drive?

I think we are getting sidetracked. All I'm trying to say is that if you want to lower the drinking age you should present a valid reason for doing so and not just because "everyone breaks it" or even the "I can do x,y,z too" canard. The reason we have this law is because the perceived benefit is greater than the perceived cost. The only reason to scrap it would be if the costs are demonstrated to exceed the benefits. (Which isn't too convincing http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/health/research/08safe.html?scp=6&sq=drinking+age+deaths&st=nyt)