Government Interference
Do you believe the Government has the right to tell a person not to smoke or drink at a certain age etc..do you believe that makes room for tyranny to develop?
Does legislating a free people's ability to choose and how to behave, erode individual freedoms and rights?
The government has no right to limit smoking to a certain age, but drinking is another story, alchohol is dangerous to other people while smoking is not, smoking is only harmful to the individual, and becase of that smoking should not have an age limit, but drinking should.
Yes it erodes individual freedoms, but if they allowed it that would take away from others rights to live safely.
I honestly don't believe in the government having all of this control over it's people, but it is the power that we the people have given them, and to do their job proporly alchohol needs to be limited, actually if they were really doing their job they would bring back prohinbition.
Once again I don't like that they have the power to do that, but those are the actions that they should take, since it's the jobs that we have given them
does "Second hand smoke" ring a bell?
should they have the right? no, but then, people should be able to understand their own limits and understand what's harmful for them to do.
that's true I forgot about that, ok then just add that to the responsibility list of the government
I agree agree that people should understand, but we have given the government the power to tell us what to do, it is something that should be changed, but until then their job is to be everyones parent
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoetryWrittenInGasoline [/i]
[B]I agree agree that people should understand, but we have given the government the power to tell us what to do, it is something that should be changed, but until then their job is to be everyones parent [/B][/QUOTE]
pretty much. that's what governments are for. no matter where you go.
so what are we disagreeing about?
disagreeing?
nah, discussing. i actually agree with you, never thought of it, but why would the government restrict that? sounds like i've got some research to do...
ok, i dig a little digging on why a legal age was enacted for purchasing and using tobacco.
the best info i got was off of [url=http://www.rjrt.com/TI/TIminAge.asp]RJ Reynolds site[/url], a little excerpt:
In 1992, Congress directed the states to establish 18 as the minimum legal age for purchasing cigarettes, and each state has complied with that directive. It is illegal to sell cigarettes to underage persons in every U.S. state. (In all states except Alabama, Alaska and Utah, the legal age to purchase cigarettes is age 18. It is age 19 in those three states.)
Reynolds Tobacco agrees that 18 is the appropriate legal age for the purchase and possession of cigarettes, and supports enforcement and meaningful penalties for underage violations. Minors should not smoke, not only because it is illegal to sell cigarettes to underage persons in every state, but also [b]because they lack the maturity of judgment to assess the inherent health risks of smoking. [/b]
Age 18 has long been recognized as the appropriate "age of majority" for a broad range of activities, including marriage, military service and contractual obligations such as buying or selling property.
When it proposed tobacco regulations in 1996, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cited 18 as the appropriate minimum age for purchasing cigarettes, saying it was [b]"the age at which, by law, a person is capable of being legally responsible for all his or her acts."[/b]
so their arguments for enacting a minimum age i bolded in the above quote.
i pretty much agree with their sentiment there, only because i agree with the thought that if they're not old enough to be legally responsible for their lives financially, or otherwise, minors shouldn't be held responsible for maintaining their best interest for the long run. it's confusing, but makes a little sense, it's not so much control as it is about legal issues.
as for alcohol, that one isn't as easily rationalized at a minimum age of 21, because it doesn't fit in with the legal aspects of being a minor versus being an adult. apparently it was a combination of public choice and transportation costs[url=http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/3566-3640.html](from the AMA-American Medical Association)[/url]:
With evidence that a lower drinking age resulted in more traffic injuries and fatalities among youth, citizen advocacy groups pressured states to restore the MLDA to 21. Because of such advocacy campaigns, 16 states increased their MLDAs between September 1976 and January 1983. Resistance from other states, and concern that minors would travel across state lines to purchase and consume alcohol, prompted the federal government in 1984 to enact the Uniform Drinking Age Act, which mandated reduced federal transportation funds to those states that did not raise the MLDA to 21.
again, i can see why it went back up to 21. but why enact it in the first place probably follows along with the legal aspects raised with the minimum age for tobacco.
If we let drunks go kill themselves long enough, in a few decades there won't be any left.
..or something..
No, seriously though, I think that the government should regulate these things because it's the easiest way to deal with all of the repercussions of minors hurting themselves doing it (i.e. lots of drunk-driving accidents drives up the costs of federal health care etc.)
There are several other instances when it seems like a good idea for the government to step in and make judgements on behalf of the people, (i.e. letting folks know which toys are poisonous to toddlers, keeping cancer-causing painkillers out of the neighborhood pharmacy, assuring that spoiled meat isn't sold at the local deli).
However, I don't like the idea of the government stepping in and trying to do parents' jobs for them. (i.e. telling kids not to smoke on TV, spending tons of money on federally funded sex ed, anti-drug, and traffic-safety-for-kids programs.)
If parents are too stupid, or too apathetic to teach their kids basic facts about not dying in everyday life...they deserve to deal with the potential consequences.
Thanks for listening.
"Do you have 846 pounds of zinc? I don't!" -- The Laz.
"I was almost Six On Tha Dot. What a mistake that would have been." -- Six On The Dot
agreed, the government isn't, and shouldn't, be doing this as a alternative to attentive parenting.
rather they're doing it because of legal issues, and in the case of the MLDA, because that's what the majority was pushing for in addition to tax and transportation costs.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PoetryWrittenInGasoline [/i]
[B]The government has no right to limit smoking to a certain age, but drinking is another story, alchohol is dangerous to other people while smoking is not, smoking is only harmful to the individual, and becase of that smoking should not have an age limit, but drinking should.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Shouldnt a person have the "freedom" to choose whats right as well as wrong for themselves?
I was thinking that if maybe there wasnt a law against minors drinking would they drink in the amount that they do?.....i mean would it be as cool if it wasnt illegal...would minors still find the thrill of it....in germany the legal drinking age is 15....maybe it actually helps moderate the minor if the age limit was lowered.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ArcherDylan27 [/i]
[B]Shouldnt a person have the "freedom" to choose whats right as well as wrong for themselves?
I was thinking that if maybe there wasnt a law against minors drinking would they drink in the amount that they do?.....i mean would it be as cool if it wasnt illegal...would minors still find the thrill of it....in germany the legal drinking age is 15....maybe it actually helps moderate the minor if the age limit was lowered. [/B][/QUOTE]
it's a possible argument, but i promise that if they did away with the drinking laws tomorrow, it wouldn't be like it is in europe, because we've had these laws so long, there would be a major upsurgance of minors drinking excessively, because all of the sudden it's allowed. and it's not "cool" just because it's not allowed for minors, it would still have the same image that it always has.
yeah of course transitions like that could cause some major upheaval....but whos really against that?
i am.
do you know how many kids would die because of it? think of all the 16 year old with new licenses driving and drinking because it's "cool", think of all the kids who would end up with alcohol poisining. the law and idea of the law have just been around long enough to make the country nearly dependant on it.
of course i actually care about my surroundings and the safety of people i don't know...
Read the definitions for:
Humor
Rhetorical
dear lord, you do realize your tone doesn't spill over into the letters you type?
you ask a question, i will answer it if i like. you say it's humor, then make it humorous, not a bland statement you can back out on and say "oh, i was just kidding"
yeah things dont travel well throught the internet.
but i think common sense and the understanding of this board and its humor will tell you im not a maniac crazy person who wants to kill off stupid limitless teenagers
these things, you can never tell....
::gives tryp the crazy evil eye::
[img]http://www.farsarotul.org/images/nl9_3f.jpg[/img]
heh, alright, enough of the evil eye.
good discussion though archer.
i don't see the government changing any of their laws on the legal ages of drinking and smoking. the only one i've heard they are trying to change the legal age for is driving. but i think that's the state again...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by aheffel [/i]
[B]However, I don't like the idea of the government stepping in and trying to do parents' jobs for them. (i.e. telling kids not to smoke on TV, spending tons of money on federally funded sex ed, anti-drug, and traffic-safety-for-kids programs.)
If parents are too stupid, or too apathetic to teach their kids basic facts about not dying in everyday life...they deserve to deal with the potential consequences.
Thanks for listening. [/B][/QUOTE]
Does this mean that we should let a child get killed just because the two morons that made him are free to neglect traffic safety regulation? And when I say we, I mean the government. And when I say neglect traffic safety regulation, I mean they are drunk or doped up or just dont care, and after a child is dead, all the consequences they deal with [B]do not make a difference.[/B]
TO DO: Become own hero. Push piano. Survive celebrity.
That line of thinking is no good.
Does it? Yes.
Do I care? Not much.
But yeah, I'm sure it does. It's kind of ridiculous when you think about it - it's just I suppose most people don't. The ages seem 'reasonable' to people, so they don't question the fact that the government is essentially doing the parents' job for them.