tax payer wrote on Sep 6, 2008 10:11 AM:
" I can remember years ago there were 18 year old beer bars down town. You could not go into any bar that served liquor until you were 21. The cops didn't hassle everyone for any minor infraction then either. Hell, they'd even give you a ride home if you needed it. Today, this is nothing more than a money maker to see how many people they can arrest, fill the jail to capacity, and put them through the system at a very high cost to everyone. I don't remember anyone "running" to the river after having a few drinks. They all ran to get something to eat before going home. "
machine wrote on Sep 5, 2008 7:52 PM:
" re: please
How many years did you serve? Don't give me that cr#p about how the teenagers in the military are told what to do for their every move, especially when they are overseas in a hostile environment. That may be the case in boot camp, but things get much different after that. If you dont know what you are talking about, please dont post. "
wiseup wrote on Sep 5, 2008 11:14 AM:
" Ask Judge Marcou who is in charge of all the tickets written for underage drinking. He would say, regardless of all the laws, citizens between 18-21 will continue to drink alcohol no matter what the laws or punishment is. His court is clogged with NORMAL, REGULAR, LAW ABIDING, VOTING ADULTS that have been MADE into CRIMINALS over fermented water! The college professors/deans agree too! If you don't like alcohol, that is YOUR problem, DON'T try to control other people's lives! "
BigRed wrote on Sep 4, 2008 11:18 PM:
" I agree that the drinking age needs to be lowered, but if that is to happen other things need to change. I am originally from Trempealeau, but ive been in Melbourne, Australia for college the last 3 years The age down here is 18, but there are many differences. The legal limit is .05, which is a smart thing because the little difference does effect some more. also you are not allowed to drive untill you are 18, that will never change in Lacrosse, but for the first 2 -3 years of being able to drink you must register absolute 0.00 if you drive, and useualyl it is 6-12 months punishment for the first year drinkers. The idea is right the age needs to be lowered, its not stopping anything by being 21 and not lower, but other things will have to come into play before it would be sucesssful "
please wrote on Sep 4, 2008 10:56 PM:
" Re: machine
Many people use the argument you mentioned; "if they are old enough to die for their country..." the difference between drinking and being in the military at the age of 18 is, in the military all of your decisions are made FOR you. You don't get to make your decisions. You do what you are told; when to eat, when to sleep, etc. With drinking comes personal responsibility and the need to make good decisions. I just don't think 18 year olds are ready for that. "
machine wrote on Sep 4, 2008 9:33 PM:
" Hello.
Nobody is saying let drunks go to war. What a way to mince words. The point is.....if you are old enough to die for your country, why are you not old enough to have a beer? I think a fair comprimise is to let those who serve our country younger than the age of 21 should be allowed to drink. Although I believe a similar thought was shot down by the democrats in Wisconsin a couple of years ago. "
theblob wrote on Sep 4, 2008 8:59 PM:
" So we don't have enough problems with 21 year old drunks lets add immature 18, 19, 20 year olds. Sad idea. Any moron who uses the 18 can kill in war but not drink, talk to anyone in military, like who would want a DRUNK next to you in war. They have no trouble overseas drinking, different ages in different country, but go crying about it anyway over and over in blogs. "
theblob wrote on Sep 4, 2008 8:12 PM:
" I read newspapers online all over the area and nation. The tribune is only one that continues to beat this worn out 18 year old drum. It is getting sickening, underage drinking/alcoholic enablers want it and norml people do not. Keep trying to beat it to death tribune. Then you can have more 'news' to report about more drunks ruining this town. The FACTS are clear, underage drunk driving deaths are WAY DOWN since drinking age is 21. What is good reason to lower it again to 18 is there. "
kay27 wrote on Sep 4, 2008 7:38 PM:
" I work at a bra/restaurant that allows minors in until 11pm when food is no longer served. The minors that come in to hank out are the most rude and annoying and I sure as hell wouldn't want to add alcohol into the mix.
How many people in their 30s and 40s want to go to a bar and hang out with 18 year-olds. I know I don't. They may legally be adults, but they behave more like children and aren't responsible enough to be consuming alcohol. "
wisunshine08 wrote on Sep 4, 2008 5:58 PM:
" I think the more kids know about alcohol and the dangers it can cause is a great idea, but unfortunately in my opinion I don't think it will matter to some kids what the drinking age is they are going to do it wether they are of age or not, look in your local court records and see how many underage tickets have been given out, the numbers are insane, the kids need more reality and see what can happen when you drink and drive no matter what the age is. "
jerminator wrote on Sep 4, 2008 5:22 PM:
" 18-20 year olds are going to drink regardless of what the legal drinking age is. believe me, i know. but if they lowered the legal age to 18, then perhaps they would be inclined to go drink at a bar like the rest of the big kids, and at a bar, at least the bartender will cut the person off if they're drunk "
please wrote on Sep 4, 2008 4:07 PM:
" These issues are all about numbers. You have to be 16 to get a driver's license but does that make you a good driver? No. You have to be 18 to smoke or buy lottery tickets but does that mean you are making an informed decision in doing so? No. Regardless, there have to be guidelines. I don't think most 21 year olds are brainful enough to drink (ergo, the binge drinking epidemic) much less 18 year olds, some of which are still in high school. What frightens me MORE is that the same 18 year olds they are contemplating being allowed to drink are going to be VOTING. Yikes. "
formerlax wrote on Sep 4, 2008 2:41 PM:
" I'm against lowering the age; in the last few years we've discovered the brain isn't fully formed until around age 21. The sooner you start to drink heavily, the more likely to get hooked. Also, it will make it too tough on high schools where some are 18 and can supply it to others. We are one of the WORST states when it comes to drinking problems, we need to improve that, not make it worse. "
frmrlaxres wrote on Sep 4, 2008 1:54 PM:
" I am not for or against really as I do not have statistics to compare those under 21 vs those over 21 vs those over 30 etc etc. Not everything is cause and direct effect. However, I have wondered if consideration should be put into having the right to drink when a person has a high school diploma (or GED) in hand, they go to the DMV where it is checked with a database and indicated on their driver's license. To me this would be another reason (though it may not be the best one) to graduate, it keeps legal drinking out of High Schools but still puts it more on the same "responsibilty" level as other things that come with graduation/turing 18. "
P2 wrote on Sep 4, 2008 1:50 PM:
" First--joining the military, getting a drivers license or getting married have nothing to do with this issue at all.
The question raised by the college administrators does not address the real problem which is binge drinking.
I was a college student when the legal age to drink was 18. The same amount of alcohol was consumed, but not all in one night as it is now. It was good for the administrators to raise the issue, now lets get some good studies done as to why young people drink so much during a short amount of time. It's hard to believe that just lowering the drinking age will solve that problem. "
chickensalad wrote on Sep 4, 2008 1:11 PM:
" ok bein able to serve your country and actually being in the military are two different things.. most kids these days are to selfish to consider it. I think if you are in any branch of the U.S. Military you should be able to drink after you have completed your training, because you can when you are off base in a country with a legal age of 18 anyways. But regular college kids shouldn't be able too until 21.. my reason is the military would probably be far more harsh on you than your local gov't will be if you do something stupid "
Myturn wrote on Sep 4, 2008 1:05 PM:
" Hey Mack! I've kept an eye on your posts. Even read your 11:31am post. I'll bet you do not speak from experience regarding the military. Blah, blah, blah. I'll wait for your correction. "
antieverything wrote on Sep 4, 2008 1:05 PM:
" wheredoyougetoff?: are you being funny about the penalties being more strict? In Wisconsin our DUI/DWIs ane not considered a criminal offense. We are the last of a handful of states that dont pass that law. We also lead lead the nation in reoffenders. Did you want to retract that comment? "
wheredoyougetoff? wrote on Sep 4, 2008 12:44 PM:
" Alcohol related deaths have decreased, but not because the age is lower. It is because the drunk driving laws are harsher. As well they should be! Alcoholizm is going to happen, whether you take your first drink at 18 or 35, if you are an alcoholic, you are an alcoholic. My drinking age issue is this: Beside's the military issue. You can be a bartender at 18 years old. You can serve people, you can be liable if those people drive drunk and hurt someone. You can get a fine for serving someone who is underage. You can be held responsible for someone else's drunken behavior, BUT, you cannot be responsible for yourself. That does not make sense. "
telstar_55 wrote on Sep 4, 2008 12:07 PM:
" Another thought, occasionally I have one at this age, it seems as if the the one group of people that are so up in arms about the age of consumption of alcohol a fluid which can ruin many lives in many different directions is also the group of people that have the biggest problem handling it and abusing it. I would think of all the problems in the world whether or not you can have liquor should be the last thing on your mind. "
telstar_55 wrote on Sep 4, 2008 11:54 AM:
" After reading many of the blogs there seems to be a few radical off-the-wall ideas or suggestions of ways to accomplish the problems that surround the use of alcohol. Equally it seems there are those who believe the age that exists is proper and shouldn't be tampered with. I do believe the right to vote has no relevance to weather not to drink nor does serving in the military seeing that's voluntary, although a town hall debate may be a healthy thought for those for and against. "
ACE wrote on Sep 4, 2008 11:53 AM:
" Something you "idiots" don't realize is "alcohol related" accidents and deaths have DECREASED over the past many years. Now take into consideration the population has DOUBLED we can only come to face the fact that less of it is happening. Lower the age, accidents will happen no matter what. "
mac wrote on Sep 4, 2008 11:39 AM:
" Before the age of 21 I was already a Gulf War Veteran, had a wife and a son, and a mortgage on a home. I wouldn't have been hanging out in the bars getting obliterated until the wee hours of the morning nor have I ever driven drunk, but I still wasn't allowed allowed to stop at the corner store for a six pack on my way home on a Friday afternoon or even order a beer at a restaurant on our wedding anniversary. Always seemed wrong to me... "
kbg23 wrote on Sep 4, 2008 11:33 AM:
" Two points that I would like to make:
1. Maybe it's time for parents to step up and take some responsibilty, and for that matter - the KIDS to own up and take responsibilty. You want to drink, do so respsonbily and do not endanger others. This can be taught. I was allowed to have drinks with my parents in highschool, was I allowed to leave the house then or drive? No! And I still don't drive. Make prior arrangments.
2. Please don't lower the drinking age to 18. Dealing with newly turned 21 years olds in a bar is annoying enough! :) "
Mack wrote on Sep 4, 2008 11:31 AM:
" 18 is too young to go to war. The ONLY reason we take them that young is because they have minds like putty, very, very trainable. "
Tracylynn wrote on Sep 4, 2008 10:56 AM:
" Kind of an oxymoron..You can be trusted to drive at 16,go to war for your country and possibly lose your life at 18 not to mention the fact you can be tried as an adult at 16,but you cant drink...
We need to make up our minds its sending these *kids* a message that we dont know when they are truely *adult enough* to drive,drink or give our life for our country!..Pick an age for all of those and leave it at that.We are told as parents pick a punishment and stick with it,thats how kids learn.So GET WITH IT WISCONSIN! "
Sconni Fan wrote on Sep 4, 2008 10:37 AM:
" I think most people here are focusing the negatives of the lowering of the drinking age. It is just as easy for anyone, 18-100, to drink and drive. Educate the youth. You can preach about the negative affects of alcohol all you want, but until they experience a hangover, it doesn't really do much good. I personally think it should be 19. Let the younger people drink in bars with the so called "responsible adults". I also think a great way to cut back on drunks is making bar time midnight or earlier. Most social drinkers won't have a problem with it, and the hardcore drinkers could then just go home and drink in the safety of their own house. Nothing good comes of drinking until 2 am. "
antieverything wrote on Sep 4, 2008 10:27 AM:
" Big Spender. I am curious as to the causes of the remaining 58% of fatalities? Not that I dont find the alcohol deaths disgusting, I have often wondered when we are going to address bad drivers overall? Cell phones, bad training?
As for the 42%...30% are reoffenders. That is blamed on our liberal court system and poor lawmaking. We lower the BAC to .08 and yet they system isnt working. Lowering the drinking age is highly unlike to make a difference. Sadly "
wheredoyougetoff? wrote on Sep 4, 2008 10:17 AM:
" Let's do this...Change the law so that you are not a legal adult until you are 21. Period. You cannot get married, you cannot join the military, you cannot be a bartendar, you cannot be Tried as an adult in court. You have to remain under your parents health insurance. You cannot get a credit card, You cannot have your own place. You cannot buy a lottery ticket. Might as well through in driving. You basically cannot cross the street without your parent until you are 21! We will add a 13th, 14th, 15th, grade to highschools. Because you can't go to college until your 21 either. Done. Problem Solved. "
itisme wrote on Sep 4, 2008 10:16 AM:
" How about this for a solution... Allow kid the choice at 16, drive or drink. They can get a license for either, but not both then at 21 if they have not violated that they can get the other, if they have violated that they have to wait until 25. "
jn wrote on Sep 4, 2008 10:15 AM:
" Sad story. However, it does not say how many over 18 have killed or maimed people. Age does not make a difference..alcohol does and shows no mercy. "
wiseup wrote on Sep 4, 2008 10:08 AM:
" DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DID NEVER WORKS! Discriminating against fellow citizens based on arbitrary age HAS NOT AND WILL NOT WORK! Its all about personal responsibility and choice! Outlawing alcohol NEVER WORKS and the unintended consequences ALWAYS exceed any minimal benefit! Murder is illegal and it does NOT deter some people! "
fishingpro wrote on Sep 4, 2008 10:06 AM:
" Hey nana3
People in Milwaukee already pay $5-6 for a beer and it doesn't stop them. The bars are full all the time.
The only reason I can see is because Milwaukee has alot higher paying jobs then La Crosse. "
Double A wrote on Sep 4, 2008 10:05 AM:
" I believe minors would be empowered to make wiser choices if they were not sanctioned. Parents would need to step up and be authority figures and role models as they are supposed to be. And there'd be a whole lot less sneaking around. Take away the drinking age! "
wiseup wrote on Sep 4, 2008 10:03 AM:
" Wisconsin is the only state with alcohol problems? GET REAL! Alcohol has been around for 10,000 years and everything including capital punishment has been tried with minimal success. We tried prohibition and even the stanchist supporters finally agreed, the problems created far OUTWEIGHTED the minimal positives! In this day and age, the youths can brew or grow their own, the internet alcohol sales thrive and EVERY GOOD CORNER gas station sells more alcohol than the bar next door! "
Ducky wrote on Sep 4, 2008 10:02 AM:
" Seriosly now" do NOT compare the drinking age to serving our country. Drinking is only a very selfish act that takes lifes that could be pervented. Serving our country is one of the most noble acts anyone could do. There is NO comparison "
Ducky wrote on Sep 4, 2008 9:56 AM:
" I will NEVER understand what is so " great" about reaching that awfull age when people think they have the right to do whatever they want. Drinking is nothing but a life altering "kick" and the age should be raised to 25 when thise young kids just "might" be able to make better judgements for themselves. Drinku=ing DOES NOT determine an muture grownup adult. Drinking only takes away ANYONES reasoning and maturity in the fullest compassity. How dumb are these drinkers and COLLLEGE kids wanting to waste thier lives with this awful "activity" There is more to life than that "
wiseup wrote on Sep 4, 2008 9:56 AM:
" Idiots? Why are some of the TOP educated educators pushing for a lowering of the drinking age? They realize prohibition does NOT work, unintended problems occur and law enforcement can't make a dent in illegal drugs let alone a drug available @ every good corner/gas station/Qwik Trip! Some bicyclist was injured in an accident, should we ban all bikes? Making second class citizens only leads to rebels/peer pressure, forcing law abiding citizens to break their first laws, and unsupervised uncontrolled binge drinking in a park/beach/alley! "
nana3 wrote on Sep 4, 2008 9:44 AM:
" Tax alcohol, like tobacco, until no one can afford it, it worked for a lot of smokers. If drinkers had to pay $5-6 for each beer, making the cost of a 12 pack about $60 and a bottle of booze $100+. I bet that would take care of the problem, they would only be able to afford a couple of drinks which is what social drinking should be. That would cut down on drunken driving and young men falling into the river. Just think how nice it would be to get rid of obnoxious drunks. Not only would it save young adults under 21 but so many others who have been innocent victims. "
Seriously Now wrote on Sep 4, 2008 9:30 AM:
" It's hard to defend the age of 21 for drinking when you are allowed to get blown to bits by a roadside bomb at 18.
However, Wisconsin has to get rid of the "Aw...he wuz jus' drinkin'" excuse for the inebriated slobs that fill our streets at all hours.
Harsh penalties. Loss of license, fines, jail. Whatever it takes to keep these slobs from killing more people. Grow up, Wisconsin! "
HOME GIRL wrote on Sep 4, 2008 9:26 AM:
" There is something I fail to understand. Years ago, sacchrine killed a few lab rats and they took it off the market. There have been other chemicals that they have found detrimental to the health of people and have removed them from the market. Alcohol and tobacco have ruined more lives and killed more people than anything else, yet it is widely available. For some reason, that just does not make sense to me. Adults, over 21, are irresponsible with alcohol. What makes us think that ages 18-20 will be any better? Maybe we should just take it off the market totally. Oh, but then, too many people would loose too much money. Aren't too many people loosing their lives? "
TinMan wrote on Sep 4, 2008 9:21 AM:
" People keep referring to 18 year olds as kids. When you turn 18 you have become a legal adult. Mind you I did not say mature. Drop the drinking age to 19, then the attempt to keep it out of high school. Yes kids under 18 will find a way to drink. It's very entertaining when you see that the police busted and under age drinking party and the average age is 20. I'm sorry but that 20 year old is an adult, yes they need to obey the law, but 20 is an adult. "
machine wrote on Sep 4, 2008 9:01 AM:
" re: castafly
Sure I did, I made the point to stop worrying about the drinking age and do something about getting elderly people that can't drive any better than an 8 year old off the road. "
ynnek wrote on Sep 4, 2008 8:49 AM:
" P.s. Teach more in school about drinking problems. Kids are going to drink NO MATTER what the law is. "
Myturn wrote on Sep 4, 2008 8:48 AM:
" We ran from Mpls to Hudson when the drinking age turned to 18 in 1970? Then we weaved back in our cars in great numbers. We just had an Attorney General cited for DWI. We have one of our top enforcement officials 'regularly' in a "watering hole" on South 7th Street. This is nuts!!! Call a person like Linda Wissing and ask a person who works in the booze trenches each and every day. You remember Wissing, the counselor who resigned the Task Force who found out soon it was going to be bulldozed by the Booze Industry in Lacrosse. Get a clue. "
ynnek wrote on Sep 4, 2008 8:47 AM:
" When I was in Japan last year serving my counrty the drinking age was 20. I was over 20 already so it didn't matter to me but I will say that the bar scene was the same as it is here in America. They just have EXTREMELY harsh punishment for drunk driving and alcohol related incidents. Lower the age! If you can drink at 18 you won't be going so crazy at 21. Let them get it out of thier systems early. "
castafly wrote on Sep 4, 2008 8:45 AM:
" RE: machine your probably right but you certainly didn't add anything to the discussion. "
machine wrote on Sep 4, 2008 8:41 AM:
" I have had way more close calls with elderly drivers than drunk drivers. People weaving into my lane or pulling out in front of me because they cant see over the sterring wheel anymore. If you can't handle going 30 mph on losey blvd without having a panic attack, then its time to turn in the license. "
earl wrote on Sep 4, 2008 8:27 AM:
" The problem I have is that when you turn 18 you are officially an adult. You can vote and serve in the military. Why should we have the right to tell them they are unable to drink alcohol? Is it for their own good? Do we have a right to make that decision for them? Then they should not be in the military because going to Iraq is certainly not for their own good. They shouldn't be able to go to all you can eat buffets or fast food restaurants, that's not good for them. The issue of drinking and driving is troubling and is already illegal. If you truly want to curb that then step up enforcement. If we are truly a free society we can not restrict legal activities from legal adults. "
doctor9 wrote on Sep 4, 2008 8:12 AM:
" When the speed limit was 55, a large percentage of drivers were going 65. When the speed limit was raised to 70, those same people started going 80. The same logic applies to the drinking age. Lowering it from 21 to 18 will just encourage people to push the envelope. The "we can die for our country at 18" military age argument is as stupidly random as any I have heard. Why not just swap another legal age in there? "We can get a driver's license at 16, why can't we drink at 16?" See what I mean? Stupid. "
stubby wrote on Sep 4, 2008 8:09 AM:
" Back when I was in school, the drinking age was 18 for beer and 21 for liquor. That seemed to work very well. But at 18 we also didn't need to worry about the driving because most seniors and 1st year graduates didn't have vehicles. Maybe if parents would quit spoiling their kids and make them work and pay for their first vehicles themselves, the drunk driving at an early age anyway wouldn't be such an issue. Most kids now days have better cars then some adults. Parents, get ahold of reality and quit spoiling your kids. You are the ones responsible for teaching your children! "
Blue State Bruce wrote on Sep 4, 2008 8:00 AM:
" Ponder this, Turnkey: Kids would be much less likely to be up on the bluff drinking if we had an 18 or 19 year old drinking age and they were in a local watering hole instead. "
Listener wrote on Sep 4, 2008 7:51 AM:
" The eighteen year old is expected to make decisions on their futures and most do. Choosing an education or occupation field.
Getting married, signing legal documents
buying homes(and bars), serving in the military. The list goes on and on of what's
expected of them.
The legal drinking age was lowered because states were blackmailed by the Reagan admin.
lower the age or NO MONEY FOR HIGHWAYS. "
daddylonglegs wrote on Sep 4, 2008 7:45 AM:
" They already drink at 18 and much younger. Changing the law will just make it so the government will bring in less revenue and will have to focus other places, like robbery, murder, rape, theft, etc... I'd much rather they focus on 19 year olds at house parties on campus. For the record i'm well past drinking age and don't care for alcohol. I'd much rather pop a legal doctor prescribed Xanax :) Follow the money people. "
Eddie wrote on Sep 4, 2008 7:34 AM:
" Lowering the legal drinking age will just increase access to alcohol for more and more people - in this case, younger people. Lower the age to 18, and we will have more and more young and immature people going to bars, having house parties, and getting hammered. Is that what we want? Young people (as well as older people) don't drink alcohol because it's legal or illegal. They do it because they want to get drunk. Lower the legal age, and our problems with drunkenness, drunk driving, and perhaps even drowning deaths, will just get worse. "
mary55 wrote on Sep 4, 2008 7:26 AM:
" Does anyone remember that this was once befor in Wisconsin and it only took a few year's to change it back! "
rfield wrote on Sep 4, 2008 7:01 AM:
" free_speech:
Unfortunately your argument that Wisconsin is the worst in the nation only because of aggressive police tactics holds no water. Reread Big Spender's posting; it is stating traffic fatalities not tickets.
I believe that there are two seperate arguments going on here. Drinking age AND DUI offences. Lower the drinking age to 18? Fine with me, but really we need to change drunk driving rules.
One offense and you get a hefty fine, cannot drive for a year, no occupational license, and say five days in jail so you know what is coming.
Second offense, double the fine, permenant loss of license, and 60 days in jail.
Third offense, life in prison - we don't need you on our roads.
Those are extreme, but I imagine minimum sentences like that would stop drunk driving! "
barbidoll wrote on Sep 4, 2008 6:48 AM:
" i have to say, that while i agree with the fact that if our children are old enough to go to war for their country, they should be old enough to have a beer if so desired.. thats one hand... on the other, im a 34 year old with severe liver problems from alcohol usage over a 10 year period... this is a controversial issue, and im sure many will be torn as to what to make of it.. for myself, i would prefer to teach my children the importance of responsibility and have tem wait til they are old enough to be mature.. "
ahhhhhh wrote on Sep 4, 2008 6:25 AM:
" "Well, 18 works for me, just think then the seniors in high school can drink and go hungover. "
Native wrote on Sep 4, 2008 6:17 AM:
" Last spring while driving down West Ave I had to brake to avoid hitting college students who ran onto the road in the middle of the street. Are we to believe these "invincible" students will be responsible while drunk at a younger age and behind the whell of a vehicle. Adults who drink and drive are bad enough now we are to consider adding even younger drinkers? "
Native wrote on Sep 4, 2008 6:08 AM:
" Driving while using a cell phone has been shown to be as debilitating as drinking and driving now because college students want to legally drink at a younger age; people in WI are considering the option of letting younger people drink while they are using their cell phones and driving. Sounds like tavern league promotions. "
Turnkey wrote on Sep 4, 2008 6:04 AM:
" Would you want it to be your child who is killed or maimed in the highway? Or perhaps it is easier to swallow if its your kid who hit someone and killed them. Make light of John Ottens life following his being struck by and 18 year old drunk. Sure he could just as easily have been struck by a 21 year old, but he wasn't was he? He was struck by an 18 year old who had no business drinking in the first place, much less drinking and driving. No, it is not an intelligent conversation to discuss lowering the drinking age. University leaders need to get back into the classroom and start teaching the subjects they are being paid to teach and leave drinking decisions to people who were given a brain at birth. "
Turnkey wrote on Sep 4, 2008 5:56 AM:
" Have you ever seen what happens to a human body after some kid gets drunk and thinks he's/she's a super person and can fly off Grand dads bluff? Have you ever seen what happens when an intoxicated kid thinks he can beat a train thru the crossing? Now I just know some of you are going to use that old stale argument tht if we can send that 18 year old to war, he/she should be able to drink. Would you want that kid going into combat drunk? Please, just bend over and pull your head out of your butt. Alcohol consumption has never done any good for anyone. "
Turnkey wrote on Sep 4, 2008 5:51 AM:
" You people who advocate lowering the drinking age to 18 are nothing short of idiots. Have you ever bothered to read the police reports of what young people do when they consume alcoholic beverages. As a former enforcement person, I can tell you it isn't pretty. Bad enough that we have all you old drunks out there killing people on the highways, now you want kids legally able to do the same. Have you already forgotten the mess collage kids made when they got drunk and walked/fell into the river in LaCrosse? "
free_speech wrote on Sep 4, 2008 5:12 AM:
" Wisconsin only leads the nation because of aggressive police tactics designed to bring revenue into the courts system. Any state can sit and watch poeple leave at bar time. Some states choose not to make the roads a police state, Wisconsin isn't one of them. "
Big Spender wrote on Sep 4, 2008 4:11 AM:
" Wisconsin, you have a drinking problem that is the worst in the entire nation. This is a step in the wrong direction. You Wisconsinites need to raise the drinking age to 101 because you're all out of control. I wouldn't trust the lot of you with a glass of Pepsi.
"State's drunken driving epidemic needs to slow, officials say"
"Wisconsin has the highest rate in the nation. Last year, 42 percent of the state's traffic fatalities involved drunken driving, compared to the overall national average of 32 percent. More than 26 percent of Wisconsin adults admitted they had gotten behind the wheel soused last year."
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/300768 "
Mac wrote on Sep 4, 2008 2:18 AM:
" No we don't ban them, but we do tend to regulate them. While I feel for the fellow mentioned, the argument is weak. The kid that hit him could have done same had the drinking age been 21 at the time or he could have been hit by a 21 year old... How does our current law not violate 14th Amendment guarantees of equality under the law? "
wiseup wrote on Sep 4, 2008 1:20 AM:
" Sad story and there are plenty of them. So are hunting accidents, motorcycle accidents, car accidents caused by cell phone use, airplane crashes, watercraft accidents etc. The #1 cause of death in sports is fishing. Should we ban everything that hurts or kills someone? "
Advertisement
