Comments on: Wow!!! Some Common Sense at Work….

By: Tom G. Palmer

Tom G. Palmer — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:43:43 +0000

Yes, I agree that 20-year-olds are adults. I did not say I was opposed to people driving at 16 or 17. The combination of forbidding people to drink until 21 but allowing them to drive at 16 is irrational.

By: fjfjfj

fjfjfj — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:02:41 +0000

20 year olds are adults.

Also, why are you opposed to 16 and 17 year olds driving?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 07:31:01 +0000

Mr.Gura.

In a word, No.

By: Alan Gura

Alan Gura — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:09:31 +0000

All of you miss the point.

Don’t you remember waiting patiently for the clock to strike midnight on your 21st birthday, so you could finally discover what beer tastes like? It’s almost like waiting for Santa Clause! I fell asleep. Good thing I was wearing my helmet.

By: Henri Hein

Henri Hein — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:25:53 +0000

Agreed. Didn’t the founder of MADD leave because, in her opinion, MADD had become too restrictive in its policy prescriptions?

Back in June, I posted the following comments on Cafe Hayek on the more general issue of child protection (http://cafehayek.typepad.com/h.....l#comments):

As a European, I don’t get American hysteria about exposing kids to the real world. True trauma comes from neurotic parents overprotecting their children.

I often meet American kids that read well and still believe in Santa Claus, who is shocked speechless at hearing a four-letter word, or who doesn’t know what sex is well past fertility age.

The trauma theory is classic puritan PR. You can verify this by looking at cultures where children are taught about sex and allowed to drink at early ages. Children from these cultures start to drink and have sex about the same time, or later, than their American counterparts. So much for innocence.

American adults are to lose their freedoms to this grand plan as well. Adults can’t swear, because a kid might hear it. Adults can’t use a recreational drug, because a kid may learn about it. Adults can watch what they want on TV because of uptight parents elsewhere.

It’s just the Mayflower gene rearing its ugly head, and Americans would do well to discard this baggage.

By: Responsible Drinker

Responsible Drinker — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:48:56 +0000

You can join the debate on the issue at http://www.opposingviews.com/q.....ed-from-21

The Amethyst Initiative deserves support
http://www.amethystinitiative.org/

By: SN

SN — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:37:06 +0000

I’ve heard the MADD harpies. They are nasty, irrational, and shrill. If you question them, they accuse you of wanting more people to die. Rational argument doesn’t seem to matter to them at all.

By: Greyson

Greyson — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:01:29 +0000

Here here! I was so glad to see this Amethyst Initiative getting some real momentum. It is about time we used a little common sense in dealing with alcohol (and maybe soon, but don’t hold your breath, drug) policy.

The other thing that really bugs me about current alcohol policy, and one which isn’t getting as much attention in the coverage of this initiative, is the backdoor method that Congress took in making a de facto National Drinking Age. Those sorts of underhanded tactics circumvent the Constitution, and undermine the concept of Federalism. If we hadn’t made such a critical error like that back in the ’90s, we would currently have much more substantive data to inform the debate and base our decisions on, because certain states would’ve served as “laboratories” in which to test out the consequences of a lower limit.

By: Harry V

Harry V — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:11:32 +0000

Articulating things in the most irrational, shrill, and nasty way possible, Tom? Wow. It sounds like you’d be right at home in a conference with the MADD harpies.