DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**eliniaguilefp7m** · 08-22-2008, 09:07 PM

The fact that people break the law is NOT a reason to change the law. If there are reasons to change the law other than that, do (like with speeding, where speed limits are often too low); but not simply because they break the law.

I'm against it, because SOME people don't break the law and drink young, and I think those people are helped by the extra three years. I also think it would become a similar problem, just a few years younger; people are more likely to drink at 19 or 20 than at 16 or 17 at the moment, in some part due to the age being 21; this would be less the case if it were lowered. Finally, I'm all for protecting the people who actually follow the law, and don't give a **** about those who don't care to.

If we wanted to enforce this law, we could and would; certain college towns have become quite successful at doing so.

08-22-2008, 09:07 PM	#4
eliniaguilefp7m Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 385 Senior Member	The fact that people break the law is NOT a reason to change the law. If there are reasons to change the law other than that, do (like with speeding, where speed limits are often too low); but not simply because they break the law. I'm against it, because SOME people don't break the law and drink young, and I think those people are helped by the extra three years. I also think it would become a similar problem, just a few years younger; people are more likely to drink at 19 or 20 than at 16 or 17 at the moment, in some part due to the age being 21; this would be less the case if it were lowered. Finally, I'm all for protecting the people who actually follow the law, and don't give a **** about those who don't care to. If we wanted to enforce this law, we could and would; certain college towns have become quite successful at doing so.
	Quote