• Welcome to New Hampshire Underground.
 

News:

Please log in on the special "login" page, not on any of these normal pages. Thank you, The Procrastinating Management

"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes."  --Alexander Haig

Main Menu

Drinking age to 18

Started by Dave Ridley, January 12, 2005, 10:55 AM NHFT

Previous topic - Next topic

citizen_142002

What would be the advantage of only allowing young people to purchase beer and wine? We'd still lose the highway funds. Are you thinking it would be better received by the public.

Zork

Quote from: Pat McCotter on May 03, 2006, 03:57 AM NHFT
As I was researching the RSA's I came across RSA 214:20-d

============================================
214:20-d Implied Consent to Submit to Test to Determine Alcohol Concentration. ?
    I. Any person who target practices, takes, or attempts to take wildlife in this state by use of a firearm, bow and arrow, crossbow and bolt, or any other weapon, shall be deemed to have given consent to physical tests and examinations for the purpose of determining whether that person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any controlled drug or any combination of intoxicating liquor and controlled drug...
============================================

I was not informed of this when I took the "Basic Pistol Course".

Implied consent while they are hunting/target practicing, or implied consent whenever a cop feel like it?  Not that I agree with implied consent in general, but the law doesn't seem to give any actual limitation.


Why would anyone want to drink beer or wine in the first place?  Some champagne's are okay, but the rest tastes like vinegar.  Give me hard liquor any day.

Dreepa

Quote from: Pat McCotter on May 03, 2006, 03:57 AM NHFT
As I was researching the RSA's I came across RSA 214:20-d

============================================
214:20-d Implied Consent to Submit to Test to Determine Alcohol Concentration. ?
    I. Any person who target practices, takes, or attempts to take wildlife in this state by use of a firearm, bow and arrow, crossbow and bolt, or any other weapon, shall be deemed to have given consent to physical tests and examinations for the purpose of determining whether that person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any controlled drug or any combination of intoxicating liquor and controlled drug...
============================================

I was not informed of this when I took the "Basic Pistol Course".
Sounds like a bill to target for next year.

aries

Quote from: citizen_142002 on May 03, 2006, 02:20 PM NHFT
What would be the advantage of only allowing young people to purchase beer and wine? We'd still lose the highway funds. Are you thinking it would be better received by the public.

A stepping stone I guess.

Who cares about highway funds (well yeah I guess the state does), we should be able to manage our own money and roads.

I'm just saying, like marijuana, total legalization is an unrealistic first step. Medical use, small personal amounts, et cetera, are.

burnthebeautiful

I think proposing a bill that allows 18-20 year-olds to drink while under the supervision of their parents or legal guardians would be a good first step.

Pat McCotter

Quote from: burnthebeautiful on May 03, 2006, 05:04 PM NHFT
I think proposing a bill that allows 18-20 year-olds to drink while under the supervision of their parents or legal guardians would be a good first step.

It would have to involve changing the "internal possession" RSA.

burnthebeautiful

Quote from: Pat McCotter on May 03, 2006, 05:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: burnthebeautiful on May 03, 2006, 05:04 PM NHFT
I think proposing a bill that allows 18-20 year-olds to drink while under the supervision of their parents or legal guardians would be a good first step.

It would have to involve changing the "internal possession" RSA.

Perhaps a law proposing that 18-20 year olds be allowed to "internally possess" alcohol as long as they're under the supervision of their parents would be in order, then.

aries

Quote from: burnthebeautiful on May 03, 2006, 05:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: Pat McCotter on May 03, 2006, 05:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: burnthebeautiful on May 03, 2006, 05:04 PM NHFT
I think proposing a bill that allows 18-20 year-olds to drink while under the supervision of their parents or legal guardians would be a good first step.

It would have to involve changing the "internal possession" RSA.

Perhaps a law proposing that 18-20 year olds be allowed to "internally possess" alcohol as long as they're under the supervision of their parents would be in order, then.

Or came into it's "internal posession" in their presence.

I'm surprised Canada hasn't become a hell-hole since their drinking age is still 18 in Quebec... I've been up there a few times, poked around an SAQ (their provincial liquor store) to see what they had. My friend bought a bottle of ever clear and didn't even get carded... crazy Canadians.

And uh, I didn't drink any!  :-X

Fluff and Stuff

Quote from: aries on May 03, 2006, 08:06 PM NHFT
I'm surprised Canada hasn't become a hell-hole since their drinking age is still 18 in Quebec... I've been up there a few times, poked around an SAQ (their provincial liquor store) to see what they had. My friend bought a bottle of ever clear and didn't even get carded... crazy Canadians.

I heard that someone might take that to Porcfest.

maxxoccupancy

The vast majority of people I've talked to believe that the drinking age should be 18.  In fact, I've only met one or two people in my life who believe that the drinking age should be 21.

I see many liberty lovers wanting incremental changes, but you get more out of the general public by making a clear, example-based case for a complete end to any form of prohibition.  You are a full grown adult, and you are responsible for yourself.

Don't you own your own body?  Who has the right to tell you what you can or cannot do?  No one.  This is America, not North Korea or Nazi Germany.  The nation that prides itself on freedom above all other things needs to get serious about it.

This ain't the quasi-free state project, and this ain't nh-not-quite-as-bad.com

--Max

Dreepa

Quote from: maxxoccupancy on May 04, 2006, 02:49 AM NHFT
I see many liberty lovers wanting incremental changes, but you get more out of the general public by making a clear, example-based case for a complete end to any form of prohibition.  You are a full grown adult, and you are responsible for yourself.
So Max you are going to run as an LP member not GOP right?
Do you call for the legalization of all drugs?
Some people call for incremental changes because maybe that is all the 'public' will go for.  Maybe you have the public on your side but the house and senate will only move incrementally.

I want to be 'free' now but I can take the slow road if I have to.  FSP was never meant to be quick and easy.

Zork

My father turned 21 the year they raised the drinking age back up to that.

I have a problem with age based limits in general.  It gives way to it's own twin paradox where twins are born minutes apart, but one twin is born just before midnight and the other, just after.  One is legally an adult a full day before the other.  That's why I don't celebrate birthdays.  Legally, on your birthday, you age a full year, physically, mentally, and emotionally at the strike of midnight.  But your not a year older then you were yesterday, you're only a day older!

maxxoccupancy

Quote from: Dreepa on May 04, 2006, 02:04 PM NHFT
Quote from: maxxoccupancy on May 04, 2006, 02:49 AM NHFT
I see many liberty lovers wanting incremental changes, but you get more out of the general public by making a clear, example-based case for a complete end to any form of prohibition.  You are a full grown adult, and you are responsible for yourself.
So Max you are going to run as an LP member not GOP right?
Do you call for the legalization of all drugs?
Some people call for incremental changes because maybe that is all the 'public' will go for.  Maybe you have the public on your side but the house and senate will only move incrementally.

I want to be 'free' now but I can take the slow road if I have to.  FSP was never meant to be quick and easy.

I don't think you can stop people from hurting themselves if that's what they're intent on doing.  I think that we should end drug prohibition outright.  If individual towns want to enact certain ordinances against public drug use and such, that's their right.

Drug policy is something that you have to sell to the general public.  Because NHites are generally open minded about this kind of thing, you can talk about drug raids and other lost civil liberties without getting a screamer who insists that any change in policy will result in an "Escape from LA" type of scenario with buildings constantly on fire everywhere and the sun never coming up.

"We're not the only country seeing that the War on Drugs isn't working.  Spain, Italy, and Luxemborg have decriminalized most drugs, and their crime rates have gone down.  Portugal and Holland have decriminalized all drugs, and their crime rates have gone down.  Drug addiction rates have gone down slightly, but the crime rates have gone down in those countries because there is no longer an illegal black market drug traffic."

That answer solves most problems right off the bat.

I'm not an incrementalist, but we all have seen the timid, half-assed legislation that has come to the floor.  I used to be a conservative, and they don't like half-assed solutions.  They want to fight the drug war seriously or not at all.

Albert "Max" Abramson
candidate for State Representative
Manchester, Ward 5

In answer to your question, republican Liberty Caucus.  If anyone asks, I am a libertarian.

FTL_Ian


citizen_142002

I've written a few Reps on both sides of the aisle. It has been a few weeks, and none of them have responded to my letters.

I'm wondering if the best way to appraoch this issue is through a question on the ballot that can be decided by a direct vote of the people. I don't usually have faith in directly democratic measures, but I think it might be more expedient than trying to go through the legislature.

What kind of hoops does one need to jump through to get a proposition on the ballot.