Congress is raising the minimum smoking and vaping age to 21

originally posted by: JIMC5499
I have a real problem with this. The idea of an "age of majority" was to draw the line between being a Juvenile and being an Adult.

Yes... are you suggesting there is no need for this any longer? If so, I strongly disagree.

The statement is being made that people are not responsible enough to drink or smoke until the age of 21. If that is so, why are we charging people as young as age 12 as adults? If they are not responsible enough to make smart decisions, why are we holding them accountable in other areas? It should be all or nothing.

I agree... although in certain cases of extremely violent offenses, there needs to be more than just a slap on the writs as potential punishment.

By the way, I was a Second Class Petty Officer in the Navy and responsible for the eight other guys in the shop that I supervised as well as being responsible for six helicopters, three months before my twenty-first birthday.

Good for you (genuinely, not meant as sarcasm), and thank you for your service.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
It is in many states.

'Many states' is not what you initially said.

IF only the govt would tell me how to live...

ohhh wait a sec.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
"originally posted by: tanstaafl
It is in many states."

'Many states' is not what you initially said.

You're right, I didn't say 'states' at all.

And apparently it isn't as cut-n-dried as you seem to be implying. Even in States where it is illegal, it... isn't... or is it?

Anyway, it is a silly argument, but feel free to continue it among yourselves...

a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

If you are mature enough to make a decision to fight in a war and all that entails then you are entitled to make any other decision that will effect your life or health. Either you take the kid gloves off at 18 or you keep them on for everything until the age at which our society agrees is appropriate.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
And apparently it isn't as cut-n-dried as you seem to be implying. Even in States where it is illegal, it... isn't... or is it?

Your source:

At least 37 states have some sort of exception in their drinking laws that allow underage people to drink at home and within the company of family members.

That's 13 that don't.

republican big government at work again the nanny state in action

a reply to: tanstaafl

Because many/most (but certainly not all, there are always exceptions) kids are just too immature to be able to make intelligent decisions, and voting has a huge impact on everyone.

And just because one is an adult one makes intelligent decisions?

Maybe have a minimum IQ requirement for voting? I'm good with 120.

Because there are a lot of stupid, easily misled adults, and voting has a huge impact on everyone.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Your source:

"At least 37 states have some sort of exception in their drinking laws that allow underage people to drink at home and within the company of family members."

That's 13 that don't.

Also from my source:

"Others make exceptions for when they may possess it. Still other states, like Arkansas, have no exceptions for underage possession or consumption but nonetheless make exceptions for parents who want to provide alcohol to their children. It all adds up to a confusing mess that can be next to impossible for parents, teens and even legal professionals to understand."

As I said - not quite so cut-n-dried as you say.

Regardless... I am all in favor of regulating things like with respect to age of majority when it comes to public consumption and/or commercial activity (minors being able to purchase). I would argue that any law claiming to be able to regulate this in the home could easily be decalred Constitutional, as long as it is an originalist judge hearing the case.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
As I said - not quite so cut-n-dried as you say.

Actually not so cut and dry as you said. You said it was legal everywhere, I said it wasn't.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Actually not so cut and dry as you said. You said it was legal everywhere, I said it wasn't.

Actually, first, I said:

"Understand... there is nothing illegal (I don't think, and if there is, I disagree with it)"...

Then in a more casual reply to someone else I said"

"There is nothing illegal about 16 yr olds drinking at home under parental supervision."

So, in context, I did clarify that it was an opinion, not necessarily being claimed as absolute fact.

You sure seem to have an unhealthy focus on my posts. I have an idea that would probably make you feel a lot better...

Pound sand and find someone else to stalk.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Actually, first, I said:

"Understand... there is nothing illegal (I don't think...

That was also incorrect as your source indicated.

Pound sand and find someone else to stalk.

Says the guy who addressed me when my first post wasn't addresses to you.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
"originally posted by: tanstaafl
Actually, first, I said:

"Understand... there is nothing illegal (I don't think..."

That was also incorrect as your source indicated.

Actually, it was absolutely correct - because it was just an expression of an opinion that allowed for my opinion to be factually incorrect.

Said another way - are you insane? Get help dude, you are spiraling down into the abyss...

a reply to: tanstaafl

Findlaw disagrees with you, it is not 50 state legal.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl

Findlaw disagrees with you, it is not 50 state legal.

Says the weird stalker who cannot get it through their thick skull that I didn't say what he claims.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Says the weird stalker who cannot get it through their thick skull that I didn't say what he claims.

You:

There is nothing illegal about 16 yr olds drinking at home under parental supervision.

That statement is false. Do you need it explained again?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Says the weird stalker who cannot get it through their thick skull that I didn't say what he claims.

You:

"There is nothing illegal about 16 yr olds drinking at home under parental supervision."

That statement is false. Do you need it explained again?

I already addressed this. I'm beginning to suspect you're one of those Russian bots Hillary was complaining about.

Me, before that:

"Understand... there is nothing illegal (I don't think..."

Do you understand the word 'context'? Do you understand what 'clarification' means?

Do you understand what stalking means?

Now, son, you need to learn how to respect your betters, and just
already.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Do you understand what 'clarification' means?

Exept you didnt clarify it, you tried backtracking and using the newspaper article to say it was ambiguous, it isn't.

Shift the goals posts a little more and add some ad hominens, that's about all you're good for.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Exept you didnt clarify it,

Yes. I did. You just are incapable of rational thought and therefore unable to comprehend. I pity you.

you tried backtracking and using the newspaper article to say it was ambiguous, it isn't.

It... is... did you read the entire article? The article itself said it was ambiguous even in those states that supposedly don't have an exception.

Morons...

Shift the goals posts a little more and add some ad hominens, that's about all you're good for.

Please, stop talking to yourself, or you're going to find yourself in one of those padded rooms without a view.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
The article itself said it was ambiguous even in those states that supposedly don't have an exception.

Except it isn't, as Findlaw shows. The are zero exception states which makes it illegal. 'No exception' means not legal.