<p>Why does Canada seem to do okay with a 19-year-old drinking age and we seem to have a problem even with age 21?</p>
<p>Why not match it to the age of consent? Seems a shame that the kids can’t have a little wine (legally) before making woopie.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False. Because one may have an internally consistent view of morality that supports the idea of laws being followed – perhaps for the greater good, or out of a moral obligation to support human institutions, or what have you – unless they, being followed, would lead to immoral behavior. Therefore, because alcohol, as you state, is often considered morally “neutral,” breaking the law prohibiting the consumption thereof would be immoral, because following it is itself not leading to immoral actions in a direct manner.
I’m sorry that you are so closed-minded as not to accept that others can legitimately disagree with you.</p>
<p>I googled to find some crazy laws, since I lived in NJ, I would like to share some of NJ crazy laws.</p>
<p>[Crazytopics:</a> Craziest Laws in America](<a href=“http://crazytopics.blogspot.com/2007/01/craziest-laws-in-america.html]Crazytopics:”>Crazytopics: Craziest Laws in America)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To avoid this topic from becoming derailed, please continue debates specifically about underage drinking on this thread:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/990749-adult-underage-drinking-18-20-your-thoughts.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/990749-adult-underage-drinking-18-20-your-thoughts.html</a></p>
<p>
I welcome people to legitimately disagree with me. I discourage responses like “It’s simple, we obey the laws. That’s all there is to it.” Such responses are the very definition of irrational, in the face of opposing arguments.</p>
<p>Your argument brings up valid points.</p>
<p>You are correct in pointing out that I didn’t mention (because I assumed) the possibility of a morality system that coincides perfectly (without ANY conflict) with the legal system.</p>
<p>The reason I didn’t include this in the debate is because it seems absurd to me to to think that legality coincides without conflict with morality, provable by example, and in theory:</p>
<p>At any given moment of a legal system, we can prove there are absurd laws that are not very actively enforced for the very reason of their absurdity. For example it is illegal to see a movie in a public theater less than four hours after eating food containing garlic in Indiana (there are so many other examples). There will always be ridiculous laws like this, and as a result you are always faced with the question of where to draw the line of what laws to keep and what laws to break.</p>
<p>So I respectfully rationally challenge your claim that it is a legitimate morality (for the good of society overall) to obey ALL laws blindly to the current state of the legal system.</p>
<p>To prove my point, all that needs to be demonstrated is clearly wrong laws such as slavery, or for example a not too old law making it illegal for ugly people to be seen outdoors in San Francisco. Similar laws can certainly be demonstrated to exist even today, perhaps not as clearly wrong, but they exist nonetheless. Therefore, to adhere to a view of “illegality = morality” would necessarily require a compromise in one’s morality in terms of good for society overall, and therefore is an invalid morality in this context.</p>
<p>I thought it was interesting how some people on this thread seem indignant that others might choose not to comply with a law. They accuse these rebels of thinking they are “above the law.” I don’t recall anyone claiming that if apprehended, violators ought to be exempt from the consequences (no matter how irrational those consequences might be). Choosing not to comply would not be placing oneself “above” the law, but rather, “outside” the law - hence the word “outlaw.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To their credit, 99.9999% of New Jersey residents have never broken this law!</p>
<p>Don’t you hate those out-law New Jersey soup slurpers? How dare they. It’s illegal, after all.</p>
<p>The interesting thing about this (quasi) academic discussion is that it sidesteps the question raised in the OP, which was about acquiring and using a fake ID, not about underage drinking. As I noted pages earlier, there is a significant distinction between a 19 year old student having a drink and that same 19 year old student committing a felony (which is what, in most states, you are doing when you get a fake ID that purports to be a government issued ID).</p>
<p>And the problem with getting arrested for a fake ID, especially if you’re over 18, is that your arrest may be the gift that keeps on giving. Sure, the student will get a lawyer and get a lesser plea. Yes, the student will avoid jail. But that arrest will appear on background checks. And for all the wannabe lawyers out there (and there seem to be a few involved in this thread) take a look at the character and fitness interview process for your state because you’ll quickly learn that even if you got away with a small fine, you’re going to have to disclose that you got arrested for a felony and, if you’re truthful, you’ll be admitting to that felony during your interview. Of course, you could lie in which case you risk disbarment if you sneak through.</p>
<p>For people who intend to get into the securities business, you might have to disclose the arrest and it might appear on your publicly available U-4 forever. For people who want to get into law enforcement or other government work, you will have to explain.</p>
<p>The notion that getting a fake ID is a praiseworthy act of civil disobedience also misapprehends true civil disobedience.</p>
<p>
Really? Comparable things have happened to me many times. An even easier example would be deciding whether to signal before making a turn.</p>
<p>
I’m not joking at all. How long would you wait at the intersection before you became absolutely sure that it wasn’t working, and that it was safe to cross? Two minutes? Ten? Thirty? I maintain that most people–even people who believe that it’s morally important to obey the law–would eventually decide that practicality justified violating that particular law. Just as most people would walk on the grass–despite a sign prohibiting that action–to retrieve a $100 bill they had just dropped.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you go back and read all the posts (which are way more than 246 now) and show me where one parent has confessed to telling their child, “Go out and get a fake ID before you head off to college.” Because it isn’t there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False. You claim they are irrational. That doesn’t mean that the system in which the person is operating does not rationally permit such a statement. Again, considering the context of the statement. It’s what people interested in an actual resolution do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t necessarily do so. You are also not being honest or consistent, given that your earlier claim was nothing like the claim that you are making now.</p>
<p>To refresh your memory, let me repost it:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is totally independent from assuming the legal system coincides with morality. I may believe that some laws are immoral and not to be followed yet still agree with the viewpoint that you view as one held by those “in denial.”</p>
<p>The point is that there are some who believe that a “harmless moral act” that violates a law should never be committed when in conflict with that law, while at the same time not espousing total obedience to all laws.</p>
<p>You introduced the specificity by claiming “harmless moral act,” and therefore voluntarily confined the discussion to such acts, other participants willing. I am.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>False. You may be, not everyone is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your narrow perceptions of what constitutes morality and how it’s defined, again in your narrow context of the implications of said morality, is not my problem. I’m not interested in talking down to your arbitrary constraints. Nor did I ever make any claim about following all laws.</p>
<p>Baelor: I’m not going to pick apart your logic / lack of because it will only further derail this thread, as it has in the past. I’m not going to call you a argumentative ■■■■■ here, but I will point out to others that you have been accused of this in the past, and I can’t say the accusation was without reason. I know you don’t like my arguments, and go out of your way to find flaws in my logic, because you think I’m too assertive about my logical interpretation. All I can say is I never have problems discussing things like this with most reasonable people, and I’m quite often wrong and I do make mistakes.</p>
<p>My overall point here is false IDs are bad, and I don’t see many cases where you could justify it. But I don’t deny that such cases do exist.</p>
<p>
That doesn’t make sense. If you are not totally obedient to all laws, then by definition there are laws you are not obedient to. In other words, you are violating a law. Assuming your act is harmless and moral in doing so, then you are performing a “harmless moral act that violates a law”. I don’t see what the problem is here.</p>
<p>
If you insist, lets look at that quote.</p>
<p>"There will always be ridiculous laws like this, " - Technically you cannot prove that there will never be a perfect society I don’t think, but as a reasonable person I’m sure you’ll admit that silly laws will most likely always exist.</p>
<p>" and as a result you are always faced with the question of where to draw the line of what laws to keep and what laws to break." - If you are faced with silly laws, and you admit that you are not going to try to keep those silly laws, then by definition you are making a distinction between laws to obey, and laws to disobey. Where exactly this line is drawn depends on your morality, and is a question you must ask yourself.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what issue you have with what I said, because most of your post doesn’t even make sense, but I’ve tried to reply as well as I can to your concerns. However, please do not derail this thread as you have done in the past with others.</p>
<p>I will remind readers that the last time I posted on a thread with Baelor, it ultimately ended in him telling me I was wrong because I was assuming that suffering was a bad way to live, and that wasn’t a fair assumption. I am not joking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then you concede that it makes sense – the statement is obviously tautological.</p>
<p>You, for some reason that I found inexplicable, mentioned in your previous response to me that you didn’t bother addressing the case where the legal system coincides perfectly with morality. I ask why that case even need be mentioned – I never stated anything that would suggest that I felt that was a reasonable scenario. Yet it is possible that someone’s moral compunction compels them to follow all laws. I am not interested in those situations per se.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you misread my post. Consider the “may be” – this implies action. It is clear that you did not understand that I was referring to the thought “always faced…to break.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. I never suggested in any way that I espouse this philosophy. In fact, I never commented on “silly laws” at all. I don’t know why you’re even bringing up these laws at all. Perhaps you could explain why you insist on responding to me with statements on issues I never indicated interest in discussing, and that also happen to be totally irrelevant to my posts.</p>
<p>Because you seem to be unable to read, let me repeat:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s interesting how none of your posts have even begun to answer this legitimate criticism of your statement – the one I quoted in my original post. If this is “as well as [you] can” respond to my posts, perhaps we shouldn’t be having a discussion at all.</p>
<p>And one who denies the value of pleasure and embraces that of suffering would obviously disagree with your last statement. Please keep the ad hominem, in the truest sense, where it belongs – the garbage. Perhaps your posts would then find enough relevance to also belong elsewhere.</p>
<p>When I finished my BA I joined a city police force in the college town I graduated from. One day I received a call at a local grocery store. An underage college student was caught trying to buy beer with a fake ID. This was an unusual call as most store managers tended to take the ID and throw them away, but this one decided to call the police and prosecute. I showed up to find a young (about 19) good looking and very innocent looking (nice boy from the suburbs type) kid; a kid I had to arrest with a felony. I called my captain because even though this was a crime, I was concerned with this boy spending time in jail, as I knew the type of people he would be with. My captain reminded me that it was a felony and I had to follow through on the arrest because the store manager initiated it. (If I had been the one who discovered it I probably would have taken it and thrown it away, but I wasn’t the one who discovered it.) </p>
<p>I now share this story with my high school seniors and let them know that even though they may get away with a fake ID a lot of the times, all it takes is someone to turn you in. A felony arrest can have long term repercussions and no alcohol is worth it. In addition, a lot of young college kids would not fair well in a jail cell.</p>
<p>Personally, I think a felony charge for using a fake ID to buy beer is overdoing it, but the law was written to protect against bigger abuses of having a fake ID. A felony can keep one a college student from getting a professional certification after graduation. A steep price to pay for a beer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what I have said a couple of times on here.</p>
<p>Is the risk of drinking beer really worth throwing away the rest of your life?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know shellz. This seemed like a simple discussion, but this has discussion has turned many corners.</p>
<p>You’re right, I misread some of your post. To be fair though, in all the technical documents and debates I’ve read, your posts are among the most unnecessarily complexly worded and phrased – just take that as constructive criticism. Not that this is an excuse for my misunderstanding.</p>
<p>
haha.</p>
<p>
I understand what you’re saying now. I’ve never said that following drinking age laws is immoral, obviously. All I’m saying is that it’s a bit silly to say that the established laws are perfectly moral and that it is always a valid morality to completely conform to them.</p>
<p>The law doesn’t have to force you to do something immoral to warrant it being broken under moral objection. For example, if a law today made it illegal for certain races to apply to certain jobs, I would expect that law to be disrespected whenever possible in a peaceable way. Even though people could adhere to the law without necessarily violating morality, the law itself is immoral. Hope that makes sense.</p>
<p>But we’re getting into a less clear area here, since laws aren’t as bad today as they were in the past. For the sake of this argument, if you really want to continue arguing that it’s a valid morality to follow ALL laws blindly, then I’m going to have to continue that debate with PMs with you.</p>
<p>For this thread, I’ll say if you want to follow all laws blindly, then OK, just be careful about where these laws take you as not all laws are good, and don’t slurp your soup in New Jersey without turning yourself in.</p>
<p>The most important point here is that it’s a perfectly valid morality to disregard certain absurd laws, like many of those mentioned (I don’t find it morally objectionable to make clam chowder with tomatoes). And therefore, a line must be drawn between what is to be obeyed and what is not. That’s all.</p>
<p>On the topic of fake IDs, as with anything you have to evaluate the benefits and risks, and make sure you’re not putting anyone else at risk or possible harm. I personally believe that false IDs is a horrible idea that could ruin your life and others. But again I cannot say that there is no case where it is justifiable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well said shellz. The problem is some parents tend to wait to talk to their kids right before they go off to college or get a job and live on their own.</p>
<p>Teaching has to be done early on. Sure, it isn’t going to work 100% of the time, but it is more effective than waiting to talk to your children when they are older.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That has to be the funniest thing written on this thread. What do I care if people get away with breaking the law if it is in no way directly affecting me.</p>