Rice students please answer this

Colleges and Universities A-Z Rice University
21

<p>I never viewed drinking laws as laws about morals. I view them as laws about odds. What are the odds that a 17 year old will get in a car at 6 a.m. after a night of partying and run down a bunch of kids getting on a school bus vs. the odds that a 21 year old will do the same. Some actuary somewhere figured this one out and that's why we have laws that govern the age at which someone can drink legally.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, having turned 18 when the drinking age in Texas was 19, then turned 19 only to move to Colorado where the drinking age was 21, I can totally relate to what seems to be a very arbitrarily derived cutoff for maturity and immaturity. Some people are incredible mature at 18 and I personally know 45 year olds who are immature fools. But I think when one considers the morality factor in this issue, perhaps it should be the morality of breaking a law, even a law that seems arbitrary.</p>

22

<p>Actually, SREIS, I understand what you are saying more far more than you may be willing to give me credit. Law is based on morals but it also based on common sense and what's best for society. Even if you and Brat - who are apparently minors - choose to drink and even drink responsibly, you undermine the moral fabric of our laws because you act as if you are above the law. It becomes easier for you to disregard other laws, and the same can be said for everyone around you.</p>

<p>Think of it this way: If everyone on the Loop in Houston (you are at Rice now, right?) goes 15 miles over the speed limit, how likely is it that you will go the speed limit? Not very, and it may not matter today or tomorrow. But the speed limit is there to help everyone get where they are going in a safe manner and, sooner or later, excessive speed will result in a wreck. Similarly, excessive drinking by minors will cause problems somewhere, someday. </p>

<p>Being the mind reader that I am, your response will be that adults do the same things. True, but adults are supposed to have the monetary resources, insurance, etc., to pay for the harm they do as a result of careless behavior. Minors probably don't have those resources, nor do they generally work for a living and realize how economically devastating it would be to them and others if they cause harm to someone by irresponsible drinking. Further, there are the non-economic costs to you and others from underage drinking. This thread started off by referencing Lucifer, a CC poster who apparently died from alcohol poisoning. If true, this is a tragic example of the non-economic costs of underage drinking. Losing a talented young person like Lucifer, you or Brat is probably a greater loss to society, let alone your families, than losing someone old like me.</p>

<p>Finally, both you and Brat note that whether you choose to drink as minors is a moral issue, so tell me: Exactly what are your moral standards if they permit you to ignore society's laws? Do you get to pick and choose the laws that apply to you and those that don't? Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King understood that when you stand up for what's right and disobey the law, there are consequences to that decision. Do you really think that underage drinking is a moral issue and in the same category as standing up to racial discrimination? I think you are using personal morality as an excuse to drink because you want to drink.</p>

23

<p>my first response is...what?</p>

<p>this is absolutely ridiculous. </p>

<p>i don't want to engage in a long and drawn out personal defense simply because that would be pretty boring. </p>

<p>excessive drinking by anyone will cause problems. so we try to think of a solution to this. the first action is to make it illegal, but that might not be the best way anyhow. during prohibition alchohol consumption went up, for instance. on top of that, UK permits drinking with a meal at age 16 and they have lower instances of alcohol related car accidents involving minors. </p>

<p>your analogy to car accidents does not justify why alcohol is illegal for people under the age of 21. it seems to me that it implies that there should be some limit for everyone that must be followed. reaffirming the law with that example presupposes that the current law is right, and so it doesn't advance anything.</p>

<p>the non-economic cost of Lucifer would have been incurred had Lucifer not been underage, therefore that point is not worth anything. that he was underage does not really support the age limit. it does not provide evidence to keep the law. if you believe it does, you already are convinced the law is right and are restating that your judgment was and is still right. </p>

<p>adults having the monetary resources is a pretty weak argument in my opinion. if the only way to understand the consequences is being an adult and having more responsibilities OR being arrested because you drink underage, I'd have to say thats a pretty bad system. it doesn't encourage understanding or promote a means to a better society as time passes. </p>

<p>i don't understand why you are equating alcohol to racial discrimination. yes Martin Luther King suffered the greatest fate of all, and no I am not prepared to suffer that. so what? does that prove that it is not a moral issue? what are you even trying to say? yes I think they are both moral, though clearly not to the same degree. why would you even assume that I think that? would you die for advocating that curphews be enforced in your local neighborhoods? that is moral, too.</p>

<p>just because I have had a drink underage doesn't warrant questioning my morals. that is ridiculously out of line with today's standards. of course you can accuse the majority of college students as being immoral, though most of them are just living the role is set up for them. the law is just there as a preventative measure. the main reason that people are fervently against underage drinking is really because they are fervently against the effects of an age group that is set free from age 18 and thrust into an environment that is conducive to drinking and partying. the fact is, it is much more difficult to change society and have alcohol be legal at age 18 and safer for everyone also.</p>

24

<p>I agree ^^^</p>

25

<p>Okay, SREIS, forget about cars, economic costs, discrimination analogies, and anything else I said that you didn't comprehend. But you can't ignore that Brat and you are the ones who made this a moral issue. In fact, Brat said (and I quote):</p>

<p>"There are, of course, reasons not to consume alcohol or other substances, but these reasons should stem from a person's own values, not fear of a minor criminal offense." </p>

<p>You specifically said you agreed with Brat. </p>

<p>While I did discuss the moral nature of laws, primarily because Brat raised (and you agreed) that personal morals can be a justification for underage drinking, I did not question your morals for having an underage drink. My point was that underage drinking is illegal. Apparently that fact doesn't deter you, Brat, or many other young people from underage drinking. I find that sad.</p>

26

<p>man i grew up in colombia, a country with no drinking age. and i have been drinking for a whilre and i have always known to control it.</p>

27

<p>TEXAS law prohibits underage drinking. I don't understand the debate.</p>

28

<p>nothing is illegal until u get caught dear. hahah</p>

29

<p>lol right, things don't happen if they're illegal.....</p>

30

<p>"dear"?? Perhaps you need to brush up on your manners serge. </p>

<p>"nothing is illegal until u get caught" - So if someone steals your car, it's perfectly legal unless they are caught? Hmmm....glad you aren't interested in a career in law.</p>

31

<p>you find it sad? im not trying to say it is meant to be broken, but it is meant to be broken. no seriously...i believe it is agreed upon that the purpose of the law is not to wipe out underage drinking but to limit its excess. just because underage drinking is technically illegal does not mean we want it removed from our society completely, just limited as much as a law and a police force can realistically limit. </p>

<p>for example, i was at a party where there was heavy drinking and the cops were called. they actually came into the house and gave us a talk. they basically said to keep things inside and keep the noise down. now if a cop has this position, i don't see why you as a normal citizen should find it "sad" that underage drinking exists. i mean, what do you expect? </p>

<p>i think its reasonable to acknowledge that this is a problem that should be limited, but not necessarily wiped out. we can all agree that the world would be much better off without any murder whatsoever. drinking however is a different story. if you drink moderately, chances are you won't get caught. and on top of that, if police see you drinking moderately (in my experience), they leave you alone. if the enforcers of the law recognize that it's not meant to punish all drinking in every context, then i don't see why you continue to make blanket statements about drinking underage. </p>

<p>its excessive drinking like you said which does harm, and the law tries and does limit that. but again, the point is excessive drinking by anyone has this effect, and you really haven't defended why underage drinking is special.</p>

32

<p>come to think of it, this is getting pretty off topic (not like violating some invisible code of keeping to the original thread topic matters much anyway). i dont want others to feel left out, so i dont think i should respond again on the topic unless it's OKed by everyone else, so make yours good ;)</p>

33

<p>sreis - just depends on the cop. Here in our Houston suburb, cops who catch underage drinkers will chase them down (literally) and arrest them. So there is no agency-wide tacit approval of underage drinking. Rely (possibly) to your own detriment.</p>

34

<p>that doesn't go against what i was saying in least. why do you think i added "in my experience"? and more than that, that doesn't prove that there is no tacit approval. a cop will follow his job if he doesn't care, doesn't put any thought into the matter, or is pressed for quotas. however, for a cop not to act upon a law when he sees it being broken says something. of course you would expect cops following the law more often than not, but cops do not excuse many other crimes this way. the only other one i can think of that they do excuse like this is speeding or other minor traffic violations, which again behave the same way. they don't want EVERYBODY doing it, so it is illegal. the deterrent does work. </p>

<p>besides that was not the point i was making anyway. the point was, since that did happen, and given the exact stance for the entire police force here at rice (indoors), it doesn't make sense for someone to find it "sad" to be breaking this law because that throws this law virtually into the same categories as violent crimes. it is not necessarily immoral to break the law. it might not be a good thing, but morality does not have to include laws, because we all know that laws can be arbitrary, unjust, and cruel. on a lower scale, we can just not agree with them, even morally. </p>

<p>i see this all the time and it baffles me. laws exist because we feel something is wrong. that is the nature of laws. we should NOT feel something is wrong because there is a law. that completely undermines the whole point of a free society. ask yourself this question: would you agree with adults aged 18-21 drinking if it were legal for them to do so? if you do, then you should be against the current law, end of story.</p>

35

<p>I've been lurking around here a bit and I think it's time to bring something up, considering this is the Rice board...</p>

<p>When you get to Rice, there's this thing you're going to have to sign during O-Week; it's a statement that you agree to adhere to the Honor Code, as defined by the university's Honor Council and distributed to you beforehand.</p>

<p>You might as well consider it a law. Don't cheat. If you accidentally cheat, you report it to the professor. If you witness cheating, you report it as well. There's more to it, but you get the gist.</p>

<p>So? Is this code meant to be broken? We can all agree that with nearly 100% certainty that cheating DOES happen at Rice. It continues to happen exactly because not everyone gets caught -- though let me say the penalties if caught and found guilty are QUITE severe. So by the "logic" in these previous posts, I have to ask: how much cheating should be tolerated?</p>

<p>What's a "moderate" amount that we should just let slide by, even if we're aware of it? Do you have some "right" to cheat and engage in academic dishonesty because, really, the Honor Code is simply "the man" keeping you down?</p>

<p>No, you can feel "entitled" to bend the rules in your favor all you want. You can even make a case that, for you, it does no harm. But we can't take every individual into account when enforcing the rules, it's simply not practical. By all means, there are 18-yr-olds that are capable of drinking responsibly... but then again there are 40-yr-olds that are NOT. Statistically, they've determined that the "best" cut-off point is 21 years old. Sucks to be you if you're younger than that, but get over it.</p>

<p>Just because something's unfair isn't a valid excuse to subvert something in place for the common good.</p>

<p>My $0.02. And I'm serious about the Honor Code stuff; if you're a Rice student -- or going to be -- you should be serious about it as well.</p>

36

<p>haha, look at what i started.</p>

37

<p>statistically wrprice? if you are going to make a ridiculous claim like that, you have to back it up.</p>

38

<p>about the honor code, that is great you feel so strongly about it, wrprice. i also am a firm believer in the honor code. sadly i think your fervent beliefs led you to bend the topic of discussion to what you feel is more important. thats fine, but honestly the honor code has nothing to do with it. the nature of it is completely different from drinking. the intent of the rule is not very similar.</p>

<p>by the logic of my previous posts, there is no answer to your question. just because you see a logic there, doesn't mean it can be applied to whatever you want, and when it fails to apply, you have proved that my initial logic doesn't hold up. i believe there should be no cheating and you should not let any slide by. again i am still puzzled as to why everyone is treating every law or rule like they are equal. they are created to solve different problems, and some of those problems can be solved in other ways than the law.</p>

39

<p>sreis says: "ask yourself this question: would you agree with adults aged 18-21 drinking if it were legal for them to do so? if you do, then you should be against the current law, end of story."</p>

<p>I would not be happy with a law that stated 18-21 year olds could drink legally, but I certainly wouldn't go around slapping the drinks out of their hands and recommending that others do the same. Because I am 'against' a law does not give me the right to disregard that law. So I ask you sreis....what's your point?</p>

40

<p>dear"?? Perhaps you need to brush up on your manners serge. </p>

<p>"nothing is illegal until u get caught" - So if someone steals your car, it's perfectly legal unless they are caught? Hmmm....glad you aren't interested in a career in law.</p>

<p>lol i was just kidding dont take me seriously...and hell no on the law thing. i come from the family of lawyers. i am a breakaway rebel blacksheep who will be a doctor.</p>