| Chafetz said the law instead has
| resulted in "collateral, off-road
| damage" such as binge drinking

How would he know? When you think about the volatility which we've seen (or believe we've seen) in sexual behavior over the last fistful of generations, it seem silly to think we know where the firm ground with alcohol is. These are behaviors influenced by gazillions of factors, not all of them plainly discernable, and certainly not at the time.

I think 21 works fine. It's roundly ignored, and no one cares, except that everybody knows about it. Government is cast in the role of a smothering mother, but her intrusion is tempered by incompetence: How better can older generations warn younger ones that they're playing with dynamite?

There are certain things that come into our lives (sex and drugs and a very few others) that are going to have impacts which are disruptive to many personalities. A genteel, pinky-extended, cotillion-style introduction ain't gonna help.

What, nobody wants to quibble this morning?

Hi Crid,

The only problem I have with the whole issue, is that we say you aren't adult enough or responsible enough to deal with alcohol until you are 21, but you are old enough to voluntarily join the military and die at 18. And certain states allow you to get your drivers license at 16.

Why not just pick a median age, say 19, for all 3.

Most states are heading towards 18 for the drivers liscense. My parents weren't all uptight about alcohol. It wasn't in the house much-they aren't really drinkers. I remember getting a sip of wine once at a dinner party when I was 5. I drank the odd beer or wine in my teens with their knowledge. I still binge-drank through college. I think it's more the party attitude of college, rather than first access to alcohol.

One answer would be let the military drink on base.

My boyfriend had what I thought was a brilliant idea. Lower the drinking age to 16, but raise the driving age to 21 (18 or 19 would probably work as well). That way, the kids get experience with alcohol before they start driving and hopefully most of the novelty has worn off. That, and their parents (again hopefully) have more control of them at 16.

> we say you aren't adult enough or
> responsible enough to deal with
> alcohol until you are 21, but you
> are old enough to voluntarily join
> the military and die at 18.

Why shouldn't we say that? What does one have to do with the other?

"My boyfriend had what I thought was a brilliant idea. Lower the drinking age to 16, but raise the driving age to 21 (18 or 19 would probably work as well)."

I support that and think it's a great idea.

Want to know why it'll never happen?

People are lazy and like that their 16 year old can drive him/herself to school, run errands for them in exchange for car privileges, etc. I don't think parents would support this, on the whole.

This is the way it is over in Germany. Not sure of the legal drinking age, but I am sure that the drinking age is more of a suggestion (at least, it was last I was there). When I was 12 I ordered a beer in a restaurant with my whole family. I thought it was gross.

The driving age over there is 18, though. 18 year olds don't always have their head on straight but I gotta tell you, 16 year olds are fucking IDIOTS. My brother is 16 1/2 and he is irrational, argumentative, hotheaded and all around awful when he's "in a mood." And I gotta say that most of the 16 year olds I've ever know are the same way. I know I was. Experience is important but I think allowing hormones to level off before putting kids behind the wheel w/o a parent is vital.

How about: drinking age of 17. Driver's permit at 18, and you can drive w/ another person over 21 (or something). License at 19 1/2. Sure, it's inconvenient but it'll limit hotheaded kids from doing stupid things.

Also. Drinking tends to be hidden. I know this personally, since I'm only 24 it hasn't been that long and I'm not too far removed from the current culture. When stuff is secretive and kids don't want to get in trouble it makes things more dangerous - like, when you're friend had too much and is sick and you just put her to bed w/ a puke bowl...she should be brought home so her parentals can watch her (then yell at her for being a jerk). But you're going to keep her with you so you don't get busted yourself. Dumb. But it's how it usually goes unless her heart stops...

"Why shouldn't we say that? What does one have to do with the other?"

Crid don't be so painful about it. But fine, I'll do the elaboration you demand.

When someone can be legally drafted by their government and sent into a highly dangerous situation where his life will be potentially sacrificed on behalf of that government it seems reasonable to expect that government to bestow upon that individual the wonderful privilege (I personally think drinking booze is a right - but I'm a lil crazy) of getting hammered.

If someone can be handed an AK 47 and told to go kill someone in the name of his country that is, in my opinion, saying "You're a grown-up!" Grown-ups can drink.

Attempting to control personal behaviors because of what might happen is seldom successful and has many negative side effects, not the least of which is encouraging the idea that it is OK to control personal behaviors because of what might happen.

If you want to avoid harm, punish harm, don't punish things that sometimes lead to harm and sometimes don't.

People should be left alone.

My boyfriend had what I thought was a brilliant idea. Lower the drinking age to 16, but raise the driving age to 21 (18 or 19 would probably work as well). That way, the kids get experience with alcohol before they start driving and hopefully most of the novelty has worn off. That, and their parents (again hopefully) have more control of them at 16.

The same effect can be had without increasing the driving age by lowering the drinking age even further or eliminating it entirely. Plus, it's healthier for kids to be introduced to alcohol by their parents or teachers instead of by their peers.

> don't be so painful
> about it.

Well Ex-cuuuuuuse me, Little Miss Presumption...

This is one of those arguments that people accept all the time without explaining why, sort of like "They can put a man on the moon but they can't x, y, & z!"

"It seems reasonable" isn't the magic bullet you think it is. 16-year-olds can drive; why do they have to wait another five years to drink? Why do they have to wait another nineteen years to run for the president?

Reason had a piece a while back defending the drinking age at 21.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/128200.html

"Attempting to control personal behaviors because of what might happen is seldom successful and has many negative side effects, not the least of which is encouraging the idea that it is OK to control personal behaviors because of what might happen."

My reasoning is behind Pseudonym's 100% on this.

18-year-olds should be able to drink legally because they are adults legally. Period. Unless the government wants to go back to prohibiting alcohol for ALL adults, it has no business singling out those between the ages of 18-20. If your mommy and daddy didn't raise you to be a responsible adult, I'm sorry you had crappy parents.

"People should be left alone."

A-freakin'-men.

I live in an area where there are a lot of rich kids. The drinking age doesn't bother them because they're too busy stealing vicodin and valium out of their parent's medicine cabinets. Between that and the ridiculous allowance they get, they can afford the coke that is in ready supply right outside of the school. And for those that don't have the rich parents, don't worry, heroin can be purchased for the bargain price of $7 a bag. It is time we realize that the drinking and driving age are not what we need to worry about. Amy was right. It is the attitudes of the parents and society in general. When you have children who are allowed to run wild with no parental involvement because the parents are too busy with their lives, of course the children will be binge drinking and of course doing other not so nice things. Part of it is a rite of passage, but part of it is a bunch of kids being raised by nannies with parents that don't give a fuck to have dinner or anything else with their kids. People keep slamming divorce, but I know where my children are, I know all of their friends, teachers, and have made my home a welcome place for all of them. We have dinner together, interact together, and talk to each other. I can't say that for most of the kids in my town with parents who are still married. I have no guarantee that my children will never drink or do anything wrong. But I have raised pretty nice kids who so far have proven that I can trust them to be responsible and that when they do make mistakes that they take responsibility. And Crid, it is pretty sad that some 18 year old kid can go get blown to bits in Iraq but can't walk down the street and have a beer. If we must police people under a certain age then I say we need to raise the age of entering the military to the drinking age too. How do you allow a person to hold a machine gun but not drink a beer. Its insanity.

Sorry Crid. You just do that sometimes - like when you say "but gay people CANNNN get married." Good thing you can't see my eyes rolling :-)

It does follow that if the government recognizes you as an adult and can call on your to die for it, then it should fully recognize you.

I'll just hop on the Pseudonym train.

Leave people alone when they aren't hurting other people. After someone becomes an adult the government loses it's ability to quibble over things like protecting someone's (debate-ably) underdeveloped liver.

"Why do they have to wait another nineteen years to run for the president?"

Because grown-ups are smahtah!

If I ran the country I'd throw out the health care bill and subsidize pizza.

I had a pair of friends get married, both under 21, one in the military, and they couldn't drink a champagne toast at their wedding. That's pretty messed up.

Make it all one age. If you're supposed be adult enough to die for your country or dedicate your life to someone, you sure as hell as mature enough to decide whether or not you want a beer with your burger.

Gretch, you're being evasive, and we've seen this before. To wit:

> you say "but gay people CANNNN
> get married."

Well, y'know, they can.

> It does follow that if the government
> recognizes you as an adult and can
> call on your to die for it, then
> it should fully recognize you.

1. Why? How? If you're "fully recognized" as being sufficiently adult to drive a car (an intrument which can kill dozens in a moment), why can't you run for president?

2. What's "fully recognize" mean, and what's it got to do with chilled sake?

> Because grown-ups are smahtah!

Word! For example, they can handle their alcohol better.

Take the point and move along.

"evasive,"

Nuh-uh. I just don't think it's necessary, in the GM debate to say "...for gay people to marry *someone of the same sex*." It's obvious when we are debating it for the millionth time on this blog and time consuming to type it out. Not evasive!!

"For example, they can handle their alcohol better."

I don't disagree, but they can handle it better b/c they've got obliterated one too many times, puked, got a hang over and learned their lesson. For the record: people don't stop being dumb about booze once they're 21. Most people in my social group are from about 25-35 years old and they all drink like fish and act dumb.

Life experience is invaluable and I'd never deny that it exists and is important. I want the leader of the country to have as much life experience as possible.

"Fully recognize" meaning to stop being inconsistent. If someone is an adult in a legal sense, s/he is an adult. Period. Not a quasi-adult. Which is what the 21 y/o drinking age effectively does, creates quasi-adults.

"1. Why? How? If you're "fully recognized" as being sufficiently adult to drive a car (an intrument which can kill dozens in a moment), why can't you run for president?"

Because an 18 year old president could, in a moment, kill a lot more than a dozen people. I don't know how many 18 year olds are currently in the country, with license, but it's far less deadly and less dangerous to the other couple hundred million Americans than an 18 year old president. On the other hand, a 35 year old president is only slightly dangerous.

>>Word! For example, [grown ups] can handle their alcohol better.

I agree 100% with Crid.

But my reasoning is prim, self-servingly evasive and not especially persuasive.

"they can handle their alcohol better ...
Take the point and move along."

Fat people handle alcohol better - do you advocate prohibiting it for skinny people?

I really wouldn't care if 18-year-olds could run for president. No one would vote for them anyway, and if they did, well, an 18-year-old couldn't do any worse than this president or the last one.

Why? How? If you're "fully recognized" as being sufficiently adult to drive a car (an intrument which can kill dozens in a moment), why can't you run for president?

Because it takes a while for the other so-called grownups in the country to get used to the idea of taking orders from someone younger than they are. You need a coupla years to get to that point.

Once you're closer to forty, you've probably worked for someone younger than you and the idea of taking orders from someone that you could have babysat isn't the least palatable thing you've had to swallow in your lifetime.

Yep, I'm on board the Psuedonym train as well.

My girls are both under 18, both have had a sip of wine and/or beer from time to time, when they've asked for it, and they both know they don't care for it (and I've told them that while it's an acquired taste, they needn't be in a hurry to acquire it!). People make too big a deal out of it all. If they concentrated more on personal responsibility, there would be less noise about who is drinking what, where, when, and at what age.

The frontal lobes (decision making, impulse and judgment part of yer thinker) in humans don't fully develop until early adulthood (early twenties). Alcohol changes body chemistry and has it's obvious effects to the brain. What type of impact *could* giving a child alcohol during this development process have? Then of course, there is the genetic component (complete crap shoot) as to what makes one a problem drinker vs. an alcoholic.

Alcoholism is said to be a combination of genetics *and* a mental obsession. (Mental obsession = impulsive = frontal lobes).

Crimes as described above, aren't usually committed by your run of the mill problem or social drinker (I bring this all up because it is an important point since the Dr. is relating alcohol consumption to crimes). Alcoholics will typically (not always, but typically) be the perpetrators in such crimes where alcohol is a component. Doesn't mean all alcoholics are criminals, but I am sure you will find more often than not, that many criminals in the crimes shown above have some form of addiction present in their background.

Any one who has lived with an alcoholic can tell you at great length about the drastic personality change that occurs in an alcoholic after even the first sip...as well as during their unpleasant detox period. I grew up with one in my family...and it's no fucking picnic.

Giving a child a few sips of wine in and of itself I do not see as problematic - provided its not from alcoholic parent(s) and there is no family history of it. But if there is a history of alcoholism within the family, I'd say it's not such a good idea. And are alcoholic parent(s) really known for their good judgment?

There are behaviors exhibited within alcoholic homes that re-enforce alcohol and bad decision making and impact the child's relationship with alcohol as well.

I think 21 is a reasonable marker. My guess, this good doctor doesn't know much about addiction, and much less about growing up in an alcoholic home.

Three points:

1) Amy - not every culture educates about alcohol as well as our Jewish one - or Italian/Mediterranean societies that also do it well, and don't have pub/bar cultures.

2) Teenage drinking (like drug use) is not going to go away until we address the underlying cause.

No law can do what an intact, connected family can do.

Drinking, drugs, and other reckless/lawless behaviors are linked over and over to fatherless homes.

3) When do you finally grow up?

When does "adult" really mean adult?

I think spreading various adult privileges/responsibilities out has contributed to the phenomenon of protracted adolescence.

The argument was "we'll protect them until they grow up" - but all that's done is put off the age at which you must "grow up".

Modern 20-somethings are probably a lot less mature in many ways than 16-year-olds of a previous generation.

>> Why shouldn't we say that? What does one have to do with the other?

The two things are:
1] age of consent for drinking
2] age of consent for military service/voting/driving/etc

The answer, "crid", is because we live in a Constitutional rule-of-law nation, which has a presumption of equal treatment under that law, and not whimsical, capricious treatment under the whim of whomever bought enough legislators.

If we're going to assume that 18 is a "reasonable" age of majority, then 18 it is. Anything else sets up a multi-tiered "adult" which violates the constitutional need for "equal treatment".

Sorry.

More to the point, however: the practical drinking age is somewhere in the mid-teens. That's when children naturally want to start experimenting with alcohol on their own.

And the reality is: the drinking habits a person observes or develops at this time are those which he will take into adulthood with him ... far more times than not. When those drinking patterns are self-developed, they usually result in binge-drinking.

...for the laws we have in our country promote binge-drinking. In 1984 we prohibited alcohol **possession** among those under 21, not alcohol consumption. Which means that when the 16 year-old starts to experiment with alcohol, his intent is not merely to drink it and see what it does, but to drink it as quickly as he can. For if he is caught being drunk there is no problem. It is when he is caught in **possession** that he gets in legal trouble.

Any under-ager who gets hold of alcohol is trained, by our laws, to drink it as fast as he possibly can and get rid of the evidence.

Binge-drinking is one of the most telling signs of pre-addictive behavior there is. And we have been training our youngsters, since 1984, to drink large amounts of alcohol as quickly as possible. HIGH FIVE!!!

http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/2009/07/heres-mud-in-yer-eye.html

"My boyfriend had what I thought was a brilliant idea. Lower the drinking age to 16, but raise the driving age to 21 (18 or 19 would probably work as well). That way, the kids get experience with alcohol before they start driving and hopefully most of the novelty has worn off. That, and their parents (again hopefully) have more control of them at 16."

I'm sorry, but this is the worst idea I've ever heard. 16 year olds don't NEED to drink, but many of them do need to drive. As a senior in high school, when I was 16/17 years old, I worked part-time, interned at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, and took night classes at community college (since my high school had run out of math classes for me to take). Oh, and I didn't drink very much either, because I was busy doing the above plus going to school and applying for college. Take away the cars and give unlimited access to alcohol, and you have a bunch of high schoolers spending all their spare time sitting in their basements drinking. Brilliant.

Also, just because I got my license at 16 didn't mean that I had carte blanche to drive anywhere I wanted. My parents gradually eased restrictions on where and when I could drive, and for the first year or so I had to call and check in ALL the time. It's called responsible parenting, and it's not that hard. Right now I'm in college and I only have access to a car when I'm home on breaks under my parents' roof. By the time I'm 21 and on my own with my own car, I'll have 6 years of driving experience and be a pretty competent driver. Whereas if you raise the driving age to 21, people will be driving a car for the very first time with no one to teach them, no one to keep tabs on them, and no one to set driving restrictions. Plus, hello, how will 16-21 year olds get jobs if they don't have transportation?

My suggestion for the drinking age: legalize drinking on military bases and college campuses, period. Everyone in college drinks anyway, to the point where making it illegal is ridiculous. Plus colleges provide shuttles and buses and safe rides, so drinking and driving is generally not an issue. Hopefully this will still keep alcohol somewhat out of the hands of young teenagers. Whereas if 18 year olds can legally purchase alcohol, it's easy for a freshman to ask a senior to buy them alcohol, which they can then sell to their 7th grade brother...that would be the big problem I have with lowering the drinking age across the board.

"Legal Age 21 has not worked," Chafetz said in the piece. "To be sure, drunk driving fatalities are lower now than they were in 1982. But they are lower in all age groups. And they have declined just as much in Canada, where the age is 18 or 19, as they have in the United States."

What correlation is there between this and the seatbelt laws at the time? I'm sorry, this is absurd.

>>What correlation is there between this and the seatbelt laws at the time? I'm sorry, this is absurd.

So is unknowledgable denunciation.

Guess which you're doing?

"What correlation is there between this and the seatbelt laws at the time? I'm sorry, this is absurd."

You're getting closer ... but in reality it's not because of seatbelts but because of airbags and bigger, safer cars. (Even if they do guzzle gas.)

Seatbelts save lives - seatbelt laws do not. (Seatbelt laws just raise funds for police departments when they're running out of money.)

"16 year olds don't NEED to drink, but many of them do need to drive."

Not all 16 year olds are bright, level-headed kids working at John Hopkins. I'd dare to say that most are not. I had a job from the day I turned 14 on (like, over-the-table jobs...before that I just babysat). When I got my license, since my parents couldn't afford 3 cars, I still had to bum rides off of them, a babysitter or whoever. The license changes little for families who can't afford an additional car for the new driver and both parents work in separate places.

The majority of 16 year olds don't understand the concept of death being, well, permanent and real. They do dumb stuff because their brains aren't totally developed and they NEED (since we're talking about needs) to impress their friends doing dumb stuff. Their brains say so. This wanes over time. I would argue that 2 fewer years behind the wheel, while they're outgrowing this phase, is a safety measure to those on the road and in the car. You try telling a 16 year old not to impress his friends and he'll tell you to "fuck off." I know this.

Inconvenience isn't a good enough justification for allowing one person to do something that is statistically shown to be dangerous to another person. A bunch of studies have been conducted lately because there is an uprising against old people (they're shitty drivers, right?!) but the studies just ended up showing that most teenage boys are the accident-causers. Not because they're less capable drivers (because my bro drives great when he's in the car w/ my mom or me, no jerky braking or anything!) but because their silly brains and silly hormones encourage them to act up when mom and big sister aren't around to yell at them!

>> Guess which you're doing?

Uhhh, trying to get less narrow perspective on this finding (one with no cited information on the population sample)....

PJ - I thought about that as I was walking to grab some lunch...damn, ya beat me to it!

;)

"that most teenage boys are the accident-causers."

Ew I hate my wording.

Let's do "teens between the ages of 16 and 19 are more likely to be in an accident than any other age group" I am semi-plagiarizing from a CDC report. http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Teen_Drivers/teendrivers_factsheet.html

Inexperience is huge - yes - but being dumb is also huge.

Random tidbits from the link I posted above:

- Among male drivers between 15 and 20 years of age who were involved in fatal crashes in 2005, 38% were speeding at the time of the crash and 24% had been drinking.7,8

There are lots of tid bits about teenage drivers there - including driving+drinking ones.

mabey the key ois then to lower the driving age, teach kids the skills of driving before the hormone explosion.

In the military you are trained and drilled endlessly so that when a situation arises you react before you have a chance to lockup while thinking about it.

I say lower the age kids get a learners permit, most cars these day are just steering and pedals - who has a standard anymore?

Train them to react to situation that lead to accident sbefore they get to their hormonal "nothing can kill me" phase and maybe they wont be such brianless show offs if they already know how to drive as oppsed to just learning.

Have any of you heard of the Teen Safe Driver Program? (This one is sponsored by American Family Insurance.)

Basically they mount a camera that is watching the road, another on the interior, and connection to the OBD-II computer. It records to a "black box" that the kids and parents are supposed to review together regularly to see if there were errors.

If they got it affordable and widespread, it probably would save a lot of kids.

> Fat people handle alcohol better

Well, it affects them more slowly because they have more tissue to poison.

> do you advocate prohibiting it
> for skinny people?

Laws (physical and civic) are aligned with this insight: The common measure for drunkenness is BAC.

> we live in a Constitutional rule-
> of-law nation, which has a presumption
> of equal treatment under that law

The problem, "rwilymz", is that capitalizing the word 'constitutional' doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. It specifically doesn't mean you can pout like a child about things being fair. There are all kinds of responsibilities and opportunities which come to us at different stages in life, and you don't get to pick the ones that arrive in tandem just because you have favorites.

Besides, your "use" of "seemingly" ironic "scare quotes" is getting out of "hand".

> Everyone in college drinks anyway,
> to the point where making it
> illegal is ridiculous.

Men like to ball strange women too... So what's with all the rape law?

We want to keep the lid on, that's what.

> If someone is an adult in a legal
> sense, s/he is an adult. Period.

Says who? Again, why then are you not insisting the drinking and military service and presidential candidacy begin with a learner's permit in the summer of the 15th year?

Because you know better!

This is so over. Concede already, Gretchen.

funny to compare the voting age to the military age and driving and voting ages. Drinks should be available at 18, you are an adult in the law's eye. Voting should be deferred until you reach the age of 35 because quite honestly that is the only way to eliminate the horrible leadership we have in this country. The military and drinking do not take wisdom, responsible voting does. Next time I see a "rock the vote" campaign, I cringe at what will get elected (like that big eared moron in the whitehouse)

oh, and isn't something wrong when access to illegal drugs is easier than access to alcohol to folks under 21 ?. Legalize the drugs and drop the access age down to 18.

Gretchen- not all 16 year olds are working at Johns Hopkins per say, but in my experience almost all of high school juniors and seniors are engaged in some sort of constructive activity that necessitates a car, usually a job and/or extracurricular activities. Yes, not all 16 year olds are equally mature and/or equally capable of driving a car (including your brother it sounds like) but again, that's a case of parental responsibility. Parents have control over when their kid gets his permit, when he gets his license, and good parents should be able to control when and where he can drive-and take away the car keys if necessary. (I know that if my 16-year-old sister or I ever told our parents to "fuck off" in regards to driving rules, we'd have the car taken away until we were approximately 25)

In regards to the data showing that teens ages 16-19 are more likely to get in accidents than any other age group, I would bet that has to do partly with inexperience. You're more likely to spin out on a wet road if you've never driven in the rain before, etc. Raise the driving age to 18, and 18-21 year olds will be more likely to get into accidents, and so on. There's no cure for inexperience except for practice, and again, practice is best conducted under the guidance of a parent. If people can't get their license until age 18, when they're already out of the house, then who is ever going to teach them to drive??

"Voting should be deferred until you reach the age of 35 because quite honestly that is the only way to eliminate the horrible leadership we have in this country. The military and drinking do not take wisdom, responsible voting does."

So you think that 18 year olds should be allowed to die for their country, but not vote for their leadership?

If you don't like democracy, then maybe you should move somewhere else.

shannon, where did I say I did not like democracy? I do not like a democracy where there are absolutely no qualifications to being able to vote other than age. If you can deny that an 18 year old (or a 21 year old) choices are as "wise" as an older adult, then never mind, you just don't get it. Younger adults are naive dreamers who do not do the research and understand the impacts on the issues they are voting for. How else can one justify a system that generates tax increases in the worst financial environment since the '30s.

> I just don't think it's necessary,
> in the GM debate to say "...for
> gay people to marry *someone of
> the same sex*." It's obvious

Oh, you are straight-up bullshitting. You'll do anything, anything to prevent people from thinking clearly about the magnitude of the change you're demanding... Because you know if they do, they'll be a lot less interested in supporting your impulses about 'reasonableness'.

>>The problem, "rwilymz", is that capitalizing the word 'constitutional' doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want.

No one suggested that, "crid". And the fact that you suggested that someone -- specifically me -- suggested it, means either that you are irrepressibly stupid and incapable of conducting your share of a public discussion, or that you are simply dishonest.

Seeing as I'm feeling somewhat charitable at the moment, I'll let you choose.

But do not ever attempt to go around putting words in my mouth ever again. That's not debatable.

>>It specifically doesn't mean you can pout like a child about things being fair.

No one is pouting, except perhaps you.

But the Constitution does, indeed, assert that equal treatment under the law is required, without qualification as to what practical impact that equality of treatment actually has.

>>There are all kinds of responsibilities and opportunities which come to us at different stages in life, and you don't get to pick the ones that arrive in tandem just because you have favorites.

Indeed. But not the point. There are also different reponsibilities and opportunities which come to us at different **circumstances** of life... but those differences of responsibility and opportunity are not allowed to be made subject to statutory limitations.

You can find Equal Protection in two places in the Constitution, in part owing to the seriousness with which we, at one time, considered the philosophy.

That you [apparently] don't is perhaps a legitimate political position with substance behind it, but it is not now the Way It Is.

I have told you the Way It Is. It doesn't matter whether you like it or don't; you have to accept it.

I'll ignore your childish and petulant ad hominemizing.

>>Men like to ball strange women too... So what's with all the rape law?

Rape would presume to take something from someone that does not belong to the one doing the taking.

But you knew that ... unless, of course, you are as monumentally dishonest and disingenuous as you seemed to be in responding specifically to me.

Drinking at the age of 16 ... in and of itself ... does not implicate anyone else or their collateral rights one way or another.

But you knew that as well ... or, well, there's still the "dishonesty" thing to contend with.

Your turn, bunky.

>>they can handle it better b/c they've got obliterated one too many times, puked, got a hang over and learned their lesson.

That may or may not be the case, Gretchen.

>>For the record: people don't stop being dumb about booze once they're 21.

I doubt anyone is suggesting otherwise

>>Most people in my social group are from about 25-35 years old and they all drink like fish and act dumb.

25-35??

They grew up under the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 and were trained to be binge drinkers; them "acting dumb" is a legitimate expectation.

> the Constitution does, indeed, assert
> that equal treatment under the
> law is required

First of all, your commas are arrhythmic. Secondly, then how come nine-year-olds can't drive, and how come the criminally insane can't get pilot's licenses?

> But do not ever attempt to go around
> putting words in my mouth ever again.

Well, you're the one who said women shouldn't be allowed to vote....

Say something fun!

"They grew up under the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 and were trained to be binge drinkers; them "acting dumb" is a legitimate expectation."

This has absolutely nothing to do with it. Zero. Try again.

They weren't "trained" to do anything by a law. Binge drinking is a result of wanting to get as loaded as possible and as quickly as possible for the affects(quick fix). And obviously, the more you drink, the more you will need to consume to attain that feeling, and the quicker you do it also comes in to play. Keg stands?

Your analysis of people needing to down alcohol as soon as possible to avoid getting in trouble lacks in substance, evidence and reasoning. That's not the reason people binge drink. Not even close.

>>First of all, your commas are arrhythmic.

You sure do like the ad hominem, doncha?

Can't make a legitimate point about the subject, shoot the messenger.

>>Secondly, then how come nine-year-olds can't drive, and how come the criminally insane can't get pilot's licenses?

It ain't because of a failure of Equal Protection. ... which is the issue.

>>Well, you're the one who said women shouldn't be allowed to vote

?????

Find it.

> You sure do like the
> ad hominem, doncha?

Well, I like the people who don't earn it....

>>This has absolutely nothing to do with it. Zero. Try again.

Gainsaying is a proven tactic of the pointless.

>>They weren't "trained" to do anything by a law.

Specifically? No. You're right. Any more than the Plessy ruling trained white racists to be racist in ever-so-slightly subtler ways.

But law creates a basis of incentive, whether you care to acknowlege it or not. ...and apparently you don't.

>>Binge drinking is a result of wanting to get as loaded as possible and as quickly as possible for the affects(quick fix).

That is certainly the case after drinking patterns have been established. It is the establishment of those patterns in the first place I was talking about.

>>Your analysis of people needing to down alcohol as soon as possible to avoid getting in trouble lacks in substance, evidence and reasoning.

Then explain the increase in "problem drinking patterns" observed in the cohort coming of legal drinking age after the establishment of this law.

Explain why Europe and indeed the rest of the drinking world has virtually none of the long-term drinking problems that the US has despite our repeated attempts to "fix" the problem by further and further acts of incremental Prohibition. ...when they have younger and less rigidly enforced drinking ages, and more alcohol consumption by what we consider "minors".

Give it a shot.

Wanna get rid of binge drinking? Teach kids to like the expensive stuff.

It costs too much to get wasted on Jack or Samuel Adams. And once you've acquired the taste for quality beer/spirits, you can't go back to piss and turpentine.

you can if your an alkie

>> That is certainly the case after drinking patterns have been established. It is the establishment of those patterns in the first place I was talking about.

Family behavior and environment have more to do with the early establishment of drinking patterns than any law ever could. Imprinting, ya know?

I would imagine that one alcoholic US couple with two or three kids would probably produce more alcoholic youth on average because European's brith rate has been dwindling now for years.

Car accidents and fatalities here are greater in the US with respects to alcohol consumption because most Europeans walk a lot, dont own cars, or roll around in matchboxes.

I think it is the hugest fallacy that Europeans dont have drinking problems like they do here...they do.

My entire family (with the exception of one horny Bavarian) was from Italy, both north and south. Over half were alcoholics. They keep hush hush and ignore the drunk relative who passes out three hours early in the lawn chair. This is not different than the old country...and kids watch this and steal alcohol from their parents liquor cabinents (even if they were allowed a couple of ounces at dinner time on special occasions).

You either have the family history of it, or you don't. You either have it in your immediate environment, or you don't.

What's the drinking age now in the UK? Haven't they been having a lot of problems lately with their youth? Amy posted about one just the other day.

Consuming alcohol regularly before your brain is fully developed (especially the frontal lobes) and having a hereditary predisposition to alcoholism is by far and above the single biggest reason for problem drinking. We learn what we are shown.

There are so many, many variables, that to pin this primarily on one law (which is what you are doing) is inane.

ALSO, alcohol consumption is hard to track over in Italy (Europe).

A lot of folks make their vino. My family did, homemade...even here in the states and during the prohobition.

"We want to keep the lid on, that's what."

Sure, but are these laws an effective way to do that? You are always going on about raising our expectations of people, and I agree with that. But this is a parental issue, not one for the law. Hiring more cops indicates a lessening of our expectations for people, not an increase in them.

> are these laws an effective
> way to do that?

I think they approach the sweetest possible mix of [A] not fucking with people too intrusively and [B] letting young people know that this can turn into seriously consequential behavior if enjoyed recklessly.

Teenagers (even youngers ones) who do their drinking responsibly don't get any attention, as described by the many people here who serve their kids thoughtful portions of alcohol.

> Hiring more cops indicates
> a lessening of our expectations

Well, the cops are all about enforcement. I guess I don't see your point.

Feebie, both my parents are alcoholics (one recovering), and neither me or my brothers drink anything alcoholic. "Imprinting" doesn't have to be bad, in this case we all got so scared that we'd become alcoholics that we fled from the stuff. Some might think that's overreaction, but I see generations of alcoholics in my family so why take any chance?

People that are 18 can smoke, and that's more damaging to your body than alcohol is. Sure you can drink yourself to death, but that's usually something that takes some serious effort on your part. The question is, "is an 18 year old an adult?" and they are. They can be in porn, sign documents, buy a car/house/something else expensive, smoke, marry, be in the military, sky dive, donate a kidney...and alcohol really is the one thing that they couldn't possibly be ready for or make decisions about?

Binge beer bash in the news:

The Prez, the Prof, and the cop (how fortunate for the Prof the policeman is named Jim CROWley) pound a few cold ones at what America can only pray will be the end of this ridiculous the-man-be-keepin-a-brother-down screed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8176925.stm

Let me take a slightly different point of view: It is a bad idea - for a whole raft of reasons - to have laws on the books that are not enforced or are not enforceable.

- Some might argue that such laws encourage people to flout other laws.

- Some might point out that the government can use such laws to selectively prosecute people that it doesn't like, or can't otherwise build a case against.

The point is this: if you have a law on the books that the majority of the relevant population routinely ignores, then the law is a bad law. And the fact is that the vast majority of 18 to 21 year olds drink alcohol.

For this reason alone, the law is wrong to set 21 as the legal drinking age.

>>Family behavior and environment have more to do with the early establishment of drinking patterns than any law ever could. Imprinting, ya know?

And here I thought you were irrepressibly stupid?

It turns out you're simply dishonest.

You're only willing to look at those factors which figure into the equation that you WISH to look at. That is academic fraud.

The fact of the matter is: the law in question affects family behavior, even though it is not designed to. It still did and continues to.

>>I think it is the hugest fallacy that Europeans dont have drinking problems like they do here...they do.

Of course they do.

But not at the RATE we do here.

Are you seriously not getting it?

>>My entire family ...

You ARE seriously not getting it.

You are attempting the other academic fraud of extrapolation from a sample of one.

>>Consuming alcohol regularly before your brain is fully developed (especially the frontal lobes) and having a hereditary predisposition to alcoholism is by far and above the single biggest reason for problem drinking.

Compound conditions work like that.

It's how the academic fraud artist Rachel Carson "proved" DDT causes the thinning of eggs shells in raptors. She cited studies which sprayed DDT around raptor nesting areas when the DDT was mixed with chemicals that are clinically shown to cause thinning of egg shells. Then remove the causative agent from the equation, write a book and bamboozle the unthinking masses.

Congratulations: you aren't the first to glom onto this trick, but you are still dishonest. So at least that's something.

If you have a genetic predisposition to addiction patterns then if you start drinking early you are more prone to addiction. If you have a genetic predispostion to addiction patterns, then if you start drinking LATE you are more prone to addiction.

It doesn't matter when you start drinking if you have a genetic predispostion to addiction patterns; you will always be more prone to addiction.

But here's the thing: only a relatively small fraction of the human gene pool is genetically predisposed to alcohol addiction.

Extrapolating from a preselected subset of the general population is just as much academic fraud as extrapolating from a sample of one.

Now this does nothing to comfort you or your family who have drinking problems, but -- fortunately -- most of the rest of us are not saddled with that burden, and there is no reason for the rest of the nation to have to endure social conditioning and the attendant harranguing that are geared towards you.

>>We learn what we are shown.

BINGO, bubula.

You're catching on.

>>There are so many, many variables, that to pin this primarily on one law (which is what you are doing) is inane.

There are indeed many,many variables.

But no one, particularly me, has declared that a law is the only thing that affects the situation. You interpreted what I said as that -- which is your responsibility, not mine.

I'm not going to take responsibility for your presumptuous conclusions any more than I am your family's drinking problems. If you believe I'm saying something that is as presumptuous as you declared it to be, then your duty as an honest participant in a discussion is to find out if your presumptuous conclusion is on the right track. You did not do so. You leaped to a presumptuous conclusion and put words in my mouth by doing so.

SOME people are predisposed to addiction. It doesn't matter when or where or under what conditions they start drinking: they are very likely to have problems. I said nothing which negated that. I said nothing which addressed genetic predispositions.

For the population as a whole -- most of whom are not predisposed to addiction -- social conditioning, i.e., what we see, hear, observe, "internalize", is what creates the patterns that we carry into adulthood.

Part of that social conditioning is the laws we have to put up with which have the declarative objective of altering our behavior.

It is one of those laws which remarkably coincided with a sharp uptick in underage binge-drinking that has been going on now for over a generation.

There has always -- and likely will always -- be teenage binge-drinking. It's simply a teenager thing to do. But when that teenaged binge-drinking is not preceded by the "imprinting, ya know?" habits of moderation laid down by parents, the teenaged binge-drinking becomes the only drinking pattern established -- and hence it is the one most likely to be carried into adulthood.

When parents are now scared to give their own children a half glass of wine with dinner because the law says it's illegal [it doesn't, but most of us aren't loyyers enough to tell] then there is no "imprinting, ya know?" pattern laid down.

When children, who are always trying to get their hands on alcohol, are not punished for trying to buy it ... they will continue to try buying it.

When those same children are, though, punished for possessing but not for being drunk [which the federal law does though a few states are written differently], then they are trained, when they do get hold of alcohol, to chug even harder than they were otherwise likely to.

This, particularly when coupled with the absence of the "imprinting, ya know?" parental pattern creates another source for life-long drinking problems that are not satisfactorily explained by 'family patterns'.

If you still have issues dealing with reality, you -- like "crid" -- are advised to cease putting words in my mouth, but instead are strongly urged to ask for further clarificiation.

> And here I thought you were
> irrepressibly stupid? It turns
> out you're simply dishonest.

Seriously, what's the deal on this blog?

Seriously, what's the deal on this blog?

Well, obviously, someone touched a raw nerve!

And then the who was touched proceded to give the unedumacated an edumacation. Or tried to. Although they got a little obtuse about it all.

o.O

> are advised to cease putting
> words in my mouth

Well, you're the one who said Hispanics shouldn't be allowed to serve in government.

rwilymz -

Laws, one way or the other will not dictate whether people are choosing to drink irresponsibly or not. There has always been a history of problematic drinking here (as there has always been in other countries) Pre_Temperance Movement, Post Temperance Movement, Pre Prohobition, Post Prohobition. Since alcohol came around, there were those that abused it, and those who did not. Nuthin' new under the sun.

Children shouldn't be allowed to drink regularly before their twenties. Responsible, sane and sober parents will give them a taste here and there within the privacy of their own homes to show them responsibilty around drinking. But that's what good parents do and it's their responsibility to allow access or not.

The specific examples of criminal activities surrounding alcohol and binge drinking more than likely aren't representative of underage drinkers from the well adjusted homes. It doesn't have anything to do with any law.

You can talk about raptor eggs (heh?) all you like. But in the real world, it's just gas.

"Part of that social conditioning is the laws we have to put up with which have the declarative objective of altering our behavior."

One more, and I am done.

You mentioned the social conditioning by way of law in manner of Plessy and racism as somehow equal or relevent to laws which are put into place with the intention of protecting *minors*.

I find your go-to argument of racism on this thread abhorrent and sleezy.

The social conditioning of the racist, classist (which i am smelling from you, sir), sexist or heterosexist variety is done specifically to restrict *legitamate access to resources* for accumulating wealth, power, status, and prestige within the economic system which facilitates culture and the institutions that conserve it.

If you can tell me how enforcing a law, with the *intention* of protecting the overall well being of minors, and how having alcohol given to them at an early age restricts their ability to accumulate any of the above then I might just be willing to listen. But I just don't see it. Minors consuming alcohol is not a right protected by the constitution.

Society does not have the responsibility to condone potentially unhealty and lethal alcohol consumption of minors (who don't yet have the ability to make sound choices) just because they want to and feel it is their right.

Society does not have the responsibility to condone potentially unhealty and lethal alcohol consumption of minors

But society does condone potentially unhealthy sexual promiscuity of minors.

The intent of the law is irrelevant. The impact of the law is what should be measured. And the increase in the drinking age has done exactly the opposite of everything its supporters said it would do. And what's their answer? MORE LAWS!

No. We've got too many laws. States are going bankrupt. They need to shrink government as much as possible, and then shrink it some more. Which would make it virtually impossible for them to get in my face.

And not having the government to fall back on might force people to be a bit more responsible with their whelps.

>>Laws, one way or the other will not dictate whether people are choosing to drink irresponsibly or not.

To a portion of the population, of course they do. To another portion of the population, of course they do NOT. The basic difference between rule-followers and rule-breakers. ... which is also as old as the sun. And this doesn't even consider that there is a third portion of the population which sometimes DO and other times DO NOT choose to follow those rules. The equivocative class.

One problem with your attempted sermon, though, is your choice of the word "responsibly". It can [and does] mean different things to different people.

And to many, it is inherrently contrary to this:
>>Children shouldn't be allowed to drink regularly before their twenties.

Why not?

They are naturally inclined to. Just like they are naturally inclined to do other risk-taking behaviors -- like drive, and bungee jump, and date, and think war is a thrilling, thrilling adventure, et cetera. All inherently dangerous, some psychologically more than physically, but dangerous nonetheless. And all pretty much allowed, though some with social rules thrown on top of them.

What's the deal with alcohol that it needs its own separate-but-equal seat at the back of the bus?

>>The specific examples of criminal activities surrounding alcohol and binge drinking more than likely aren't representative of underage drinkers from the well adjusted homes.

You don't get out much, do you?

>>It doesn't have anything to do with any law.

You're good at baseless assertion. I've pointed at the correlation; you've denied a connection but haven't otherwise explained its occurrence.

Exactly how do you think academic discourse works?

>>One more, and I am done.

I doubt that.

>>You mentioned the social conditioning by way of law in manner of Plessy and racism as somehow equal or relevent to laws which are put into place with the intention of protecting *minors*.

I mentioned it in the way of making a comparison. If the only comparison you can see is the one between blacks and children then do not blame me because that's the image in your mind. We are all pawns at the beck and call of the government: children, women, men, blacks, hispanics, straight-A students, high school drop-outs ... to compare the government's role in creating incentives through one mechanism with their role in creating incentives through another mechanism is only necessarily a comparison of two acts of creating incentives.

Which is very clearly what I was talking about.

That you choose to ignore what I was talking about and diverge at right angles to reality -- and then again attempt to blame me for it -- is quite telling. Have I mentioned yet that you are dishonest?

>>I find your go-to argument of racism on this thread abhorrent and sleezy.

I find dishonesty sleazy.

Since I'm the only one of us who is finding sleaziness in the other without having to cut it out of whole cloth, I think I'm the winner.

>>The social conditioning of the racist, classist (which i am smelling from you, sir), sexist or heterosexist variety is done specifically to restrict *legitamate access to resources* for accumulating wealth, power, status, and prestige within the economic system which facilitates culture and the institutions that conserve it.

So you've finally decided that you can't beat me at the topic at hand, so you're going to wheel out on a tangent and ad hominemize. Yes. I can see where my declarations and support of the declarations that social rules of alcohol consumption are paranoid, perversely incentived, and counter-productive leads to a conclusion that I'm all about denying folks access to resources.

Your fun, freeb.

>>Minors consuming alcohol is not a right protected by the constitution.

No one said, or suggested, it was. But it would do well to understand and accept a few legal definitions: a "minor" is someone under the age of 18.

There are separate ages for various other activities, imposed by law, which either occur before the age of majority, or after, and which do not change the age of majority. One is the age for sexual consent -- which is frequently 18 or earlier. Another is the age for consent to marry, which is all over the board. And yet another is the age to possess alcohol, which is uniformly 21 [*]

* - Most states have "parental consent" exemptions, and many have private or religious club exemptions.

Note for the anal retentive hereabouts: the inclusion of certain examples is not meant to deny the existence of others, such as the age to legally drive a motor vehicle, the age to hold a job outside a family business, et freakin cetera.

No one has advocated allowing minors to do anything with alcohol, except perhaps specifially acknowledging that parents have rights to train them regarding it as they see fit -- which most parents do not understand they DO have the right to do, even in public restaurants.

>>Society does not have the responsibility to condone potentially unhealty and lethal alcohol consumption of minors (who don't yet have the ability to make sound choices) just because they want to and feel it is their right.

What a whuppin you gave that strawman!! I've got a few bales of straw left in the barn; I'll sell them to you if you need to make more in order to feel all manly and debatorial. $50 each.

Once again, skeezix: no one is advocating anything close to what you are stridently shouting down, particularly not me.

I'd suggest you save it for the MADD meeting. Sieg Heil.

>>But society does condone potentially unhealthy sexual promiscuity of minors.

Very very true. We are sexualizing children at earlier and earlier ages, and for the crassest of purposes: profit. Then when are children are all sexed up, we turn them loose and penalize everyone around them who -- duh -- responds to them as the sexual creatures they are acting and sounding like.

And one of the most hypocritical pieces of combined legislation going:
we declare that girls at the age of 15 are not legally allowed to consent to sex, but once having done so and getting pregnant, there are many, many, many people who are willing to grant them the unilateral authority to conesnt to invasive surgery to rid them of that pregnancy.

...while the 15 year old girl down the street, who is not pregnant, cannot get her ears pierced without parental consent.

>>The intent of the law is irrelevant.

That is almost always the case, yes. Except for some court proceedings where the judge will allow an argument of legislative intent if you can demonstrate that the enforcement of the law is widely divergent from it.

>>The impact of the law is what should be measured. And the increase in the drinking age has done exactly the opposite of everything its supporters said it would do.

Binge drinking and alcoholism have sharply increased since the mid 80s among those who came of age under the various alcohol-restriction laws imposed at that time.

>>We've got too many laws. States are going bankrupt. They need to shrink government as much as possible, and then shrink it some more. Which would make it virtually impossible for them to get in my face.

You sound like a libertarian. I like you.

http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/2009/01/liar-liar.html

Legal drinking age(s) in the UK:

- 5 (in private)

- 18 to drink alcohol on licensed premises (e.g. a pub or restaurant) unless they are over 16, having a meal with their drink, and they are accompanied by an adult.

Here's an article from your neck of the woods - Chicago Trib.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-133597119.html

and;

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/159391.php

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-302531/Special-report-Binge-drinking.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3121440.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3510560.stm

http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/archives/news/europe/20070924-UK-alcoholism-teenagers-dinge-drinking-epidemic-cirrhosis-liver.php

Underage drinking and dependency/alcoholism:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-394078/Addiction-danger-child-drinkers.html;jsessionid=41150B3FAF7F48F40B7D6453EF0E0433

http://psychcentral.com/news/2006/07/05/early-teenage-drinking-linked-to-alcoholism

>> Sieg Heil.

Feel any better now?

Legal drinking age(s) in the UK:

- 5 (in private)

- 18 to drink alcohol on licensed premises (e.g. a pub or restaurant) unless they are over 16, having a meal with their drink, and they are accompanied by an adult.

Here's an article from your neck of the woods - Chicago Trib.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-133597119.html

and;

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/159391.php

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-302531/Special-report-Binge-drinking.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3121440.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3510560.stm

http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/archives/news/europe/20070924-UK-alcoholism-teenagers-dinge-drinking-epidemic-cirrhosis-liver.php

Underage drinking and dependency/alcoholism:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-394078/Addiction-danger-child-drinkers.html;jsessionid=41150B3FAF7F48F40B7D6453EF0E0433

http://psychcentral.com/news/2006/07/05/early-teenage-drinking-linked-to-alcoholism

>> Sieg Heil.

Feel any better now?

You sound like a libertarian. I like you.

Thank you, but I'm more of an anarcho-capitalist.

Government is only needed to keep other people from fucking up my shit. When government starts fucking up my shit, it's gone too far.

France is set to raise drinking age...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123716667064336421.html

"The government says it is particularly alarmed by the jump in binge drinking, which French Health Minister Roselyne Bachelot-Narquin, who drafted the new bill, refers to as "Biture Express" or an "express route to drunkenness." The number of young people ages 15 to 24 hospitalized in a serious inebriated condition rose 50% from 2004 to 2007, according to health authorities."

Milan to enforce teen drink ban:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8157725.stm

"Milan has banned the consumption and sale of alcohol to young teenagers in an effort to curb binge-drinking...A third of 11-year-olds in the city have alcohol related problems"

Of course the one thing missing from those statistics is how many of those kids are immigrants. "Youths" as they call them in France.

Brian - That matters, why?

Because they aren't acculturated. They aren't "French" in any meaningful sense. But they count as French for the purposes of the law, because they aren't going to pass a law that says "immigrant muslims must be over 21 to drink"

Brian - Alcohol is prohibited by Islam. Some won't even use alcohol hand gels and sanatizers. Not saying they aren't part of this statistic, but more than likely they would make up a small percentage since they abstain.

So is homosexuality, and there's more buggery in the middle east than in Barney Frank's basement.

I'm saying that they are more likely to be the binge drinkers than not. The first thing any muslim tends to be is a hypocrite.

Japan has a single age of majority. It was twenty, but there was talk of changing it to 18. They make a big deal of it, because that's when you become an adult, with all the privileges and consequences thereof, including drinking, driving, smoking, being liable for your debts, able to sign a contract or marry without parental permission.

The drinking age business is nuts. I was able to drink legally in NY at 18, not able to drink legally in Illinois at 19... We need to pick an age and get over this perpetual adolescent fetish.

Alcohol is prohibited by Islam.

Alcohol was prohibited by Omar, the second caliph (one of the rightly guided according to Sunnis, one of the usurpers according to Shi'ites).