Blog

by Lindsay Coley

While we of course have the ultimate goal to rid the world of age-based discrimination in order to achieve that the first step is getting support for our cause by appealing to as many people as possible. For right now the least we can do is lower it from that arbitrarily high age of 21 to the much more reasonable age of 18.

The legal drinking age in the United States is 21 years old (with exceptions in more than 30 states for location and family situations). This arbitrarily high age was legitimized in 1984 with the National Minimum Legal Drinking Age act spearheaded by an advocacy group which lobbies the government called MADD (they'd be the first to admit it). Now if it is to be understood correctly MADD's original purpose was to prevent drunk driving (thus the name: Mothers Against Drunk Driving). MADD is run by, well, there's no easy way to put this but mother's who lost their children (some well over 18) to drunk driving accidents either by drinking themselves or being the hapless victim of the ending of someone's out-of-control kegger at 3 in the morning.

At the age of 18 one is moved from minor to adult. This is both a legal and social change granting upon that person in question uncontested rights to their own bodies, lives and property. Prior to this that person, unfortunately, was legally owned by either their parents or the state in which they reside (or rather, their parents reside as for someone under 18 to be considered a resident somewhere at least one parent must also be). Not many would be willing to admit this fact but such is the society we are born into.

Unfortunately, unrelated and irrelevant statistics are often used to garner support for having the legal drinking age raised from 18 to 21 as many young people were dying on the road due to alcohol being involved in some way, shape or form. There does not appear to be any differentiating of the situation or ages of those that were actually drunk (if they were above/below the drinking age) just only that due to alcohol someone got killed (or someone just had alcohol in their system and were involved in a crash in someway). Here is a classic example of this in action:

A 45 year old male after drinking too much one night decides he needs to drive home, he gets in the car and drives for about a mile and upon coming around a turn he runs into a car full of 16-20 year olds coming back from their own party (but they've had no alcohol as they're not allowed to have it). He smashes his car into theirs killing all the occupants and he just barely survives. Someone comes across the wreck calls the police/ambulance and once the BAC of the driver is determined to be over the legal limit (0.08 for 100 milliters of blood) he receives medical attention and then is later arrested on charges of drunk driving and vehicular homicide. Later, the fact that the use of alcohol lead to the deaths of 4 perfectly healthy people is entered into the use of statistics used by MADD and the government to show why young people and alcohol do not mix.

Isn't there something inherently wrong about using this sort of information to restrict the rights of young people, nay, legal adults from putting something into their own bodies?

As stated above the opponents to lowering the drinking age, which would allow alcohol to flow legally through the hands of newly emancipated adults, is to protect them from the dangers of alcohol. Well, that would be nice and dandy if it were restricted to everyone as it has the same amount of chance of killing someone 21+ as it does under 18 proportionate to body weight and fat. Yes, that means even under-18s can drink alcohol and not die from it. Shocking I know. Also shocking is that one sip Johnny takes from that beer can won't kill him, in fact it just might make him a little less nervous around girls but then again we can't go having that either (that is to be saved for another post).

Unfortunately, once you turn 21 you're not automatically granted immunity from any effects of alcohol so you're just as likely to die from it (via overdose) prior to reaching 21 and well after you've passed 50. Age does not bring immunity to anything. In fact when someone is still a "child" their immune system is actually stronger than someone who is an adult or old person as they're physically vulnerable for injuries and the like and their immune system might do them well to protect them a little better from diseases, and so it does, usually. That still doesn't make them immune and that also does not contradict the previous point.

So again we must ask, why 21? Well there is a little website called Why21.org run by MADD which says WHY we must discriminate against legal adults (who are old enough to kill people in war and be executed but once they touch alcohol all bets are off). Here is one in particular I shall address in this blog post (I wrote out arguments against all of them on my facebook page).

"Alcohol use by those under 21 is also related to numerous health problems including injuries and death resulting from alcohol poisoning, car crashes, suicide, homicide, assaults, drowning and recreational mishaps. Not to mention that the early onset of drinking by youth significantly increases the risk of future health problems such as addiction.

First problem: Alcohol use by those under 21. Did you guys forget that you're not even close to being immune from the effects of after you've reached 21? And I thought I was invincible. Wow, this takes the cake. When I turn 21 I will get really really drunk and not die from it!! Cause it's okay!! I'm 21!! Alcohol can't hurt me anymore! Ignorance amasses... did I mention disinformation? SPOILERS: you can become addicted to absolutely anything at any age. Period."

Also, I failed to mention this in my original post but only one of them is a direct consequence of drinking too much alcohol and that is of course, alcohol poisoning. This statement is an assumption that those under 21 will do all these things while drunk, stereotyping everyone like that and insinuating that once someone is 21 they are no longer at risk for any of these things to happen. Thanks MADD, helping keep dangerous alcohol out of kids hands (oops, I'm sorry I meant adults too)!

In conclusion, lower the drinking age to at least 18, why? Because at 18 I can sue you out of house and home.

by Lindsay Coley

Apparently Australia wants to require doctors and all family members and friends to report all "child sexual activity" for those 16 and under (16 is the age of consent in Australia).

This would appear to be without the consent of the "child" in question or his or her parents and failure to report would be illegal therefore subjecting anyone who doesn't report it to fines and dare I say... jail time?

According to Dr Paul Bauert as stated in the article this would undoubtedly be a very bad idea as "children" tend to not want to tell doctors or parents about sex as it is now and once they learn about this law that if they do tell their doctors about it (perhaps seeking counseling on birth control or *gasp* STD testing) that their personal and private information is not only not personal it is not private.

This law would also stipulate that, regardless of consent, that one or BOTH parties could be prosecuted if, once the information is reported to the appropriate authorities, and they could also incur jail time for their crimes against the over-18s in control sense of "decency."

Needless to say this is just simply a very bad idea. While this may not be America it can reasonably expected that private information be just that – private – and the government has no business keeping tabs or records of "child sexual activity" unless they are involved in a rape case!

Here is another article about the same thing with a little more detail. One can clearly see there is no actual benefit to this law and would only harm young people.

One can only guess what the Australian government was thinking on this one. Don't even get me started on their campaign to "censor the internet."

There will be a meeting of the general membership on Monday, 04 May at 8:00 PM EDT (5:00 PM PDT). The meeting will, as always, take place in chatroom ASFAR on AIM.

The proposed agenda for the meeting is:

1. Whether http://asfar.nfshost.com shall be adopted as a temporary substitute for the ASFAR web site, in response to suspended member Svend la Rose's seizure of control over the former website as retaliation against his removal from the Board of Directors by the general membership.
2. Whether a clause shall be added to the ASFAR bylaws titled "Application of the Principle of Contextual Adaptability," and comprised of the text "In consideration of the situational exigencies that warrant occasional deviation from the rigidity of impersonal and unwaveringly strict application of and adherence to the bylaw articles contained herein, the application of a principle of contextual adaptability shall govern the interpretation of said articles, thus permitting deviation from technical components that would have the relatively indisputable effect of inhibiting the objects of the corporation."
3. Whether Article 1 of the ASFAR bylaws shall be amended by striking "and mailing address" and replacing with "[comma] immediate means of contact such as electronic mailing address, and state of residence."
4. Whether Article 5 of the ASFAR bylaws shall be amended by adding "or engaging in actions sufficiently contrary to furthering the objects of the corporation. Reinstatement of members expelled by the Board may be conducted through another 2/3 vote of the Board or a 2/3 vote of the general membership in accordance with Article 13 of the ASFAR bylaws."
5. Whether article 6 of the ASFAR bylaws shall be amended by striking "on the ballot for the annual meeting" and replacing with "at a general meeting of the membership. Reinstatement of members expelled by the general membership may be conducted through another three-fourths vote of the general membership. The Board may not reverse a general membership decision to expel a member, in accordance with Article 35 of the ASFAR bylaws."
6. Whether Article 7 of the ASFAR bylaws shall be amended by striking "fifteenth and thirty-first day of January" and replacing with "twenty-fifth day of January and tenth day of February."
7. Whether Article 11 of the ASFAR bylaws shall be amended by striking Section C, "if a director becomes bankrupt or suspends payment or compounds with his creditors."
8. Whether Article 12 of the ASFAR bylaws shall be amended by adding "A member shall possess the right to be allotted a minimum of fifteen minutes of debate time on any issue, as measured by a direct countdown of a block of time from the period that the member begins his or her address. At the point at which this fifteen minutes has expired, a motion to silence the member via a 2/3 majority vote may be introduced."
9. Whether Article 19 of the ASFAR bylaws ("Proxies Forbidden") shall be struck and replaced with a new article entitled, "Proxies permitted for Board of Directors meetings. Directors may vote by proxy on any question determined by live vote. Directors voting by proxy shall be considered present only for purposes of determining quorum and vote count."
10. Whether Article 21 of the ASFAR bylaws shall be amended by striking "In no case shall the board consist of fewer than six or more than twelve directors."
11. Whether Article 22 of the ASFAR bylaws shall be amended by striking "No person shall be elected or appointed a director who shall not have been a member of the corporation for ninety (90) calendar days."
12. Whether Article 29 of the ASFAR bylaws shall be amended by adding "A director shall possess the right to be allotted a minimum of fifteen minutes of debate time on any issue, as measured by a direct countdown of a block of time from the period that the member begins his or her address. At the point at which this fifteen minutes has expired, a motion to silence the director via a 2/3 majority vote may be introduced."
13. Whether Article 37, Section B (Appointment of Officers) of the ASFAR bylaws shall be amended by striking "The board of directors shall appoint the regular officers by resolution at the first meeting of the board of directors after the annual meeting," and replacing with "The regular officers shall be elected annually by members of the corporation at a meeting of that body to be held two weeks after the election of the Board of Directors at the annual meeting. Resolutions to remove regular officers shall be implemented through a 2/3 affirmative vote at a meeting of the general membership."
14. Whether Article 54 of the ASFAR bylaws shall be amended by striking Section B.
15. Nomination and appointment of ASFAR member to fill vacant Board of Directors position.