same as any product

Goods and Services are not a human right

The question there, then, is whether you have a right to self harm?

no one is saying that tho @FrostyCrits

they are not saying they are entitled to it

that would mean they dont have to pay for it

Either way, there is a logical reason why people under the age of 25 shouldn't be drinking alchohol.

There isn't any reason we shouldn't be expecting more of young men and women

there is a logical reason why noone should drink alcohol

or eat pizza

or anything else fun

Telling people they can't do something just makes them want to do it more

also true

There is specific developmental harm to drinking alchohol before your mind has finished maturing

is it governments role to be a nanny tho?

It's not a general "it's bad for you"

No, but society makes certain rules to protect each other

If it comes down to a question between personal freedom and having a nanny state, I will choose personal freedom every time

thats too broad @DJ_Anuz

agreed spanners

But it's not black and white

So why do you have the right to destroy your body after that? Who are you to determine which amount of self harm is accaptable and which one isnt?

that said, I think there's merit in promoting more healthy lifestyles

advocacy about risks of certain choices, sure. but abolition? no

Okay how about this, irresponsible use of alchohol directly cann harm others

like what, DUIs? sure outlaw that

Irresponsible use of anything can harm others

People that can't hold their liquor are a danger to society. And people who haven't finished developing physically are at greater risk of that.

Yeah but alchohol is especially dangerous to others around you.

talking about politics on the internet can directly harm others. If you talk to a crazy person and they go out and kill someone. Outlaw political speech.

Depending on how you manifest it

how are ppl who cant hold their liquor a "danger to society"?

you realize that that phrase justifies use of force?

@Big T they waste good booze

lol

Violence.

so punish the violent action, not the booze consumption

Alcohol has very few properties that make it effective outside of drinking. If you removed the effects of it, people largely wouldn't drink it for the "taste."

Why are you assuming that if there was no drinking age everyone would drink, that's simply not true

you are making the same argument the teetotalers did

But what if the booze results in the violent behavior