Tazers and lower drinking ages

So I have seen 2 things that have made me go "hmmmmm". The first is I read in the paper the other day that there is going to be a serious debate in our federal government about lowering the drinking age back to 18. DAMN IT I SAY!!!!! I am all for a lower drinking age (with a few regulations). I think that any person, man or woman, that can willingly sign up to put his/her life on the line for our country should be able to go out to a bar and have a beer. At 18 we can vote on for the next president and help decide the future of our country for the next 4 years, but those same "adults" are not allowed to drink a Miller Lite. I also find it funny that at 18 we are adult enough to buy cigarettes, cigars, and chewing tobacco which are all things that can give us cancer and kill us, but heaven forbid we drink some delicious beer with Friends. I think that it is time to let people who are suppose to be an adults make the choice on whether or not they would like to have a beer. I happen to work in a profession that deals with lots of people who come and see us because they choose to drink and drive. I also can honestly say that the MAJORITY of the people we see are NOT young adults that come in for DWI's. Is that surprising to any of you? It was to me when I first started.

On the other hand I also believe that if they lower the drinking age to 18 there should be some regulations to the law. I think that, like in the days of the past when the drinking age was 18, they should say that 18 year olds can only drink beer and no hard booze. I happen to know a few people that were 18 in the late seventies when the drinking age was lower, and they say it worked well and nobody complained that they could not drink hard booze. I don't know, maybe there is no easy answer but I think that it could be worked out so that it was fair to everyone.

The second thing I saw was last night on the news they showed an off duty cop that was working as a security guard at a hospital using a tazer to stop a man trying to take his baby out of the hospital. I have a few thoughts on this. First, I can understand why the man was tazed and I agree with the overall reasons he was tazed. I do, however, do not understand what would make someone use a tazer on a man who was holding a newborn baby. Granted there are situations that it would be justified to taze while the baby was in his arms, like if the man was threatening to hurt the baby. As far as I can see this man was not threatening the baby. The officer also knew the 2 parents from the street and knew they had a long history of domestic abuse with each other and they were fighting shortly before the incident happened. So the man that got zapped was upset and arguing and yelling at hospital staff and making a scene. So I can see why the cop would have felt it was necessary to taze, but he was still holding a BABY!!!!!!!! So I also heard the man that was zapped was upset with the hospital for some reason and just wanted to leave and go to somewhere where he felt he would get better treatment. That is the man's right to go to a different hospital if he/they are not happy with the care they are receiving. It is a tough thing when you know both ways of looking at things.

Well I think that is about it for tonight. I have officially started vacation even though K still has to work tomorrow. HA HA 1 more day of vacation for me wonderful wife and I will remind you of this for the next 11 days!!!

Yeah vacation!!

Greg