Ninjahedge
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2005
- 4,149
- 1
- 91
Ns1...
You would though. You would not be obvious about it.
You never show someone under 21 drinking it, but take a look at marketing. All toys and other children's products have kids 2-3 years older than the market playing with it and shouting how cool it is.
They did target the pre-21 crowd AND WERE SUCCESSFUL! If they weren't, we would not even be talking about it now.
My argument is not about the banning. I really could not care either way. I did not fight for it, and I am not going to protest it. The only point I am arguing is the line of reasoning I can see for them doing so. It does make sense, and it will make only a few people, the ones that have little power to do anything about it, mad.
I can see the legal standpoint, and I can see the slimebags that planned it this way. I agree with most of what Zin is saying. If they were genuinely calling "oops! Sorry!" I would have more sympathy for them, but they haven't.
So... let 'em dangle.
You would though. You would not be obvious about it.
You never show someone under 21 drinking it, but take a look at marketing. All toys and other children's products have kids 2-3 years older than the market playing with it and shouting how cool it is.
They did target the pre-21 crowd AND WERE SUCCESSFUL! If they weren't, we would not even be talking about it now.
My argument is not about the banning. I really could not care either way. I did not fight for it, and I am not going to protest it. The only point I am arguing is the line of reasoning I can see for them doing so. It does make sense, and it will make only a few people, the ones that have little power to do anything about it, mad.
I can see the legal standpoint, and I can see the slimebags that planned it this way. I agree with most of what Zin is saying. If they were genuinely calling "oops! Sorry!" I would have more sympathy for them, but they haven't.
So... let 'em dangle.