Even though at the age of 18 people are old enough to fight and die for your country, don't you think they should be legally allowed to drink alcohol as well?
Printable View
Even though at the age of 18 people are old enough to fight and die for your country, don't you think they should be legally allowed to drink alcohol as well?
This was the SIMILAR, yet different, argument that was used in the early 1970's, during the Vietnam War, lowering the VOTING age from 21 to 18. The argument used, and which won over Congress, was that if you were old enough to die for your country, you should have the right to vote in that person who could be sending you to your death. It worked!!
The difference, however, between the above argument and yours is that no one is sending you to your death by drinking, except perhaps yourself. Sorry, it's been tried before, and lost. Same argument has been tried with Marijuana, and other intoxicants. It just doesn't work, time after time after time.
Besides, you don't need to drink intoxicants. Eighteen year old's "needed" the vote.
I don't think the legal age to drink alcohol should be lowered to 18; I think the age to be sent overseas to fight in a war should be raised to 21.
I second that.
This link is interesting.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/LegalDrinkingAge.html
Most 18yr olds are too immature for that responsibility. It was proven that when the drinking age is set to 18 rather than 21 there is a significant increase in DUIs. Not only that, imagine how many cases there would be of 18yr olds selling alcohol to minors.
It was smart to use the word "need" in the past tense, since 18 year olds have largely stopped voting since the draft was ended.
As for drinking laws, what argument can be used to establish that 21 is the magical age at which people exercise "good judgment"? I'm aware of scientific findings that the "judgment center" of the brain is the last to develop. But if we go by that criterion then the age of consent for everything from contracts to sex to alcohol use should be raised to about 25, since that is the current consensus as to when they average person has a fully matured brain.
18 was a very common drinking age until recent years when the Feds withheld funds from states that refused to raise it to 21. It's interesting that conservatives who favor states' rights were often the most vocal supporters of raising the drinking age by imposing the will of the feds on the states. They also do this with their attempts to ban gay marriage nationally, enforce uniform drug laws, impose the will of the DEA over states that legalize medical marijuana, etc.
The Clinton administration behaved in a more classic manner, favoring federal authority over states' rights when Janet Reno's office went after the west coast medical marijuana laws. And once again, we see that "left" vs. "right" is an inadequate description of the spectrum of political views, as one would have expected a more liberal administration to be in favor of greater freedom. Quite the contrary, under Clinton many freedoms were curtailed, a tradition enthusiastically embraced by our current president.
I remember going into a bar in New Orleans when I was 18 and ordering a drink.
The bartender wanted to see my draft card.
I showed it to him.
He said, "As long as Uncle Sam has YOU, I can give you THIS!" and he handed me the booze.
You mean Ashcroft v Raich? I know of the litigation, but I forgot that Janet Reno changed her name. ;)
Seriously, though, neither Bill "I didn't inhale" Clinton nor George W. "Alcoholic and Recreational Drug User" Bush had progressive views toward decriminalization of drugs. The worse of the two? Bush. But that's not saying much.
Cute, but you are apparently not aware of the fact that Reno's office was the first to go after a state medical marijuana initiative (California's, specifically.) Perhaps it was the DEA that spearheaded it but it was backed by the Atty. General's office under Clinton and you can look that up easily.
I have absolutely no experience in law and am on this forum as an interested citizen, so I will not be able to recite case names other than "Brown v. Board of Ed" --- hopefully this doesn't disqualify me from stating my opinions and giving information that doesn't go by a case name. Do you have any objections to my continued presence in Your Forum, Your Honor?