In Defense of "Underage" Drinking

Mercurial Times ^ | March 1, 2002 | Aaron Armitage

[LibertyGirl77]

There really doesn't seem to be any reasoning with shellylet, so let's just let shelley stew in her own over-emotionalism and constitutional apathy.

[A.J.Armitage]

You can't simply equate the Puritan legacy, especially as it pertains to the government, with what they tried at first. In the first place, IIRC, they did try a kind of commune and abandoned it. That abandonment came long before the American Revolution. In the second place, the Puritans were part of the radical protestant tradition in England, which was the context for political factions such as the Levellers.

[NittanyLion]

You may be able to sit in your dorm and have a drink and it's no big deal, but there are many teens who would not be able to handle that responsibility and other people end up paying the consequences.

You're talking about drunk driving, I presume?

[Illbay]

Hm. I don't see anything there about anyone being forced to raise the age. I just see where the states have allowed the Federal government too much power.

But I remember how, when we lived in Alabama in the early 80s, the debate went on and the voters overwhelmingly approved it via state referendum.

[A.J.Armitage]

Why do you have a problem waiting until the legal age to drink?

Yeah, that's it. I'm just really curious to find out what alcohol tastes like. I'm so eager, but the law's stopping me. Also, I have a bridge to sell you.

[shellylet]

Well call me a smart-a$$, but I think you're a dumb-a$$ if you believe young people are going to sit in their homes and drink and never end up getting into a car to drive it! You're not so old that you shouldn't remember doing stupid things when you were younger!

I'm just saying I'd rather err on the side of protecting innocent victims from immature, irresponsible people!

[Texaggie79]

The First Amendment did not apply to the states until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

I believe it did, and I believe the founders agree with me. Why make a BoR that only applies to the Fed gov, which is supposed to be a very small faction with little function. The states are where criminal laws are tried. Why address cruel and unusual punishment, when the STATES are the majority of the prosecutors? The BoR have always applied to the States. The 14th just solidified that.

[shellylet]

You didn't answer the question!

[shellylet]

Now that response was mature! I'm hurt!

[July 4th]

Instead, children should learn to drink wine or beer with meals, as they do in Europe.

My (Wisconsinite) parents drink wine with dinner nearly every night, and I frequently did so too. When I went off to Madison for college - one of the nation's binge drinking meccas - I had no desire to do the same thrashing of my liver as so many of my classmates did. I had a different view of what alcohol was "good for."

Now, as for the people who saw it as their duty to be drunk for 72 hours starting Thursday night, even they aren't worse for the wear. By senior year, they no longer got drunk all of the time, and for the most part were intelligent enough to refrain from driving or jumping off of balconies.

(Most) People (eventually) learn about alcohol. Why not give them the opportunity to do it at a younger age, and under the supervision of their parents?

Tack that on to the argument that this is one area of policy that the government doesn't need to dictate, and I think you have reason enough to kill the National Minimum Drinking Age. After all, it's limited prohibition.

[tpaine]

"I just am saying that the people of a state/city/community have the constitutional ability to prohibit 18-20 year olds access to alcohol. They have the constitutional ability to prohibit alcohol completely even. The Constitution does not prevent stupid state laws." -TA79-

And THAT I absolutely agree with. -LG77-

A question. -- The 14th amendment says, [in part] :

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

-- Does this section of the 14th apply to stupid, unconstitutional, prohibitive laws that deprive persons of property such as alcohol without due process?

[JediGirl]

(Most) People (eventually) learn about alcohol. Why not give them the opportunity to do it at a younger age, and under the supervision of their parents?

Because that would make entirely too much sense.

[A.J.Armitage]

But I remember how, when we lived in Alabama in the early 80s, the debate went on and the voters overwhelmingly approved it via state referendum.

Where does the right of the majority to pass laws like that come from?

[LibertyGirl77]

Oh, that we could outlaw stupidity....

But we can't!!!! And any attempts to try usually just take freedoms from law-abiding, non-stupid people. After all, stupid, irresponsible, immature kids are going to drink NO MATTER WHAT the law says. Just like with guns -- if we outlawed guns tomorrow, only criminals would have guns. Would that make you feel safer?

[stanz]

LOL!

[Pappy Smear]

I agree with your fight a war, and drink a beer stance. Personally I prefer that if you are old enough to pay taxes, you are old enough to drink beer.

I was 19 when I got out of tech school and got a job with Motorola. The next spring when doing my taxes, and signing off a boatload of money, I could not drink a toast to celebrate my entry into adulthood by signing my 1040. 16 years later, it still torques me off.

[LowOiL]

deprive any person of life, liberty, or property

And which of the above is drugs exactly. Property?

[LibertyGirl77]

Yep. You have the right to fight them just as vehemently as you do the Fed, but you lose the constitutionality argument. And if you REALLY don't like the laws in your state, well, that's why we have more than one state in these United States. You are free to move to one you like better. That's what I did.

[sheltonmac]

"...the government has no business telling anyone, whatever his age, what substances he can consume."

I agree to a certain extent. True, the federal government doesn't have that right but, in keeping with the spirit of the 9th and 10th Amendments, the various state governments should be allowed to decide these issues. That is the true essence of federalism. If Minnesota wants a drinking age of 45 and Nevada wants a drinking age of 3 months, that should certainly be allowed to happen in a constitutional republic. Of course, being a Minnesotan who likes Sam Adams (the beer and patriot), I would fight that kind of law tooth and nail!

[RaceBannon]

If you're not gonna outlaw it for all, then those who are in the military should be able to drink