Skip to comments.In Defense of "Underage" Drinking
Posted on 03/04/2002 10:49:56 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
click here to read article
But the sovriegnity of the individual does!
Agreed -- as to age of majority. That's my point: statutes define the ages for certain things. They can't determine the age for voting (constitutionally set at 18). Simply because the statutes use a term of art like age of majority and then place many things in there doesn't draw any distinction between the age of majority and drinking age. In other words, you can't say that simply because they are defined as an adult, they should be drinking. The same statutes that define them as of majority also say the drinking age is 21. My point is simply that we have decided as a society that certain ages are right for certain things. Now, if things like loss of parental support, the ability to write contracts, etc., were constitutionally set at 18, your point would be valid. Since it's set by statute, it takes more than just to say "if he can sign a contract, he should be able to drink."
I didn't see anything to respond to. Just some statements. You apparently aggree that pretty much all people don't go around trying to keep people from doing things that they don't personally find appealing.
Not living under the protection of a government.
To understand this the better, it is fit to consider that every man when he at first incorporates himself into any commonwealth, he, by his uniting himself thereunto, annexes also, and submits to the community those possessions which he has, or shall acquire, that do not already belong to any other government. For it would be a direct contradiction for any one to enter into society with others for the securing and regulating of property, and yet to suppose his land, whose property is to be regulated by the laws of the society, should be exempt from the jurisdiction of that government to which he himself, and the property of the land, is a subject. -- John Locke
I just wanted to say I'm impressed with the way you keep your head cool when faced with invincible ignorance. Keep up the good work!
And THAT I absolutely agree with.
In fact, I do like it. You seem to have missed the key factor in checks and balances, ect. The power of the government is limited, because the government is run by people under the effects of the Fall.
Ironically, our newly minted domestic terrorism laws include among the definitions of acts of domestic terrorism "using threats of force or coercion to influence public policy".
If a ban on all handguns prevents one innocent person from being killed, I'll bring up deaths anytime gun rights are discussed!
Ok, I don't want my 16 year old to have access to alcohol. Under your law, I would have to follow him around all day to make sure he does not purchase it. It would be similar to me trying to prevent my minor child from buying a snickers bar. If he wants a snickers bar, he will get it.
Is it? I thought it was by federal coersion by withholding highway money?
A small point, since it amounts to the same thing.
You haven't, and indeed have repeatedly stated just the opposite more than once. My mistake...we're definitely in agreement on that issue.
Agreed. I trust my peers drunk in their homes more than I do sober behind the wheel.
I can only assume you read neither my post nor your own.
I no more believe that that I believe people who are 22 will just sit at home drinking, or, for that matterm that people who haven't had enough sleep will sit at home and not drive.
The fact that someone might do something risky after drinking is no argument at all. If they do, it's the driving that's the problem.
But say that you didn't want your minor child eating Snicker Bars, whose responsibility is it to prevent him from doing such?
Ok thats nice.
Control freaks are not normal people.
They are the new, improved uber-citizens
Agreed. A price has to be paid when you kill somebody in this situation. This reminds me of a story...there's a guy where I live who was an assistant coach (my dad was head coach) of little league baseball...well, when he was 15 he got drunk and killed the teenage girl who was in the car with him. His license was suspended till he was 18. Then a year ago (he was about 19 or 20) he gets drunk, goes speeding headed south in the northbound side of the interstate and knocks off another person and seriously injures another. Quite a shame.
I'll waste nither breath nor wit on you henceforth.
Yes. But once the child was old enough to get out on his own. I would not have control. Worst case scenario, he get's a snickers. That's not all too bad. Change that worst case scenario to, he gets all the booze he wants, that's not acceptable.
Don't you think you could be a little bit more benevolent? You know, we pretty much are all conservatives here, even though we may diagree on some issues...
Ha. That's funny. Sure, they 'decided' to enact more restrictive drinking laws--because they'd been BLACKMAILED by the federal government.That's the thing that really ought to P.O. conservatives, the fact that the federales stuck their noses into what is at most a state issue at the behest of a well organized pressure group. How is this bad when it's some liberal group, or the safety nazis, yet OK when it's a right-PC group like the MADD mothers (who ceased to be about drinking and driving, focusing almost solely on the former, years ago)?
This offense was particularly egregious in Ohio. Before the federal blackmail began, Ohio allowed 19 and 20 year olds to buy beer. The religious right and its allies sponsored a referendum in 1983 to raise the beer age to 21. This proposal got absolutely crushed at the polls, by a 2-1 margin.
Thwarted in Ohio, the MADD lobbyists went running to Washington with their blackmail proposal. Unsuprisingly, despite the referendum Ohio's Democratic Senators (Glenn and Metzenbum) voted for it.
Fortunately, we don't have Democratic Senators any more, but we're still living with their handiwork. Conservative principles pretty much demand that decisions about drinking ages (and for that matter BAC limits) be left to the states.
Yep. Sorry, but the state is not here to do your parenting for you.
The document is a PDF file available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/Community%20Guides%20HTML/PDFs/Public_App7.pdf which is found at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
From the document:
What is the national age 21 drinking law?
The National Minimum Drinking Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. States that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act. The U.S. Department of Transportation has determined that all states are in compliance with this act.
I completely agree. 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.To a degree it does, through the Fourteenth Amendment. I'd like to see someone challenge the Sunday beer sales laws that all to many places have, as the only justification for making Sunday special is religious.
Join the LP, the party without it.......
HA! My heart is hardened to those who need to have my humorous ripostes explained!
We(imperial we) take no prisoners! ;^)
I must have missed something in this article. Nothing said about the thousands of innocent people murdered at the hands of drunk drivers.That's because the law we are discussing has precisely zero to do with driving while drunk, which is illegal regardless of one's age.
Just my opinion but I think the reasons for keeping the drinking age as it is are far better than any argument I've read here for lowering it.
Unfortunately, innocent people are affected by alcohol. 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.
There have always been religious laws. Our own founders created states whos own Constitutions said that all those that run for office must be of the Protestant religion.The First Amendment did not apply to the states until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.