Lower drinking age to 18

The Lantern (Ohio State U.) ^ | 11/27/02 | Joe Pirone

[AlaskaErik]

Sorry, already tried it. The highways were bathed in blood. The states all raised 'em again.

The reason the states raised the drinking age was due to federal coersion. The feds simply said to raise the age or lose federal highway funding, which is nothing more than our tax dollars being returned to us after the feds take their cut. They also pulled the same crap with helmet laws, but our legisature actually had the balls to tell them to go pound sand. It cost us a few bucks, but I'm one of a small group of Americans who can still ride legally with the wind whipping through my hair.

[manfromlamancha]

Get rid of any drinking age.

[southern rock]

Sorry, already tried it. The highways were bathed in blood.

Sorry, 18 year olds are adults. They can drink if they want.

[southern rock]

It isn't "statist", btw, to recognize that the Constitution gives the states the right to regulate what goes on in their borders.

Yes it is. State may NOT deprive a single person of inalienable rights. Drinking what you please when you please is a right. There you go.

[breakem]

The state were presured into raising the drinking age by the feds. I supported the lower age until I realized it might apply to you.

[Illbay]

Last time I checked, members of congress were elected from the states. If this is not your understanding, please let me know.

I repeat: The move to lower drinking (and voting) ages were pushed by leftie Democrats originally. This was all part of their initiative to hook into the rebelliousness of youth and draw forth political power.

Bill Clinton, during his unsuccessful bid for Congress in (I believe) 1972, gave an interview where he hailed the recently passed Amendment granting the vote to 18 year olds, and openly hoped that it would be lowered still further, to 16, since "kids are far more politically aware than their parents."

So the drinking age being raised was COUNTER to the leftie Democrat thinking of the time. It wasn't they who initiated it, but responsible Democrats and Republicans.

The drinking age WON'T be lowered again in your lifetime, so I think you ought to find something else to whine about.

Been there, done that, bought the tombstones.

[Illbay]

I think it's funny that you all mutter "the states were powerless; it was Congress."

Who do you think Congress is?

[Illbay]

You have to be 30 years old or less.

This was the argument used to lower the voting age and drinking ages in the 1970s.

Too bad for you; the experiment was already tried, and it failed. Try again next generation.

[Illbay]

I, too, try to model responsible attitudes toward alcohol for my children.

Therefore, I don't drink at all.

[billbears]

Anybody want to guess who pushed for raising the drinking age? Here's a hint

As Secretary of Transportation, I did not shy away from Washington’s traditional responsibility to advocate, and, where absolutely necessary, regulate. So we successfully pressed legislation raising the drinking age to 21, working with grassroots heroes like Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.

BTW, that's a direct quote from this elected official in 1999 as reported by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. It is my distinct feeling if this person is for it, there's a good chance any good conservative should probably be against it. Lower the drinking age back to 18 again. If men and women of this age are willing to fight for this nation of states, then they should be allowed to drink

CD, this is another failure of government control instituted by our 'Senator-elect'

[Illbay]

Drinking what you please when you please is a right.

I skipped a ton of replies on this thread, SR. But I just HAD to take a peek at what you had to say. You can be counted on to be entertaining, and you didn't fail this time either.

I have come to the conclusion that you're pulling my leg whenever you post. NO ONE can be this obtuse!

[billbears]

It isn't "statist", btw, to recognize that the Constitution gives the states the right to regulate what goes on in their borders.

Of course it isn't. Glad to see you're coming around. However it is against the Constitution for the federal government to regulate what those states choose to do within their respective borders isn't it? But of course that hasn't stopped the national government for over a century

[brewcrew]

Therefore, I don't drink at all.

Your choice. Nothing wrong with not partaking, however you do miss out on the health benefits that come with moderate consumption.

[southern rock]

I have come to the conclusion that you're pulling my leg whenever you post. NO ONE can be this obtuse!

If by obtuse, you mean confusing you with the facts, than I guess so. I hate to disappoint you, but I am not only 100% serious, but 100% right. No government entity may deprive an American citizen of their inalienable rights. That means state, federal or local. We live in a republic, not a democracy. 51% of the people in any state cannot tell an 18 year old adult what he may or may not drink. Actually, 51% of the people in any state may not tell ANYONE what they may or may not drink. If the person is a minor, it is the parents decision., not the state's or 51% of the population in it.

When a busybody law comes into conflict with an individual's rights, the right of the individual trumps that law every time. Now please tell me why my drinking what I want, when I want is not my right. That should be interesting.

[VermiciousKnid]

FWIW, I am in favor of lowering the drinking age to 18 again. In the early 80s, I had the remarkable experience of becoming "legal" three times.

I became legal in February. In December of that year, NY changed the drinking age (at the insistance of the Feds) to 19, which meant I was illegal for 2 months. Two Decembers later, NY again raised the age to 21 (again at the insistance of the Feds), and I was again illegal for 2 months. The whole thing was ridiculous.

Think about it: Here we are in a society that gives AIDS education to kindergarenters, where 3rd graders are handed condoms and cucumbers on which to "practice," and where kids are growing up in single-parent homes for a variety of reasons and are expected to take it all in stride. When they are 18, they can vote, marry, sign contracts, incur debt, go to war in military service, drive, and operate heavy machinery, BUT THEY CAN'T HAVE A BEER??

It's no wonder our kids are screwed up. We treat the children like adults, but then go right ahead and treat them like children when they ARE adults.

Regards,

[VermiciousKnid]

New York's drinking age was 18 at least in the late 50s and early 60s. If it was ever 21, before Congress threatened the states with the loss of federal highway funds, I am not aware of it.

Regards,

[SoDak]

Well if this is true, why do we even bother having state governments? Why not just let Congress send us each directions on what our state policies will be? The minute Congress decided to make this an "interstate trade" issue, allowing for a massive power takeover, the SC should have slapped them down.
We can expect one of these mandates about every year nowadays. A lot of liberal interest groups applaud this because it's so much easier using this methodology to make inroads into seemingly conservative states than to actually have to work in that state's legislature. I foresee gun control happening thru this avenue in my lifetime.
It's much easier for them to line up a liberal congress than 50 different liberal state legislatures.

[VermiciousKnid]

You're right. The SC SHOULD have slapped them down. Now the states are being threatened once again with the loss of highway funds if the blood alcohol level is not lowered to .08%. New York has so far failed to change it. If they do not do so by October 2003, the highway funds will be lost.

I suppose a case could be made that the states shouldn't rely on federal money for highways. I doubt I'll live to see the day that they tell the feds to go fly a kite, though.

Regards,

[conservative_2001]

The Ohio State president should announce that because of the violence, the Buckeye football team must do without an appearance in any bowl game! And if any such violence occurs, with any arrests on university property, next year, the same penalty will occur!

That has to be the dumbest idea I've ever read at this site. The football team is not responsible for the conduct of others. You would deny the opportunity of 100 people to finish what they started this year because of what a few fans and many thuggish non-students did?

Tell me, when your oldest kid cusses in school, do you punish your spouse and the youngest kids for it, or is just the Ohio State Buckeye football team that should pay for other people's mistakes?

[Dan from Michigan]

So what if I am(and yes, I know the drinking age was once 18, and it is still 19 in Canada)

If the drinking age must be 21, then make the draft age 21, voting age 21, age of majority 21, and voting age 21.

Since if you are not old enough to drink, you certainly not old enough to vote in elections, die for your country, and sign contracts.