[Morgan in Denver]

This does give me a moment to sound off on an issue that's been long neglected.

To begin with, the Federal Government forced the 21 year age limit on states at the threat of withholding highway funds. Most states that had lower ages for drinking experienced young adults who acted like adults and did not abuse the trust given them. It was the frantic scare tactics used by the left that got ages for drinking raised. MADD, and such. Republicans laid down on the issue while Democrats demonized lower drinking ages.

States that had lower drinking ages also had less abuse of alcohol than those states where the drinking age was already 21.

At the root of all this is the issue of when a kid reaches their majority age. I would submit the age of majority should be either 17 or 18. That also means, no drivers license, no drinking, no property or privacy extensions because of ones parents, just simply the fact that anyone under 17 is not an adult and anyone over is. All rights and privileges associated with adulthood should come at that age. But, so should all responsibilities. Parents would not be required to pay for education nor would parents be required to support another adult, in this case older children. At the majority age adults would also have the ability to contract and serve in the military, etc. Younger then the majority age and they would not have these rights, period.

[Long Cut]

In the military today, underage drinking is punishable by Non-Judicial Punishment (Captain's Mast in the Navy). At the Navy school at which I Instruct, we typically send two or three students PER MONTH to mast for this infraction.

That number does not change, regardless of how severe the Captain tries to be. Thus, the issue is not one of punishment.

We DO, however, lose some very good Sailors because of it.

Some ask me why they are prevented from enjoying a beer now and then, even as they are charged with the defense of their country.

All I can tell them is that, when the issue was being decided, those most affected by it (their age group) failed to exercise another right: the right to vote, and to be heard. That age group was conspicuously silent when these opressive, foolish laws were being passed, as they are on most issues affecting them, to their regret.

While not taking a position pro-or-con, I encourage them to vote their conscience.

As for the "bloodbath" on the roads, the stats of highway deaths are virtually unchanged, so the removing of the rights of 18 -year olds was ineffective on that score, as predicted at the time by cooler, unemotional heads.

Let us remember, the ACT of drunken driving is a separete act than simply drinking, and is a crime regardless of age(and, BTW, the WORST offenders of which are in the 35-45 year old group).

The 21 year old drinking age makes NO sense, based upon the evidence and facts, which is why its proponents in the Nanny Busybody organizations use emotionalism and anecdotes to support the removal of citizen's rights that they support.

One crime, drunken driving, is NOT an excuse to criminalize a SEPARATE act, drinking with the wrong birthday. Either someone is at majority age, ALL THE WAY, or they are not. Anything else, IMHO, is unconstitutional denial of rights.