Should Minnesota lower the drinking age to 18?
posted at 1:00 pm on February 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The argument over the legal drinking age will once again arise in Minnesota, and along with it, issues of states’ rights, citizenship, and public safety. Four members of the state legislature will introduce a bill to lower the age to 18, the age when people have to face consequences of illegal actions in regular court and not in the juvenile system. However, the rationale applied in this case is a little odd:
State lawmakers in Minnesota are bringing forward a plan to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18, and even allowing those sixteen and seventeen to drink in bars in accompanied by their parents.
There are at least four state representatives who are backing the plan.
Tom Hackbarth, a Republican from District 48A said, “I think that bars and restaurants are having a difficult time right now with the smoking ban that went into place. I think with economic times the way they are, I’ve never opposed the drinking age being 18.”
I’ve heard a lot of arguments against the prohibition on under-21 adults, but never an economic one. Is this Minnesota’s own stimulus plan? In fact, the economics of the argument are usually considered a wash, since one of the points made against the ban is that teens buy alcohol on their own anyway.
This has always been a tough question for me. On the one hand, it’s hard to argue that someone should get tried as an adult for illegally purchasing or consuming alcohol for being a minor. If full citizenship and responsibility come at 18, then the government should not impose limitations on those between that age and 21 for behavior that would be perfectly legal for all other citizens. I’m also opposed to the federal government dictating state policy on this issue, as it has ever since Ronald Reagan rejected the states-rights argument and signed the Uniform Drinking Age Act in 1984.
The safety issues also seem compelling. Advocates for the higher age claim with some justification that the uniform imposition of the age limit reduced alcohol-related deaths. However, at the same time, state and local governments began cracking down much harder on drunk-driving offenders, giving them longer sentences and putting some teeth in deterrence. Did both have an effect, or did the latter make the former seem more effective?
When we traveled to Ireland, the Mathemagician (then 17) delighted in the freedom of the pubs, where anyone can get served as long as parents are present. He pointed out on many occasions during those two weeks the wisdom of the Irish in having a sensible policy on alcohol access, very similar to what Minnesota proposes now. The Irish are less convinced of their own wisdom these days:
Over 80% of adults believe that it is easy for people under the age of 18 to access alcohol in pubs and off-licenses, new research from the HSE indicates.
The preliminary results of the research indicate that the vast majority of adults – 91% – agree that underage drinking is a problem in Ireland today, while 50% feel there is nothing they can do to stop young people from consuming alcohol. …
The campaign hopes to increase awareness among adults about the extent of underage drinking, the ease of access which young people have to alcohol and the benefits in delaying the age at which they start drinking.
“We now have a problem which impacts negatively on so many areas of society, from increases in sexually transmitted infections, public order offences and young adult suicide”, commented Dr Joe Barry of the HSE’s population health directorate.
It’s a tough call. I’m tempted to stick with what we have rather than experiment with a rollback to 18, especially given the winter road conditions and the fact that I drive these roads at night on occasion. I’m certainly not convinced by an argument that it will stimulate the economy, which is a very strange basis for making this decision.
Update: Great debate in the comments, which mostly supports a lower drinking age. I do sympathize quite a bit with “old enough to fight for your country, old enough to drink”. A question for our military readers: can 18-year-olds legally drink on base?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
It’ll help more of them forget their political corruption.
viking01 on February 21, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Hell, why not 12?! They can have abortions at that age, why the heck not be able to have an abortion? I say all laws limiting the “freedom” of minors should be rescinded in the name of freedom.
Charles Martel on February 21, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Why the F not? Lets not damage their standing as the dumbest people in the union by rejecting common sense laws.
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 1:03 PM
I go by “old enough to die for your country, old enough for a beer”.
MadisonConservative on February 21, 2009 at 1:07 PM
At age 18, one is considered an ADULT citizen in this supposedly free country, subject to all the rights and duties of any other citizen.
Case closed.
OneEyedJack on February 21, 2009 at 1:07 PM
old enough to fight and die for your country… not old enough to drink.
Kaptain Amerika on February 21, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Vote, go to war, legally an adult, but have a beer and becharged with a crime. It’s idiotic.
Besides, the legal age in Manitoba is 18, and they are just as snowy. So, in theory, Minnesota kids can cross the border and spend their days and money in Canadian bars.
We’re fine with that up here.
Krydor on February 21, 2009 at 1:08 PM
I’d go along with that for those who actually have the courage to join up. But not for a bunch of spoiled rotten brats who think the world owes them something.
And in the military, age isn’t the determining factor in the consumption of alcohol. They turn a blind eye to it unless the soldier starts acting stupid.
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 1:10 PM
True and I’d might add that they drink anyway. And because is illegal it’s more apealing to them and they tend to drink more than one beer.
clemycali on February 21, 2009 at 1:11 PM
To me this is simple… Let the states decide for themselves! Why did the FEDS get involved in this crap in the first place? I understand all about the problems of underage drinking, and pre-21 drinking etc… I have been a city cop for 15 years! I have also served in the military for almost 20. I do believe in “old enough to serve my country, old enough to be served a cold beer.” It just seems like it should be up to the individual state to take the risk.
fumpbump on February 21, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Leave it up to the states. Federal highway dollars are collected from the taxpayers of Minnesota, they should get the money and be allowed to set their own drinking age.
The federal government has its hands full bailing out banks, telling Detroit what cars to build and distributing $1 trillion in pork. Let the states set the drinking age. Their residents have to live with the consequences.
dedalus on February 21, 2009 at 1:12 PM
When I was growing up in SD, you could drink 3.2 beer at age 19, and everything else at 21. There were a lot of 3.2 beer bars in college towns. Took a bit longer to get drunk on 3.2 (although plenty did), but the theory behind apparently was that the hard stuff was out of students’ hands. High school students tended to have 19-year-old friends buy 3.2 for them (cheaper).
SD had to drop this when the feds required a 21-year-old drinking age to get federal highway funds.
Wethal on February 21, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Lower to 18 AND a high school diploma. You do not want high school seniors goin’ off for a quick one (or 2, 3…) at lunch. No way I want my daughter hanging out at school with a bunch of drunken, leering high school boys. Keep it away from the schools or no deal.
yubley on February 21, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Not a fan of this argument! Basically saying let’s legalize it since it is happening anyway is a REALLY bad precedent. Next it will be weed, then cocaine, then what? It is a very slippery slope. I mean, people are raping children and killing one another anyway, so should we legalize it?
fumpbump on February 21, 2009 at 1:14 PM
If you can sign up to die for your country, I should be able to buy you a drink.
The reality of the impact, however, would certainly be increased alcohol consumption in 16/17 y/o’s because of high school social networks.
Spirit of 1776 on February 21, 2009 at 1:15 PM
One gives up their rights as a free citizen when joining the military volentarily.
OneEyedJack on February 21, 2009 at 1:16 PM
RAAAAACISSSSSTTTTT!!!!
Now you are requiring an education!!!
fumpbump on February 21, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Another example of the axiom, “with federal money come federal strings”. Regardless of the rationale for the drinking age being 18, 21, 25, or whatever, the fact that the federal government had the power to force the states to implement a law that was not related to interstate or foreign commerce should concern everyone. That is how precedents are set, even if *this* law seemed to be common sense, it is pretty certain that the ones that come from the One and his minions will not.
As far as the age, if we have decided 18 is old enough to vote, to be able to take up arms for the country, and to be held liable as an adult, why do we withhold the exercise of other freedoms to which adults are entitled?
/No, I don’t drink aside from a glass of wine maybe once a year or so and I never did drink when I was growing up either.
AZfederalist on February 21, 2009 at 1:17 PM
There a quite a few major universities (not just students but administrations), that are pushing for a reduction in the age too.
Dead Hand Control on February 21, 2009 at 1:18 PM
This sentiment alone is enough for me. However, I understand there are others who need a little more convincing. Consider then, if you will, just how much binge drinking goes on at college campuses because most of their students cant go to the bar and have a few beers with friends. Instead, the act of consuming the alcohol thats been denied them socially becomes the whole occasion…it breeds alcoholics.
ernesto on February 21, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Not hardly slick!!! I gave up my right to protest IN UNIFORM! I gave up my right to speak out against the President IN UNIFORM! I didn’t give up ANY of my civil rights!
fumpbump on February 21, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Me and my buddies have all turned 21 in 08.
A good friend of mine was bouncing in clubs in the hamptons last summer. Big guy, intimidating, etc.
Did the right things, threw drunks out, broke up fights and kept minors out.
Even threw our good friend out one night for being drunk.
Last September, he went to a bar, with valid ID and the bartender refused service. Said it was a fake because his eyes were a bit of a different color that day. Refused to scan the ID.
My friend then offered his NYS guard/bouncer license. She was recalcitrant and still refused, eventually having him shown the door after he protested.
Not totally on topic, but ironic nonetheless!
blatantblue on February 21, 2009 at 1:18 PM
I’m also a firm believer in old enough to fight, old enough to have a beer. I spent 6 months training a bunch of mostly 19 and 20 year olds to see combat in Iraq. Heck I usually bought the first beer!
thuljunior on February 21, 2009 at 1:20 PM
So what? Anyone who doesn’t join is a coward? Is that what you’re saying?
MadisonConservative on February 21, 2009 at 1:20 PM
THIS BUD’S FOR YOU!!! Thanks for training me and my troops to stay alive! I’ll buy the next round!
fumpbump on February 21, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Hey, when this country was born, it was common for small children to take beer or wine with their meals. If it was good enough for the founders, it was good enough for me. And while we’re at it, some toddler-sized cigars would go great with a baby bottle of Bud.
CK MacLeod on February 21, 2009 at 1:22 PM
I’m not so sure. Idc either way, but I know just as many overage drunks as underage. I think it’s the exposure during childhood. I was around beer my whole life. Didn’t drink until college, but when I started I didn’t go AWOL.
I think a lot of it is past environment. But I’m no expert, just giving anecdotes
blatantblue on February 21, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Spirit of 1776 on February 21, 2009 at 1:15 PM
I don’t know how much more it could possibly go up. If you are 16 and don’t have access to alcohol, then you aren’t part of any social network. Not talking about drinking, just about access. Ease of availability is not an issue now, or ever.
Legal age in my province has been 19 for as long as I can remember, and I was getting beer at 16 from the Liquor store. If I couldn’t get it, someone had an older sibling.
Oddly, it was less trouble scoring a joint. Legality is never an issue when there is a demand, I suppose.
Krydor on February 21, 2009 at 1:24 PM
We are really kind of messed up on kids/adults in this country. One can make a major decison on abortion at 14 without the knowledge of one’s parents. At the same time, if one should murder another person at 14, there are people who would say that the kid shouldn’t be tried as an adult. We send 18 year olds off to war and some of us call them fighting men and women and others call them “kids being sent to slaughter”. We bend over backwards to take care of 17 year old pregnant teens but say that a married 22 year old is too young to start having babies. We bemoan the fact that not enough 18 year olds show up to vote for their government (until 2008) but tell them that they cannot legally purchase alcohol. We think it’s okay that our 13 year old kids are wisened in the ways of sex and std’s but we refuse to let them self administer an aspirin or an asthma inhaler ia a public school.
We are just really messed up and until we figure out who the kids are and who the adults are we’re just going to bicker about silly stuff.
myrenovations on February 21, 2009 at 1:25 PM
No. It’s about earning the privileged and being under the control of an organization that doesn’t buy into children blaming others for their behavior. The minute spoiled kids are allowed to drink by law, the incidences of damage and injury will skyrocket. Then the courts will be full of lawyers blaming society and getting them off.
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Only with Mom and Dad. That buzzkill alone will scare most of ‘em straight! /
Christien on February 21, 2009 at 1:26 PM
fumpbump on February 21, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Let’s not get too off topic, but really, you give them all up.
From day one of boot camp, you are told what to do, how to do it, what to say or not say, how to conduct yourself in every aspect of your life, and it is commanded, not suggested.
That is why the mere act of signing up is to be respected for its sacrifice.
But really, you do give them all up willingly.
OneEyedJack on February 21, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Hell yes . . . if they can fight and die for the country and make life changing decisions like whether or not to abort their child, then they they deserve a drink every now and then just like the rest of us. Anything that counters the power of this new nanny state is fine with me.
rplat on February 21, 2009 at 1:28 PM
The assumption is that increasing the portals of entry increases the flow of good. You are perhaps right. Maybe we’ve reached saturation point. I’m skeptical, but perhaps.
Nice post.
Spirit of 1776 on February 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM
So after age 21, binge drinking disappears… right?
Legalize it, but ban it on college campuses because it leads to date rape…
Skywise on February 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Im glad my state’s age is 21. My youngest recently turned 21 and she went out and had 2 drinks. She isnt into the bar scene either.
I think if she was 18 she wouldve gone a bit wild, since she was a lot more immature than she is now.
becki51758 on February 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM
It’s the spoiled kids who can most easily get alcohol regardless of their age already, so I’m not sure how your prediction works.
MadisonConservative on February 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM
That was the rationale (if I’m not mistaken) for changing the voting age from 21 to 18: if you could be drafted to go to war, you should be able to vote for people who make policies of war. As MC nicely puts it:
How will (would) people that age react? Hard to say. In Europe, it’s not a problem and 18-year-olds tend to drink quite responsibly. In Britain, on the other hand (not a part of Europe, if you ask me), binge-drinking is epidemic. Vomit on the pavement every weekend and dudes pulling their wieners out for your entertainment. (I was there for three years.) How would Minnesotan kids react? Not sure.
But, all things considered, this 34-year-old teetotaler says “lower the age”.
Tzetzes on February 21, 2009 at 1:31 PM
It is a good idea that the drunk Brits don’t have guns and it is a good idea that college kids be kept from “leagally” drinking. In both cases, lives are saved and tragedies are avoided.
RobCon on February 21, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Actually that is fairly true for boot camp and other training, but other than that, it just isn’t the case! I am going to assume that you either never served, or it has been a long time. (Either way, that is NOT a criticism, just an observation.)
fumpbump on February 21, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Very true, but, as was stated since your comment, not all your rights are gone. But I do believe they can be seriously restricted.
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Binge drinking is epidemic at the University of Wisconsin – Madison, right where I live next to.
No, it’s not due to me.
The drinking age is still 21, so obviously the age limit isn’t preventing that.
MadisonConservative on February 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM
The Messiah cut his first line of crack when he was only 13 years old – and he got himself a Greek Temple, a wife who makes $300,000 a year for being a Community Organizer at some Medicare Hospital in Chi-Town (and she only has to go to work 1 day a month!). And now he’s Prez and signed an 1,100 page piece of legislation, spending all your 18-year-old’s money, and their kid’s money, and their kid’s money ad infinitum for 6 generations – what is wrong with you people? Can’t you see the value of drugs and booze – over sweat, honesty, discipline and hard work? OK, that said, I’m back to ironing and starching my ACORN tee shirt……….
Cinday Blackburn on February 21, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Is it by accident or design that you have two young ladies drinking with a smiling Polanski posted below?
RobCon on February 21, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Bet that wouldn’t be a huge problem with -40 degree windchills!!! LOL
fumpbump on February 21, 2009 at 1:34 PM
When you say that, all I can think of is a commander restricting a soldier to his barracks for 2 weeks or sending him off to war without a court to appeal the decision. I think the rights soldiers enjoy are at the pleasure of those in command.
csdeven on February 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Being 18, I think it should be rolled back. Not all 18 year olds are idiots and get drunk and drive. There might be high rates of 18-20 year old getting wasted and dying in a car but that happens with all age groups. If you want bozz you get it, the law just makes it harder.But we should all have the liberty to make our own choices and decisions even though they might seem stupid and reckless in some eyes. We shouldnt punish the responsible because some are not.
aebloo on February 21, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Only if they are in the military.
baldilocks on February 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM
It’s not about portals, it’s about who controls the portals. Drinking in a bar is safer than drinking at a house party.
Krydor on February 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I would agree to the lowering of the age to 16 but with the restriction that it applies only to state residents. When I was growing up in NY, there was a problem with teenagers from states with higher drinking ages driving in to party. This becomes a definite safety issue.
Laurence on February 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Wrong. Underage drinking will get a kid kicked out. Saw it happen plenty of times.
baldilocks on February 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Actually there is an appeal process, and a process to appeal the appeal! And if that isn’t satisfying, you can always just call the IG or contact a legislator and start a congressional investigation! Actually, the rights of the soldier against unfair punishment is protected more than the average citizen!
Read the Uniform Code of Military Justice!
fumpbump on February 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM
At any rate, my original point was that free adult citizens in a free country have, or should have, all the rights, priveleges, and duties of any other citizen, regardless of age. That includes drinking and the responsiblilty that goes with it.
OneEyedJack on February 21, 2009 at 1:39 PM
A contract review is in order.
baldilocks on February 21, 2009 at 1:40 PM
No! They should raise the drinking age and voting age to 35.
unless you are active duty military.
TheSitRep on February 21, 2009 at 1:41 PM
We must be talking about 2 different things. Portal = anyone legal. I merely mean increase flow, not anything safety related.
Spirit of 1776 on February 21, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Ed, a lot more than your life on the road depends on 18-year-olds. Like, as Baldi points out, all those serving in the military who can die for their country but can’t have a glass of wine with dinner at home–or even to go to a club to watch a band because booze is served and the laws prevent you from going in. It’s not right.
If the stuff’s forbidden then it’s a lot harder to learn how to use responsibly.
Also, having served with a lot of 18 year olds and older, I note that when you hold something forbidden and then make it available, then binging occurs, be it alcohol or Taco Bell.
Chap on February 21, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Personally, don’t care, but they better not pass this. We need all the road money we can get. I can’t drive anywhere without going over potholes and bad roads. Some residential streets seem like they’re out of the third world. I can’t see how we approved all of this transportation money over the past two years, and nothing has changed, no work is even getting done. Unless the under 21 crowd is going to chip in more for roads, an absolute no.
IR-MN on February 21, 2009 at 1:44 PM
I thought that they already allowed drinking for 18 year olds but only on election day. Either that or they grow some good stuff in MN.
MTZinIL on February 21, 2009 at 1:45 PM
During my college years I noticed that the ones unable to handle their alcohol were the ones whose parents kept a lock on the liquor cabinet. Those to whom beer was a familiar beverage were far less likely to get in trouble by it.
When I was in grade school I’d often follow mowing the lawn with a cold beer sipped slowly. I didn’t chug it or funnel it I enjoyed it’s refreshment. One was sufficient. To my parents it was a beverage with a side-effect to be understood and respected, not feared. Upon going away to college I had long since known how to respect, and appreciate beer. Useful knowledge which many schoolmates lacked and got themselves sick because of it.
The problem with our increasingly meddlesome Junk Justice System is too many busybodies within it are presuming the vices of themselves are what everyone else would end up doing.
viking01 on February 21, 2009 at 1:46 PM
I think the entire Nation should lower the drinking age to 18.
Lawrence on February 21, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Lowering the age to 18 seems like a good idea, but lowering it to 16 doesn’t, even with parental supervision. I don’t know how it is today, but i didn’t have any trouble getting alcohol when i was 18.
clearbluesky on February 21, 2009 at 1:47 PM
If they’d lower the age in Pa, my small town the kids would go wild and the majority would be alcoholics, the graduation level would fall and more teens would die.
A lot of kids have been raised by alcoholic parents in my town..making it easier for them to obtain alcohol would start them on that path.
Now thats just how my town is…not everyones.
becki51758 on February 21, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Teens may already be boozing, but many are trying to be discreet about it to avoid trouble. Take away the incentive to stay out of sight, and you’ll unleash a legion of drunken fools into the streets, just like Spain.
TMK on February 21, 2009 at 1:49 PM
The drinking age on base is usually the drinking age of the country the base is located in. Sometimes, overseas you will have alcohol allowed to below 21-year-olds if they could just as easily step outside the gates and drink, but it’s not always the case.
One ironic twist: While I have sympathy for the old enough to die for your country argument, it’s not unusual for military personnel to go a long time between drinks, especially in the Navy (thanks Secretary Joesephus!).
jtkerch79 on February 21, 2009 at 1:49 PM
I would favor lowering the drinking age to 16 for beer and wine and 18 for spirits. For me, the current drinking age contributes another pillar to the extended adolescence phenomenon that becomes more entrenched in our culture every year. Teenagers need to be entrusted with more decision-making ability, not less. If we’re scared to face the consequences of the decisions they might make, then perhaps we, as adults, would feel compelled to involve ourselves more in those choices.
KGB on February 21, 2009 at 1:49 PM
what about high school seniors?
rob verdi on February 21, 2009 at 1:50 PM
You can drink koolaid at 18, which causes you to vote for Obama.
I see no problem with this.
artist on February 21, 2009 at 1:50 PM
The “if you are old enough to die for your country” argument is more an emotional slogan, because the real point is that if you are old enough to have contract capacity you shouldn’t have these restrictions reserved for children. This law is largely ignored anyway, it just gives cops another way to intimidate young adults.
LevStrauss on February 21, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Economic? What a horrible argument. You might as well lower the drinking age to 12 if that’s the reason. And to top it off, you would have a lot of liberal beta males slipping roofies into their drinks.
Grafted on February 21, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Yep, we are. I thought you were talking about ease of access and control of who gets what.
Krydor on February 21, 2009 at 1:51 PM
myrenovations on February 21, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Nice post.
Second that
catlady on February 21, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Don’t drink myself but if 18 is considered as a legal adult in all 50 states with the right to vote, legally held liable and the age you can join the military to defend your country with your life then surely this drinking age ought to be 18.
With technology today perhaps we’ll have standard “smart” cars that can somehow detect impaired drivers along with other possible technologies such as automatically slowing down a car if one gets to close to a rear bumper of another car? Etc…
How long will it be until America have a truly smart car that can drive on its own? Then drinking age of 18 wouldn’t be an issue by then, no?
Kokonut on February 21, 2009 at 1:53 PM
As I’ve said on the pot threads, I’m against anything that allows people to be even more stupid and annoying than normal. Personally, given the immaturity of teenagers and college age kids, I’d like to see the drinking age raised, alcohol banned on college campi, and the age to get a driver’s license raised. Raise the age to go into the military if it makes you feel better. But since you guys want to make this into a constitutional crisis; everybody needs a giant bag of weed and the right to get high whenever they want. Drinking age should be lowered…hell, as long as we’re laying out a recipe for youthful self destruction, why not give discounts at gun stores to guys that show they belong to a gang?
Go ahead, legalize every vice that you indulge in for the rest of the country. Just do me one favor…when the body count starts piling up, please save the p*ssing and whining about tragedies befalling young people. It’s not a tragedy when you set up a young person to do something stupid.
Last week, I saw a brand new SRT-8 charger, 425 horse, dealer tags, with ‘Happy 16th Birtday Jim’ on the windows. He was coming out of a grocery store parking lot, sideways. He’ll probably be dead, or hurt someone in 3 months; that’s not a tragedy. It’s inevitable. Read the news; getting a hold of alcohol isn’t a huge problem for high school kids. It’s what they do when they’ve had it that is the problem; and making it easier to get isn’t going to solve anything.
austinnelly on February 21, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Hey Tom! Why not get off of the backs of smokers? They are adults, they do NOT need the likes of any politician regulating their smoking habits, and if you guys are so smart then you should give the bars and resturants a ’smoking bailout’.
Frackin Morons! They understand the problem, then work to make it worse. Who will hold Tom responsible when insurance rates rise along with teen deaths from drunk driving?
DannoJyd on February 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM
HELL NO.
I do find it very insulting actually, i can fight for my country, i pay my taxes, i own property, i work my ass off. but at the end of the day i cant go with my coworkers and have a beer.
Thats retarded. Please explain to me how any good natured conservative can/will support this?
Yngmarine on February 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM
afterdarknesslight on February 21, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Lower the drinking age to 18 for everyone, but increase voting age to 28 minus number of years in active military service. Most people around to vote in such a system are likely to be fairly responsible.
DarkCurrent on February 21, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Im torn the “18 is old enough to die for your country” angle makes a good point. And thats how my father felt. when i was about to turn 18 they changed it to 19. Then when i was 18 they went to 21. So my father would buy us a case and my 5 friends and i would get lit in my room. My mom told me later that they would let me do this so they knew i wouldnt be somewhere else getting into trouble. The flip side is we already have a enough DWI deaths. Would this increase the Body count? Having been 18 once id have to say yes. Most 18 Yr old drivers have little driving experience. Add to that alcohol. Not a good mix.
Greed on February 21, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Regarding a drinking age on Post. When I was in during the Mid 90’s the drinking age on Post was 21, except Fort Huachuca. It was 18 on Fort Huachuca for Beer, but that was to keep the trainees from crossing in Mexico to drink.
As to drinking age. My wife suggest several years ago, that the drinking age should be 16 and the driving age 21. This way the thrill of drinking would evaporate long before the person was able to drive.
I always thought ti twas a interesting take on the issue. But like taxes, I doubt it would ever occur.
ltcatack on February 21, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Scotch and Minnesota?
Only for those serving in the military should the drinking age, while deployed, by 18.
Especially in Muslim countries.
BYOB.
And Warthogs, if the natives get testy about it.
profitsbeard on February 21, 2009 at 2:01 PM
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
/ hate teenagers
// always have
/// even when I was one
Russ on February 21, 2009 at 2:05 PM
DarkCurrent on February 21, 2009 at 1:57 PM
I would compare your suggestion to the idea from Orwell’s Animal Farm, that all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
I am uncomfortable with the idea that the citizen soldier is a breed apart, almost a class above the rest of the populace.
It may be in many cases true, but not before the law.
OneEyedJack on February 21, 2009 at 2:06 PM
I sympathize too and I think the way to rectify that is to just pass the legislation that says anyone under the age of 21 is allowed to drink if a member of the military. Don’t they carry a military ID? Likewise, I’d raise the voting age to 21 and allow the same under the age to vote with a military ID. I think serving your country should carry these type of benefits. But I don’t like the lowering of the drinking age because there is increasingly all around us the evidence of a lack of personal responsibility and even though we have those already that break the law I do feel there are those who refrain because of the law. It’s getting bad enough with young drivers texting while driving.
Texas Gal on February 21, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Yes. I don’t particularly want to see 18 year olds drinking, but I do want to see the government actually remove regulations on people’s freedom for a change. So, yes, do it.
t.ferg on February 21, 2009 at 2:07 PM
I am for letting the states decide. If we truly support less government interference (ie less big government) we cannot cherry pick which issues get regulated, etc. So my stance is from the less regulation side, which I know many will jump on. But you can’t be selective – that’s what liberals do, and that is what drives me nuts about them.
Second thing is: I have an 18 yr old and I am fine if he could drink. I grew up when it was 18, and I survived. We had designated drivers long before they were called such. People who are going to get drunk will do so no matter what. I am be believer in personal accountability, and teenagers have to start that lesson.
catlady on February 21, 2009 at 2:08 PM
I think Minnesota should pass a law barring morons from running for political office before they worry about anything else.
flyoverland on February 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM
I understand the desire to protect our stupid young but perhaps we need to decide when someone is an adult and therefore should get the priveleges of adulthood as well as the responsibilities of it.
It seems a little nanny state to me to decide that an 18 year old can fight & die, vote, get an abortion, sign a contract, get married, etc but not buy a beer. Either you are an adult or you’re not.
However if the age is lowered to 18 I would be willing to throw the book at 18-19 year olds who provide alcohol to even younger teens.
katiejane on February 21, 2009 at 2:10 PM
No, thanks.
Spirit of 1776 on February 21, 2009 at 2:11 PM
There goes the future tax base tho. ;)
Im not a fan if teenagers either. Especially the self absorbed, spoiled ones we see now.
becki51758 on February 21, 2009 at 2:11 PM
However if the age is lowered to 18 I would be willing to throw the book at 18-19 year olds who provide alcohol to even younger teens.
katiejane on February 21, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Agree on that.
catlady on February 21, 2009 at 2:11 PM
m not a fan if teenagers either. Especially the self absorbed, spoiled ones we see now.
becki51758 on February 21, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Hey, there are some ok ones out there. Not all of us parents are wimps who let our “babies” push us around!
catlady on February 21, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Not quite a good analogy. In the (intentionally ridiculous) system proposed, demonstrably responsible “animals” could earn themselves earlier access to rights. They aren’t more equal inherently.
DarkCurrent on February 21, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Here are a couple links for you all still trying to decide:
Choose Responsibility
Washington Post
Great debate, but it’s well settled in my mind. I’ll be serving my kids beer and wine in moderation starting at 13.
intricate3 on February 21, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Um i go to college and everyone is still drinking underage. We need to stop being so willfully ignorant and understand that adults from ages 18-21 are drinking regardless of its legality. From my own personal experience it would be better if it was 21, because the drinking would be out in the open at bars instead of at house parties. The lack of supervision lends itself very well to binge drinking
RightisRight on February 21, 2009 at 2:19 PM
becki51758 on February 21, 2009 at 2:11 PM
The older we get, the worse the teenagers are. I have a hunch it has more to do with us and very little to do with them. The complaints about teens are universal and are documented since man could write.
Krydor on February 21, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Why not, if there are old enough to vote for that prick Al Franken, Let‘Em Drink?
try again later on February 21, 2009 at 2:24 PM
States rights FTW.
the48car on February 21, 2009 at 2:25 PM
I could also say 21 is too young. Just go into Penn station in NYC on a Fri Sat from 12.00 am to 5.00 am. People vomiting. People sleeping it off with their face pressed into the dirty tile floor. Half naked drunk girls being carried by their friends. Im not talking a few people i mean the place is packed. Plus dont forget the beer muscles. They have to have police on the trains home because of fighting. Its some show. So all these drunks get on a train home and what happens when they get to their station? They all hop into their cars and drive home. I take these trains home from work. I see it at my station all the time. I followed one once, didnt drive over 15mph in a 35mph zone and rode the double yellow the whole way. Very dangerous. They were lucky i didnt have my cellphone.
Greed on February 21, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »