Gribbit of Gribbit Online made an interesting statement on a forum-style group I am a member of, and I would like to share his statement, and my response to it, with you:
Gribbit:
The People's Republic of Vermont, not a red state in any stretch of the imagination is preparing to have a discussion about lowering the legal drinking age from 21 - 18. My inner libertarian has me actually leaning in support of the proposal for a few reasons...
1) The federal law strong arming the states in adopting the 21 year old drinking age was tied to a state's ability to receive federal highway funding. It is my opinion that this strong arm tactic was designed to usurp states' rights.
2) I agree with leading educators at universities in that the 21 year old drinking age is the cause of many covert drinking parties and binge drinking. Party goers, unsupervised, are experiencing high numbers of alcohol related medical emergencies (including deaths) due to binge drinking caused specifically by the lack of legal access. A lower drinking age would decrease the number of these covert drinking parties and binge drinking by forcing the consumption of alcohol into bars and taverns where drinking is supervised. In Ohio, and many other states, it is illegal to serve an individual who is "visibly intoxicated". Bartenders and bouncers are legally responsible for policing out of control consumption. Consumption would be monitored by individuals who are responsible for the legal distribution of alcohol.
3) As a veteran, I can say for certain that it is a bit hypocritical for our nation to say to an 18 year old man that he's old enough to be conscripted (even though there is no active draft) but he isn't old enough to have a beer.
4) What ever happened to personal responsibility?
5) The United States is the only nation which has such a stringently high legal drinking age. In many countries, there is no declared drinking age. In others, the minimum drinking age is much lower and underage consumption is not the problem that it is here.
Doug:
Gribbit is right that the national drinking age strong-armed the states so that they could receive federal highway funding. My position, regardless of my opinion regarding alcohol, is that the Constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to dictate to the states what their drinking age is - it is a state issue - period. Personally, because of our inability to drink responsibly, I wouldn't be against a drinking age of 40 or above, , , that laughable statement is to drive home my point that even though it would be easy for me to be against what Vermont wants to do because I believe 18 year olds cannot be responsible with their liquor, it is the Constitution, and state's rights, that I am most concerned with. Therefore, I support Vermont's attempt on the grounds of State Sovereignty, and the U.S. Constitution.
Doug
www.politicalpistachio.com
No comments:
Post a Comment