So as the population ages, we could pass a law that says that people are minors until age 30, and then prevent them from doing anything we decide until they’re 30?
Exor, what do you think about minors drinking communion wine in the privacy of the church?
Fact: Georgia allowed voting at age 18 before Nixon’s administration.
We’ve all been there, done that! It is called “paying your dues” or growing up. Recently the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the rights of children are diminished from those of adults.
Most protestant churches used grape juice (Welch’s) and not wine.
The question is whether the courts will ever recognize minors as a suspect class. Not likely.
IMHO, the courts aren’t likely to create new suspect classes these days. Homosexuals haven’t even been given that status, but that’s another thread.
And we LDS use water!
[sub]No, we’re not hoping the Lord turns it into wine.[/sub]
IICR, you can’t get a gun permit (at least in NH) until you’re 21 as well. Whether this is the case in other states also, I don’t know.
Some things are restricted until you’re older than 21 as well. Though there’s no law against it, most car rental places won’t let you rent a car until you’re 25. And even though I’m over 21, they wouldn’t let me be president of the US…at least not until the first election after 2012.
Walloon, thank you for bringing in that point, about there being no single uniform across-the-board “legal age”. Where I live the ages are 14 for sex; 16 for driving, f/t employment, and getting criminally prosecuted if the Court decides you deserve it; 18 for drinking, voting, entering an employment contract w/o parental consent and being inevitably prosecuted as an adult; 21 to acquire, dispose of, or transfetv title to real property on your own behalf and to obtain loans in your own name. The age of 21 is defined here as “legal majority” in that after that point you may enter any legal obligation and dispose of yourself and your real and personal property as you see fit w/o need for any consent from your parents or guardians. But even in “legal majority” you can still be restricted from doing anything that the state has a compelling interest in regulating (such as consuming America’s #1 choice of mind-altering substance).
BTW in Catholic (Roman Latin, Eastern Rite, and Orthodox) Christianity, the Eucharistic Form of the Blood of Christ should be real, fermented, alcohol-containing, grape wine (with an exemption made for cases where the priest is under treatment that prevents him from drinking).
If the government can send 18 year olds off to die in combat and let them vote, why the hell can’t they trust these same 18 year olds with alcohol?
They did. Or a least they tried to, for awhile. I turned 21 in 73. From what I remember, many states bought the argument that if you were old enough to vote and get drafted, you should be able to go get a drink.
Well, the 18 to 20 year olds handled the drinking (and driving) even worse than their older cousins and the death toll jumped.
Just imagie a rolling frat party.
So after a couple of years the states went, “Oops, our mistake,” and raised the drinking age.
You can do anything legal at age 18 in Australia. But the award rate of wages is less. It is less until you reach 21. It really sucks.
Pay awarded should be based on your education, experience and abilities IMHO.
IIRC you can drink at 18 on a military base.
What really, what does your government expect students to do if they can’t go out and get pissed? Sure frat-boys and all that get hurt but that should mean better education on the dangers of alcohol not banning it. Speaking as a Brit who has been drinking since early teens this seems absolutely hilarious.
It is. The award system sets out minimum wages. The government sets this minimum lower for 18 year olds in recognition of the generalisation that an 18 year old will contribute less economic value than a 21 year old in the same position. The government leaves it to your employer to decide whether your individual 18 years of education, experience, abilties or good looks warrant more pay than the norm.
Back to the OP, do US laws prohibit the consumption of alcohol, or the ability to purchase alcohol? In Australia, most liquor licensing laws aim to prevent minors from buying alcohol (specifically, persons younger than 18 years cannot (with exceptions) enter licensed premises).
Each state makes its own laws. In Wisconsin:
“Except as provided in par. (bm) , any underage person not accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or spouse who has attained the legal drinking age who knowingly possesses or consumes alcohol beverages is guilty of a violation.”
"(bm) An underage person may possess alcohol beverages in the course of employment during his or her working hours if employed by any of the following: A brewer. A fermented malt beverages wholesaler. [etc.]
"No person may procure for, sell, dispense or give away any alcohol beverages to any underage person not accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or spouse who has attained the legal drinking age [21 years].
"No licensee or permittee may sell, vend, deal or traffic in alcohol beverages to or with any underage person not accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or spouse who has attained the legal drinking age.
"No adult may knowingly permit or fail to take action to prevent the illegal consumption of alcohol beverages by an underage person on premises owned by the adult or under the adult’s control. This subdivision does not apply to alcohol beverages used exclusively as part of a religious service.
"An underage person not accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or spouse who has attained the legal drinking age may not enter, knowingly attempt to enter or be on any premises for which a license or permit for the retail sale of alcohol beverages has been issued, for any purpose except the transaction of business pertaining to the licensed premises with or for the licensee or his or her employee. "
For several reasons, I’ve always disliked the dispartiy of granting most adult rights at or before 18, but delaying the right to drink until 21.
For one thing, I don’t approve of the way the federal govt bribed/blackmailed the states into setting the drinking age at 21.
For another, I don’t like this sort of quickie shortcut lawmaking. It goes like this. Some people foolishly drive while impaired by drinking. This is something that drivers of all ages have been known to do. At the same time, this is something that most drivers – including most under-21 drivers – do not do at all, ever. A nationwide hike in the drinking age was not, IMO, a real solution to any problem; it was just a case of govt officials wanting to be seen to be doing something about a problem, and never mind if the consequences were that 18, 19, and 20 year olds are being treated unfairly. At the time the age-21 law was set, what percentage of 18, 19, and 20 year olds had done anything to warrent having this right taken away from them?
Also, I think an age-21 drinking law is just plain wrong-headed. The late teens are, IMO, the proper time in life for learning how to handle alcohol. Or (in some cases) learning that one can’t handle it and would be wise to abstain. Finally, it’s an almost unenforcable law. How many young Americans are actually prevented by these laws from drinking prior to their 21st birthday?
Incorrect. The drinking age on US military bases is whatever the drinking age in the surrounding jurisdiction is. For bases in the US, that means 21; for bases in Japan, that means 20.
I don’t want to get into the legal question, although I agree that the way it was done is quite dubious. But I disagree that the best time to learn to drink is as a teen-ager. In fact, it seems to be true for most substances that the later you start, the less likely you are to get addicted. I don’t know this about alcohol, but I assume it is true too. I do know that anyone who has never smoked before 20 and starts then usually finds it quite easy to quit. I have also heard that new addictions never happen after age 50 (when the brain has presumably lost its plasticity). So I think it reasonable that the state restrict the drinking age. Whether these restrictions work is a different question. If I thought it could work, I would restrict smoking to over 21s too.
Education and experience may work better to prevent addiction.
When drinking is forbidden, getting drunk becomes a goal in itself: you have to wait for a chance to get someone to buy alcohol, then stock up and finish it off quickly. If you could just have a beer or a glass of wine at any restaurant, drinking wouldn’t be an alien experience that you have to “get your money’s worth” from whenever the opportunity arises.
I got hooked on the internet in general and SDMB specifically after I was 50. 
Isn’t the whole issue of age (21, 18, whatever) a red herring in this, er, (oops, I almost said ‘debate’), um question; surely it’s a question of whether the government is correct in imposing any age restrictions on any behaviour, not whether they are consistent (or even fair) in their implementation?