I agree with this. If it were legal to drink at 16 and legal to drive at 18, I bet the incidence of binge drinking and drunk driving would go down.
Of course, I am betting with other people’s lives.
heh
The thing is drinking at home is not the slightest option if your parents are Bible-thumping teetotallers like those of many of my friends were. Drinking in high school was all part of rebellion, at least where I grew up.
Myself, I found the 18-year-old drinking age quite handy for using my fake ID that said I was 18 when I was 16. I may have looked 18, but I certainly didn’t look 21; it would not have worked at a later time.
I beg your pardon. Before I even turned 18, I was participating in the campaign to pass the 26th Amendment. My belief at the time was that if Congress had the right to pass laws that said if 18-year olds could be drafted and sent to war, then 18 year-olds should at least have the right to vote for who they wanted to make the laws. A few years after that, someone decided that if we were old enough to vote, then we ought to be old enough to drink.
That bit of logic was flawed, and it remains flawed. The right to vote does not equate with the right to get drunk, otherwise the 21st Amendment wouldn’t have returned the power to states to regulate alcohol.
Looking back on it, I now see that my mistake was supporting a lower voting age, rather than a higher age for the draft.
It does, I think. What it did was say 18yo are full Citizens. Thus IMHO they should have all the rights of all citizens. Again, would it be OK to say Amerinds or Women can’t drink?
I had a full time job at 18. I could not have gotten to it without a car. Also my HS love life would have been less interesting if I couldn’t find some place private for us to ummm get to know each other. I like the idea of a graduated drinking age. Note: this is based on 16 to drive, 21 to drink laws currently in the U.S.
Is it OK that 18 year olds can’t serve in the House of Representatives, the Senate or as President? That’s written right into the Constitution – the original articles, not even amendments.
There is no inherent constitutional right to drink. The 18th Amendment specifically gave the power to control alcohol to the federal government, and the 21st Amendment specifically gave the power to the states.
At 18 you are old enough to die for your country, but can’t have a beer before you ship out. I never saw the logic of this.
As mentioned before, it’s no more illogical than you can die for your country but cannot serve as president or even in the House.
You can’t shoot up with heroin before you ship out, either. I don’t see any need for the ability to cripple your ability to act as a “reasonable person” to be considered a right.
But the decision on who can drink or shoot heroin should rest with each individual state, not Uncle Sam. My position on the drinking age has nothing to do with individual liberties and everything to do with the power of the state. The fed needs to get it’s grubby fingers out of states affairs on issues like this.
If we’re going to continue to allow the federal government to do an end run around the 10th Amendment using economic blackmail, then why bother having individual sovereign states at all? Dissolve all state legislature, dismiss all governors and other state level executives, and disband all state/county/local law enforcement agencies and run everything out of Washington. See how everyone likes that.
So what’s to stop the destruction of every power that a state has simply by attaching a funding condition to it?
That would be like saying that you have a right to free speech, but must pay a $2 billion tax to exercise that right.
Here are some other things with age limits.
The maximum age for enlisting in the military is 42(for the Air Force and Coast Guard, the maximum age is 27.)
You must be between the ages of 23 and 37 to become an FBI agent. And, by the way, you WILL retire by the age of 57.
And speaking of driving:
The minimum age for a locomotive engineer is 22.
You must be between 23 and 65 to qualify for an air transport license.
You need to be 21 to be a commercial interstate truck driver.
Well, I can drink, but can’t volunteer to die for my country.
True, there is no such right. But then would it be Ok for them to say that Amerinds or Women can’t drink?
What we do have is a general right to have the same rights as all other citizens. You can’t make a law that only discriminates against Blacks, for example. Even if that law sez “Black men may not wear their baseball hats backwards”. We have no laws whatsoever that protects anyones right to even wear a baseball hat- backwards, forwards or at all. But any law that said “Only white citizens may wear baseball hats” would be struck down in an instant.
All of your examples are jobs. Qualifications for specific employments are always going to include criteria that exclude various subsets of the citizenry.
That cuts both ways. Anyone who claims that they can join the military, but can’t drink, has to accept that it’s no more (or less fair) that in a few years they’ll be able to drink but not join the military.
As for rights that aren’t connected to jobs, the legal age for marriage is 21 in Puerto Rico,19 in Nebraska, 21 in Mississippi. And in Vermont, you can be refused a marriage license if you’ve been divorced and don’t agree to counseling.
I don’t see why. The two standards have entirely different bases, as I understand it.
I agree, those laws are also indefensible.
I’d respond to this post, but I just haven’t got a big enough shovel to move all that fucking straw.
Because the funding has to be a federally authorized power. But more importantly, look at the ridiculous nature of what you are saying. You are claiming the federal government somehow has to give money to the states. If the states want full freedom to exercise their powers, subject to the federal constitution, they can do so. They have no automatic right to receive federal funding, unless that is constitutionally provided for. And it isn’t.
It’s NOTHING like the placing of an unconstutional condition on the right to free speech. You know why? Because individuals possess the right to free speech. States don’t possess a right to receive federal funding without strings, nor do they possess a right to set a drinking age. Rights and powers are different - and an important way they are different is that conditions can be attached to funding unless powers are exercised in a particular way.
But isn’t that what this whole thread is about, starting with **Jim B’s **original post?
If the topic for debate is “I can do X at age 18, so I should also be able to do Y,” that invites the answer that “the two standards have entirely different bases.”
Some confusion about the bases has been there all along, in my view. There is no right to serve in the military, any more than there is a right to any other particular employment. Employers can and should set hiring standards that are appropriately related to the demands of the job (I do not condone discrimination on criteria unrelated to the demands of the job). Getting a job isn’t just one person’s personal decision.
On the other hand, activities like voting, drinking, driving or marriage (presuming a second interested party), should be simply reserved for adults–that is, for people entitled to make their own decisions about their own lives. In circumstances where these decisions come to impact others, adults should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions.