Bah. You’re just being lazy. Hit me with you’re best shot!
While I may not make my point in a manner liberal intellectuals prefer, I am still correct in my position.
And the OP, while missing the mark on some points, and not being eloquent in those he makes, he is still correct.
This entire issue could be greatly expanded on the role of the federal government in social engineering.
While the feds have no legal obligation to give money (like highway funds) back to the states, I would love to see states challenge the fed about taking money from them in the first place.
AND, I would like to see challenges on other issues as well. Such as the lawsuit being brought before the federal government by the state of Montana regarding gun laws. How, exactly, does Uncle Sham have any authority to regulate products made in Montana and kept in Montana? Whether it’s a rifle or a water wiggle, I cannot find anything in the U.S. Constitution that gives the federal government any power to regulate either if they are made/kept within a sovereign state.
Well, the Supreme Court says that you are correct, and I concede that. But I obviously disagree.
Again, pick a power that you unquestionably believe that a state has the power to exercise. Then have the feds attach a penalty on highway funding or other funding that diminishes unless the state enacts policy X in regards to its unquestionable power to do so.
Surely you can see how this creates an end run to allow the federal government to stick its nose into an area that is one of state business. And if it is one that the constitution feels is best left to states, why give the feds a cheap inside route with the funding issue?
You say that the state doesn’t have to take the money. True, but what state can afford to go without 10% of it’s federal highway money? Better still, what state would feel strongly enough about its drinking age to give up ten percent of its highway money? The very fact that all 50 states have submitted to the 21 drinking age, lowered their speed limits to 55, mandated motorcycle helmets (back when those laws were in effect), and have passed mandatory seat belt laws shows the compulsory nature of these types of things.*
If it is something that the feds should do, then lets amend the constitution to give them the power. Don’t allow a work around that, when it goes down the slippery slope, would eliminate all state powers.
*I know that NH doesn’t have a seat belt law, but they are exempted from the federal requirement.
And this is precisely why federalists amuse me. The constitution is king when it comes to states being free to act as they wish, but when it is about federal money coming into the state it’s “gimme gimme gimme.”
The federal government has no constitutional power to force states to set a drinking age of 21. The states have no constitutional power to force the federal government to give them hand outs for their roads.
The federal government has no constitutional power to restrict the freedom of speech of individuals. Individuals have a constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Can you not see these two things are fundamentally different?
I’ve often wondered what stops one of those tiny New England states like Rhode Island or New Hampshire from saying “We can live with a 10% reduction in Federal Highway money since we’ve got bugger all Federal Highways anyway. Drinking age is now 18 and we expect the increased tax revenue to more than cover the shortfall.”
FWIW, I grew up in New Zealand, where the drinking age at the time was 20. And also not enforced; even at 16 I had virtually no difficulty purchasing alcohol and on the occasions where someone decided to follow the law, there was always someone’s older brother/sister/friend or understanding parent to get it anyway.
What’s interesting is that everyone knew (even then) that the one thing you should never, ever, ever do when you’d been drinking was drive. It was just understood that if you went to a party at someone’s place, you’d either be there for the night or a sober friend/relative would be coming to pick you up. Being the “Designated Driver” wasn’t actually a bad thing; but to be fair, “Having A Car” was a bit of a novelty in my social circle anyway.
The point is, rather than just saying “Adults can’t drink until they’re 21”, the trick might be to promote the responsible consumption of alcohol; just because there’s 700ml in that bottle of Bourbon doesn’t mean you, personally, have to drink all of it as fast as possible.
Ok, let’s forget about the freedom of speech aspect. I will admit that the analogy is flawed.
You still didn’t answer my question about the limits of federal power. Is it your contention that the feds can use their taxing power to force the states to submit to economic realities?
First, where does this “federal money” come from? Citizens of each of the states pay income taxes and then get some of that money back, with strings attached, to build their highways. You call that a “hand out”.
It is not a matter of federalists wanting to have it both ways. I can concede again that the realities of the modern world would show that it is beneficial to have the federal government oversee a system of interstate highway construction. You have an overall plan to route the roads more efficiently.
However, a 19 year old buying a case of beer at the local corner store has so little of a connection to this goal as to almost make it laughable. Surely you would concede that.
And my point is, that if you allow such things, you can twist pretty much any activity under the sun to fall under some sort of federal funding area, thereby eliminating state power. This is not what the constitution intends.
Money citizens pay to the federal government is paid to the federal government. The states have nothing to do with it. The federal government has the express constitutional authority to levy taxes. It’s not the state’s money.
Now you might say the federal government taxes people too much, and at least twice a month I might well agree with you. But it is the individual who can say he or she has some kind of claim on the money, not the state.
I’ll say again, if the state wants to exercise its powers unfettered, it can. It just can’t hold out the begging bowl to federal government for it. Want to let 12 year olds drink and still build roads? Have at it hoss - just raise a state tax to provide the money for it.
Although distasteful, the federal government is within its rights to attach strings on federal funding. The problem with the higher drinking age is not one of procedure, but one of substance. 18 year olds are adults and adults have the right* to drink. Doesn’t matter if it’s a good idea or a bad idea, if it saves lives or costs lives, it just the way it is.
*yes, the right. Like the right to stay out late on a weeknight, the right to sign a contract, and the right to wear stupid outfits. These are not rights delineated in the Constitution, but they’re rights that belong to adults nonetheless.
Don’t get me wrong. I agree with you. I’d have beer and wine licensed for 18+. And I think you are probably correct it is a right - just not a fundamental one.
I just find the federalist complaints about this amusing when they are, at the self same time, lining up to gorge from the federal trough.
I’m suspicious of the whole highway funds thing anyway. I think drivers/tax payers are getting boned on this by the states.
For example, last may I drove across Ohio via I-80. The toll was, IIRC, $15.:eek:
Then I got into Pennsylvania and had to pay several zillion more to drive across it.
Yet Ohio & Pennsylvania’s gas taxes are higher than most states that don’t have tolls. Then, on top of the tolls and tax they get federal funds?
Every now and then some pol tries to push tolls here, saying the gas tax would be reduced. B.S.!:mad:
So far the only argument [putting aside neurological issues] that has been raised to defend the 21 year old limit seems to be that there are less deaths due to drink driving. Would it be better to target drink driving? Reading the RBT thread it seems that America does not really target DWI very well. Downunder due to RBTs etc we have lowered our death by DWI a lot. We started to see kids then drive under the influence of drugs, now that we can do random drug tests on drivers we are seeign this come down as well.
I kind of like the 21 drinking age, my logic is thus: The defacto drinking age is really about 2-3 years less than the official drinking age, since just about everyone has a friend/sibling about 2-3 years older than them who will gladly buy them booze. I am generally opposed to highschool kids having ready access to alcohol, but think that college kids should definitely have access to it. So having it at 21 means that most 18+ kids (ie college aged kids) will have access to it, while most highschool kids will have a (slightly) harder time getting it.
Now I know highschool kids don’t really have a problem getting their hands on the stuff if they are determined, but from my experience it was an order of magnitude more difficult in highschool than it was in college, and that suits me just fine.
In my profession I have observed a couple of things regarding this.
First of all, 18+ year olds do not have as easy access to it as you might think. This, in my observations, leads to binge drinking. Many underagers drink as much as they can while they have it. I can’t tell you the numerous times I’ve responded to situations that included a case of alcohol poisoning in someone under 21. Yet very few involving people over 21.
Second, when they do get access to it, it’s not usually in a public place. It’s at a party in a house, frat house, appartment, camp site, etc… The professional controls over consumption and behavior that come with drinking at a bar or club are gone.
I agree with all of your points, which is why I think 21 is a better age limit than 18. Better to have these issues with 18+ year olds than 15+ year olds.
Then you’re (albeit inadvertently) also making an argument for a 19 year old drinking age. As I posted earlier, Wisconsin had a 19 drinking age for two years. Not long enough to be able to determine if it had an effect on high schoolers ability to get liquor.
I see the same. Back when I was a teenager, in another century, there was no drinking age; the first year I had a “cuarto” (a space rented with a group of friends for the summer fiestas) I was 14, pretty much the usual age. We would buy beer by the case, hard liquor by the bottle, and pay for the cuarto by helping serve tables at the bar downstairs (they owned the building). One of the worst things you could say about someone was “(s)he doesn’t know when to stop drinking.” If you were driving, the stopping point was a lot sooner than if you weren’t. I have friends who’ve taken the keys away from a drunk friend; friends who were driven home by the cops (the only one with a license was… the one who hadn’t known when to stop :smack:); but I only remember one instance of someone driving while drunk (and she managed to need a complete bodypaint job, as she’d smashed or scratched the four corners of her car).
Nowadays, those kids who should geroff my lawn have what’s called “botellón culture”, where they buy beer by the liter and liquor by the bottle and mix (which used to be a huge no-no as it was reputed to lead to faster and worse effects) and the aim is to get throwing-up drunk, but again you don’t see botellón on people who have licenses: it’s the underage crowd who gets that drunk.
The whole American majority-age scale seems real weird until I remember that in Spain we have different majority ages for consent, marriage, and now drinking, than for everything else.
