# Nationwide 21 drinking age: Appropriate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 17, 2003, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nationwide-21-drinking-age-appropriate/169207 "2003-04-17T00:07:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nationwide-21-drinking-age-appropriate/169207/41 "2003-04-21T04:07:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrightNShiny \* > \*\*But that’s my point. Why would a politican adopt an issue that may only be of importance to a non-voting constituency? First, they need to start voting in large numbers, then they can try and make this an issue. \*\* If someone were to run for office on a promise of lowering the drinking age, I think you’d see record turnout among young voters. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nationwide-21-drinking-age-appropriate/169207/42 "2003-04-21T16:34:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duckster \* > \*\* > Yet, what remains is the 18-21 crowd just cannot handle alcohol and driving responsibly (this is not to say older folks can). To take the dark view, being 18-21, getting drunk all too often and driving may be a good thing in that it eliminates the hard core from the gene pool early on. On the other hand, how many innocents on the road at that time are injured/killed as a result? > > \*\* Let us say, for the sake of argument, that there was evidence that some racial group- say black,s or maybe Indians- also “just cannot handle alcohol and driving responsibly”- that is there was a rate of drunk driving as high as 18\>21yo, the danger was as high. Would it then be right to ban “Redskins” (sic) from drinking “firewater” (sic)? :rolleyes: I hope no one says “Yes”. If this is true- then any group of citizens must have the same basic rights as all other groups of citizens. Once you pass the admendment to make them voting citizens, you have to let them have ALL the rights. To do otherwise is wrong & hypocritical. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nationwide-21-drinking-age-appropriate/169207/43 "2003-04-21T17:30:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SenorBeef \* > \*\*Or, hell, just challenged it on the grounds that it’s not a federal power? \*\* Yes. _South Dakota v. Dole_, [483 US 203](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=483&invol=203) (1987). The gist of the decision is that Article I, s. 8, cl. 1 of the constitution gives the federal government the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, and thus the power to do indirectly via spending what it cannot do directly. The limitations on this power are: (i) the expenditure must be for the general welfare; (ii) the conditions imposed must be unambiguous; (iii) they must be reasonably related to the purpose of the expenditure; and (iv) the legislation may not violate any independent constitutional prohibition The decision was 7-2. Brennan dissents on the basis of section 2 of the 21st amendment (section 1 repealed prohibition, section 2 permits the states to regulate or ban the transportation or importation of liquor) – i.e., an “independent constitutional prohibition.” O’Connor dissents on the ground that the subject matter of the spending is not closely enough related to the activity prohibited. So effectively it’s a 9-0 decision on the general proposition that the federal government can use the “carrot” of federal spending to get the states to enact certain policies otherwise beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government. ---
**Author:** ![DougAB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47c2d/32.png) [@DougAB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DougAB)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nationwide-21-drinking-age-appropriate/169207/44 "2003-04-21T20:16:00Z")
> [@](#): > > YOu aren’t allowed to pump your own gas in Oregon??? What is the justification for that law? Having full service gas stations creates more jobs for the people who do it for you. Or so I assume. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nationwide-21-drinking-age-appropriate/169207/45 "2003-04-21T21:24:08Z")
Yep, let’s just vote ourselves rich! ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2003, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nationwide-21-drinking-age-appropriate/169207/46 "2003-04-21T23:57:15Z")
Ducketer: > [@](#): > > Long-time personal experience and observation. Not everything will have a quantitative and qualitative third-party study, or cite. In the late 60s and early 70s it has been my experience the youth of the day were were concerned about the world at large, and their place in it (Gee, the possibility of being drafted, going to war and dying had something to do with it, too.), than the youth of today who appear more self-centered. People of the 60’s and 70’s responded to their concern about the world at large by getting stoned and having sex. Oh, and protesting. This is more responsible than modern youth how, again? My semi-educated-WAG is that modern youth is marginally more responsible, by virtue of the fact that they’re generally more informed (owing mostly to the ease of modern information transfer). Regardless, I don’t think the children of the 60’s were exactly a paragon of rational maturity. DougAB: > [@](#): > > Having full service gas stations creates more jobs for the people who do it for you. Or so I assume. …while giving gas prices a nice, hefty bump. Let’s hear it for Oregon! :rolleyes: Regarding the OP, I would like to see a federally mandated drinking age of 18. I’m a big proponent of federalism, but I think the problem of kids driving across state lines to get drunk is a considerable one. And given that (I think) the fed owns at least some of the freeways, there would seems to be sufficient justification for a federally mandated drinking age (in more than just a “Constitutional technicality” sort of way). Setting the age at 18 would also alleviate some of the college related problems that **msmith537** mentioned, as well as addressing the popular “you can fight but you can’t drink” issue. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![gex\_gex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@gex\_gex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gex_gex)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nationwide-21-drinking-age-appropriate/169207/47 "2003-04-22T15:34:26Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Duckster_ > Yet, what remains is the 18-21 crowd just cannot handle alcohol and driving responsibly (this is not to say older folks can). To take the dark view, being 18-21, getting drunk all too often and driving may be a good thing in that it eliminates the hard core from the gene pool early on. On the other hand, how many innocents on the road at that time are injured/killed as a result? Well, I’m 19, and according to the laws of my country, I am mature enough to handle alcohol. What’s wrong with the 18-21 year olds in your country? Now that I can legally drink, I do so a lot more responsibly than I did in my pre-legal years. I drink less, I get drunk less and I drink more responsibly (for instance, I don’t pay someone’s big brother to buy us the cheapest bottle of vodka and drink that with a friend in half an hour). It seems to me that illegal drinking encourages people to drink less safely. When you need someone to buy your alcohol for you, you get them to buy the cheapest, strongest amount you can get, because it’s too hard to go back and get more once you’re finished. You don’t drink socially, because it’s too much effort to arrange, so when you do drink you drink to get drunk, and you drink less responsibly. The drinking is less social, too - a bottle in the local park isn’t really a drink at a bar. Of course, an illegally drinking 20 year old will be more responsible than an illegally drinking 16 year old, but when you treat someone as if they are too immature to cope with a drink, then you’ll find that they act too immature to cope with a drink. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by pkbites_ > The Feds use things like highway funds to blackmail states into doing things. They did this with the ridiculous 55mph speed limit, they did it with drinking age and open container laws, they did it with seatbelt laws, **and now they’re doing it again with the .08 BAC.** :eek: No wonder you have such problems with drink driving! It’s legal to drive while your driving ability is seriously impaired! ---
**Author:** ![rufuz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e99b99/32.png) [@rufuz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rufuz)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2003, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nationwide-21-drinking-age-appropriate/169207/48 "2003-11-02T23:14:28Z")
1. Can and should anything be done about the National Minimum Drinking Age act that established this? 2. How would you create a bill that would lower a state’s minimum drinking age? (writing your senator?) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nationwide-21-drinking-age-appropriate/169207.md?page=2)