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.
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.
Yes. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 US 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 Brennan dissents on the basis of section 2 of the 21st amendment (section 1 repealed prohibition, section 2 permits the states to regulate or ban the transportation or importation of liquor) – i.e., an “independent constitutional prohibition.”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.
Having full service gas stations creates more jobs for the people who do it for you. Or so I assume.
Yep, let’s just vote ourselves rich!
Ducketer:
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:
…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
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.
:eek: No wonder you have such problems with drink driving! It’s legal to drive while your driving ability is seriously impaired!
-
Can and should anything be done about the National Minimum Drinking Age act that established this?
-
How would you create a bill that would lower a state’s minimum drinking age? (writing your senator?)