As I read the law, a state loses 10% of its federal highway funding unless it prohibits the “purchase or public possession” of alcohol by persons under age 21.
So, I’m the state of West Dakota who believes in a drinking age of 18. What is to stop me (and keep my highway funding) to make it perfectly legal for alcohol sellers to sell to everyone over age 18?
Then, I make the law so that people under age 18 who purchase, possess, drink, etc. all are subject to the same penalties as the current underage drinking law is applied to under 21s.
I then, however, create a new law legalizing all types of alcohol use for persons between the ages of 18 to 20 except for “purchase or public possession” which the first offense is a warning, second offense is a 10 cent fine, and third and subsequent offenses are 25 cent fines, with no court costs assessed, and the conviction is automatically expunged if they commit no further crimes for the next 10 seconds.
I further instruct state and local police to make enforcement of the 18 to 20 law the “lowest priority” (a la the marijuana laws in some states).
Does my state still keep its full federal highway money since I am in technical compliance with the law?
ETA: By “me” I mean the Governor and the State Legislature on the same page.
The courts are not stupid, and not swayed by stupid arguments. If you take the feds to court and say “give me my highway funds” the judge will likely agree with them that a law which basically applies no penalty is not meeting the intent of the rules.
Sometimes playing games with the letter of the law does not work.
Since the federal prohibition doesn’t ban consumption by 18-20 year olds, I’m wondering what West Dakota is going to allow that’s not already allowed.
Bans on consumption by 18-20yr olds is a State law, but I don’t think you’d lose the funding. For instance, in Texas, minors can drink in the presence of their parents/guardians (I know you can in your residence, I’m pretty sure you still can in public). We still get fed highway funding.
Louisiana did a version of that up until the late 1990’s. The short version was that it was legal to sell to people between 18 and 21 but technically illegal for them to buy it. However, there was no penalty for buying or consuming as an 18 - 21 year old. It was, in effect, legal for 18 - 21 years olds to buy alcohol anywhere it was sold including bars, restaurants and liquor stores. Louisiana did not lose highway funds because the carefully crafted law was technically in compliance with federal requirements.
It isn’t quite that way anymore. The state gave in to pressures from MAD and other groups about 1997 to close some of the loopholes. 18 -21 year olds cannot just buy alcohol anywhere they want now but there are still some allowances for drinking with parents and at certain private events for that age group.
I assume the old law could be reinstated without federal consequences even today. I am not sure what would happen if another state tried it however. Part of the reason people looked the other way was because of Louisiana’s unique culture and importance of young tourists drinking to the New Orleans economy.
Jt, South Dakota v. Dole, was a ruling on Congress’ Spending Power. The Act was to provide UNIFORMITY in age, not any criminal penalities.
Under 21 persons were travelling across nearby borders to purchase hooch, therefore the uniformity aspect.
In Ohio at one time, we had 3 ages at the same time, stupid.
21 for the hard stuff.
19 for the basic 6% beer.
18 for what was known as 3-2 beer, 3.2% alchohol by volume.
You of course know about the Laws passed by the Commissioners on UNIFORM state laws, the goal is UNIFORMITY.
jtgain, your proposal sounds a lot like how Nevada handled the national 55 mph speed limit law. Someone with a better memory than mine can perhaps remember whether or not Nevada was forced to implement a true 55 mph speed limit to keep its funds, before the partial repeal of that law.
IIRC Nevada posted a 70 limit for 1 day until they were threatened by the feds over highway funds. The state inteded to use this as a starting point for a lawsuit over the national speed limit.
More pertinant to the OP is how some states enforced 55. Some western states did little enforcement and the fines for speeding on the open highway were as low as $5. And they were written as “energy wasting violations” instead of speeding so it didn’t go on ones driving record. I don’t believe any state lost highway funds doing that.
Okay, so there was some hyperbole in my penalties. How much of a penalty would satisfy the feds? A $100 fine? A $1000 fine? (hyperbole alert:) The death penalty for 18 to 20 year old purchases?
Understood that it was the purpose, but a key component of SD v. Dole was that it was an incentive and not coercive. Presumably, according to the majority, if there was a 100% penalty to the states, it wouldn’t have been valid.
So, while uniformity was the goal, the Court agreed that a state could take the monetary penalty and keep a lower drinking age. In practice, it WAS so coercive that no state wanted to do that.
By legalizing the SALE of alcohol to those above age 18, the state would make the drinking age a de facto 18. Bars, convenience stores, and liquor stores would only be liable to sales to people below age 18, so presumably they would tailor their policies to only prohibit sales to below age 18 customers.
Today, in all states, stores have to prohibit sales to those under age 21. It would expand access to alcohol to 18 to 20 year olds,to the extent they can’t already get it. That may be a big deal. When I was that age, I didn’t get carded and that continued through my late 20s. I’m in my later 30s now and get carded most times I buy booze.
I already told you. Louisiana already did what you are talking about. There is no reason go through hypotheticals for something that has already happened in real life. I walked into a liquor store in rural Louisiana on my 18th birthday in 1991 and they asked me for ID. That was well after the feds threatened to cut off highway funds to the states in the 1980’s. I gave them my diver’s license and the cashier said “Happy Birthday! You are cutting it close aren’t you?”
It was 100% legal no ifs and or buts for 18 to 21 year olds to drink in Louisiana after that threat was made by feds. The biggest controversy I saw in New Orleans during that time was new laws that required state proof of age 18. The older measure was just your word or a yardstick proving height next to the cash register (I am only partially kidding and not by much).
I am not sure what the feds would do about state trying it today but the precedence has already been set.
A deliberately toothless “21” law was passed in Louisiana in 1986. It was illegal for teenagers to purchase or drink alcohol. What was legal was sale to 18-year-olds. This situation does indeed meet the requirements of the OP, but I think you are misrepresenting the situation when you say it was “100% legal no ifs and or buts for 18 to 21 year olds to drink in Louisiana.”
This loophole did indeed keep the highway funds and alcohol flowing until it was closed in 1995. Both were overturned by the Louisiana Supreme Court on the basis of “age discrimination.” They reversed that decision in 1996 because the federal government threatened to cut off their highway funds. That, and the bloodbath on the highways leading back to Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas, that is.
Well, no, it was the money. The bloodbath apparently didn’t bother them.
Anyway, that was then. If a state moved to do such a thing now, I suspect that Congress would rapidly revise the enabling legislation to prohibit sales as well. I personally think the policy is asinine, but since the rational approach to the problem would twist panties across the nation so hard they’d form a rope, it’s what we’ve got.
(The rational approach, since you ask [Shut up! You would too! I’m psychic!], would be to ban driving until the age of 21. To avert the hazard to America’s underwear, however, I’d consider a zero-tolerance policy for teen-age drivers. You get a ticket for anything, and you don’t drive again for three years. This would allow the handful of responsible teenagers to work and do other useful things, while keeping the majority of young idiots off the road [older idiots are a different matter]. We could then lower the drinking age to 16.)