Recently legislators in Wisconsin and Vermont have introduced bills to lower the legal drinking age. Wisconsin’s would apply only to 19 yr old local military personal while Vermont’s would lower it to 18 for everbody. In both cases the biggest stumbling block is the potential loss of highway funds. How much of a chance is their of either of them passing? Could we see more states consider revisting the drinking age. I think that Wisconsin’s bill has a good chance of passing if only because it’s limited to the military and there’s a slim chance they could convince Congress to grant them a waiver. Vermont would have to face losing about 10 million $$ in federal highway money with no possibility for a waiver (short of repealing NMDA). Then again the Green Mountain Republic has defied national trends before. Will the war in Iraq trigger an eventual change in the drinking age the way the Vietnam War did?
All I know is, shit like this makes me pissed at this country. It’s too bad, because this is a good country, but we have a lot of shitty laws. This country would be better if it had more young people in charge. Everyone in the government should be replaced by younger people.
Why can’t Congress using the Commerce Clause pass a uniform drinking age or for that matter any law about alcohol using the same legal justification for banning pot?
Probably not. Although it is damn odd there are US soldiers returning from combat I couldn’t buy a beer for at a bar.
This is something that has always bothered me about living in the United States. A young person can drive at 16, vote at 18 but isn’t mature enough to drink until they are 21? It makes no sense to me at all and quite frankly I find it a little offensive.
Now that I have gotten that off of my chest, I doubt anything will change.
Because if it were a federal law, the feds would have to enforce it. Congress hasn’t quite nerved itself to send BATF agents into bars after underage drinkers. By bribing states into making it state law, they leave states with enforcement responsibility.
With regard to driving, I don’t think those situations are analogous at all. Being 16 years old does NOT automatically make you mature enough to drive. That’s why they’ve got these newfangled thingies called driver’s licenses and driving exams.
In addition, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that there are circumstances wherein it is highly advantageous for a 16-year-old to drive. In contrast, there is no absolute need for that same person to get plastered.
as I recall the reason for the 21 limit is that the male liver (or some rather important organ) isnt mature until 21…
If true, so what? It shouldn’t be up to the government to dictate what a legal adult (18+) can or can’t do with their body.
Critical1, to clarify, my previous response wasn’t dircted at you, it was just a response to the justification the US may use. I know you were just reporting what you knew.