The Drinking Age Is Past Its Prime

[martybegan]

That is really lame, there is a place for government, this happens to be one of them, we have a big enough problem with 21+ drinking drivers, there's no need to add millions of 18+ to the mix. Actually I should say millions of 16+ because the ones 18 will provide alcohol to their younger friends, just like 21 year olds do now.

However it should be up to the states. The constitution gives them regulation over alcohol via the 21st amendment. The highway funds end around is unconstitutional, despite what the SC said.

I disagree. States don't have a Constitutional right to receive highway funds.

They have a constitutional right to set alcohol laws. The feds should be able to say how the money will be spent when they give it to a state, they should not be able to add an unrelated topic to the requirements to receive funding.

How would gun control people like it if the feds tied federal highway money to removing restrictions on long rifles or concealed carry contained in state laws?

 

[nodoginnafight]

However it should be up to the states. The constitution gives them regulation over alcohol via the 21st amendment. The highway funds end around is unconstitutional, despite what the SC said.

I disagree. States don't have a Constitutional right to receive highway funds.

They have a constitutional right to set alcohol laws. The feds should be able to say how the money will be spent when they give it to a state, they should not be able to add an unrelated topic to the requirements to receive funding.

How would gun control people like it if the feds tied federal highway money to removing restrictions on long rifles or concealed carry contained in state laws?

And the states CAN set their own alcohol laws. It is their choice. But choices have consequences.

Don't like it - get your votes together and change it. I'll vote against you - but maybe you can convince enough people to go along with de-linking the funding.

 

[martybegan]

I disagree. States don't have a Constitutional right to receive highway funds.

They have a constitutional right to set alcohol laws. The feds should be able to say how the money will be spent when they give it to a state, they should not be able to add an unrelated topic to the requirements to receive funding.

How would gun control people like it if the feds tied federal highway money to removing restrictions on long rifles or concealed carry contained in state laws?

And the states CAN set their own alcohol laws. It is their choice. But choices have consequences.

Don't like it - get your votes together and change it. I'll vote against you - but maybe you can convince enough people to go along with de-linking the funding.

So then if a state doesn't allow gay marriage, the feds should be able to deny highway funding? What about deny the states social security recipients their checks for the same reason?

The consequence should be related to the choice. not tacked on as an end run around the Constitution. The burden should be on the feds to follow through on an amendment if they want to set a national drinking age, not on the states.

 

[manifold]

I disagree. States don't have a Constitutional right to receive highway funds.

They have a constitutional right to set alcohol laws. The feds should be able to say how the money will be spent when they give it to a state, they should not be able to add an unrelated topic to the requirements to receive funding.

How would gun control people like it if the feds tied federal highway money to removing restrictions on long rifles or concealed carry contained in state laws?

And the states CAN set their own alcohol laws. It is their choice. But choices have consequences.

Don't like it - get your votes together and change it. I'll vote against you - but maybe you can convince enough people to go along with de-linking the funding.

If you can convince the courts, you don't need the votes. If we've learned anything practical about our civics over the past half century, that would be it.

 

[AceRothstein]

But then how will college towns balance their budgets without writing drinking tickets to underage kids?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Whats clear is that many drivers, college students, and other retards have shown incredibly poor judgement when it concerns alcoholic consumption. As is Always the case a minority of assholes hVe to ruin it for everyone else... Otherwise agreed, many eighteen yr olds can handle drinking maturely.

 

[nodoginnafight]

They have a constitutional right to set alcohol laws. The feds should be able to say how the money will be spent when they give it to a state, they should not be able to add an unrelated topic to the requirements to receive funding.

How would gun control people like it if the feds tied federal highway money to removing restrictions on long rifles or concealed carry contained in state laws?

And the states CAN set their own alcohol laws. It is their choice. But choices have consequences.

Don't like it - get your votes together and change it. I'll vote against you - but maybe you can convince enough people to go along with de-linking the funding.

So then if a state doesn't allow gay marriage, the feds should be able to deny highway funding? What about deny the states social security recipients their checks for the same reason?

The consequence should be related to the choice. not tacked on as an end run around the Constitution. The burden should be on the feds to follow through on an amendment if they want to set a national drinking age, not on the states.

All very good points. And well articulated. Maybe a little hyperbole - but that's a matter of perspective and you are certainly entitled to yours.

But I still disagree.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Whats clear is that many drivers, college students, and other retards have shown incredibly poor judgement when it concerns alcoholic consumption. As is Always the case a minority of assholes hVe to ruin it for everyone else... Otherwise agreed, many eighteen yr olds can handle drinking maturely.

But a much higher percentage of 18 to 21 year old drinkers can't handle it.

 

[martybegan]

And the states CAN set their own alcohol laws. It is their choice. But choices have consequences.

Don't like it - get your votes together and change it. I'll vote against you - but maybe you can convince enough people to go along with de-linking the funding.

So then if a state doesn't allow gay marriage, the feds should be able to deny highway funding? What about deny the states social security recipients their checks for the same reason?

The consequence should be related to the choice. not tacked on as an end run around the Constitution. The burden should be on the feds to follow through on an amendment if they want to set a national drinking age, not on the states.

All very good points. And well articulated. Maybe a little hyperbole - but that's a matter of perspective and you are certainly entitled to yours.

But I still disagree.

A "little" hyperbole adds spice to a debate. I am a process driven person. You could consider me Lawful Neutral if I had a Dungeon's and Dragons alignment. The results don't concern me as much as the process being followed, the process in the case being the constitution as written and amended, not as interpreted. I am a federalist and a strict constructionist through and through.

I agree we disagree.

 

[martybegan]

They have a constitutional right to set alcohol laws. The feds should be able to say how the money will be spent when they give it to a state, they should not be able to add an unrelated topic to the requirements to receive funding.

How would gun control people like it if the feds tied federal highway money to removing restrictions on long rifles or concealed carry contained in state laws?

And the states CAN set their own alcohol laws. It is their choice. But choices have consequences.

Don't like it - get your votes together and change it. I'll vote against you - but maybe you can convince enough people to go along with de-linking the funding.

If you can convince the courts, you don't need the votes. If we've learned anything practical about our civics over the past half century, that would be it.

That is a curse and a blessing, and for the past few decades its been more of a curse.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So then if a state doesn't allow gay marriage, the feds should be able to deny highway funding? What about deny the states social security recipients their checks for the same reason?

The consequence should be related to the choice. not tacked on as an end run around the Constitution. The burden should be on the feds to follow through on an amendment if they want to set a national drinking age, not on the states.

All very good points. And well articulated. Maybe a little hyperbole - but that's a matter of perspective and you are certainly entitled to yours.

But I still disagree.

A "little" hyperbole adds spice to a debate. I am a process driven person. You could consider me Lawful Neutral if I had a Dungeon's and Dragons alignment. The results don't concern me as much as the process being followed, the process in the case being the constitution as written and amended, not as interpreted. I am a federalist and a strict constructionist through and through.

I agree we disagree.

But your points are good. You are forcing me to re-think my position. Dang it.

But I think you also point out where the core of the disagreement is - I tend to be (what I like to call) practical and pragmatic and results oriented. But you are right in that it is a big mistake to ignore the process.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Either you are an adult at 18 or you are not.

If an 18 year old has the mental wherewithal to volunteer to be cannon fodder for the government then he certainly should be able to have a drink.

 

[martybegan]

All very good points. And well articulated. Maybe a little hyperbole - but that's a matter of perspective and you are certainly entitled to yours.

But I still disagree.

A "little" hyperbole adds spice to a debate. I am a process driven person. You could consider me Lawful Neutral if I had a Dungeon's and Dragons alignment. The results don't concern me as much as the process being followed, the process in the case being the constitution as written and amended, not as interpreted. I am a federalist and a strict constructionist through and through.

I agree we disagree.

But your points are good. You are forcing me to re-think my position. Dang it.

But I think you also point out where the core of the disagreement is - I tend to be (what I like to call) practical and pragmatic and results oriented. But you are right in that it is a big mistake to ignore the process.

There is nothing wrong with being practical, one just has to work within the rules.

Intents may be noble, but the process to reach the result is fraught with consequences.

 

[nodoginnafight]

A "little" hyperbole adds spice to a debate. I am a process driven person. You could consider me Lawful Neutral if I had a Dungeon's and Dragons alignment. The results don't concern me as much as the process being followed, the process in the case being the constitution as written and amended, not as interpreted. I am a federalist and a strict constructionist through and through.

I agree we disagree.

But your points are good. You are forcing me to re-think my position. Dang it.

But I think you also point out where the core of the disagreement is - I tend to be (what I like to call) practical and pragmatic and results oriented. But you are right in that it is a big mistake to ignore the process.

There is nothing wrong with being practical, one just has to work within the rules.

Intents may be noble, but the process to reach the result is fraught with consequences.

I can agree with that - without reservation.
And as a general rule, I support the notion that state and local governments should have a lot more flexibility (as long as they don't cross the "equal protection" line). And I think that clause has been stretched beyond it's original intent in many cases.

 

[martybegan]

Whats clear is that many drivers, college students, and other retards have shown incredibly poor judgement when it concerns alcoholic consumption. As is Always the case a minority of assholes hVe to ruin it for everyone else... Otherwise agreed, many eighteen yr olds can handle drinking maturely.

But a much higher percentage of 18 to 21 year old drinkers can't handle it.

I was easily able to drink from 18 to 21 regardless of the law, and for me, that was the SAFEST time, because I was in a dorm, with no car, and walking distance to the bars.

To my great shame, my worst time for getting behind the wheel with perhaps a little to much in me was my MID to LATE 20's. By then i had money, and wanted to go to better places that were not within walking distance. The other problem I had was that I was actually a very "good" intoxicated driver. No swerving, no speeding, not missing lights and stop signs.

I stopped the whole driving with alcohol in my system cold turkey when i was walking to go get my car that I had parked closer to my friends house (3/4 a mile away) before heading to the city and then found it parked right by my block, with no recollection of me moving it. (it was parked perfectly, btw).

 

[manifold]

OK, here's my last idea...


Leave it just the way it is. Yeah, I get all the academic arguments, but of all the true evils that necessarily accompany the corruption of power, is this really the hill you want to die on? So what if stupid ass teenagers have to wait 3 more years before they can legally get shitfaced? Like Rabbi said, it does have the added benefit of saving lives. You have to draw the line somewhere, right? Seems to me on this one, 21 doesn't miss the mark by much, if at all.

 

[nodoginnafight]

OK, here's my last idea...


Leave it just the way it is. Yeah, I get all the academic arguments, but of all the true evils that necessarily accompany the corruption of power, is this really the hill you want to die on? So what if stupid ass teenagers have to wait 3 more years before they can legally get shitfaced? Like Rabbi said, it does have the added benefit of saving lives. You have to draw the line somewhere, right? Seems to me on this one, 21 doesn't miss the mark by much, if at all.

A very practical and pragmatic post imho. and the part I bolded and underlined is pretty powerful. I can understand the logic behind a retort that talks about the "slippage" and the gradual erosion of a state's prerogative to set their own standards - but I think I would still agree with you here.

 

[martybegan]

OK, here's my last idea...


Leave it just the way it is. Yeah, I get all the academic arguments, but of all the true evils that necessarily accompany the corruption of power, is this really the hill you want to die on? So what if stupid ass teenagers have to wait 3 more years before they can legally get shitfaced? Like Rabbi said, it does have the added benefit of saving lives. You have to draw the line somewhere, right? Seems to me on this one, 21 doesn't miss the mark by much, if at all.

The problem is they are not waiting the 3 extra years to get shitfaced. I didn't, my friends didn't. Either you enforce the law with draconian methods or you get rid of it, because all you are doing is fostering disrespect for the law in general.

 

[Avatar4321]

how about we just teach our children not to drink?

 

[manifold]

OK, here's my last idea...


Leave it just the way it is. Yeah, I get all the academic arguments, but of all the true evils that necessarily accompany the corruption of power, is this really the hill you want to die on? So what if stupid ass teenagers have to wait 3 more years before they can legally get shitfaced? Like Rabbi said, it does have the added benefit of saving lives. You have to draw the line somewhere, right? Seems to me on this one, 21 doesn't miss the mark by much, if at all.

The problem is they are not waiting the 3 extra years to get shitfaced. I didn't, my friends didn't. Either you enforce the law with draconian methods or you get rid of it, because all you are doing is fostering disrespect for the law in general.

By my account, draconian methods foster the spirit of rebellion and contempt for the law far more than spotty enforcement ever could.