Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It actually makes good sense to keep the drinking age at 21.
As science has progressed we understand that the brain is in full development from birth to around age 25. 21 is as low as it should be.
I am not in favor of making drugs, be it alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, whatever illegal. But regulating it so that it causes the least damage to the population in general is perfectly within the bounds of the states to do.
We should do as little tampering with 18 year old brain chemistry as is humanly possible. After the age of 21 the effects of tampering with brain chemicals is greatly reduced.
25 it shows little to no effect for many drugs, including Ethanol and THC.
They have more liberal drinking laws in europe and less problems so that argument doesn't really fly.
Extortion IS ILLEGAL .... but we already know that the Federal Government deems itself above the law, and can do as it pleases. They are able to get away with their lawless behavior because of so many sycophants at the ready to explain why it's "legal" for them to so.
Thanks.
Actually, the Supreme Court in Printz v. US, 521 US 898 (1997) held that unfunded federal mandates are unconstitutional. However, it was in New York v. US, 505 US 144 (1992) that set the precedent by prohibiting the federal government from compelling a State to enforce a federal regulatory program.
So if your State implements federal regulations and unfunded federal mandates it is because your State legislature wants them, not because they have no choice.
No one forced the state to do anything, you don't have to take the money. Go to your citizens, tell them that in order to continue highway funding that you are going to raise taxes on alcoholic beverages, but keep the drinking age at whatever the hell you want.
Those highway funds are from the federal fuel taxes already paid by the citizens of that state, granted some states get more funding than they put in but that's the general idea. You're already taxed for those funds.
Baloney ... mumbo jumbo .... a liar's lair of lawless rationalization.
The notion of "strict scrutiny" is a 20th century creation within the judicial system that rationalizes, in essence, an arbitrary decision to weigh constitutional restrictions with the government's "compelling interest" to ignore those restrictions. Yet, there is nothing that clearly defines what constitutes a "compelling interest" as compared to simple desire. That alone, on the surface, identifies this as a total fraud, since there is no authority granted to government by the constitution to do such an absurd thing. Such authority to ignore the constitution, if it existed, would render the constitution meaningless. A restriction that doesn't have to be honored if you don't want to .. is not much of a restriction, now, is it?
But even if you agreed with the nonsensical idea that the government had the authority to violate the constitution based on some rationalization of "compelling interest" ... such interest would be difficult to establish in the arbitrary restriction of alcohol consumption for those under 21.
Let's look at the possible arguments for such a restriction; ... could college students under 21, doing shots of Jack Daniels constitute a "National Security" threat? Show cause .. you'd have to demonstrate that threat, and needless to say, even the liars in congress would have a hard time making that case.
Could the use of alcohol by such a narrow range of persons aged 18, 19, 20 pose any compelling additional threat to society over and above that which might also be presented by those aged 21, 22, and 23? For all intent and purpose, the distinction between a 20 year old and a 21 year old who's had a few too many is non-existent.
So, that leaves general welfare .... the good old general welfare argument that government places such restrictions for our own good ... because they care. This is the most difficult case to prove, given so many examples of the government's harmful behavior that demonstrates the exact opposite inclination.
The very idea that 18 year olds are prohibited from consuming alcohol for their own best interests and health seems to ring empty given that the government has no such concern for their health when it comes to ordering 18, 19 and 20 year olds into combat situations around the world, at the drop of a hat.
So, it's really hard to make the case that getting drunk poses a greater threat to the health of those under 21, than getting shot at by people on the other side of the planet who want to kill them.
It actually makes good sense to keep the drinking age at 21.
As science has progressed we understand that the brain is in full development from birth to around age 25. 21 is as low as it should be.
I am not in favor of making drugs, be it alcohol, nicotine, marijuana, whatever illegal. But regulating it so that it causes the least damage to the population in general is perfectly within the bounds of the states to do.
We should do as little tampering with 18 year old brain chemistry as is humanly possible. After the age of 21 the effects of tampering with brain chemicals is greatly reduced.
25 it shows little to no effect for many drugs, including Ethanol and THC.
What about lead poisoning? Is not a bullet fired from an AK47 in the middle east and elsewhere slightly more damaging than a shot of Tequila?
Baloney ... mumbo jumbo .... a liar's lair of lawless rationalization.
The notion of "strict scrutiny" is a 20th century creation within the judicial system that rationalizes, in essence, an arbitrary decision to weigh constitutional restrictions with the government's "compelling interest" to ignore those restrictions. Yet, there is nothing that clearly defines what constitutes a "compelling interest" as compared to simple desire. That alone, on the surface, identifies this as a total fraud, since there is no authority granted to government by the constitution to do such an absurd thing. Such authority to ignore the constitution, if it existed, would render the constitution meaningless. A restriction that doesn't have to be honored if you don't want to .. is not much of a restriction, now, is it?
But even if you agreed with the nonsensical idea that the government had the authority to violate the constitution based on some rationalization of "compelling interest" ... such interest would be difficult to establish in the arbitrary restriction of alcohol consumption for those under 21.
Let's look at the possible arguments for such a restriction; ... could college students under 21, doing shots of Jack Daniels constitute a "National Security" threat? Show cause .. you'd have to demonstrate that threat, and needless to say, even the liars in congress would have a hard time making that case.
Could the use of alcohol by such a narrow range of persons aged 18, 19, 20 pose any compelling additional threat to society over and above that which might also be presented by those aged 21, 22, and 23? For all intent and purpose, the distinction between a 20 year old and a 21 year old who's had a few too many is non-existent.
So, that leaves general welfare .... the good old general welfare argument that government places such restrictions for our own good ... because they care. This is the most difficult case to prove, given so many examples of the government's harmful behavior that demonstrates the exact opposite inclination.
The very idea that 18 year olds are prohibited from consuming alcohol for their own best interests and health seems to ring empty given that the government has no such concern for their health when it comes to ordering 18, 19 and 20 year olds into combat situations around the world, at the drop of a hat.
So, it's really hard to make the case that getting drunk poses a greater threat to the health of those under 21, than getting shot at by people on the other side of the planet who want to kill them.
Just sayin'
With regard to the General Welfare, the Supreme Court had this to say:
Quote:
If the novel view of the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, that clause would not only enable Congress to supplant the States in the regulation of agriculture and of all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other provisions of the Constitution, …
... sedulously framed to define and limit the power of the United States and preserve the powers of the States, could be broken down, the independence of the individual States obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the Union superseding all local control over local concerns.
Source: United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1 (1936)
Rather prophetic I think.
The reality is that the drinking age in various States was changed during the 1980s, when the federal government was using its spending authority to extort States into compliance with federal desires. The exact same way the federal government extorted the States into changing their speed limits during the 1970s.
All that changed after the Supreme Court decisions in New York v. US, 505 US 144 (1992) and Printz v. US, 521 US 898 (1997).
I think someone got busted for underage consumption last night.
Plead it out and pay your fine. Hope you weren't driving. You probably weren't, you wouldn't be out yet.
Interesting, it's not that I believe in freedom, and object to government interference with other's lives, it must be that I'm looking for an excuse to get out of something.
As I previously told another poster, were I born on the day I turned 21, I would today be 21, so no, I didn't get busted, and I'm not underage.
I object to laws that treat one category of adult citizens differently than another.
If I was born the day I turned 21, I'd be 21 now. So, no. But just as I favor gay marriage despite the fact I'm not gay, I favor freedom for other adults despite it making no change to my life. And I object to laws that apply to one set of people but not another.
You do realize that the brain is not fully developed until one is in their early 20s. Thus, the age limit makes sense.
Come on. Do you really view 18 and 19 year olds as full-fledged adults, and not senior adolescents which biologically they really are?
You do realize that the brain is not fully developed until one is in their early 20s. Thus, the age limit makes sense.
Come on. Do you really view 18 and 19 year olds as full-fledged adults, and not senior adolescents which biologically they really are?
What I think is irrelevant, according to the law, they are adults in every way with the exception of the right to drink. Whether or not they're actually senior adolescents may or may not be a valid reason to change the age of majority, an issue about which I currently hold no position, but as long as they're legally adults, they should not be treated differently.
When I was 18, I was in the Army. Seems that's (potentially, anyway, I never was shot at) way more dangerous than a bottle of vodka.
I don't buy into this nonsense that the brain doesn't fully develop into 25 - it's junk as far as I'm concerned. I think the problem is that our society encourages the delayed onset of maturity, and it is a trend that has continued for the past few decades. There are 18-year-olds who can handle there alcohol responsibly and there are 45-year-olds who cannot. The difference is that, from a purely socio-cultural angle, there are fewer 45 year olds who have this problem because there are more of his peers who have adult-like responsibilities, so he is going to be less well-received by his peers than someone who is 18-year-old.
But the truth is, it's our society that encourages this. Some societies will simply not tolerate 18-year-olds who go out and get berzerker drunk, and they are stigmatized for acting like dopes. I think if we would just raise the bar a little and not equate drunkenness with being macho or cool, we'd be okay. We need to start treating younger adults like adults. That's the problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
