The Drinking Age is Past Its Prime

In her latest piece at Time.com, Camille Paglia presents us with an opinion to shake the shackles of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. Here is an excerpt of her piece and you can read the rest here.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act, passed by Congress 30 years ago this July, is a gross violation of civil liberties and must be repealed. It is absurd and unjust that young Americans can vote, marry, enter contracts, and serve in the military at 18 but cannot buy an alcoholic drink in a bar or restaurant. The age 21 rule sets the United States apart from all advanced Western nations and lumps it with small or repressive countries like Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.

In her article, she alludes to the driving force behind the "National Minimum Drinking Age Act", which didn't set the legal age to consume alcohol, but to purchase. That Act, if you so wish to muddle your brain in how our Government codifies its laws, can be found here.

Interesting fact about the act: the Government, just as they do with the National Interstate and Defense Act, utilize this act to blackmail non-compliant states by withholding funds. It should also note that these acts are predicated and built upon the now-in-question Commerce Clause interpretation that the Court has held for nearly a century until Chief Roberts neutered it.

Reading over the Act, we can see that it doesn't apply to you, or I, or your Church, or even a party -- it applies to the sale of alcohol and at what age one can purchase (as I stated above, it says nothing to the consumption thereof).

Now going back to Paglia's article, she highlights how "good intentioned" citizens wanting to affect change leave unintended consequences in their wake; i.e., Prohibition. She links then champion of Puritanism, Carrie Nation, to the crusaders of MADD and their pursuit in the 80s to institute a drinking age limit. Well intentioned, but narrow in their application as they seek to deny another their freedoms.

I for one believe that States should just be non-compliant, just as they could with the seat-belt laws, and helmet laws. The fact, as Paglia has pointed out, that we can marry, enter into contract, join the military, etc, etc...yet cannot buy an alcoholic beverage should show you how Tyranny isn't a product of this current Administration and that it is indeed a creeping Leviathan that we call the Federal Government; regardless of what jack-ass or fat-ass (donkey and elephant) is occupying its hallowed halls.

Sad part is certain countrys can send there kids to die, but wont let them enjoy a drink.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Its not that they cannot enjoy the drink, its just they cannot legally buy it due to the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1986. The notion that if one is under 21, they are drinking "illegally" is false to an extent.

I would enjoy this to be repealed, but the States are receiving too much money from the Federal Government to remove this one teat -- damned be the People.

I remember the look on my mom's face the day she got done telling me in the car that even though I was 18 and the next oldest cousin was 18, we likely wouldn't get to drink at the formal holiday meals until the very youngest cousin was also 18 in another 6 years. Then, when we walked in and my grandfather presented both my cousin and I with glasses of wine. Oh, that look was priceless.

My grandparents, despite being fairly conservative, were of the opinion that if you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to drink, too.

I think there are a lot of laws in existence that don't need to be because there only intent is to try to protect us from ourselves - drinking laws, helmet laws, etc.

The proper intent and purpose of law is to protect my rights from others.

It's a tough one

If you push the age limit up you end up with older drunk and irresponsible idiots on the streets, if you lower it you end up with drunk teenagers acting even more irresponsible

On the up side people tend to learn to behave and handle there drink sooner

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
It's a tough one

If you push the age limit up you end up with older drunk and irresponsible idiots on the streets, if you lower it you end up with drunk teenagers acting even more irresponsible

On the up side people tend to learn to behave and handle there drink sooner

That just isn't true though regarding lowering the age limit; as other large Western nations have a lower limit and do not have the same problems. The question is, you allow a "teenager" (which by extensive purposes of this discussion is considered an adult legally) to engage in adult behavior minus purchasing alcohol....

The logic is ridiculous.

Consumption is not the same as commerce....
You can drink under 21....

a reply to: ketsuko

That would be a family rule in your case...I could provide alcohol to my underage kids with no consequence in many instances. It is not illegal to consume alcohol below 21 in most states. The Federal statute pertains to possession and purchase, not consumption.

People make such a big deal out of drinking ... that's why it gets abused by teenagers. There are exceptions to every rule, and this one involves maturity more so than age. It's too dependent on exposure and social situations.

I never got drunker than when I was with friends of a similar age and no adult supervision. This is where the problem with drinking sits.

A ten year old with free access to alcohol at home probably won't opt into drinking. If s/he did, think of the possibilities of teaching your kids what alcohol can do to one both physically and mentally. Consider ... When did rule-making ever work.

Even if they don't lower the legal age, they could at least allow service members to drink at 18. Come on, you can die for your country but you cant have a few beers?

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
Even if they don't lower the legal age, they could at least allow service members to drink at 18. Come on, you can die for your country but you cant have a few beers?

I agree with the spirit...but I disagree with the notion as a whole....those who volunteer hold no greater right to the protections of the United States of America than those who do not....

a reply to: ownbestenemy Anyone who signs their life away for others should be allowed to have a drink at a bar, period.

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
a reply to: ownbestenemy Anyone who signs their life away for others should be allowed to have a drink at a bar, period.

Over those who have not? Special treatment is beyond the scope of equal protection....

a reply to: ownbestenemy in case you haven't noticed, nothing in this country is fair.
But yes, i honestly believe this.

a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

Life isn't fair at all and I agree with you there. But that which we operate under, should be applied equally. I fight for this because no one should hold station over another because they have "signed their lives away" (which I did, but it wasn't exactly my life since I am here talking with you). I hold nothing more or less over those who do not do what I did. I do not expect any special treatment in terms of law because of it.

a reply to: ownbestenemy I don't expect it either but i keep those young men under my leadership in mind, its true it should be equal and i hope they would do that. i was only putting the "what if" out there.

It's ridiculous. In the UK we can drink in a bar at 16 if it's ordered with a meal. It seems unfathomable that you could be considered mature enough to join the armed forces and deal with the devastating mental anguish of war, but not be allowed to have a sip of beer for another 3 years? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

When I got back from being stationed in Germany I was still only 20 and it never occured to me that when I got back to the states I could not buy a beer at a bar anymore. Until of course I tried and got carded. Stupid law.

I might just be speaking for my generation, but from what I have seen they might as well just lower the requirements - kids are doing it regardless of whether or not it's "legal". There are so many parties that I can recall where there was plenty of under-age drinking; I was the babysitter, and it was no fun when you had to walk your own friends outside to let loose, because they drank themselves almost into a coma.

Now then, one of the problems that I can see is that if you lower the age, you run the risk of younger teens trying to beat the limit (and yes, I'm well aware that it's a slippery slope argument). Also, I'd be leery about a 16 year old drinking and then getting out on the road vs a more experienced drinker (18-20+), and would hate to be the person behind or in front of them.

My purposeful would be this: We lower the age to the point where as long as the person drinks responsibly, then they can. But, should they harm someone, do some kind of damage to one's property, or get into some kind of legal trouble while "under the influence", then I would also vote that they cannot use the fact that they were drinking to get out of the charges or as an excuse; my point being that they should have the judgement to stop when they need to. I'd even go further to say that if they continue to get in trouble, that their privileges get taken away - We already do that with driving, so why not with alcohol?
-fossilera

a reply to: ownbestenemy

sorry im so drunk im happy that my poison is in ats news cheers to you I think im going to throw up now

originally posted by: EyesOpenMouthShut
Even if they don't lower the legal age, they could at least allow service members to drink at 18. Come on, you can die for your country but you cant have a few beers?

Well your wording isn't all that great. It should say...

"If your old enough to fight and die for your country you should be able to pull up a bar stool as well."