Drinking age

Damocles said:
Easier solution, an active-duty military ID allows you all the priveledges afforded all adults.
Click to expand...

While I certainly believe they of all people should be allowed to legally drink, my only concern would be that 18-20 year olds may sign up for that reason alone. I wouldn't want drinking legally to be an enticement to join the military.
 
"(2) age is not inherently a "suspect" criteria for discrimination (in contrast to race or ethnicity, for example) and "

So it would be okay for companies to have a policy to not hire those over 50?
 
Superfreak said:
"(2) age is not inherently a "suspect" criteria for discrimination (in contrast to race or ethnicity, for example) and "

So it would be okay for companies to have a policy to not hire those over 50?
Click to expand...

Talk about a tool. I already told you that EMPLOYMENT is treated differently than alchol. Humans have a fundamental right to make a living and be employed.

So,Do you still think I'm a "stupid moron and a tool", for saying that "age", in and of itself, is not grounds for discrmination in drinking....when actual profession lawyers, and the courts agreed with me? ;)
 
Superfreak said:
"(2) age is not inherently a "suspect" criteria for discrimination (in contrast to race or ethnicity, for example) and "

So it would be okay for companies to have a policy to not hire those over 50?
Click to expand...
sure, I don't think the military will "hire" you if you are over 50.
 
The real question her is whether or not a fundamental right is being violated. Drinking alcohol is not, anywhere I have looked, considered a fundamental right. So I would think the only argument you might come up with as to why there should be no distinction is equal protection. If you are 18 years old you are an adult as is someone that is 118 years old. So you are both similarly situated in that you are adults. So why can the 118 year old drink and the 18 year old can't. On it's face it is disparate treatments. So that being said you next have to look at the governments interest in curtailing that privilege for 18 year olds and NOT 118 year olds or any other adult >21 years of age. The states interest is safety. Any study you read shows that the problem with young people when they drink is their existent biological limitations in decision making are further complicated and reduced by the introduction of alcohol. (There are lots of good studies that show that the frontal cortex, and the frontal lobes in general are not fully developed until we are in our mid 20's) So alcohol consumption not being a fundamental right the state just has to show an interest in protecting the safety of its citizens and therefore a drinking age of 21 is perfectly permissible.
 
Socrtease said:
The real question her is whether or not a fundamental right is being violated. Drinking alcohol is not, anywhere I have looked, considered a fundamental right. So I would think the only argument you might come up with as to why there should be no distinction is equal protection. If you are 18 years old you are an adult as is someone that is 118 years old. So you are both similarly situated in that you are adults. So why can the 118 year old drink and the 18 year old can't. On it's face it is disparate treatments. So that being said you next have to look at the governments interest in curtailing that privilege for 18 year olds and NOT 118 year olds or any other adult >21 years of age. The states interest is safety. Any study you read shows that the problem with young people when they drink is their existent biological limitations in decision making are further complicated and reduced by the introduction of alcohol. (There are lots of good studies that show that the frontal cortex, and the frontal lobes in general are not fully developed until we are in our mid 20's) So alcohol consumption not being a fundamental right the state just has to show an interest in protecting the safety of its citizens and therefore a drinking age of 21 is perfectly permissible.
Click to expand...
Why did it take an amendment to curb that right then?
 
Superfreak said:
I have had a problem with this for a long time. How can an individual be both an adult and a minor at the same time? Someone with a greater understanding of the Constitution explain that to me.

If you are 18-20 you can:

1) fight and die for this country
2) vote
3) If you commit a crime you are tried as an adult
4) sign a legally binding contract

BUT....

1) You cannot buy yourself a beer
2) Your second amendment rights are restricted more than other adults
Click to expand...

Drinking age should be 25!
 
Suppose we lowered the drinking age below 18? Allow us youngsters to get a toleranc built up before we hit the road. How many drunk drivers are above 21? or below?
 
charver said:
Is the US (or parts of it) the only country in the world to have such a draconian legal age for consuming booze?

Just think, if you lowered it to 18 then you might become as good at drinking as us or the Irish. Cheers.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is. I've gotten laughs from people from other, more rational nations before whenever I've told them about it. Good thing it's so useless and everyone ignores it. All it does is encourage binge drinking.
 
Socrtease said:
The real question her is whether or not a fundamental right is being violated. Drinking alcohol is not, anywhere I have looked, considered a fundamental right. So I would think the only argument you might come up with as to why there should be no distinction is equal protection. If you are 18 years old you are an adult as is someone that is 118 years old. So you are both similarly situated in that you are adults. So why can the 118 year old drink and the 18 year old can't. On it's face it is disparate treatments. So that being said you next have to look at the governments interest in curtailing that privilege for 18 year olds and NOT 118 year olds or any other adult >21 years of age. The states interest is safety. Any study you read shows that the problem with young people when they drink is their existent biological limitations in decision making are further complicated and reduced by the introduction of alcohol. (There are lots of good studies that show that the frontal cortex, and the frontal lobes in general are not fully developed until we are in our mid 20's) So alcohol consumption not being a fundamental right the state just has to show an interest in protecting the safety of its citizens and therefore a drinking age of 21 is perfectly permissible.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the above. It does explain the justification to an extent. However, does this law stop 18-20 year olds from drinking? Or does it simply make it illegal for them to do so? Has the number of teen fatalities due to DUI gone down significantly to justify the law?

Also, could you comment on the law that allows an 18 year old to buy a rifle, but not a pistol? Is it similar in that it is a safety issue? Easier to conceal kind of thing?
 
Last edited:
Superfreak said:
Thanks for the above. It does explain the justification. However, does this law stop 18-20 year olds from drinking? Or does it simply make it illegal for them to do so? Has the number of teen fatalities due to DUI gone down significantly to justify the law?

Also, could you comment on the law that allows an 18 year old to buy a rifle, but not a pistol? Is it similar in that it is a safety issue? Easier to conceal kind of thing?
Click to expand...

The DUI's have gone down, but this has been a general trend amongst all age groups and is usually attributed to other things than the mandatory 21 drinking age. I've never seen a scientific study that established even a mere a correlation between the drinking age and the amoung of DUI's in that group. Anyone who was going to drink is drinking anyway. Sure, if you'd put youngsters in jail for life, or executed them, for drinkning, it would go down. But that would have a greater societal cost than simply letting them drink.
 
Also, of course, there was Sandra Day O'Conners argument. The mandatory 21 drinking age is a little to broad of a restriction to assign to highway funds, since it restricts them from drinking whenever they're not driving, and not all under 21 year olds drink and drive anyway. The ones that do are just irresponsible people in any case, and would've likely done it at any time.
 
Socrtease said:
The real question her is whether or not a fundamental right is being violated. Drinking alcohol is not, anywhere I have looked, considered a fundamental right. So I would think the only argument you might come up with as to why there should be no distinction is equal protection. If you are 18 years old you are an adult as is someone that is 118 years old. So you are both similarly situated in that you are adults. So why can the 118 year old drink and the 18 year old can't. On it's face it is disparate treatments. So that being said you next have to look at the governments interest in curtailing that privilege for 18 year olds and NOT 118 year olds or any other adult >21 years of age. The states interest is safety. Any study you read shows that the problem with young people when they drink is their existent biological limitations in decision making are further complicated and reduced by the introduction of alcohol. (There are lots of good studies that show that the frontal cortex, and the frontal lobes in general are not fully developed until we are in our mid 20's) So alcohol consumption not being a fundamental right the state just has to show an interest in protecting the safety of its citizens and therefore a drinking age of 21 is perfectly permissible.
Click to expand...

I agree, but, I feel that saying you are not old enough to have a drink, but you are old enough for us to give weapons to and send you over to a foreign land to go and kill, die, and be maimed, and further, expect you to have the decision making skills to differentiate between someone trying to kill you and someone trying to waive you down for help, to know a legal order from an illegal order, and further, to have the guts to be able to say no to an illegal order, is just absurd on its face.

For that reason, I say, raise the age for military service to 21.
 
Darla said:
I agree, but, I feel that saying you are not old enough to have a drink, but you are old enough for us to give weapons to and send you over to a foreign land to go and kill, die, and be maimed, and further, expect you to have the decision making skills to differentiate between someone trying to kill you and someone trying to waive you down for help, to know a legal order from an illegal order, and further, to have the guts to be able to say no to an illegal order, is just absurd on its face.

For that reason, I say, raise the age for military service to 21.
Click to expand...

I say give them a beer... they are going to get it anyway. Find another way to curb the drunken driving.
 
Darla said:
I agree, but, I feel that saying you are not old enough to have a drink, but you are old enough for us to give weapons to and send you over to a foreign land to go and kill, die, and be maimed, and further, expect you to have the decision making skills to differentiate between someone trying to kill you and someone trying to waive you down for help, to know a legal order from an illegal order, and further, to have the guts to be able to say no to an illegal order, is just absurd on its face.

For that reason, I say, raise the age for military service to 21.
Click to expand...

It would seriously cripple our military, Darla. There's no way we could fight a serious war with only people above 21. Honestly, that's really a lot more important than the drinking age.
 
I don't think anyone under 21 should be allowed to be deployed to a war zone and I do think you should have to get parental consent to enlist before your 21.
 
There is not a constitutional amendment for drinking age. All the twenty-first amendment says is:

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use there in of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Click to expand...

All this did was turn alcohol regulation back over to the states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top