Bush Daughters Free To Get Drunk

[Kepler]

Does anyone really know anybody who wouldn't drink because it's against the law? I sure don't.

If this was targeted against DWI, then the solution is obvious: penalize DWI more severely! It's funny that the same people who argue that gun laws unfairly hold the majority hostage to the actions of a bad minority will defend drinking age laws that do exactly the same thing.

I'd much rather drop the drinking age back to 18, tax the hell out of bar and market sales, and send DWI violaters to jail for 30 days, first offense, no exceptions.

But then again, I think the voting age should be raised to 30.

[Dis]

I don't agree with more taxes. My Samual Adams costs enough already.

[Promethus]

Dissident

I guess you never saw the U.S. Gov ,made movie "Reefer Madeness".

[Dis]

no. where can I find it? sounds hilariuos. I love those cheesy gov. movies.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Odin
it's stupid, you can vote when your 18, you can get drafted, why shouldn't we be allowed to drink? heck, my mom let me have a wine cooler once, the "morality police" never knew.

you DO know that you can drink under 21 in your own home and with the permission of oyur parents?

Jon Miller

[Skanky Burns]

The 21 age limit is stupid. It just increases the allure of alcohol and basically prevents any chance at responsible levels of drinking due to the short periods of time alcohol is available.

Drink driving is penalized much more heavily here, and so you don't see the problems with DWI as the US had.

[JohnT]

Btw, my post earlier was a send up of a famous Onion headline about Jenna Bush. Glad y'all enjoyed it!

[David Floyd]

For example, laws forbidding bank robbing discriminate against bank robbers.

Right, but bank robbers are doing something wrong. People who drink are not.

Unless you are equating bank robbery with drinking a beer, I don't see your point.

There's no constitutional right to drink.

There's no specific Constitutional right to coffee, either, but if the government tried to stop people under 21 from drinking coffee surely you'd agree that they can't do that, right?

And there's no constitutional prohibition against age discrimination.

14th Amendment.

They were hurting people. The rate for drunk drivers under 21 was much, much higher than for the rest of the adult population.

That's totally irrelevant.

Drinking was not causing anyone to get into car accidents. People who made the decision to drink and drive were causing car accidents. DWI is already illegal, so punish that crime, but don't illegalize a victimless action (drinking).

[Zkribbler]

The police power of the several states gives them the authority to pass laws that have a rational relationship to the health and safety of its citizens.

When the drinking age was lowered to 18, the number of DWI fatalities climbed shockingly. When the drinking age was raised back up to 21, the number of DWI fatalities dropped back down. Ergo, there was a rational relationship between the prohibited activity and the law.

No such argument can be made regarding coffee drinking.

Clever you, on your 14th Amendment argument. I was expecting you to come back with the 15th Amendment:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

But you used the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause. However, that folds back into my earlier "all laws discriminate" statement. IIRC, it's a violation of Equal Protection only if no rational relationship to health and safety can be shown.

[David Floyd]

The police power of the several states gives them the authority to pass laws that have a rational relationship to the health and safety of its citizens.

SCOTUS may say so, and they might even be right, if those laws do not infringe upon the rights of adults to engage in activities that are harmful to no one.

For example, if a statistic were to show that people who had sex and drove afterwards were more likely to fall asleep at the wheel, would you say that the government has the right to ban sex, or would you just say that laws against reckless or unsafe driving should be enforced?

But to get back to the point of drinking, the only harm comes in when people drink and drive. Seeing as how drinking and driving is already illegal, I fail to see why we should make it illegal to drink when we should just be enforcing the current law.

When the drinking age was lowered to 18, the number of DWI fatalities climbed shockingly. When the drinking age was raised back up to 21, the number of DWI fatalities dropped back down. Ergo, there was a rational relationship between the prohibited activity and the law.

All that means is that people under 21 tend to be more irresponsible than those over 21. That doesn't mean alcohol is any "better" or "worse" - and as I said, DWI is already illegal. Just enforce that law.

I was expecting you to come back with the 15th Amendment:

What has that to do with anything? That is talking about voting rights, nothing else.

But you used the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause. However, that folds back into my earlier "all laws discriminate" statement. IIRC, it's a violation of Equal Protection only if no rational relationship to health and safety can be shown.

All laws may discriminate, but discriminating against a violent criminal is certainly different than telling an adult that he can't have a beer just because he isn't 21. You can certainly tell him he can't drink and put others in danger, but you can tell anyone of any age that.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by David Floyd
... if a statistic were to show that people who had sex and drove afterwards were more likely to fall asleep at the wheel, would you say that the government has the right to ban sex, or would you just say that laws against reckless or unsafe driving should be enforced?

If the Supremes were consistent (which they are not), they would have to find such a ban would be constitutional. In Hardwick, they upheld the constitutionality of a law banning homosexual sex on the grounds that homosexual activity spreads AIDS more readily than hetrosexual activity. Your hypothetical presents a similar scenario.

(BTW, just because I say a law would be constitution does not mean I think such a law should be passed, would be passed, or could be passed.)

[David Floyd]

If the Supremes were consistent (which they are not), they would have to find such a ban would be constitutional. In Hardwick, they upheld the constitutionality of a law banning homosexual sex on the grounds that homosexual activity spreads AIDS more readily than hetrosexual activity. Your hypothetical presents a similar scenario.

Yes, but what do YOU think? Do YOU think SCOTUS can have any say over personal sexual behavior between consenting adults? And, by the same token, do YOU think any court or state should be able to tell an adult that they can't drink?

If we justify every opinion on what SCOTUS says, discussions are useless - we just look for precedent. Fortunately, we have brains (unlike our Supreme Court, apparently).

[TheStinger]

How can you justify sending 18-20 year olds to fight for their country but that when they come home they can't have a drink

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MasterBob The Elder
Well, I'm 18 and I had 3 cups of "Jungle Juice" at a party. Its the first time I ever drink. I probably won't again in quiet a while. 3 cups didn't do much at all. Just as long as you control yourself.

Bob, if you are going to drink with any regularity, you need to find something that you like and are familiar with. "Jungle Juice" is about the worst stuff imaginable, because unless you made it yourself there is no way you can know what's in it. Purchase small quantities of various alchoholic beverages until you hit upon something that you like and tolerate well. Then while your cronies are puking on the Sloe Gin, 3 kinds of Rum, Vodka, Peach Brandy and Koolaide mixture, you can calmly make your move on the women who are left standing.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by TheStinger
How can you justify sending 18-20 year olds to fight for their country but that when they come home they can't have a drink

Because they volunteered?