It was legal for 18 year olds to drink (beer, anyway) back when I was 18. I've long advocated lowering the drinking age or, barring that, repealing the amendment which gives 18 year olds the right to vote, trying 18-20 year olds as juveniles and increasing the age of registration for selective service to 21. If you can't treat someone like an adult in one little facet of his life, then fuck it: treat him or her like a child. Completely.

Anyway, the Instamonster links to an article which states:

"College presidents from about 100 of the nation's best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth, and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age to 18 from 21, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus."

Can I get a No Shit from everybody?

Update: Mike and Jeff weigh in on the subject. I'll leave you with some of Jeff's words:

After the Orioles won the World Series in 1983, Storm Davis, a then-20-year-old starting pitcher for the Birds, who played an integral role in BaltimoreÂ’s success, could not partake in the post series champagne and beer celebration.

Mother Against Drunk Driving would likely counter such a seemingly arbitrary and incongruous segregation among teammates by noting that the ritual of celebrating with alcohol “glorifies” drinking, and so should itself be eliminated.

– And at that point, it should become clear that MADD is no longer worried about drunk driving per se, but is rather become a neoprohibitionist organization trafficking in emotional arguments to convince cowardly politicians to force change upon the culture — “change” that has the effect of taking away individual freedom and responsibility, along with the role of parents in teaching young adults how to handle certain freedoms, in exchange for a government run mandate, complete with police powers of the state or municipality, that presumes to usurp those responsibilities by a kind of 3/5 rule on adulthood.

Exchanging white hoods for big buttons and a lot of emotional appeals merely suggests a change in rhetorical strategy from those who seek to build society to match their own personal hobby horses.

Update: Holy fucking shit! Excerpt:

Unfortunately, there is considerable precedent for such pre-emptive measures. In 2005 a Pennsylvania court rejected an appeal from a man whose driver's license was revoked by the state after he told doctors he knocked back more than a six-pack of beer a day. State law requires doctors to report any of a patient's physical or mental impairments if the doctors think it could compromise his ability to drive safely. Keith Emerich hadn't gotten in any legal trouble, related to drinking, driving, or anything else, and his job attendance was as exemplary. Yet a three-judge Commonwealth Court panel said the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation was justified in taking away Emerich's license-not because he had driven while intoxicated but because he might.

Hell, I haven't been arrested for being a leather-faced, chainsaw-wielding maniac, but that doesn't mean I couldn't become one. I guess that I should get the chair, pronto. Who knows how many scantily clad Jessica Biels might be in danger.

Posted by: Physics Geek at 03:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 534 words, total size 4 kb.