🚀 go-pugleaf

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Rob Rodgers) wrote:

>russotto@wanda.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>One who is 18 is already required to take responsbility for his
>>actions -- he may be sued in civil court, he is always tried as an
>>adult in criminal court.  If he has a job, he pays taxes.  So what's
>>your excuse for forbidding drinking for those 18-21 again?

>Their irresponsibility has shown itself in previous decades.  Hence
>the drinking age laws.

(sigh) So many misconceptions out there....

During the years 1969-75, when most states *lowered* their drinking
ages, the per-capita traffic death rates among young adults *dropped*
more than 17 percent.

Matt

>Now, if you want to quibble about the exact age at which one should be
>allowed to drink, that's another issue.  The current 21 laws are
>priamarily the result of the seriously overblown political clout of a
>few groups (MADD, etc.)  But I don't think the issue is 18 instead of
>21 -- if we all agreed that 18 was an acceptable age, the sub-18
>teenies would come out squealing that they're allowed to drive, so why
>not drink?  

>It never ends -- the line (arbitrary) needs to be drawn, and here we
>ware today.