🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

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.