🚀 go-pugleaf

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

>merrell@eng.umd.edu (Brian C. Merrell) wrote:
>>>>It is illegal, but the law is unjust. 
>>> So, is there anyone who didn't see this one coming?
>>While it may a predictable response, I must agree that the law is somewhat
>>unjust.  

>Hmmm.

>>It *is* one group forcing a law upon another without making it 
>>apply to itself, 

>This isn't a valid line of reasoning.   For an extreme case of "one
>group vs. another) onsider, say, property rights framed in that
>context. Or national sovereignty.

It is perfectly good reasoning. In most instances, those affected by a
law can vote for the same legislators who make it. In this case, most
of those affected cannot vote or were not able to vote in the last
election cycle.

>Or are you thinking more along the lines of crime?  How about jailing
>felons (one group -- that being non-criminally-engaged society --
>forcing a law upon another -- like outlawing mail fraud)?  Or
>something more traditional ( telling good ol' boys they can't have a
>few six packs on their long drive back from fishin' )?

>>it *is* rather silly, and it *is* rather ridiculous     
>>that legislators (who are all over 30; never trust anyone over 30 :) can
>>arbitrarily say that people from 18 to 20 (who can vote for our national
>>leaders and go to war) cannot make responsible decisions about alcohol.

>Did you miss the last few weeks of news reports on those idiot
>embarassments who populate some campuses?

>The evidence is on the side of those who believe that 18-20 year olds
>apparently *can't* make responsible decisions about alcohol.  They not
>only can't handle the responsibility, but they're damn close to
>throwing riots and running out of control because of an addiction.  

How many people were rioting? Total, a few thousand. Since my guess is
a lot of them are over 21, that means something like .001% of
18-20-year-olds were involved. 
>>And, just to point out something, the law doesn't apply to you, so your 
>>input has a certain bias. :)  

>The law doesn't apply to me now, but it applied to me at a time not so
>far back.  No matter how the under-21 crowd wants to try and frame it,
>it's not a rights issue any more than being allowed to posess firearms
>or marry under age-10 are rights issues for children.  

Ten-year-olds are not physically capable of holding down even a little
alcohol. Teenagers drink alcohol the world over, usually without
problems.

>Is 21 arbitrary?  Absolutely.  Any age would be arbitrary.  

>But: 21 works.

Wrong. But don't take my word for it:

"Minimum legal drinking age is not a significant � or even a
perceptible � factor in the fatality experience of all drivers or of
young drivers," wrote Rutgers University economists Peter Asch and
David T. Levy after rigorously examining traffic fatality statistics.

"In short, drinking age laws discourage rather than encourage a
transition period between youthful abstinence and adult use of
alcoholic beverages," writes journalist and sociologist Mike A. Males.

>>But really, other countries have lower drinking ages and it does NOT increase
>>drunk driving(/rape/murder/other-crimes-here).  I agree that perhaps no 
>>drinking age might be irresponsible, but at least it should be lowered to the
>>age of majority, 18.

>The United States isn't other countries. In particular, to be 18 in
>many countries is to be an adult, with adult responsibilites (working
>full time or fully supporting oneself, etc.).  Far cry from here.

How is it different here? Actually, young people in Europe are less
likely to support themselves than 18-20-year-olds here, since their
governments pay for their college educations, and sometimes expenses.
>The real problem is that the people who are most insistent that they
>can "handle" their drinks are those who are the least responsible. 

>Really, who are we kidding?  College kids want to be able to drink
>because they like getting a buzz or going all the way to plastered.
>It's not for their health, it's not for the "calm, relaxing
>atmosphere" or to relieve stress (not in any healthy way, that is) or
>because they enjoy a glass of vino with their meal (thought I'd head
>that one off).  It's because boozing is fun _specifically_ because of
>the lack of self-control that it involves.

Um, I don't drink. If I wanted to get buzzed, I could have done it all
through college. The people who just want to get wasted have little
reason to oppose the drinking age; they do it already.

>At that point, the whole rights/oppression issue is right out the
>window.

Matt