Thursday, January 31, 2013

Talk About Rights

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act was passed in July 1984 

This was to legislate states to make their legal drinking age 21 years old. What I don't understand however is why? If states did not comply they would be risking 10% of their federal highway funds but  why does the penalty have to be so drastic if determining the legitimacy of a law like that is a matter of the state? 

The act supposedly doesn't violate the tenth amendment claiming that the distribution of alcohol is left to the discretion of the state ... how is that possible, if a state decides not to comply they are penalized. I say that is a violation of he tenth amendment. 

It took until the year of 1988 until all states were in compliance but Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands remained 18 and loss their highway funding. I find it odd that we are able to vote at 18 but not drink; that were allowed to fight for our country but not even able to take a sip in our honor. The US tries to mandate the laws on the legal drinking age but the truth is; people are still going to drink under the age of 21. 

Do you think it would be a good idea for the government to amend its decision on the minimum drinking age? why, why not?

4 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think if we were to change the drinking age now, the way American society is now, it would create more problems. I do think it is rather ridiculous that it is 21 and makes no sense especially for the reasons you described as being able to fight in a war and being able to vote. However, if we changed it to 18 then seniors in high school would just start buying alcohol for younger students, which a lot of concerned parents wouldn't like. Maybe if the age was 16, such as in some European countries, it would have less of a drastic effect of "underage drinking," but a lot of American adults and parents would probably say that was absurd. I think the 21 year old drinking age will stay because of the attitudes on drinking in this country as apposed to it actually making sense. When they established that law they were indirectly effecting the American conscious on drinking.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that penalizing the state for not complying may not have been the right procedure, but unfortunately our country and its culture does not promote responsible alcohol use. Excessive drinking is glorified in films and television and the frequency of alcohol use among younger people is startlingly high. Even though there are many people who do not abuse liquor, there are probably twice as many people who do. It would take more than altering the drinking age to change how we view and put into policy our attitudes on alcohol use.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To answer your earlier question of the constitutionality of the Federal 21 y/o drinking law, the 10th amendment only relegates to the states what is not specified by the national government, i.e., under the supremacy clause, the federal age limit on alcohol would supersede any discrepant law passed by a state legislature.

    With that being said, I'm not sure whether the age limit would be better off at 18. I've listened to arguments for and against (too many times), and the only conclusion I've drawn to date is that the age should be identical among all states, regardless of the age. For legal reasons, obviously, and practical ones as well.

    ReplyDelete