LOWER Drinking Age? IMHO, Not to 18!!
It became a mantra in our home, and it was not a fun discussion.
"When I am 18, I can do what I want to!!"
"No, you can't. I am ** yrs old, and I can't do what I want to!"
"Well, I can't wait til I am 18, cuz then I WILL do what I want to, and you can't stop me!"
"Hey, I can't drive as fast as I want to, the police will ticket me. I can't do a lot of things I may want to do, because there is always someone to tell me 'No'... my boss is another example. And if all of those with authority over me fail to make me realize that fact, there is a HIGHER Authority to Whom I answer who eventually WILL let me know that I should not have done all that I wanted to do..."
"Well, I am an ADULT when I am 18, and I won't have to listen to you anymore!"
Final word on the topic was mine:
"There will be no one considered to be an adult in this household until they have Diploma in hand, and a job of their own to support themselves."
Why our legislatures continue to use the magical number of 18 for majority, voting, and now, once again... drinking... is beyond me! Most teens at 18 are still in high school!
The argument used to go... they can be drafted at 18. No, they registered for the draft, and were drafted at 19 in the big 1969-70 draft push that took so many guys aged 19-26.
But we could not vote til 21. We could drink beer at 18, in 'teen bars', but not 'hard stuff' til 21. Dumb laws... Beer is just as alcoholic as any other alcoholic drink. You get just as drunk with it.
At least when Wisconsin changed the law years ago, they used 19 as the cut-off, later opting for 21.
Now we have a man trying once again to lower drinking age to 18. Former Middlebury College President John McCardell to be specific, and I just cannot agree with his thesis. Lowering the age to 18 will cause more problems in the long run. It won't prevent binge drinking. It won't prevent abuse, and addiction. It won't prevent accidents caused by drunk drivers. It won't prevent poor work in schools.
But it will add to the stress that parents of 18 year old high school students already have.
Why not work to change the age of majority, the age to vote, the age to drink, the age to enter service, etc to an age where HIGH SCHOOL is completed, and the diploma is IN HAND. In a day when post-high school education is nearly mandatory (whether it be apprenticeships, Associate Degrees, Baccalaureate or more advanced degrees) in order to support one's self and family, that HS diploma is minimal!!
SOOOO, while Lew Bryson also has tons of things one can do at 18 listed as his reasons for lowering drinking age to 18, I would rather see him propose to raising EVERYTHING he has listed to 19, OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL, Diploma in hand. And yes, Lew, in answer to your question... I AM!!
God bless!
Labels: Age of Majority, Alcohol, Legislators
posted by WI Catholic @ 2/18/2007 02:48:00 PM
2 Comments:
A better solution would be to do away with the drinking age all together. It is not the governments business with someone wants to drink or not, it should be up to the parents to make that decision. Europe's drinking laws are much lower than America's and hence they have a considerably lower amount of binge drinking/alcohol related problems. It's basic human nature, if we're told we're not allowed to do something then we want to do it all the more.
While I am in complete agreement about the gov't not having a right to legislate much of what they do, ie, smoking, alcohol, etc, my point was not to attempt to argue that aspect of it, but to point out the stupidity of making a certain age to be 'adult' when those kids are still in high school. Until they have that diploma in hand and can support themselves and perhaps a family, they are not adult. To lower MORE things (including voting) to 18, when most are Seniors, is, in my very humble opinion, insanity.
Now, as for the gov't dictating when, where, etc people can drink alcohol (even though alcoholism is prevalent in my family) and smoking legal cigarettes, cigars, pipes is beyond the bounds of what our forefathers laid out. I am also sure that they never intended individuals' rights to be infringed on in that way.
I won't get into illegal drugs in this conversation, however.
I am seeing too many individual rights disappearing. Right to bear arms is another that is under attack. But again, my point was not less gov't.
Post a Comment
<< Home