Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Star Supports Alcohol Prohibition Laws For 18-20 Year Olds

Recently the Indianapolis Star did an article on "minors" being served alcohol in the Indianapolis area. Today the Star did an editorial supporting the use of 18-20 year olds in sting operations.

You'll notice that I put the word "minors" in quotes. The reason why is that only in the area of alcohol consumption does the law consider someone 18 and older a "minor." In other area of the law, an 18 year old has all the privileges and responsibilities of being an adult exactly because an 18 year old is considered an adult.

At some point in this country we need to realize that alcohol prohibition for those 18-20 year olds does not work, has never worked, and will never work. In fact the reason why we have so much trouble with binge drinking and driving while intoxicated in this country is precisely because the United States, unlike other countries, refuses to address alcohol consumption in a realistic manner and reasonable manner. We should be teaching 18-20 year olds to consume alcohol responsibly, not pretending we can somehow enforce prohibition for that adult age group.

It's an old argument but one that is precisely on point. How can we send 18-20 year olds overseas to possibly get their heads shot off, but tell those same youth that if they drink a beer they deserve to get thrown in the jail?

4 comments:

Indy Student said...

This is an issue far too big to tackle. The reason we have the 21+ laws is because any state that lowers the drinking age will lose money for highways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act_of_1984. It looks like this law even went to the Supreme Court, and it ruled in favor of the feds.

Had Enough Indy? said...

You are right on the central issue. Maybe I can state it the other way. If a person is too much of a child to be responsible about drinking, they must be too much of a child to be in war.

Downtown Indy said...

Indy Student hits on an interesting point.

States are free to make their individual decisions (as they I believe are given the authority to do by the Constitution).

But the federal government is quick to slap on penalties if states dare to make their own decisions.

Let us keep that in mind when thinking about healthcare 'options,' shall we? You have the 'option' to opt out but by George you will get a bill for daring to make your own decision.

Paul K. Ogden said...

IS, I know you are right. In the past the feds have changed their minds. The only example I can think of is the silly nationwide 55 mph speed limit that states had to enact or lose highway money. Can't I hope the feds will wise up and leave this issue to the states?