Published on Monday, September 01, 2008
Finally there is talk of lowering the drinking age to 18; let's hope this discussion continues. The change is long overdue.
College presidents are the most recent impetus for the current discussion. Many say the 21-year-old drinking rule just isn't working. To date, hiding our heads in the sand has been the only answer to binge drinking and too much alcohol consumption on our nation's campuses. I believe allowing 18- to 21-years-olds to drink 3.2 beer is the solution to much of this dilemma.
Whoever thought that raising the drinking age to 21 was proper should be admonished for dreaming up such a dim-witted idea.
Why we, as a nation, ask our 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds to put themselves in harms way to protect us, and then turn around and tell them they are unable to drink a beer is a real head-scratcher. They can vote, they can get married, they can go to war, but they can't make their own decisions about drinking beer? It just doesn't add up.
If an 18-year-old is trusted with a gun in combat and capable of making a snap judgment whether to shoot or not, why can't they be trusted to know when they have had enough to drink?
One of the dumbest things our nation ever did was to raise the drinking age. Then there was the blackmail element where states were coerced into raising the drinking age to 21 or lose their federal highway funding.
The cost of enforcing such a law should in itself tell lawmakers they overstepped the sense of fairness.
What about giving 18- to 21-year-olds some voice in this debate? They can vote, they can serve their country, but they aren't granted the intellect to voice their own opinion about whether or not they should be allowed to drink 3.2 beer legally? If we don't change the law, then let's prohibit them from military service and deny them voting rights.
To think that 18- to 21-year-olds will refrain from drinking alcohol is just not recognizing reality. Hasn't it been proven over and over that teenagers are going to drink, and legislation just isn't going to stop them? Why not legitimize it and be done with the problem?
If a college student wants to drink and he or she is not 21, they are going to drink, regardless of what the law says.
It just makes sense to allow these young men and women to drink some 3.2 beer. To think otherwise is just hiding our heads in the sand.
This whole thing should remind us all of the utter failure of Prohibition so very long ago.
'Nuff said.
Gerald “Jerry” Krueger is a retired educator, coach, commercial pilot and farmer. He can be reached by writing the American News at P.O. Box 4430, Aberdeen, S.D., 57402, or by e-mail at americannews@aberdeennews.com. His column publishes most Mondays.
Finally there is talk of lowering the drinking age to 18; let's hope this discussion continues. The change is long overdue.
College presidents are the most recent impetus for the current discussion. Many say the 21-year-old drinking rule just isn't working. To date, hiding our heads in the sand has been the only answer to binge drinking and too much alcohol consumption on our nation's campuses. I believe allowing 18- to 21-years-olds to drink 3.2 beer is the solution to much of this dilemma.
Whoever thought that raising the drinking age to 21 was proper should be admonished for dreaming up such a dim-witted idea.
Why we, as a nation, ask our 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds to put themselves in harms way to protect us, and then turn around and tell them they are unable to drink a beer is a real head-scratcher. They can vote, they can get married, they can go to war, but they can't make their own decisions about drinking beer? It just doesn't add up.
If an 18-year-old is trusted with a gun in combat and capable of making a snap judgment whether to shoot or not, why can't they be trusted to know when they have had enough to drink?
One of the dumbest things our nation ever did was to raise the drinking age. Then there was the blackmail element where states were coerced into raising the drinking age to 21 or lose their federal highway funding.
The cost of enforcing such a law should in itself tell lawmakers they overstepped the sense of fairness.
What about giving 18- to 21-year-olds some voice in this debate? They can vote, they can serve their country, but they aren't granted the intellect to voice their own opinion about whether or not they should be allowed to drink 3.2 beer legally? If we don't change the law, then let's prohibit them from military service and deny them voting rights.
To think that 18- to 21-year-olds will refrain from drinking alcohol is just not recognizing reality. Hasn't it been proven over and over that teenagers are going to drink, and legislation just isn't going to stop them? Why not legitimize it and be done with the problem?
If a college student wants to drink and he or she is not 21, they are going to drink, regardless of what the law says.
It just makes sense to allow these young men and women to drink some 3.2 beer. To think otherwise is just hiding our heads in the sand.
This whole thing should remind us all of the utter failure of Prohibition so very long ago.
'Nuff said.
Gerald “Jerry” Krueger is a retired educator, coach, commercial pilot and farmer. He can be reached by writing the American News at P.O. Box 4430, Aberdeen, S.D., 57402, or by e-mail at americannews@aberdeennews.com. His column publishes most Mondays.
j/k 
