VT considering lowering the drinking age

laseranimal · Post by **laseranimal** » Feb 29th, '08, 20:31

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/vermont-ey ... 5709990002

discuss

Kskiier1 · Post by **Kskiier1** » Feb 29th, '08, 21:57

I say 18 1/2 or 19 -- there are too many 18 year olds that are still in high school, so it should be set that you would be out of school unless you stayed back a year, you wouldn't be able to supply your friends.
Other than that, if you are in college or the military you can easily get it anyway, so why make it so that you can graduate or get discharged with a criminal/administrative record for having a couple of beers as a freshman or new recruit.

Maybe they could even do something with a driver's liscence that won't allow you to purchase booze until you graduate from high school.

It's all wishful thinking anyway since there is so much federal highway funding that revolves around a 21 drinking age that no matter how good an argument was made to lower it, it will never happen. I always wonder why they don't think of these things in the beginning so that they don't wanst time and money on something that will never happen.

Crock540 · Post by **Crock540** » Feb 29th, '08, 22:11

as a 21 year old...i say keep it 21. By the time i reached the age I am, i had been drinking long enough to know how to handle myself responsibly. I've had ample access to booze since i was 18, and learned through trial and error what my limits are.

People argue that "if you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to have a beer." Well find me one service member that's under 21, and can't get into a bar with his/her military ID...

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Mar 1st, '08, 05:41

Crock540 wrote:as a 21 year old...i say keep it 21. By the time i reached the age I am, i had been drinking long enough to know how to handle myself responsibly. I've had ample access to booze since i was 18, and learned through trial and error what my limits are.

People argue that "if you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to have a beer." Well find me one service member that's under 21, and can't get into a bar with his/her military ID...

that's not the point of that comment. the point is that if we consider 18 year
olds mature enough to be soldiers then they are mature enough to drink.
i don't necessarily agree with that statement.

it doesn't much matter. kids are gonna drink regardless. what is wrong
is for the federal gov't to interfere in what is a state issue.

robgoose · Post by **robgoose** » Mar 1st, '08, 11:16

Regarding federal government interference, the drinking age issue is not a mandate any state that drops the drinking age loses federal highway funding. That's permissible as long as there is a connection between the funding condition at the issue at stake.

What's the issue here?:

If the drinking age is lowered in Vermont, but not in N.Y., Mass, and N.H. that creates a strong incentive for underage drinkers in neighboring states to travel (over federally funded roads) to Vermont -- thus implicating Interstate Commerce (selling beers to 19 year old New Yorkers in Vermont) and the safety of the arteries of Interstate Commerce (drunk 19 year-olds returning to N.Y from a night in Vt.).

While I agree that a lower drinking age would be a good thing, I don't believe that this is a case of federal government overreaching into state affairs. As on many other issues, this is a case where there is a legitimate federal interest in coordination and uniformity between the drinking ages of neighboring states.

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Mar 1st, '08, 11:56

robgoose wrote:Regarding federal government interference, the drinking age issue is not a mandate any state that drops the drinking age loses federal highway funding. That's permissible as long as there is a connection between the funding condition at the issue at stake.

What's the issue here?:

If the drinking age is lowered in Vermont, but not in N.Y., Mass, and N.H. that creates a strong incentive for underage drinkers in neighboring states to travel (over federally funded roads) to Vermont -- thus implicating Interstate Commerce (selling beers to 19 year old New Yorkers in Vermont) and the safety of the arteries of Interstate Commerce (drunk 19 year-olds returning to N.Y from a night in Vt.).

While I agree that a lower drinking age would be a good thing, I don't believe that this is a case of federal government overreaching into state affairs. As on many other issues, this is a case where there is a legitimate federal interest in coordination and uniformity between the drinking ages of neighboring states.

c'mon. no state's gonna give up all that highway money. it's a mandate
in all but name.

whether it's good public policy or not - and it may well be - it is interference by the feds in what is a local matter.

the same reasoning could be used with respect to firearms laws. yet the federal government has not made any real attempt to harmonize licensing requirements across the states.

johnny the jibber · Post by **johnny the jibber** » Mar 1st, '08, 12:06

lowering the drinking age up here would be a bad thing. already too many younger 20 somethings that cant handle their booze as it is. bringing drunk 18 yo kids into the mix = bad things...

bsilver2988 · Post by **bsilver2988** » Mar 1st, '08, 16:57

Hey everyone. new here. heard about this site over the summer and finally got around to looking it up.

So i'm a 19 year old (yes a little biased regarding this issue). Frankly i'd say it doesn't matter to me personally however if they decide to do this at all...for several reasons:
-I go to college, and can basically get ahold of alcohol whenever i want, even by going into a liquor store...and i dont even have a fake.
-I've been exposed to alcohol for some time now, am a responsible drinker, and am well aware of my safe limits.
-by the time this thing gets passed i'm going to be 21 anyway.

All those things being said, i have to say i am absolutely for lowering the drinking age. Being at school, i see binge drinking constantly. It's practically become an epidemic in our society. It unquestionably happens because it's illegal. The one thing people, especially teenagers, want more than anything is what they can't have. So because they're not allowed to, they do it in excess, just to rebel against those in charge. Furthermore, as i said, i can basically get it whenever i want...so it's not even enforced anymore in areas such as college towns. In short, my opinion is that the law is not only useless...but actually doing more harm than good. Personally, i believe, and i've heard other say this as well, that the laws probably would have been changed long ago if MADD wasn't such a strong lobby...

gotanygum? · Post by **gotanygum?** » Mar 1st, '08, 20:11

Crock540 wrote: I've had ample access to booze since i was 18, and learned through trial and error what my limits are.

What a great way to put it...trail and error...next time i drink too much I'll say i was just performing an experiment.

Stache · Post by **Stache** » Mar 2nd, '08, 07:12

There is a certain initial 9-17 week maturation process that all enlisteds must go through (boot camp). During that time you not only learn alot about responsibility for following instructions on folding your underwear, making your bed in preparation for oneday being in charge of a nuclear reactor or massive explosive devices. The last week before you go back home for boot camp leave you are also put through intensive defensive driver training including a good dose on drinking and driving. With this in mind I support 21 or military ID.

Full disclosure requires that I also state I am a member of:
DAMM
Drunks Against Mad Mothers

shizzle · Post by **shizzle** » Mar 2nd, '08, 07:24

Vermont doesn't have all that much highway, and what is here looks like it doesn't get much attention.

Back in the days when states were raising the drinking age, I was a legal 18 yr old for about 6 months. Then it was taken away shortly after high school graduation and then I switched from pot and beer to mescaline and 'shrooms.

Also, as a former military person-I can relate to the "if you're old enough to take a bullet for your country, you're old enough to buy a beer." If any one who has experienced binge drinking in college-if you thought that was bad-you should see how disgusting a bunch of drunk 17-18-19 year old Marines are. It's far worse that anything I saw in college. People knowledgeable about hand-to-hand combat are not the people that should be experimenting with personal drinking limits.

Here's a thought-what if Killington does succeed from VT and the age is lowered?

Dr. NO · Post by **Dr. NO** » Mar 2nd, '08, 10:13

As someone that was 18 in the service, then was allowed to dring prior to being 21, and then to have watched the government mandate a 21 y/o age again, I think they should stay out of it. It should be a State Right issue.

I also believe fully that if one is old enough to sign contracts, get married or serve his country, he should also be fully treated as an adult. If he chooses to be stupid about it, and most of us have proved that well beyond the age of 18, then so be it.

shortski · Post by **shortski** » Mar 2nd, '08, 10:38

Dr. NO wrote:As someone that was 18 in the service, then was allowed to dring prior to being 21, and then to have watched the government mandate a 21 y/o age again, I think they should stay out of it. It should be a State Right issue.

I also believe fully that if one is old enough to sign contracts, get married or serve his country, he should also be fully treated as an adult. If he chooses to be stupid about it, and most of us have proved that well beyond the age of 18, then so be it.

You forgot one thing Doc, the right to vote. If the 18-21 year olds actually voted they could get together and change the law.

The 26th Amendment
In 1971, the 26th Amendment was ratified, giving everyone over the age of 18 the right to vote. The Amendment was passed in large part because of the letter-writing and peaceful protest efforts of a large number of college students and young men and women facing conscription. Ratification was accomplished in four months—the shortest period of time of any Constitutional Amendment in U.S. history.

millerm277 · Post by **millerm277** » Mar 2nd, '08, 12:58

Dr. NO wrote:As someone that was 18 in the service, then was allowed to dring prior to being 21, and then to have watched the government mandate a 21 y/o age again, I think they should stay out of it. It should be a State Right issue.

I agree. Also, to solve the issue of people coming into the state from NY, NH, CT...etc, make it be 18 for VT Residents (possibly military ID as well), 21 everyone else.

As anyone in college, or even high school can tell you, they have no problem getting booze, and the legal threat isn't much of a deterrant.

From the article, I like this idea.

And last year, former Middlebury College president John McCardell started Choose Responsibility, a nonprofit that favors allowing 18-to 20-year-olds to legally buy booze once they've completed an alcohol education program.

"We don't simply advocate the lower age, but believe mandatory alcohol education and licensing with very strict enforcement for violations of the state's alcohol laws might work," McCardell said.

Also, if this is all VT would lose "Vermont stands to lose about $17 million a year if it were to flout the federal government and lower the drinking age.", that isn't much, considering without all federal funds, the state budget is a bit north of $2 billion.

Hystyk28 · Post by **Hystyk28** » Mar 2nd, '08, 15:00

Crock540 wrote:
Well find me one service member that's under 21, and can't get into a bar with his/her military ID...

I live near a military base and I have seen plenty of underage troops get turned away trying to get served.. The military is hardcore on drinking now, regardless of being of age or not.

Bring on the just turned 18 slores at the Pickle immediately.