Legal drinking age should be lowered in La.
A SHOT OF JACK
Jack Collens
Issue date: 5/2/07 Section: Opinion
|
That wristband represented my transition from an underage drinker to a "responsible adult," a phrase many would question when applied to certain people who have reached the age of 21.
My newfound legality led me to question the necessity of the drinking age law. I don't feel any more responsible or mature than I did a week ago.
According to John McCardell, professor emeritus of Middlebury College and proponent of a lower drinking age, the legal drinking age being 21 years in all 50 states is primarily the result of a threat to slash federal road funding for states whose legal ages are below 21. Mothers Against Drunk Driving take much of the credit for raising the drinking age. The group managed to pressure the federal government into enacting punishments for those states that refused to raise their legal drinking ages.
Most people have already heard some of the main arguments against keeping the drinking age 21.
Of course, a popular argument recently is, "I can fight and die in Iraq, but I can't order a drink." Usually people younger than 21 years old defend themselves by listing all the rights and responsibilities they have - the rights to marry, have sex, vote, adopt children, purchase shotguns, etc. - and finishing with some variation of the phrase "but I can't drink."
Other than these typical rights and responsibilities arguments, there are a variety of sociological arguments against the drinking age.
From a sociological perspective, underage drinking is a "victimless" crime - that is, there is no legal complainant involved. For this reason it is grouped with other victimless crimes including prostitution, drug use and gambling.
In my criminology class, Ed Shihadeh, sociology professor, outlined the numerous problems presented by victimless crimes.
First, the police cannot fully enforce the drinking-age law. Just ask any campus resident, underage drinking is rampant, despite LSUPD's best efforts to catch offenders.
This inability to enforce the drinking age invariably leads to a more cynical view of the law by the public. Students frequently refer to LSUPD as "glorified security guards," a dangerous misperception.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 6
Drew Kleiser
posted 5/09/07 @ 10:19 AM CST
I definitley think that it should be lowered because they say that at the age of 18 is when you become and adult and that you gain a lot of responsability and that is true but adding drinking to that list wouldnt hurt i mean we are responsible adults at the age of 18 and if we can go to war and all those other things or go to colleges out of counrty were the drinking age is lower then why shouldnt we have it lowered here. (Continued…)
Nicole Marmaduke
posted 3/28/08 @ 10:13 PM CST
The Legal drinking age of 21, i believe is far more sensible than at 18. 18 year olds are no responisble adults. They are still children in alot of ways and i see this alot in Australia. (Continued…)
Patrick THE Atheist
posted 3/29/08 @ 1:02 AM CST
The simple reason not to lower the drinking age is that development is still ongoing between 18 and 21. Of course, it's still ongoing beyond 21 and it's quite clear that the prevention of drinking is ineffective. (Continued…)
JSH
posted 3/29/08 @ 11:32 AM CST
At 18 years of age our government think that you are responsible enough to make life or death decision. You can drive a tank, get a pilot license, call in air strikes, snipe at people, and be a medic in both the military and an EMC here in the US. (Continued…)
Busta Thug
posted 3/29/08 @ 3:58 PM CST
You can die for your country, go to jail, and cast your vote by age 18. Not to mention you are legal responsible for your actions, civil and criminal, at age 17 in LA. (Continued…)
Jim
posted 4/08/08 @ 10:14 AM CST
The drinking age should actually be raised to at least 30
And even then there are people who are still not responsible enough to drink.
Post a Comment