OPINION & EDITORIAL
Leave alcohol age to states
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Sara Mikolajczak:
- Leave alcohol age to states (April 17, 2008)
- Transit system idea absurd for Madison (February 29, 2008)
- McCain needs your vote on Tuesday (February 14, 2008)
- Candor hallmarks speech (January 31, 2008)
- Youth may find Dem policy too taxing (January 21, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Everyone agrees: Let 19-year-olds drink (February 28, 2002)
- Want to lower drinking age? Stop driving drunk (April 24, 2008)
- Underage drinking hurts economy (February 8, 2006)
- Coming of age, and respecting the law (January 31, 2002)
- Restrictions don't solve alcohol issue (January 28, 2008)
Share This:
by Sara Mikolajczak
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Currently, there are bills being introduced in seven states
that would lower the drinking age to 18. Three of the seven states, Wisconsin
included, would lower the drinking age to 18 only to those serving in the
military; the other four would lower it to 18 for everyone. Great. Awesome.
Clearly, when I say “great” and “awesome” I mean
“no.” At first glance, this seems like a great idea — especially
for the average under-21 college student who lives each weekend fearing an
underage drinking ticket or risks spending $100 on a fake ID only to get it
taken away. I’ve always been a believer in the “if you’re old enough to go
to war and get shot at for this country, you’re old enough to have a
drink” theory. Before turning 21, I thought it was ridiculous that I was
considered an adult at 18, but the government still prevented me from doing two
things (drinking is one, owning a handgun is the other). The more I think about
it, though, there are several points to be made against this proposed
legislation. Point one is that many kids turn 18 when they’re still in
high school. Now, I’m not stupid, and I’m not going to say that it never
happens, but high school students should not be drinking. The easy solution
would be to make the drinking age 19. Nearly everyone is out of high school by
the time they reach that age, and it makes it so that most college kids have a
year at most to wait before they can start legally doing what they’ve done for
the past several months away from home. There’s still a problem with lowering the drinking age to
19, though. We’d lose some — if not all — of our federal highway dollars.
Right now, the state of Wisconsin is receiving in excess of $30 million dollars
each year for our highway systems so long as we keep the legal drinking age at
21. With all of the snow and bad weather this past winter, we’ve got a lot of
road work to do. If we lose $30 million to spend on fixing our roads, the state
is going to have to raise our taxes. Higher taxes are the bane of the existence
of the Republican Party. So clearly I’m arguing that we should leave the
drinking age at 21 so we can get our federal funding for our roads, right?
Wrong. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States of America
does it say, “Congress shall blackmail the states into having a uniform
drinking age.” Enter the 10th Amendment. If the federal government is not
given a power in the Constitution, it should be left to the states. Why should
we allow Congress — let alone a Congress that has a lower approval rating than
the president — to control every minute detail of our lives? We shouldn’t. By
requiring a 21-year-old drinking age, the federal government is taking power
out of the hands of the citizens and establishing dominant rule. How acutely
undemocratic. It’s asinine to think that our federal highway dollars are
tied to something so trivial as the drinking age. Having a drinking age of 21
does not stop underage drinking, does not prevent binge drinking and has not
stopped drunken driving incidents. It would make more sense for the funding to
be tied to keeping drunken driving incidents down — but even then the states
would have their hands tied behind their backs by the federal government. With
all due respect to the 1984 Congress: bad idea. Whether the state of Wisconsin
wants their drinking age to be 21, 18, 12, or 30 should be left up to the
state, and Congress should have no weight in the decision. Sara Mikolajczak (WisconsinCRs@gmail.com) is the current
chair of the UW-Madison College Republicans.
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 7:04am):
"Now, I’m not stupid..."
Could have fooled me, and everyone who's ever taken a class with you.
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 8:00am):
There are about 5.5 million residents of Wisconsin. That means each resident would have to contribute $5.45 to cover the $30M highway funding. That could easily be covered (perhaps by Illinois boarder toll). However, since we are a driving society, we have to contend with 18 or 19 year-olds drinking and driving. I'll assume that anyone under 25 is more prone to drunk driving, so you'll have to consider additional motor vehicle accidents will occur. Europe does not have this issue, since their cities are built for pedestrians... drunk pedestrians.
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 8:05am):
Don't blame Congress; the Supreme Court dropped the ball on this one. It was clear to the minority (Justice O'Connor wrote a great dissent that presaged the disastrous Kelso decision) that this was a clear violation of both the 10th and 21st Amendments. The majority went with the steamroller of "get the drunk kiddies off the road!" But 18 to 20 year old citizens are NOT kiddies. They vote, they serve (in the military, on juries, at the polls, in public office), they drive, they work, they pay taxes, they marry, they have children... What we need is to correct the drinking culture in this country: the WAY we drink. Not who's legally allowed to buy drink. There's no real difference between a drunk 18 year old and a drunk 21 year old. The clearest, smartest voice behind the 18 LDA movement is ChooseResponsibility.org, and their plan includes mandatory education, a "drinking license." Smart. We have to fix the problem at its root: stupid drinking habits and attitudes.
Cheers,
Lew Bryson
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 8:39am):
Wow, this was a really poorly written article. Good points, but the writing is just horrific.
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 9:50am):
Dammit Sara, we've all heard this too many times before. Write about something everybody doesn't agree on - like you owning a gun
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 11:56am):
The age is left to the states, each can lower but then they would lose out on Millions upon millions of dollars. IF our state wants to lower the age, then Repubs should get prepared for unRepublican like tax hikes to compensate in the loss of funding.
Also, Republicans who pride themselves on protecting public safety would have to answer to the rise in loss in drunk driving related deaths which was much higher before 21 was the drinking age.
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 11:57am):
A drinking license sounds like a perfect idea... like a driver's license with real-world application; a driver's license combined with common sense.
Wait... why isn't drinking and driving covered on the driving exam? Why isn't proper use of rear-view mirrors covered, for that matter?
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 12:05pm):
Dear "Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 9:50am),"
I think the point she's trying to prove by writing these articles is a clever one -- if you "Liberal" students would look at the issues instead of the tags (Republican or Democrat) attached to those who spew the ideas (your elected officials), many more of you would realize you're more Conservative than you might think!
Great job, Sara! You're a smart girl. I'm not alone when I say you'll go on to do great things.
BR
P.S. Does someone have a favorite Amendment? The Tenth, perhaps?
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 12:08pm):
Let's lower the drinking age to 8 - then Wisconsin will have the least incidents of underage drinking instead of nearly the most. Also, lets raise the legal limit for driving to .3 - then we'll have the least number of drunk driving incidents per year instead of the most.
But seriously - I agree in principal on the issue, but you are absolutely terrible at articulating your points and framing your arguments. Most of your examples are weak, flawed, or not pertinent. Not to mention that this is an absolute softball of a topic. And this was the best you could do? I'm not saying all college Republicans are dumb, but their student chair sure is.
Anonymous (April 17, 2008 @ 2:28pm):
18-20 year olds are kiddies - sorry bro
Andrew Barragry (April 17, 2008 @ 9:35pm):
It's interesting to note that Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by Republican Richard Nixon and a staunch supporter of state power, wrote the 7-2 opinion in South Dakota v. Dole, the case that upheld the congressional decision to condition federal highway funds on states raising their drinking age to 21. The court found that the provision was a valid exercise of congressional power under the Taxing and Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution. You would think that the Chair of the Madison College Republicans would find this worth noting. Did you miss this information during your "research" for this article, or did you just choose not to include it based on your political party affiliation? Please don't comment on the law or legislative matters if you are unwilling to present the entire story or simply don't understand the constitutional arguments involved.
Andy Barragry
University of Wisconsin Law School - 2L
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
