Alaska proposal to say military <21 can drink
Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:43 am
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... _in_h.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Me, I support lowering the drinking age to 18 for everybody. Actually I support getting government out of the business of such things as establishing drinking ages entirely and have parents make decisions about whether or not to allow their kids to drink at particular ages. But this is at least some progress and hopefully most rational people can agree that, as the cliche goes, someone old enough to be in combat should be considered old enough to drink alcohol if they want.
I heard a representative of Students Against Destructive Behavior (SADD) say that the decision to set the drinking age at 21 is based on statistics and not arbitrary. Well, yes, it WAS arbitrary. Why 21? I have no doubt that if somebody looked at the risk curves they used they could've picked different points on the curve. They could've moved it to 30 and "more lives would be saved."
And "it will save lives" and/or "it will cut down on health problems," etc. are not the slam dunk arguments some people seem to think they are. There are all sorts of things we could do to "save lives." As I've written in other threads, outlawing driving for non - essential purposes would "save lives." Having government determine exactly what and how much we eat would "save lives." Outlawing recreational swimming would "save lives." So on and so forth.
Me, I support lowering the drinking age to 18 for everybody. Actually I support getting government out of the business of such things as establishing drinking ages entirely and have parents make decisions about whether or not to allow their kids to drink at particular ages. But this is at least some progress and hopefully most rational people can agree that, as the cliche goes, someone old enough to be in combat should be considered old enough to drink alcohol if they want.
I heard a representative of Students Against Destructive Behavior (SADD) say that the decision to set the drinking age at 21 is based on statistics and not arbitrary. Well, yes, it WAS arbitrary. Why 21? I have no doubt that if somebody looked at the risk curves they used they could've picked different points on the curve. They could've moved it to 30 and "more lives would be saved."
And "it will save lives" and/or "it will cut down on health problems," etc. are not the slam dunk arguments some people seem to think they are. There are all sorts of things we could do to "save lives." As I've written in other threads, outlawing driving for non - essential purposes would "save lives." Having government determine exactly what and how much we eat would "save lives." Outlawing recreational swimming would "save lives." So on and so forth.
