OK, this is weird...

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by David Floyd
DD is right about the 5% thing, I was about to point that out as well.

Funny, you'd think additional alcohol sales would more than make up the 5%, but I guess it comes back to my commie mommy/fundie theory, at least in some states (well, commie mommies in the north, fundies in the south).

What about the cowboy states like Wyoming and Montana, or libertarian Nevada?

[David Floyd]

Shi,

Yes, this is a basic fairness problem - if a state chooses not to receive highway funds, then you would think that the federal government should not tax the citizens of that state for the corresponding amount, on the reasoning that the citizens of the state in question are not receiving a service for that percentage of their money.

It would be interesting, though, to see a study over whether 5% of highway funds is greater or less than the additional tax revenue from allowing 18-21 year olds to buy alcohol.

[Shi Huangdi]

I doubt the tax revenue increase would offset the loss. Most 18-20 year olds already drink, and drink substanitally, and the alcohol has to come from somewhere. Now, I'm pretty much on the drinking end rather than the distribution end of the whole undrage issue, but usually beer for 18-20 year olds is bought with a fake ID or by someone who is 21 or older, so the beer is already payed for anyway and hence taxed anyway.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Unfortunately the Feds seem to be quite the fans of using this devious little tactic to usurp authority from the states.

Why shouldn't they? They are allowed to. They can decide how to spend money. That's a right given to the Congress under Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 1. They can also attach conditions on that spending. I see nothing wrong with that.

You pay the taxes to keep the government running (and everyone has to pay them), and then how that money is spent is determined by Congress. If they want to discriminate between states they can (and often do... what do you think pork barrel projects are, those come out of taxes too).

South Dakota v. Dole is correctly ruled. I don't see how you can rule another way without taking away a basic power of Congress (the power over the purse).

The one thing they did say is that the federal government cannot threaten 100% of highway funding for a state in order to administer a law, on the grounds that it wouldn't be persuading, but coercion. Frankly, I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that says the Congress cannot use their spending power to coerce the states into doing something, but maybe the court read it in there to preserve states' rights. :shrug:

But, after all, the state doesn't have to accept the 5% in highway funds... especially if it values having people 18-21 drink. The thing that made it easier to follow the federal government was that 18-21 year olds don't normally vote .

--

Anyway, the bouncer was also right. If you are underage and there is a bust and you have alcohol on your breath, they are SOL... because the cops are going to think you got the drink there, no matter what you say.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why shouldn't they?

For starters I fail to see how "forcing" all states to have the same drinking age is related to any federal interest in a grant that deals with road improvements.

PS Personally I think that the 10th Amendment would have been a better choice for SD to base thier case on than the 21st.

[David Floyd]

Anyway, the bouncer was also right. If you are underage and there is a bust and you have alcohol on your breath, they are SOL... because the cops are going to think you got the drink there, no matter what you say.

AFAIK, in Texas, the TABC has to actually see me getting served. It's perfectly legal for me to drink with my parents, so why shouldn't it be perfectly legal for me to go out after participating in a completely legal activity?

But it's a moot point, Imran. I talked to someone from the Texas DPS whom I work with, and he informed me that there is no law anywhere saying that I can't be in a public place with alcohol on my breath. It's up to the discretion of the club, which is what I figured to begin with.

My problem was that a)I was obviously not drunk, b)it's never happened before in my or anyone I know experience, and c)it's just freaking ridiculous.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Uber KruX
no it's not.

Sure it is. 21 is a ridiculous age.

It's 18 here, and it's nice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

For starters I fail to see how "forcing" all states to have the same drinking age is related to any federal interest in a grant that deals with road improvements.

The federal government has a compelling interest in safe interstate highway travel. Evidence suggests that those from age 18-21 are more likely to be involved in accidents after drinking (it is actually true, unfortunetly). Therefore the classification (age) is rationally based to the governmental interest.

Happy?

the TABC has to actually see me getting served

Not always. Maybe Texas is different that most states, but having a guy leave a club who is drunk will not result in good things happening to that club.

As for you not being drunk... I don't believe it. As DD said, IIRC, if the bouncer could smell the alcohol on your breath, you drank much more than you said you did.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The federal government has a compelling interest in safe interstate highway travel. Evidence suggests that those from age 18-21 are more likely to be involved in accidents after drinking (it is actually true, unfortunetly). Therefore the classification (age) is rationally based to the governmental interest.

Happy?

But at the same time, accidents involving alcohol rates are lower in Alberta than any US State. And the drinking age is 18 here.

There are many factors aside from age.

[David Floyd]

Imran,

The federal government has a compelling interest in safe interstate highway travel. Evidence suggests that those from age 18-21 are more likely to be involved in accidents after drinking (it is actually true, unfortunetly). Therefore the classification (age) is rationally based to the governmental interest.

Couldn't you make a similar argument for race? Granted, the 14th Amendment prohibits racial discrimination, but on the same logic as the 14th, shouldn't age discrimination be illegal as well?

Maybe Texas is different that most states, but having a guy leave a club who is drunk will not result in good things happening to that club.

Oh certainly, the police could put an increased presence there, pay more attention, and no club wants that.

As for you not being drunk... I don't believe it. As DD said, IIRC, if the bouncer could smell the alcohol on your breath, you drank much more than you said you did.

Here is what I had.
Approximately 1.5 shots of Jack Daniels over ice.
A small glass of plum wine.

This was over the course of about 2 hours.

That is certainly not enough to intoxicate me, or anyone else of my approximate weight/age/drinking experience. If you want to say you don't believe me, fine, but that is indeed all that I had that night.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But at the same time, accidents involving alcohol rates are lower in Alberta than any US State. And the drinking age is 18 here.

There are many factors aside from age.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with my point at all... in studies done ages 18-21 were involved in many more drunken driving accidents than any other age group. So they figured to raise the drinking age. Interesting drunk driving fatalities did fall.

The only way that Alberta stats counter mine in any way, shape, or form is if there was an age group that had a higher amount of drunk driving accidents than 18-21.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Happy?

No. The same end could be more directly and easily achieved by requiring tougher DUI statutes rather than raising the drinking age.

[David Floyd]

Yes, but that has nothing to do with my point at all... in studies done ages 18-21 were involved in many more drunken driving accidents than any other age group. So they figured to raise the drinking age. Interesting drunk driving fatalities did fall.

I don't question the stat at all. My problem is that the government is telling adults what they can and cannot put in their bodies. If someone happens to commit a crime while intoxicated, then punish the crime, but don't make intoxication a crime - a crime implies that you are hurting someone, and intoxication hurts no one (except, of course, yourself, but come on).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Couldn't you make a similar argument for race? Granted, the 14th Amendment prohibits racial discrimination, but on the same logic as the 14th, shouldn't age discrimination be illegal as well?

Race, as you noted is spelled out in the 14th Amendment, and thus requires a compelling governmental interest and the classification must be narrowly tailored to achieve the governmental interest.

Age is simply subject to the rational basis test. In short, race has a higher standard. If Age was spelled out in the 14th, then yes, the law would be considered unconstitutional, IMO.

That is certainly not enough to intoxicate me, or anyone else of my approximate weight/age/drinking experience. If you want to say you don't believe me, fine, but that is indeed all that I had that night.

Then how would the bouncer knew you had drank? Did you put your mouth directly on his nose? Your breath doesn't stink that badly from only 3 drinks in 2 hours.

[David Floyd]

Race, as you noted is spelled out in the 14th Amendment, and thus requires a compelling governmental interest and the classification must be narrowly tailored to achieve the governmental interest.

Age is simply subject to the rational basis test. In short, race has a higher standard. If Age was spelled out in the 14th, then yes, the law would be considered unconstitutional, IMO.

Certainly. The point is, though, what is the fundamental difference between discriminating based upon race and age? I really don't see one - both involve legislating against certain groups of people for things about those groups outside their control.

Then how would the bouncer knew you had drank? Did you put your mouth directly on his nose? Your breath doesn't stink that badly from only 3 drinks in 2 hours.

Good question. I can tell you that when breathing directly on my friends to test it, only one of them could smell anything, and neither of them had had anything to drink.

Give me some credit, though - I'm not gonna lie about how much I had to make a silly point on the Internet. If I was totally smashed I would say so.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, but that has nothing to do with my point at all... in studies done ages 18-21 were involved in many more drunken driving accidents than any other age group. So they figured to raise the drinking age. Interesting drunk driving fatalities did fall.

The only way that Alberta stats counter mine in any way, shape, or form is if there was an age group that had a higher amount of drunk driving accidents than 18-21.

The problem here is you're not thinking enough about it.

Why could the 18-21 groups be higher in the US? Well, perhaps it's because they usually have to be rather sneaky about it.

In places like Alberta where the law is 18, when you're smashed and you can't drive, you can call your parents and stuff to get a ride home. In the US, where the laws state 21 as the age, an 18 year old is less likely to call his parents for a ride home when he's smashed, right?

Theres many implications which severaly taint the studies that you discussed, because they're under conditions where the 18-21 have to be sneaky about it and (surprisingly!) drive drunk more.

[Lonestar]

Serves you right for drinking underage.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My problem is that the government is telling adults what they can and cannot put in their bodies.

That's a different issue altogether. I'm not arguing against that, per say.

The point is, though, what is the fundamental difference between discriminating based upon race and age?

One is stated, one isn't. That's about it really .

Good question. I can tell you that when breathing directly on my friends to test it, only one of them could smell anything, and neither of them had had anything to drink.

Give me some credit, though - I'm not gonna lie about how much I had to make a silly point on the Internet. If I was totally smashed I would say so.

The problem is that it seems farfetched, a bit. Maybe the bouncer had a hard-on about it, who knows. But since he did smell something or says he did, who knows.

Why could the 18-21 groups be higher in the US? Well, perhaps it's because they usually have to be rather sneaky about it.

In places like Alberta where the law is 18, when you're smashed and you can't drive, you can call your parents and stuff to get a ride home. In the US, where the laws state 21 as the age, an 18 year old is less likely to call his parents for a ride home when he's smashed, right?

You seem to be

These stats were taken when there WASN'T a national 21 drinking age! So in many of these states you had an 18 year old drinking age... and even in those states you had a the 18-21 crowd involved in more drunk driving accidents. In fact these studies, showing that 18-21 were more likely to be involved in drunk driving accidents LED to the national drinking age.

[DinoDoc]

*ahem*

[Imran Siddiqui]

*ahem* what?

It's your opinion that tougher DUI statutes could have done the same thing. The legislators thought differently... and statistically they seem to be right.

[David Floyd]

Serves you right for drinking underage.

I'm not underage. I'm as much an adult as you are.

If I'm not an adult, then I'm a child.

If I'm a child, then I can't enter into most contracts. Therefore, I don't have to pay car payments, right?

If I'm a child, I don't have to sign up with Selective Service, and, for that matter, anytime the US drafted anyone under the age of 21, they were drafting children into the military - something we would certainly condemn Iraq, for example, for doing.

Drinking underage, indeed. As if there is any difference between a 20 year old and a 21 year old, physically speaking.

Now, there could be a maturity-level difference, but that leads us to a different direction. First, I could be more mature at 17 than you at 21. Secondly, women mature quicker than men, so if it's a simple maturity issue, shouldn't the drinking age for women be lower?

And finally, we both know there is nothing wrong with me having drinks at home, or anywhere else. The problem comes in if I commit an actual crime - that is, hurt someone. But drinking and a criminal act are two separate things. Don't combine the two.

[David Floyd]

Imran,

One is stated, one isn't. That's about it really

OK, so morally speaking, the drinking age is as bad as a law based upon racial discrimination. I'm glad we're in agreement.

The problem is that it seems farfetched, a bit. Maybe the bouncer had a hard-on about it, who knows. But since he did smell something or says he did, who knows.

Well, you can believe me or not. But let me put it this way - why would I waste my time posting a thread if I actually was stumbling around drunk? If I wanted to ***** about the drinking age, I would have started a thread specifically about that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not underage. I'm as much an adult as you are.

Um.. yes you are underage. The drinking age is 21, and you aren't. You are also underage for social security. You cannot argue that you are not underage. Being an adult and being underage are two seperate issues entirely.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I'm not underage. I'm as much an adult as you are.

If I'm not an adult, then I'm a child.

If I'm a child, then I can't enter into most contracts. Therefore, I don't have to pay car payments, right?

If I'm a child, I don't have to sign up with Selective Service, and, for that matter, anytime the US drafted anyone under the age of 21, they were drafting children into the military - something we would certainly condemn Iraq, for example, for doing.

Drinking underage, indeed. As if there is any difference between a 20 year old and a 21 year old, physically speaking.

Now, there could be a maturity-level difference, but that leads us to a different direction. First, I could be more mature at 17 than you at 21. Secondly, women mature quicker than men, so if it's a simple maturity issue, shouldn't the drinking age for women be lower?

And finally, we both know there is nothing wrong with me having drinks at home, or anywhere else. The problem comes in if I commit an actual crime - that is, hurt someone. But drinking and a criminal act are two separate things. Don't combine the two.

We live in a society of Laws. You broke a just one.

[David Floyd]

Um.. yes you are underage. The drinking age is 21, and you aren't. You are also underage for social security. You cannot argue that you are not underage. Being an adult and being underage are two seperate issues entirely.

Underage for drinking and underage for social security are two different things. The drinking age prohibits me from doing something, social security gives me something. While I don't agree with SS, I do understand that the point is a social safety net after retirement. On the other hand, saying that I am too young to decide what to drink is the same thing as calling me an immature child who has to be led around by mommy and daddy. If I make irresponsible decisions, put me in prison for committing a crime. But the act of drinking is not irresponsible, in and of itself.

[David Floyd]

We live in a society of Laws. You broke a just one.

An unjust law is no law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

OK, so morally speaking, the drinking age is as bad as a law based upon racial discrimination.

Not quite. I'd still put a law based on racial discrimination on a MUCH higher peg than a silly drinking age .

Well, you can believe me or not. But let me put it this way - why would I waste my time posting a thread if I actually was stumbling around drunk? If I wanted to ***** about the drinking age, I would have started a thread specifically about that.

I'm not saying you are lying. When we are inebriated stuff tends to get streached and exaggerated in our minds.

Underage for drinking and underage for social security are two different things. The drinking age prohibits me from doing something, social security gives me something. While I don't agree with SS, I do understand that the point is a social safety net after retirement. On the other hand, saying that I am too young to decide what to drink is the same thing as calling me an immature child who has to be led around by mommy and daddy. If I make irresponsible decisions, put me in prison for committing a crime. But the act of drinking is not irresponsible, in and of itself.

Doesn't matter... this is a simply legal definition. You are either declared underage or above age to do something. You are underage, and it isn't really open to debate after that .

An unjust law is no law.

Except that it is... and is enforced just the same .

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by David Floyd


An unjust law is no law.

It was just. There was a reason for such a law. Now take the consequences of your action like a mature adult.

[David Floyd]

Imran,

Not quite. I'd still put a law based on racial discrimination on a MUCH higher peg than a silly drinking age

Yes, and robbing a bank is worse than purse snatching, in a manner of speaking, but fundamentally they are the same.

I'm not saying you are lying. When we are inebriated stuff tends to get streached and exaggerated in our minds.

I understand this, yet I was not inebriated, and I had exactly the amount I claimed to have had.

Doesn't matter... this is a simply legal definition.

Speaking morally, or just using reason and common sense, I am not underage to decide what to do with my body. The law, for example, allows me to smoke, and smoking is certainly more harmful to my health than alcohol. I can own firearms, and I can do more damage with a rifle than with a shot of vodka. I can join the military and operate heavy military ordnance, and, for that matter, I can be forced to join the military to do the same (yes, conscription is not the law now, but if it was the law I seriously doubt you would argue against its Constitutionality).

Lonestar,

It was just. There was a reason for such a law.

Yes, and if we looked at crime rates, decides that black people committed a disproportionate amount of violent crime, and locked all blacks up as a preventive measure, you could also call that just on the same argument, because you are basically making the argument that the end justifies the means.

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by David Floyd


An unjust law is no law.

I'll have to remember that.
thanks