Viewsday

Many European countries have lower BAC limits for 18-21 year olds, some as low as .02 with .05 being common. Additionally, the penalties for DUI / DWI tend to be stiffer without the option for plea deals.

I'm not against lowering the drinking age to 18, if and only if the penalties for DUI / DWI are more severe (mandatory jail, loss of license for a year or so, counseling paid for by the offender, etc).

College presidents are not impartial judges regarding this matter. They would like to avoid the potential liability of continuing to ignore the current laws and the college town bars and restaurants would love the business.

So lets get this real straight here.

18 - 20 YO's can die in Iraq fighting a BEE ESS war. Pay the IRS & NYS an income tax (yeah smarties I KNOW 0 -17 yo's can pay a tax too!), vote and buy a house and do all the other things attaining thier MAJORITY allows them to do. But because of ONE specialty group (MADD) they can not drink.

You solve the problem by passing a law making ALL vehicles have a breathalyzer device to start the vehicle. Circumvent the device and you lose your license for 2 years plus potential jail & fine!

Gosh, be careful of the "I can fight in war but can't drink' argument.

Among the qualities that make 18-year-olds such good soldiers are their fearlessness and sense of immortality -- traits that do not mix well with alcohol.

A 20-year-old Marine returning from Iraq will find he may not buy a handgun or gamble in a casino.

Why permit 18-year-olds to vote but not drink? Because they have shown a disproportionate tendency to abuse the franchise, to the peril of innocent bystanders.

Those between 18 and 20 have not been abusing the franchise. They have been given a choice of the same candidates as everyone else, and there is no evidence (since we have a secret ballot) that they have made anything but educated, informed choices. This is beside the point.

People under 21 will drink. There is no way around this. Setting this limit in the first place, along with a distinct lack of any alcohol education other than "it's illegal, don't do it" before this age, creates a kind of "forbidden fruit." To an extent, the thrill of it being illegal is motivation for some to drink. Enforcing the law more strictly will not eliminate drinkers, it will only create more offenders. Lowering the drinking age will make the drinking that occurs on college campuses more responsible.

Right now, any underage drinking that occurs must be done in secret, away from the responsible supervision of bars, clubs, and supervised social events. Alcohol poisoning becomes common because if someone passes out, the first reaction is overwhelming fear that if someone were to go for help, everyone would get in trouble for drinking. This needs to change. If 18-year-olds could drink legally, they could do so in settings where a bartender could stop them from going overboard or where they would not be afraid to call for help if something should go wrong. This would be much safer drinking.

Stefan Muller
President
National Youth Rights Association (www.youthrights.org)

From chapter IV of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's own study on the effects of the 21-year-old drinking age:

"Figures 32 and 34 show the same thing: as measured by fatal crash data, youth drinking and driving decreases in the United States and Canada from 1982 to 1997 were virtually identical.

...

The major difference between Canadian and United States laws affecting youth drinking is the drinking age itself. In Canada, the drinking age is 18 in three provinces (Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec) and 19 in the other seven. These legal ages have not changed in the past 20 years. The Canadian reduction in youth drinking and driving must have been caused entirely by other factors."

Read it all here: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/FewerYoungDrivers/iv__what_caused.htm

In Vermont, my home state, the drinking age was raised to 21 from 18 in 1986. In 1987 there was a 17% increase in deaths related to drunk driving. The next year was still higher than 1986. It took three years for it to come back down to the level of 1986, and on the 5th year it was higher again. Here is a link to the chart (http://vt.youthrights.org/main/alcohol-related-deaths-vermont.htm). That chart was taken from the state website, but when it was used against Kerry Sleeper (the commissioner of public safety) in a debate about the drinking age a couple years ago it was removed from the states website the next day.

THIS STORY is a perfect representation of the true fact that the people on the other side of this debate illustrated best in most cases by MADD will do anything to win, even change or eliminate statistics that favor the other side.

Another example of this is this: Look up what is defined in your home state as an alcohol related accident. In many states if a man in walking down the street with a closed beer in his hand and a sober driver hits him it is classified as an alcohol related accident. This common rule (if alcohol is at the seen it is alcohol related) is something that prohibitionists pushed through in order to beef up the alchohol related accident statistics.

I'd like to quote the National Youth Rights Association's position paper on the drinking age:

"Much of the debate about the drinking age has centered around the success or failure of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which forced states to raise their drinking age to 21. Government agencies and anti-youth organizations claim that law has saved thousands of lives, a "fact" usually repeated without question in the media. But independent researchers have regularly challenged that assertion. "Minimum legal drinking age is not a significant - or even a perceptible - factor in the fatality experience of all drivers or of young drivers," wrote Rutgers University economists Peter Asch and David T. Levy after rigorously examining traffic fatality statistics." (The study was called "Does the Minimum Drinking Age Affect Traffic Fatalities?", published by the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 6.2. The study remains unrefuted.)

Aside from the case that could be made with studies and numbers alone, it should be noted tit's is segregation, and that it's not just about the drinking age. Lowering the drinking age would be a step in the right direction for ending intolerance towards youth. It's about time our society focused on teaching rather than punishing our young people.

The only reason most states ever went along with raising the drinking age was when there was threat to withhold federal highway funds. So, blackmail.

IN reality, by thinking a law that says 21 to drink changed anyone's drinking habits other than to have forced it into hiding and to have 18 year old ADULTS not be able to have parents socialize them to drinking which should start at an early age where it is emphasized that drinking and driving is ALWAYS wrong and that socially drinking and learning to tolerate it and how not to abuse it should be taught.

But of course, now, there are parents out there that actually live in denial that their kids don't drink, which in turn forces them to hide it..they end up in college, having no ability to rationalize right or wrong and since colleges are supposed to enforce it, now force kids to leave campus, in the very same cars their parents bought them.

Hmmm, seems a vicious cycle while MADD continues to spread lies that the drinking age works. It has never worked, a few false years of stats? Stats can be manipulated in any way, in favor of either side....if MADD focused on the DRIVING piece of it instead of the drinking (which will always go on) perhaps they could have success.

To think, drinking is legal at 21, but somehow at 20, or 19 or 18 it is WRONG, is ridiculous. My parents in my early teens allowed me, in their presene to taste wine and beer, by mid-teens, have a glass of wine or beer....and time and time again it was instilled in me "NO MATTER where you are or what time it is, if you have been drinking or your friends have, do not get in a car..CALL US" . I did not have parents that lived in a bubble that thought I would not drink, but those parents exist. Pushing the drinking underground, allowing parents to live in some world where kids won't drink and not acknowledge that instead, those that are 18 are adults, NOT children...and that to instill and raise them it should have been done before 18 which includes socializing them to alcohol, discussing the dangers of it, yet allowing them to understand if one drinks responsibly there will be no problems.

21, I'm well beyond that age, but thankfully my parents raised me to respect, understand the good/bad and always instilled they would come get me if I needed a ride! Parenting? what happened to it in today's society????

Obviously no matter what the drinking age is, kids are going to drink. I think 21 is a bit high to make the drinking age simply because we are allowed to do pretty much everything else. Legally we can make our own decisions, we can go off to war, we can get married, we can vote, yet we are not allowed to take a drink here and there? Of course the accidents related to alcohol would go up since there would be more people drinking because they are allowed to. I don't know if I would lower the age to 18 since there are still kids in highschool that are that age and would possibly bring it onto the grounds and could cause some problems, but I believe 19 would be good. Kids can legally smoke at that age. They are allowed to kill themselves slowly yet they aren't allowed to consume something that can be quite harmless when done responsibly, cigarettes cannot be consumed safely. Sure they don't impair your ability to do most certain tasks like driving a car, but maybe if we educated kids more (i mean like required classes, not just assemblys) about the dangers of ABUSING (not simply doing) drugs and alcohol, there would be less accidents and deaths. It's really the parents responsibility though to start the education of kids on how to consume alcohol without putting yourself in harms way because SHOCK , it can be done! Parents must understand and accept that they're kids will drink and offer a helping hand when they need it because that is their job as parents. I'm sure most parents remember being a kid and partying, but trying to stop your kids from doing those things completely because you realize all the mistakes you made in the past, won't help them in the long run. Alcohol will always be consumed, whether its prohibited or not. It's only dangerous when it gets into the hands of irresponsible and illinformed people. I don't know about you but when I read stories in the newspapers about drunk driving I'm usually reading about older men and women, with families and such, doing it. In the end it honestly just doesnt make sense to me that at 18 years old we can make so many decisions for ourselves yet alcohol and gambling is taboo.

Teens will drink regardless of the laws. Just as when abortion is illegal people will get them in less than reputable places, teens looking for alcohol will put themselves in sketchy situations to get it. There can be regulations such as only letting them buy a certain amount, and having a lower BAC limit.

If the drinking age is lowered to 18 it will give schools an opportunity to educate teens about the dangers and teach them how to be responsible instead of just teaching "It's wrong. Don't do it."

It just isn't right to treat an 18 year old like an adult in every other sense except drinking. If an 18 year old can be tried as an adult the least they should be able to do is buy a beer.

By time this law changes I'll already be 21 and I AM in favor of the harsh drunk driving laws we have. but MADD should learn that under age drinking does not mean drunk driving. Kids today are much more well educated and far more responsible to drink. When my friends and I go out we have a DD and that person (sometimes me) will not drink the whole night and drive home. I can't speak for everybody but atleast between my friends and I we were well educated in school and raised properly by our parents that we can make the right choice to not drinking and driving regardless of what age the law says.

It is ridiculous that people are debating whether or not to lower the drinking age while cannabis still remains illegal. One CAN NOT overdose on marijuana, however deaths from alcohol poisoning are at an all time high both on campuses and in general. Patients who need medical cannabis to make it through the day are being denied their right to seek a cure by the federal government. Like alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, marijuana prohibition leads to organized crime controlling the market and unregulated products reaching the street. Compared to the war on drugs and the harm it causes innocent and nonviolent drug users, the drinking age is a nonissue. Visit norml.org and mpp.org for information on how to get active in your local area and help end the unnecessary prohibition of marijuana.

Drunk driving is a real problem. So is binge drinking. The trouble is, these things are real problems for people of every age. They are not problems isolated to young drinkers. They are not problems isolated to young drivers. They are problems bred from immaturity and inexperience. Let me be perfectly clear on this: immaturity and inexperience, not youth. It is possible to be both older and immature; to be both older and inexperienced.

Binge drinking in young drinkers especially is a problem that can be attributed directly to the drinking age. Why? Because it makes drinking illicit. If young drinkers could drink in public, they could drink in bars. Where bartenders are trained to spot people who have had enough, and legally required not to serve them. Instead, these people - who are the people who "would drink anyway," and let's face it, they are - acquire alcohol by other means, usually fifths of hard liquor at a time, and have no reason not to drink to excess.
Indeed, they have every reason to do exactly that! They can't take their ill-gotten bottle home, lest they risk being caught on the way or, worse, found out by pro-21 parents. They can't store them somewhere else - if they're found in a car the punishment is worse, and what's left? Burying them? Are we to turn our young people in pirates, burying their rum in chests where X marks the spot?

MADD is quick to point out how many deaths have been prevented by MLDA 21. Deaths involving three things, 1: 18-20 year old adults, 2: alcohol, and 3: driving.
Well now. That's... a rather specific group, isn't it?
They are not so quick to point out how many deaths have been added to categories involving 2 out of 3.
Where did those alcohol and traffic related deaths go? Into the 21-24 age bracket.
Where did those alcohol-related deaths among young people go? Into things like binge drinking (which I discussed above). And alcohol poisoning. Alcohol poisoning that people succumb to because they would rather "sleep it off" - not realizing that they had ingested poisonous amounts - because they think this is better than getting caught!

To me, though, nothing says it is time for a change more than the drinking laws in New Mexico. Where giving alcohol to a minor is a felony, but driving drunk is a misdemeanor (so long as you are "old enough" ... to drive drunk...). Yeah. If you have a bottle of Jaegermeister in your hand, and you're behind the wheel, it's a misdemeanor to Animal House it, but a felony to give it to your 20-year-old adult passenger... even if she doesn't take a sip.

So I commend the good people of Choose Responsibility, the National Youth Rights Association, and the Amethyst Initiative for taking a good and righteous stance on this important issue.

D said above: "MADD should learn that under age drinking does not mean drunk driving".
Well put. MADD insists on perpetrating the idea that young people are too stupid or ignorant to understand the world of their elders. (See Candace Lightner, founder of MADD, bashing the military and young soldiers here.) Not only is this wrong and flat-out insulting, but it is counter-productive for our society as a whole. Drunk driving is a problem that needs to be addressed, but backing a draconian law that has been proven ineffectual is not the way to do it. But that isn't even the heart of the matter. Behavioral psychologists will back me up when I say that if you tell a person long enough and often enough that they are a criminal, or that they are irresponsible, they will act it. And that is what we tell our youth, with futile laws such as the one being debated right now. What's more, we are telling them that we do not trust them. That's a hard truth to grow out of. In the midst of all the arguments, we forget that we are talking about people.

Nikki: "Of course the accidents related to alcohol would go up since there would be more people drinking because they are allowed to."
We don't believe this would be the case. Consider the all-too-common scenario in which a drunken person under 21 figures that because they're already breaking the law, it doesn't really matter if they drive home. And what about the scene where a young person gets smashed in their apartment or dorm before driving to a party, because they can't drink with everyone else once they're there? These are fatalities-in-the-making that are absolutely preventable.

I believe that lowering the drinking age would lower the amount of alcohol abuse among teens. It's the concept of forbidden fruit. You're told you can't have it, you want it that much more. It really is a simple concept that everyone can understand. It's like putting candy in front of a child and saying "DON'T EAT IT!" As soon as the parent turns around that candy is long gone. Prohibition didn't work, age prohibition doesn't work. Change the age, change the statistics.

i think that lowering the drinking age is a great,the main problem is that people don't want high school student having such easy access to alcohol because some seniors are 18, i think you should have to show proof of college I.D if your under 21 but still be able to drink at 18.

Obvious point, sorry: What about 18 thru 20-year-olds who don't go to college?

So far, many people have suggested that the MLDA 21 has not saved lives, and has been counter-productive.

But, ask yourself this: even if the 21 year drinking age has saved the lives of some 18-20 year olds, why not raise the age further?

If we had a drinking age of 25, then we might save thousands of 21-24 year-olds lives in the coming decades. Or, why not make it 30 years old? How about 50?

If we follow this line of thinking, we lead ourselves into banning alcohol altogether. That was tried in America once before--and I think we all know how it turned out.

Better education and better parenting are really the two most important factors when it comes to preventing drunk driving and binge drinking. Even if I were to get so drunk to the point I know I won't remember the night the next morning I will never forget what my schooling has taught me about drunk driving and what my parents have taught me. And just my parents teachings alone would be enough to keep m from driving drunk because I know no matter where or what time it is if I can't get home that I can rely on my parents to pick me up because they've told me that they'd much rather here me say "Mom or Dad, I'm too drunk to drive can you pick me up?" At 4 a.m. than to know I drove home or tried to drive home drunk.

The most important factor that stops me from driving drunk is knowing I always have a ride home and to my car the next day from my parents because they care.

MADD always uses propaganda, and they are afraid of debate. The Amethyst Initiative proves this. The initiative is only about debating the issue, not necessarily deciding it. Instead of giving the presidents arguments, MADD wants the presidents to take their names off the list. This shows that they're afraid of debate. In my philosophy class, I learned that the only way to know something is if you can disprove all the counter arguments. If MADD is afraid of debate, it must mean they are wrong.

These are reasons why the drinking age is technically unconstitutional (even though the Supreme Court disagrees).

1. The drinking age punishes people for drinking at their own risk. This is not the government's job. If it was, they'd have to arrest people for not getting enough sleep, eating too much fast food, and performing dangerous stunts.

2. The drinking age punishes people based on an assumption that they will commit a crime. This violates the presumption of innocence.

3. The drinking age is discrimination. There are better ways to reduce drunk driving, and other alcohol problems, without discriminating. Those ways would be better because they'd affect everyone instead of just people under 21.

#1 or #2, and #3 are true about all pro21 arguments. Notice I just disproved all their arguments, so like I said before, I must be right. There are ways to reduce alcohol problems, which would be more effective, more fair, and have less side effects.

For a list of propaganda types, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Techniques .

For more defensive arguments, go to http://forums.youthrights.org/showthread.php?t=15083 .

For 21 reasons why the drinking age is dangerous, go to http://forums.youthrights.org/showthread.php?t=15448 .

Jonathan Fitch - National Youth Rights Association

The worse argument for lowering the drinking age is "Teens/ 20 yr olds drink because it's against the law" ...

I'm 22 years old, 2-6 years ago my friends and I drank because it felt good NOT because it was against any law. I've never met a person who would tell me they're getting drunk/wasted tonight since NYS Law says they can't.

-Another argument is that lowering the age to drink would take drinking out of the "shadows."

HAHAHAHA another B S flimsy statement. Do you want to know why high school and college students drink in basements, dormrooms/ frat houses and their parents homes?????

Cause its CHEAPER!!!

The average HS and College student isn't exactly raking in 6, 5 or sometimes even 4 figures. For $20 (or less) you can get enough alcohol to last the whole night NOT an hour or two at bars and clubs. Not to mention the sheer convenience of drinking in your dorm room or at your home and so on. Why find a designated driver or spend 15, 20 or 45 minutes driving to some establishment when you can stay local.

-Lastly, the argument that Europe has a lower drinking age and binge drinking/ underage drinking is not a big problem.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Take the UK; drinking age is 18. Guess what, many in that country have been pushing for the drinking age to increase to 21, citing the success in the United States as a reason to change the law. Binge drinking in the UK is an epidemic.

Look at these recent facts (7/22/2008):

1. "Around 10 million people in England drink more than the Government's recommended limits, which are no more than two to three units a day for women and three to four for men."

(The population of England is only 60 Million !!!)

2. "The Department of Health also said there were now more than 800,000 hospital admissions annually of people with alcohol-related problems... The total cost of treatment is now £2.7 billion - about £1 billion higher since the figures were last compiled in 2003. "

3. "Professor Ian Gilmore, the head of the Royal College of Physicians, said that Britain was now on the verge of a "tsunami" of alcohol-related health problems."

(The problem is getting worse not better in England)

4. The public health minister Dawn Primarolo said: "Around a quarter of the population drink to a harmful level. These people could be drinking themselves into an early grave.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2445647/Cheap-alcohol-is-fuelling-binge-drinking,-study-says.html

This is not just isolated to the UK , many countries in Europe and the World are facing this same problem.

Lowering the drinking age will only make problems worse. Theres a reason Nassau County changed the age to buy tobacco products from 18 to 19. It helps keep smoking out of High Schoolers. Keeping the drinking age at 21 does the same thing. Yeah i know, if your under 21 and want to drink your going to find a way to get alcohol... but its not 100%, your not guaranteed to get alcohol as you would be if the law was changed. Almost 3 decades ago, the law was changed to 21 to take a step forward (and its worked for the most part, saving countless lives), why are we going to take 2 steps back by lowering the drinking age.

The problem is not the age, it is our culture in this Nation. If you want to change the way people approach alcohol (particularly the binge drinking phenomenon) we have to look at what makes that type of drinking appealing. I do not think lowering the drinking age will curb binge drinking, not until it is no longer portrayed as fun and how people should party on TV shows geared towards young adults, movies geared toward that age category, etc.

I think cannabis prohibition should end before the drinking age is lowered. Safer than alcohol.

I forgot another important point,

Just because the law says your an adult at 18 doesn't mean your a "real" adult.

Lets look at an average 18 year old:

-1/2 of 18 yr olds are still in HIGH SCHOOL.

-Majority are living with their parents (including those in College, home/away).
-Many are starting college; some working full-time, part-time or not at all.
-Majority are single, unmarried and without children.

Lets look at the average 21 year old:

-Many have or are about to graduate from 4 years of College.
-Many are looking to the future and do not want to get into any "trouble" (criminal record that can mess-up employment).
-Some are living on their own with bills and liability issues.

As you get older a person has more responsibilities and different priorities then when they were younger. The younger a person is (in junior/high school/ college) the less likely they are to take responsibility for their actions.

Lets face it, a 25 or 30 year old has alot more to lose than a 17 or 19 year old. i.e., stable full-time job, a home, a car, a spouse and child.

I believe that 21 years is the new 18 when comparing today's society to that from 30-40+ years ago. And its all thanks to the widespread importance of college. College has delayed the age in which young adults turn into full adults. And college is where the drinking problem is most prevalent.

Ironic huh?

Alcohol is abused by all ages. Old people and young alike can be alcoholics. The reason binge drinking is prevalent among young people is because they see alcohol as a forbidden fruit and also because they don't know how to drink. If there were some education in schools similar to drug education and sex ed, in conjunction with a lower drinking age the binge drinking and underage drinking arrest would go down.

People will always drink. Making college, the first time most young people are out on there own, the first time they will drink is very foolish. They should learn how to drink first.

Instead of lowering the age, it should be RAISED until 25, when frontal lobe development is complete.

To say that the state can protect the youth by passing a law that makes them a criminal is only counter-productive. This only allows more room for abuse when alcohol and a party does come around for younger generations. Allow for parents and guardians to educate and talk to their sons and daughters. I just recently turned 21, so a bias does not necessarily exist. And for those who are using these laws as protection for the individual and society as a whole, are simply unjustified in imposing their will upon others in order to prevent "future" problems. If I were to say that all cars should be taken off of the road because their are too many accidents that lead to social, economic, and health problems; would you also be willing to join me in that fight of future disasters?

The only perfect storm here are the events that contributed to making a near-universal act like drinking illegal. "Responsible adults" were responsible youth when they grew up, and it's reprehensible to enforce a difference between the two.

The drinking age should most definatly be lowered to 18. How does it make sense that at age 18 you can go to war and risk your life for your country and when you come back youre not allowed to have a couple of drinks? Seems to me that all this government cares about is what they can get out of you. They dont care if you lose youre life fighting for them, as long as you pay what they ask for and fight for them. If 18 year ols cant have a drink then make the age to join the military 21 so we can make some sense out of this governments logic.

How can MADD want more enforcement? I am a college student and they enforce the age harshly and more enforcement would be a clear violation of rights.

how did this all happen? look at the posts on this forum. overwhelmingly in support of reducing the drinking age to 18 like the rest of the world where it is 18 or less or non existent. how did we come to this? how could a small rag tag organization (MADD) which completely makes up and distorts the statistics force legislation down the overwhelming majorities throats like this? how can we teac our children responsibility when we have the government breathind down our necks and into our homes, our private homes!

these adults can fight to defend our rights, including the members, decide on a jury during a murder case, get married, have kids, get an abortion at 16, etc. do i really need to continue? this rag tag organization like so many special interests groups who bully the politicians into these crazy insane legislations force the rest of us to live under their conditions. isn't that called fascism when you strong others using lies and threats into living under their rules?

the only way to stop this is to stop voting for politicians who support this and other special interest groups who keep jambing their legislation into our lives.

why do you think MADD does not want to debate this issue? they know the stats don't support their argument. you will never see someone from MADD using non biased research and stats to support their argument because it simply does not exist.

their are two distinct issues here. one is drinking and the other is drunk driving. if an adult wants to drink i could give a darn, if an adult wants to drink and drive we should get them off the roads permantly, once and for all. why must MADD always try to confuse the issue by combining these two separate topics? if we don't don't these kooks from running our lives they will certainly not stop here. it is past time for the overwhelming silent majority to speak up on this and other issues. get the government the heck out of our lives, let us be. 18 is an adult an should have the same freedoms as anyone other adult. one last thing. if these people in MADD were so concerned about decreasing fatalities on the road. why don't they support legislation where people over a certain age, say 65 are mandated to take a driving test which tests for reflexes and other driving abilities? i'll bet one reason is half of them are over 65 and they don't really care if they are a hazard on the road, which the statistics absolutely do indicate.

Supporters of the 21-year minimum drinking age refuse to to acknowledge the fact that 18, 19 and 20-year old adults are still consuming alcohol.

The 21-year old minimum drinking age has resulted in an underground society of young adults who flout the law without a hint of regret.

The minimum drinking age is discriminatory based on age. It violates the Constitution by forcing the states to comply with the federal government -- it should be treated with contempt.

And here's a good reason why: Army Spc. Monica Lin Brown, a 19-year-old Medic from Texas, is the first woman in Afghanistan and only the second female soldier since World War II to receive the Silver Star, the nation's third-highest medal for valor.

Specialist Brown, of Lake Jackson, Texas, was part of a four-vehicle convoy patrolling near Jani Kheil in the eastern province of Paktia on April 25, 2007, when a bomb struck one of the Humvees.

After the explosion, which wounded five soldiers in her unit, Brown ran through insurgent gunfire and used her body to shield wounded comrades as mortars fell less than 100 yards away, according to the U.S. military.

Monica Lin Brown is a courageous young adult and a bona fide war hero, but if she is caught quaffing a beer in her home state of Texas, she would be charged with a Class C Misdemeanor. Her sentence would mandate a $500.00 Fine, 8 to 12-hours of Community Service, her driver's license would be suspended for 30-days and she would have to attend a Mandatory Alcohol Awareness Course.

And that begs the question: can any of the sanctimonious defenders of the minimum drinking age defend the notion that this courageous young adult should be subject to legal sanctions for sipping a cold beer or having a glass of wine with dinner. I dare you to try!
####

SOURCE:

1. - Female medic earns Silver Star in Afghan war - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23547346/

well said walter the people from MADD are not even fit enough to walk in Monica Brown's shoes no to mention take her very rights away from her. how do we let these fascitsts political groups determine our way of life?

how does a college president or any other college authority tell a young adult to drink responsibly when he would then be violating laws. basically any person who wants to tell a young adult to drink responsbly is hamstrung. i can't imagine the frustration these people have. we have laws where we try minors as adults, 16 year olds can get abortions without telling their parents and 20 year olds can't drink a beer. these laws and many others were forced on the majority by these political groups who have one track minds and never consider the entire issue. they do the intimidating and bullying of others including the politicians so those few force the rest of their legislation on the majority. hopefully someday we will learn.

Attention, Hippies, please stop the "you can fight in war but cant buy a beer" argument, its old, sophomoric and irrelevant.I am 30 and heard that lame argument when I was in college. Do you know why you can join the army at 18? Because you have Sgts, Captains and Generals supervising you. The #1 cause of death for young people is automobile accidents and the #1 cause of automobile accidents is alcohol. It is pure lunacy to think for a second, reducing the drinking age would lead to some magical reverse psych and curb underage drinking. You all sound like a bunch of little kids trying to talk your way into getting a new toy. I highly doubt any poster here is over 21. But really, as a 30 year old who frequents bars, I don't want more teens in those bars. You cant hold your liquor, start fights, vandalize, and frankly couldn't tell the difference between a 15 year old scotch and malt liquor. I was 18, I know how reckless and immature kids are. Its a shame for the few kids who can handle themselves, but we don't need more dwi's, assaults, teen pregnanices etc. And as to the question of why MADD has some much of a say, simply put they vote. Middle aged housewives actually go to the polls, while a disturbingly low precentage of 18-21 years olds do. Grow up, learn a little.

I wonder how many of those posting their opinions and attacking the organization called MADD, are aware of the work that MADD does. Do they think all MADD does is support the 21 LAW.

You talk of teaching our youth to dirink responsibly. MADD has programs available to elementry, middle, high school and college students with an aim to teach the responsibility of drinking, and drinking of driving. They teach elementy and middle age children the danger of getting into a car being driven by someone who has been drinking. They teach diving age high school students to drive responsibly and to not drink and drive.

I would also like to mention that there is no law preventing a parent from allowing an under 21 year child of their own (not someone elses child) to have a drink in their own home. Parents are responsible for teaching their children responsible drinking habits.

It has been mentioned that since cars are now safer then they were years ago that is a reason for less fatalitys not the 21 law. While this may be true it does not prevent all fatalities.

I know of a young man who was wearing a seat belt and whose car had duel air bags and guess what a drink driver with a BAC of .21 killed him anyway...... This young man was 20 years old and had not been drinking....

Those of you who want to trash MADD because college presidents decided that there should be dialouge to lower the drinking age should keep in mind that what ever the age is there will always be binge drinking and it is not just at the 18 to 21 age group it starts sooner than that. Parents should accept that it is their responsibilty I apologize to those parents who do, this is meant to address those parents who think it is ok for their kids under 21 to drink outside the home

i am 50 years old and i don't drink. however i would not talk about immaturity if i were 30 years old and still hanging out at gin mills. to call dieing for your right to get loaded at 30 in a bar a sophomoric and outdated is frankly sophomoric. as far as sharing a gin mill with people that are younger than you i think you could get over that burden. also sergeants and captains entrust 18 year olds with a lot more important responsiblities than drinking a beer, like maybe carrying an automatic weapon, get shot at by someone else with one, getting blown to pieces or watching it happen to one of their buddies. try to remember that the next time you get all liquored up at a bar with your other mature adult friends. the one thing i do agree with is that 18-21 year olds do not vote and that is why madd can strong arm the politicians while ignoring the rights of young adults.

dear a.s.

check out the post just before yours. this person is a thirty year old who seems to enjoy his scotch and claims he is old enough "to hold his liquor". i say to you that drinking is a problem for all ages not just 18-21 year olds. just because a parent believes his young adult 18-21 year old is mature enough to drink a beer does not mean they are irresponsible. that is an irresponsible statement and an injustice to responsible parents who simply have a different opinion than you do.

if kids started having alcohol at a younger age, there would be no reason to binge. just because of the fact that they've had it for a while and it won't be a "cool" thing to do anymore.

most of the comments already posted support my belief that the drinking age issue is awful, I have 4 children, 3 over the legal drinking age and one left. I can only say that in the beginning it was to lower the drinking and driving accidents. MADD was instrumental in having this law mandatory in all 50 states. I couldn,t argue a case against drinking and driving, however I strongly believe that it is safer for young adults to drink in a supervised enviornment. The same young adults can marry, go to war, vote,buy a house etc. I have experienced firsthand the secret

places teenagers find to drink ( the woods, homes without parents and yes even driving around in cars ) this law hasn,t changed the behavior it has just made it go underground. I would perfer that they be in public place where they could get help without getting in trouble. Lets get real we wanted to stop DWI's and make the roads safer not punish 18-20 year old's. Unless MADD is realy pushing prohibition and that failed, lets bring back18 as the legal drinking age.

Unconstitutional. Our laws are designed for equal protection. The law is pure discrimination.

But we can keep the 21 years law if we ban people over 70 from driving at all. This group is the most likely to 'slip' and hit the wrong pedal. We will also ban all women from owning cellphones as they may use them in a dangerous manner on the road. We will confiscate and ban all SUVs as they cause more dangerous accidents. All cars will be prevented from going above 30 Miles per Hour as this will reduce casualties. Finally noone will be allowed on the roads between the hours of 12am-5am as this is the time when most drunk driving accidents occur.

See, we can all be safe with the help of Nanny Government!

If the goal of lowering the drinking age is to bring it under the supervision of adults, we would probably need to consider lowering the age to middle school, a time of high risk for substance use. I read a commentary entitled, "Put a cap on our drinking culture" written by Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe that discusses the impact of advertising and cheap availability of alcoholic beverages in supermarkets as major culprits encouraging binge drinking. If sales to minors and advertisements (especially those currently aired during televised sporting events) were curtailed similar to what is permitted by the tobacco industry, I believe we would likely experience declining alcohol-related life impairment in youngsters.
Susan M. Chalmers, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist