Legal Drinking age in US

[Shrykull]

Lonestar's b-day thread got me thinking, is it fair that a citizen of the US can join the military at 18 ( 17?) and theoritically die for his/her country ( but more likely someone else's country) but it still be illegal for them to drink?

If I was some who drinks, (I'm 24) I would probably do it anyway at 18 if I wanted to, what if at some college or somewhere they held a huge protest where they all drink beer just in definance, could they arrest them all, would that be a waste of manpower and police time?

[RedImperator]

The Interstate Commerce Clause. Yes, that catch-all used to regulate almost everything grown, processed, sold, and bought in the US. Basis for the Fed's ability to pass most of the drug laws if I'm not mistaken.

Actually, the Federal taxation power has been used to outlaw drugs. The method used is deceptively simple: create a Federal excise tax and require a special liscense to sell the drugs, then refuse to issue the liscenses and tax stamps. The ICC only comes into play in Federal enforcement of production and trafficking laws (as unliscensed, untaxed products are moving illegally). Users and ordinary dealers are still punished under state laws, and there's wide variation there (New York issues a citation for simple possession of marijuana; New Jersey's maximum sentence is, I believe, 3 years for a first offense).

By that reasoning, Congress could use the taxation power to freeze the production and sale of alcohol, but not its consumption, except that in United States v. Constantine, SCOTUS specifically said that steep excise taxes on alcohol were unconstitutional, as the 18th Amendment had at that point been overturned. The tax was SPECIFICALLY struck down by the majority as an infringement on states' powers, as reserved to them by the 10th Amendment.

By the way, the broad interpretation of the ICC is relatively modern. As late as 1923, the Supreme Court was throwing out minimum wage laws (Adkins v. Children's Hospital) on the grounds that Congress had no right to regulate wages (it was a Washington, D.C. law). This debate isn't over the minimum wage, but that case does serve to illustrate that at least until the early 20th century, the broad interpretation of the ICC clause did not exist. Using the ICC to justify gross violations of the 10th Amendment is a post-Depression phenomonon.

When the 18th Amendment was ratified, alcohol was, to the best of my knowedge, considered a state issue. It was reasonable back then that a alcololic beverage could be produced with materials solely in-state and if only sold in that state would be exempt from Federal regulation under the ICC. The temperance movement feared bootlegging (don't know if that was the actual term used then) between dry and wet states. The only way to ensure a dry America was a contitutional amendment.

Then why were there no attempts to outlaw the transport of liquor across state lines, even between wet states? How about banning the transport of raw materials for the purpose of making alcoholic bevereges? Why not outlaw consumption of liquor that crossed state lines, or was made from materials that crossed state lines, even in wet states? Congress had NO power to regulate consumption under the ICC, and still doesn't. The only time it did have the power to pass prohibition without an amendment was during wartime, and during WWI, the Federal government was also given the power to throw dissenters in jail, so that era was hardly a highlight of our Constitution in action.

So let's recap:

1. Congress needed a Constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol.

2. Point in fact, Congress needed a separate clause in the 18th to enforce Prohibition.

3. Further point in fact, when the 21st Amendment revoked those special enforcement powers, Congress lost the right to regulate consumption of alcohol, even via the back door method of steep excise taxes (again, see U.S. v Constantine).

4. The 21st Amendment left Congress only with the right to enforce Federal penalties for trafficking alcohol into dry states on top of whatever penalties the states in question might chose to inflict.

5. Clause 2 of the 21st Amendment was necessary to allow Congress to enforce those penalities without intruding on the powers reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment.

Nobody in their right mind thought the 21st Amendment was CEDING Federal power to the states (Federal power that mysteriously didn't exist when they wanted to enact Prohibition), it was creating an exception to the 10th. The 18th itself was nothing but an exception to the 10th, as was the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th. The 21st repealed the 18th but preserved one small exception to the 10th that had existed under the 18th.

Now the 21st Amendment specifically denies the ability of the Federal government to regulate alcohol within the states. That exempted alcohol from being as controlled by the Federal gov as drugs are under the Interstate Commerce Clause. That is an important distinction. The 21st amendment does not give power to the Fed, it limits it.

Except that drug consumption is not regulated under the ICC, nor is it regulated under the taxation clause. Trafficking and production is regulated under the ICC and taxation clauses, but the legal limit does not fall under either, unless my bladder is now considered a container for transporting liquor across state lines. The 10th Amendment reserves the power to regulate consumption to the states; the ICC can only control the movement of products.

This much is correct. It cannot, however, regulate consumption, a state matter (which brings up disturbing questions about the drug war, disturbing anyway to anyone who hasn't realized for years that it's patently unconstitutional, but I digress).

Consumption is covered under "use" as I wrote in my response to Howedar.

Except that your reasoning in that response was totally wrong. The 21st does NOT limit Federal power, it expands it.

[Phil Skayhan]

Actually, the Federal taxation power has been used to outlaw drugs. The method used is deceptively simple: create a Federal excise tax and require a special liscense to sell the drugs, then refuse to issue the liscenses and tax stamps. The ICC only comes into play in Federal enforcement of production and trafficking laws (as unliscensed, untaxed products are moving illegally). Users and ordinary dealers are still punished under state laws, and there's wide variation there (New York issues a citation for simple possession of marijuana; New Jersey's maximum sentence is, I believe, 3 years for a first offense).

Ah yes. Thank you.

By that reasoning, Congress could use the taxation power to freeze the production and sale of alcohol, but not its consumption, except that in United States v. Constantine, SCOTUS specifically said that steep excise taxes on alcohol were unconstitutional, as the 18th Amendment had at that point been overturned. The tax was SPECIFICALLY struck down by the majority as an infringement on states' powers, as reserved to them by the 10th Amendment.

By the way, the broad interpretation of the ICC is relatively modern. As late as 1923, the Supreme Court was throwing out minimum wage laws (Adkins v. Children's Hospital) on the grounds that Congress had no right to regulate wages (it was a Washington, D.C. law). This debate isn't over the minimum wage, but that case does serve to illustrate that at least until the early 20th century, the broad interpretation of the ICC clause did not exist. Using the ICC to justify gross violations of the 10th Amendment is a post-Depression phenomonon.

Agreed.

When the 18th Amendment was ratified, alcohol was, to the best of my knowedge, considered a state issue. It was reasonable back then that a alcololic beverage could be produced with materials solely in-state and if only sold in that state would be exempt from Federal regulation under the ICC. The temperance movement feared bootlegging (don't know if that was the actual term used then) between dry and wet states. The only way to ensure a dry America was a contitutional amendment.

Then why were there no attempts to outlaw the transport of liquor across state lines, even between wet states? How about banning the transport of raw materials for the purpose of making alcoholic bevereges? Why not outlaw consumption of liquor that crossed state lines, or was made from materials that crossed state lines, even in wet states? Congress had NO power to regulate consumption under the ICC, and still doesn't. The only time it did have the power to pass prohibition without an amendment was during wartime, and during WWI, the Federal government was also given the power to throw dissenters in jail, so that era was hardly a highlight of our Constitution in action.

You seem to have answered your own question as to why they required an amendment. Also, you seem to be laboring under the idea that I believe alcohol is not a state issue. That is not true.

So let's recap:

1. Congress needed a Constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol.

2. Point in fact, Congress needed a separate clause in the 18th to enforce Prohibition.

1. Yes
2. Thats pretty standard fare.

3. Further point in fact, when the 21st Amendment revoked those special enforcement powers, Congress lost the right to regulate consumption of alcohol, even via the back door method of steep excise taxes (again, see U.S. v Constantine).

4. The 21st Amendment left Congress only with the right to enforce Federal penalties for trafficking alcohol into dry states on top of whatever penalties the states in question might chose to inflict.

5. Clause 2 of the 21st Amendment was necessary to allow Congress to enforce those penalities without intruding on the powers reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment.

Yes, it reinforced the 10th, but by specifically naming intoxicating liquors, it made it difficult for the Federal govenment to use the broadly interpreted ICC in later years.

HOSTETTER v. IDLEWILD LIQUOR CORP (1964)
Turning, then, to the merits of this controversy, the basic issue we face is whether the Twenty-first Amendment so far obliterates the Commerce Clause as to empower New York to prohibit absolutely the passage of liquor through its territory, under the supervision of the United States Bureau of Customs acting under federal law, 8 for delivery to consumers in foreign countries. For it is not disputed that, if the commodity involved here were not liquor, but grain or lumber, the Commerce Clause would clearly deprive New York of any such power. Lemke v. Farmers Grain Co., 258 U.S. 50 ; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U.S. 111 ; Oklahoma v. Kansas Nat. Gas Co., 221 U.S. 229 . [377 U.S. 324, 330]

This Court made clear in the early years following adoption of the Twenty-first Amendment that by virtue of its provisions a State is totally unconfined by traditional Commerce Clause limitations when it restricts the importation of intoxicants destined for use, distribution, or consumption within its borders. Thus, in upholding a State's power to impose a license fee upon importers of beer, the Court pointed out that "[p]rior to the Twenty-first Amendment it would obviously have been unconstitutional to have imposed any fee for that privilege. The imposition would have been void, . . . because the fee would be a direct burden on interstate commerce; and the commerce clause confers the right to import merchandise free into any state, except as Congress may otherwise provide." State Board v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59, 62 . 9 In the same vein, the Court upheld a Michigan statute prohibiting Michigan dealers from selling beer manufactured in a State which discriminated against Michigan beer. Brewing Co. v. Liquor Comm'n, 305 U.S. 391 . "Since the Twenty-first Amendment, . . . the right of a state to prohibit or regulate the importation of intoxicating liquor is not limited by the commerce clause . . . ." Id., at 394. See also Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395 .

To draw a conclusion from this line of decisions that the Twenty-first Amendment has somehow operated to [377 U.S. 324, 332] "repeal" the Commerce Clause wherever regulation of intoxicating liquors is concerned would, however, be an absurd oversimplification. If the Commerce Clause had been pro tanto "repealed," then Congress would be left with no regulatory power over interstate or foreign commerce in intoxicating liquor. Such a conclusion would be patently bizarre and is demonstrably incorrect. In Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U.S. 171 , "the Federal Alcohol Administration Act was attacked upon the ground that the Twenty-first Amendment to the Federal Constitution gives to the States complete and exclusive control over commerce in intoxicating liquors, unlimited by the commerce clause, and hence that Congress has no longer authority to control the importation of these commodities into the United States." The Court's response to this theory was a blunt one: "We see no substance in this contention." Id., at 172-173. See also United States v. Frankfort Distilleries, 324 U.S. 293 . (Sherman Act.)

Both the Twenty-first Amendment and the Commerce Clause are parts of the same Constitution. Like other provisions of the Constitution, each must be considered in the light of the other, and in the context of the issues and interests at stake in any concrete case.

Nobody in their right mind thought the 21st Amendment was CEDING Federal power to the states (Federal power that mysteriously didn't exist when they wanted to enact Prohibition), it was creating an exception to the 10th. The 18th itself was nothing but an exception to the 10th, as was the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th. The 21st repealed the 18th but preserved one small exception to the 10th that had existed under the 18th.

How is the 21st not limiting the power of the Federal government? The 18th took power from the states and the 21st returned it. That's limiting the power of the Federal gov any way you look at it. And that exception you mention severely limits the powers of the ICC in regards to alcohol.

Consumption is covered under "use" as I wrote in my response to Howedar.

Except that your reasoning in that response was totally wrong. The 21st does NOT limit Federal power, it expands it.

Under the 18th, the Federal gov had the power to outlaw alcohol and the power to enforce it. The 21st took those powers away. It also limits the usage of the ICC. So how does it expand Federal power?

[Durandal]

My point was that that the Constitutional Framers realized that a certain level of maturity and experience (age) was required before allowing someone certain priviledges. Obviously, consumption of alcohol and the holding the office of the President are worlds apart in levels of resposibility, which is what I addressed in the "putting peoples lives in danger" which clearly was a logical fallacy because a 16 y/o does not nessasarily put someone else's life at risk by drinking a beer. But to say that the Framers would vomit over age restrictions is just as silly.

If I, a 20 year-old registered voter, am walking home drunk from a party intent on passing out upon first contact with my bed, where's the damn problem ("Leave me alone officer! I'm legally drunk!")? What warrants such a massive expenditure of police time and resources on busting college kids having fun during the weekend? The Framers wouldn't approve simply because a legal adult is being denied the freedom to drink whatever he wishes to drink.

It is not irrelevant. It is the government's problem if children are not resposibly drinking alcohol and then taking to the roads.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ ... lation.pdf (figure 1)
While, this data would conclude that it is males age 16-20 that consititute the greatest risk while females of the same age group are comparable to older ages, the US Supreme Court decided in Craig v Boren that gender discrimination in drinking age laws violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Since when? Some people who were allowed to drink do not drink responsibly. Why is this grounds to assume that everyone under 21 is completely irresponsible? The government is only concerned when people violate the law. Violating the law (when it was legal for 18 year-olds to drink) was drinking and driving. Great, so punish those who drank and drove for drinking and driving. Don't punish their peers who drank responsibly. Outlawing drinking for those under 21 is categorically assuming them guilty of being irresponsible while simultaneously granting them the responsibilities of gun ownership, service in the armed forces and voting in elections, which makes it absurd and indefensible. Either lower the drinking age to be consistent with the other rights and responsibilities granted to you on your 18th birthday, or change the age for a legal adult to 21, and only grant the entitled rights and responsibilities then.

A Wisconsin study:
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/mot ... ograph.pdf (Figure 5)

http://www.budbeach.com/dbook/PDF/DataBook2001.pdf (Section 6.2, figure c,d)

That's an interesting study. In 2001, almost 90% of those killed while driving drunk were over the age of 21. I don't think the drinking age is high enough. We should up it to 35.

Don't know about Canada. According to a report released in 1997:
Although young drivers are often believed to have a high incidence of impaired driving, data from a sample of police agencies show that young drivers aged 16 to 19 years accounted for 5% of both accused persons and licensed drivers. Impaired driving is highest among 20-to-44 year-olds and falls off dramatically for older Canadians.

All I can say is that we can't base our laws on what happens in other countries. And no, people over 21 aren't immune; the typical drunk driver is a 34 year old male.

So why is the drinking age not 35?

Personally, I believe it was a statistical hiccup that occurred when the drinking age was initially lowered. Over time, the numbers would have come back into line. But am I willing to undergo another hiccup which may cost lives? I have to say no.

I was considering bringing this up (because I agree), but it would be purely speculative at worst and an educated guess at best. Undergoing another hiccup isn't a problem. Those stupid enough to drive drunk will either die on the road or spend their lives in jail. It's called taking responsibility for your actions. Silly me for assuming that people were punished for things that they'd actually done.

It is illogical because there is no constitional relation between the draft and drinking age laws. There wasn't even one between the draft and the vote. The 1970 amendment to the 1965 Voters Rights Act mandated the voter age be 18 in order to correct what was a grievous injustice with the draft. However, in Oregan v. Mitchell, the US Supreme Court knocked down the provision as applied beyond Federal Elections (ie state and local) as beyond Congressional power. Hence, enter the 26th Amendment.

There is a logical correlation in terms of responsibility. If you're deemed responsible enough, by the law, to handle a 2-ton metal box on wheels traveling in excess of 60 mph (at the age of sixteen, nonetheless), own a gun and sign up for the armed forces, there is no reason why you're not responsible enough to imbibe alcohol. Hell, there are plenty of young kids in rural areas who know how to handle a gun responsibly because their parents teach them how. If parents were that involved in their children's alcohol awareness, you probably wouldn't have them drinking and driving.

This has already been challenged. In South Dakota v. Dole the Supreme Court found that the Congress was well within its power. (O'Conner's dissenting opinion is a good read though)

This also illustrates how in almost all respects, individual states have total control over alcoholic beverage issues.

Except if they want money that the government holds hostage.

I know it's not personal. But the thing is, under NJ law at least, I don't have to serve alcohol to anyone I don't want to regardless of age. How am I able to do that if drinking alcohol is a Civil Right?

You don't have to do shit. I assume you work for a bar or restaurant. Private establishments are free to set whatever policies they wish for serving customers, within reason. Why do you think bartenders throw drunks out on the street?

EDIT:
The "refusal of service" must be based upon beverage laws. I cannot refuse service to someone based on race, gender, religion, or even if they're a democrat. Interesting side note: in NJ, everyone purchasing an alcoholic beverage must present proof of ID, even if they're 100 years old, though I've never seen it enforced to that extreme.

In Illinois, it's usually up to the store. Most stores require ID if you "don't look over 35," and some require every person in a group to present ID if one buys alcohol.

I'm not seeing how this rises to the level of a reaonable right of privacy as a women's right to choose is.

It's actually much more basic than a woman's right to choose. It's a person's right to do with his own body what he wishes. If you want to drink, snort coke, smoke dope, shoot up, whatever, great. The only person you're responsible to is yourself, until you knowingly impair your judgment and reflexes and get behind the wheel of a car and start endangering others.

Perhaps a better argument could be made based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. In regard to drinking age laws, the Supreme Court employs the "Rational Basis Test" (whether a law restricting age in what otherwise is a protected right, such as voting, is in the general welfare of the state). But in a challenge, the burden of proof would fall to you regardless of which amendment your choose. Your first step would be to find a basis to challenge the age law in your state and take it from there.

I am curious about what you have done or will do about changing this, as you put it, injustice.

I make sure that, whenever me and a group of friends go out drinking, that we're either walking, taking a cab or appointing a designated driver. It'd be fruitless to take this to court, so all I can do is be responsible and show the law that it's wrong, and that responsibility and under-21 are not mutually exclusive.

EDIT:
Just had a thought based on my statement that we can't base our laws on what other countries do. In the recent sodomy decision, the Supreme Court quoted laws from Europe, yes? Perhaps that's another route for you.

It could be, but you can't really expect that any judge will take me seriously. I don't have the money for a lawyer, and I'd have to prove harm against myself before even dreaming about a judge actually taking a 20 year-old college student seriously, which means getting myself busted for underage drinking, which means a fine. In Illinois, they like to rape students who are caught drinking underage (my friend got a $500 fine for it). In other words, once I turn 21, it becomes impossible for me to challenge this law in a court.

[NapoleonGH]

Red I cannot agree with you more. I completely agree that anti-drug/alcohol restictions violate a basic right that we have that was definied in Roe V Wade. It is my body and where the hell does the government get the right to tell me what to do so long as i cause no actual harm to other members of society and so long as I do not violate any other laws in the process? For that matter why can the government tell me to wear my seatbelt? If i want to die in a high speed accident, why is it anyone's choice but mine? Similarily with suicide, its my life. In the 14th ammendment and the declaration of independance (not legally binding but an important document in anycase) we are told that we have the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property (in the 14th its property, in declaration its pursuit of happiness). How i wish to use my life, my liberty, or my property thus is no body else's buisness but mine so long as in using those rights I do not infringe on any other member of society's rights. So long as my actions dont detract from someone else's life (so no murder, no assault either), liberty (so no slavery i guess), or property (no robbery, or destruction of property, etc) I cannot see where in hell its the government's buisniess to tell me what I can and cannot imbibe, what i can and cannot mutliate on my own body, whether or not I should live or not.

[Durandal]

For that matter why can the government tell me to wear my seatbelt? If i want to die in a high speed accident, why is it anyone's choice but mine?

If you get into an accident where the other person is at fault and die for not wearing a seat belt, the guy who hit you gets charged with man slaughter. In order to circumvent that charge, the defense would have to prove that you'd have lived had you worn a seat belt, something that's not easy to do at all, and the DA will prosecute the poor guy for every charge he can. It's a simple matter of responsibility. Driving is not a right; it is a privilege.

[NapoleonGH]

So says you, I say driving and free mobility falls under one's liberty and thus is a right, so long as i dont prevent anyone from using their own rights.

You do however make a good point about the manslaughter charge issue.

[Phil Skayhan]

Again, an apology since I am backtracking to something I should have addressed in my last reply.

It is your right to do with your body as you please. This was decided long before 1984 in Roe v. Wade.

You know, I've never actually read this decision before now.

In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).


We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Along with the 21st Amendment which allows individual states to completely outlaw alcohol (with exceptions as noted in HOSTETTER v. IDLEWILD LIQUOR CORP (1964)) it would be difficult to claim imbibing alcohol as a civil right.

I am curious about what you have done or will do about changing this, as you put it, injustice

I make sure that, whenever me and a group of friends go out drinking, that we're either walking, taking a cab or appointing a designated driver. It'd be fruitless to take this to court, so all I can do is be responsible and show the law that it's wrong, and that responsibility and under-21 are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, that's probably all you can do. Just to be clear, that wasn't a condecending challenge; I was genuinely curious since you seem to have very strong feelings on this as well as the drug laws.

[Durandal]

Again, an apology since I am backtracking to something I should have addressed in my last reply.

It is your right to do with your body as you please. This was decided long before 1984 in Roe v. Wade.

You know, I've never actually read this decision before now.

In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Along with the 21st Amendment which allows individual states to completely outlaw alcohol (with exceptions as noted in HOSTETTER v. IDLEWILD LIQUOR CORP (1964)) it would be difficult to claim imbibing alcohol as a civil right.

Are there any criteria for deciding what is and is not a civil right, and what people should and should not be able to put into their own bodies? I still fail to see any rationale for telling people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. 15 year-old girls can have abortions without letting their parents know, and 18 year-olds can't drink alcohol? That's patently absurd, and it tells me that the only distinction between abortion and alcohol consumption is the power of the lobbying groups. There is no anti-drinking age lobby, but there happens to be a very powerful pro-trample-the-rights-of-registered-voters (aka pro-drinking age, aka lazy, yuppie parents) lobby and a very powerful pro-choice lobby.

If you can provide me with some sort of rationale for telling someone else what he can and can't do to himself, then by all means, let's here it. I'm not satisfied with a court brief that just unilaterally states an opinion.

Yes, that's probably all you can do. Just to be clear, that wasn't a condecending challenge; I was genuinely curious since you seem to have very strong feelings on this as well as the drug laws.

I do. The problem is that I'm 20, and therefore assumed to be bumblingly incompetent at any activity which doesn't involve drinking alcohol or doing drugs. If I tell someone that the drinking age and the War on Drugs are stupid, foolish, self-perpetuating activities that exist solely for the state to suck money from nonviolent "criminals," I get, "Well you're not a parents, so you wouldn't understand why we need a drinking age. You're just a stupid kid."

So, since I can't run for office on a Drug-War-Sucks-Ass platform, all I can really do is civilly disobey stupid laws.

[NapoleonGH]

Durandal, you are quite right, the only things we can do as over 18 but under 21 year olds (im actually exactly 18, but since im registered for the draft and to vote it works), are to vote for those who express the views that are closest to ours and to try to change those statistics, ie use designated drivers/walking so they cannot claim that all us underage people drink and drive irresponsably. We should also activly try to prevent alcohol poisoning from happening in our age-mates so that they dont have a stat that shows we are irresponsable in our drinking.

Likewise for drugs, the more people who use them responsably and dont abuse them, the better the case for legalization becomes. Then again about half of all high school seniors have smoked grass at least once, a large portion of them on a regular/semi-regular basis and this is basically the case since the mid 60s yet we still have weed illegal in this country for a very unknown reason or at least a very immoral/illegal reason. So maybe we cant change shit, but then vote libertarian, they want legalization.

[Phil Skayhan]

Again, an apology since I am backtracking to something I should have addressed in my last reply.

It is your right to do with your body as you please. This was decided long before 1984 in Roe v. Wade.

You know, I've never actually read this decision before now.

In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Along with the 21st Amendment which allows individual states to completely outlaw alcohol (with exceptions as noted in HOSTETTER v. IDLEWILD LIQUOR CORP (1964)) it would be difficult to claim imbibing alcohol as a civil right.

Are there any criteria for deciding what is and is not a civil right, and what people should and should not be able to put into their own bodies? I still fail to see any rationale for telling people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. 15 year-old girls can have abortions without letting their parents know, and 18 year-olds can't drink alcohol? That's patently absurd, and it tells me that the only distinction between abortion and alcohol consumption is the power of the lobbying groups. There is no anti-drinking age lobby, but there happens to be a very powerful pro-trample-the-rights-of-registered-voters (aka pro-drinking age, aka lazy, yuppie parents) lobby and a very powerful pro-choice lobby
If you can provide me with some sort of rationale for telling someone else what he can and can't do to himself, then by all means, let's here it. I'm not satisfied with a court brief that just unilaterally states an opinion..

Durandal, Roe v Wade was the decision you cited. You seemed completely satisfied with it until you realized it didn't say what you thought it did.

Besides, my point was that imbibing alcohol is not a civil right as you claimed it was and I've shown that it is not. Beyond that, I don't have to do a thing. The burden is on you.

[NapoleonGH]

NO phil you showed NOTHING of the sort. You showed that SCOTUS thinks it isnt a civil right, that doesnt mean that it isnt a civil right, it just means that if it is a civil right, we are being oppressed.

Whether or not something is a civil right isnt a legal matter
Whether or not the state recognizes a civil right or chooses to oppress those who want that civil right exercised is the legal question.

[Durandal]

Durandal, Roe v Wade was the decision you cited. You seemed completely satisfied with it until you realized it didn't say what you thought it did.

The right to do what you wish with your own body should be fucking obvious. I cited Roe v. Wade as legal support for my position, but that support appears to have crumbled. Oh well.

Besides, my point was that imbibing alcohol is not a civil right as you claimed it was and I've shown that it is not. Beyond that, I don't have to do a thing. The burden is on you.

Let me put this another way. I have the right to do what I wish with my own body. Why should this right be taken away by the government under certain circumstances (other than, of course, incarceration or military service)?

[Drooling Iguana]

Personally, I think that the legal drinking age should be lower than the driving age, so that people have time to learn how to drink responsibly before getting behind the wheel.