There really is no debate in my eyes. The basic argument is spelled out in the opening paragraph.

Over the strong objection of federal safety officials, a quiet movement to lower the legal drinking age to 18 is taking root as advocates argue that teenagers who are allowed to vote and fight for their country should also be able to enjoy a beer or two.

Forget the statistics and the arguments about alcoholism and drunk driving. When we are telling ADULTS that they are responsible enough to enter a binding contract, marry, fight, and vote, but not to drink a beer, we have crossed the line into absurdity.

Besides, I this argument is really a dangerous one.

James C. Fell, a former federal highway safety administrator who is a senior researcher on alcohol policy with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, acknowledged that “it’s not a perfect law. It doesn’t totally prevent underage drinking.”

But Fell said the age restriction “does save lives. We have the evidence.”

But if that is the case, why stop at 21? Why not raise the drinking age still higher -- 25, perhaps, or maybe even 30? After all, that would make it still harder for young people to get alcohol, and cut down (in theory) on alcohol abuse and deaths among those who are younger and less responsible. Heck, why not raise the drinking age to 50, and cut the fatalities still further?

Well, because of what we know from the Prohibition era. Prohibition does not really work. Treating adults like children will only lead to contempt for the law and its massive violation.

Sort of like what the statistics show with the current drinking age laws.

The federal government’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that in 2005, the most recent year for which complete figures are available, 85 percent of 20-year-old Americans reported that they had used alcohol.

Yeah -- really effective. What these laws have done is made 85% of our young people into criminals -- and bred contempt for the law in general.
But in my mind, it all comes back to the initial argument-- and absurdities like the one that I see going on now in my own neighborhood.

A kid on the block is in boot camp, having just graduated from high school in May. He's getting married when he finishes basic training in a couple of weeks. He and his new wife are going to buy a house that her grandmother owns (he is in the reserves). They can do all of these things without parental permission.

But at their wedding reception, their parents will need to be present for them to be allowed to have their champagne toast.

Where is the logic in that?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary's Thoughts, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Pursuing Holiness, Right Celebrity, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.