Sorry, this is a dumb idea. I started drinking at roughly 16. I’ve never, ever had a problem getting alcohol — the 21 legal age was only a minor speed bump on the road to a buzz prior to my turning 21.

All this idea will do is create a black market for those over 21 — as there is for those under 21. That’s why I’m for removing controls on drug use and alcohol use. Having traveled extensively in Europe, I can tell you that in either case society isn’t going to collapse just because there’s a policy of tolerance in place.

In fact, when in the Netherlands, I didn’t seem to notice an excessive amount of alcoholics or stoners wandering about. Seemed like everything’s under control over there. I’ve been all over the Netherlands, so’s I can tell you that the situation doesn’t seem to change from province to province.

The big problem we have in this country is the fact that we have a lot of religious people running around trying to tell people what to do — in almost all areas of life — in every imaginable way.

Please, do us all a favor — don’t join ‘em. This idea sounds tailor-made for their type of meddling.

Maybe though the first step is making it more difficult to drink and drive in the first place. Get rid of the alcohol in the gas stations. I have noticed when I visit Texas that they have the most f’ed up ways of dealing with booze and cars. You go through a fast food drive thru and you can get beer and such right there. I have even seen drive thru liquor stores there. They aren’t explicitly telling folks to drink and drive but they sure aren’t making it any more difficult to do so in the first place.
Of roughly 40k highway deaths a year, approx. 40% are still blamed on drunk drivers (it may do readers well to research the methodolgy usewd to compile these statistics – I’ve heard that if even a passenger was considered ‘impaired’ by an officer, it’s reported as alcohol-related…and breath tests aren’t required for non-drivers, it’s solely up to the officer’s opinion) – but what about those 60% caused by SOBER drivers??
And given that auto accidents ARE ACCIDENTS (unless you’re intentionally trying to hit someone), couldn’t many of those have happened even if the driver was sober?
I think the Republic started going to hell, when restaurants started requiring shirts and shoes…
pick any behavior, someone won’t like it, why don’t we just use the awesome power of the state to use the (barely subliminal) threat of violence to stop it?
After all, someone might read the Preamble of the Constitution to think that they’d be justified in killing people to overthrow the government. We’d better outlaw reading…
A woman from MAAD, on NBC’s Today Show, said: One out of every
ten Americans has a drinking problem, and that 10% consumes 60%
of all alcoholic beverages sold in the U.S..” If this is true, there could be
financial problems for breweries, liquor stores, bars, rehab centers, etc., as
well as lawyers, massive amounts of tax revenue “down the drain,” and so on.

But it doesn’t seem as though anyone would have a valid argument
against a proposal such as this for financial reasons. To do so would be
morally wrong, and could be likened to a drug-pusher attitude.

Even with the problems this new law could present,
it still could, in one sense, be considered the simple solution
to the number one drug problem in the U.S. and elsewhere.
alcoholism.

Read:

CHP

CHP

Mark W. Rutherford
Chairman
Libertarian Party of Indiana