By Gordon Garnos
AT ISSUE: As South Dakota goes into its Christmas season, there are two proposals being made to reduce the age limits of those allowed to consume alcohol. A young Flandreau attorney is threatening the state with a petition drive to return the old 3.2 beer law for 19 and 20-year-olds. Then, out Rapid City way, state Sen. Bill Napoli wants Congress to change a 1984 federal law that penalizes states if they allow people younger than 21 to drink alcoholic beverages. If it doesn't he may attempt to have the South Dakota Legislature pass a law that would override the federal mandate. Wow! (Full Article)
Featured Article
Monday, December 03, 2007
Changing liquor laws is not a good Christmas present for South Dakotans
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Putting the gummit in charge of people’s decision to drink is ludicrous. The age when people can drink has almost nothing to do with deaths on the highway caused by drunk drivers. Lowering the drinking age – or perhaps eliminating it altogether – is true freedom. Gummit mandated minimum ages tied to federal funding is black mail at its worst. Federal highway money is OUR tax money. SD raised the age to 21 and guess what – underage folks still drink, often in their cars and pickups while zooming down a back road someplace.
It’s the liquor industry that wants minimum ages kept in law, so they can go right on with their illicit peddling of demon rum to make their cash registers ring while appearing to be responsible citizens. Most legislators – past and present – will tell you the liquor lobby in So. Dak. is corrupt, and continues to corrupt our legislative process every session.
I like your "gummit" term, Whiskey River; sounds a lot like the "gub'mint" they talk about Down South. :-)
I also concur with you in that I don't like the feds holding something over us.
I joined the military at the age of 17 (almost 18) I was at my first base around the time when all the laws were changing from 18-21. I didn't drink then and can't remember if Nebraska was 18 or 21 in 1985-1987. But overseas you could drink whenever, and I eventually did start drinking about 19 or 20. Maybe I was extra-stupid, but I wasn't ready for it. If I was king for a day, I think I'd make the age 30.
I know Bill Napoli's argument about being able to fight for your country at 18, etc. and used to agree with it. But working in law enforcement for several years, and seeing how badly I handled the booze myself, I've since changed my mind.
I think Bill is a great legislator and agree with him almost all the time, but I have to respectfully disagree with him (and you) here. I acknowledge the logic of what you've both said, but in the end, alcohol is a very dangerous substance, both to the user and everyone around them. I'm for keeping it at 21.
But thanks for the comment, Whiskey River.
Post a Comment