|
| quote: | Originally posted by Caela
Since each state is technically allowed to change their drinking age (government funding for roads will be taken away though...), why doesn't one state just rebel? I mean, yes taxes would go up, but I'm sure they would make a ton of money with the alcohol they sell (up the taxes on that, too).
Does anyone know if there are other vices that the federal government uses to keep the drinking age at 21? |
Why would people want their state to forfeit its road funding and make alcohol way more expensive just so that young people won't be hassled by the police when they are caught being drunk in public?
Have you ever heard of Waco, Texas, Caela? That's what happens when you divide yourself from the US Government. >.>
Really though, it is quite useless questioning the nature of a law that will not even affect you in a year anyways. When the day comes when they are able to arrest underage kids for being drunk in their own home (when there is no prior or otherwise trouble), then I will see how it is infringing on people's basic human rights. Until then, police are just the hand of the law, not the law, itself, who are simply doing their job to keep drunk people safe and off the street. I hate to take the 'shit happens' approach to laws, because in this country, these sorts of things are up for debate (which is good), but really - this is just the price you pay for having laws to keep people from making asses of themselves or killing/injuring others out of negligence. Of course the laws aren't perfect, but what law actually is?
___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
|