Drinking-age law has many flaws
Regarding the Aug. 20 editorial “Don’t lower drinking age”:
There is at present a need to readdress the efficiency of the current legal drinking age. Although advocates applauded the passage of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 as a measure wisely taken to protect and prevent the dangers of adolescents consuming alcohol at a young age, the law today seems to high school and college students alike as a laughable and ineffective deterrent against alcohol consumption.
In reality the law has failed at keeping young people from drinking. ChooseResponsibility.com reports that the average age of first drink as dropped since 1984 and has held for the past decade at about 14 years of age. The current national legal drinking age fosters an unchecked and widespread violation of the law, as well as disrespect for the law.
The current law raises questions in the ability to teach adolescents about responsible alcohol consumption. Adolescents drink to get drunk in the United States. This could have resulted from a generation that has grown up without the benefits of parents teaching safe alcohol consumption to their children, an advantage that isn’t legally affordable here. Drinking has been driven into the sanctuary of dark basements and secret parties, leading to binge drinking and all the dangers it entails.
Having a drinking age of 21 simply does not comply with the societal schema of alcohol being a part of adulthood and maturity. It only makes sense that alcohol consumption coincide with the legal age of adulthood, like so many other responsibilities. If given proper guidance about alcohol usage and safety, most 18-year-olds can handle alcohol sensibly. Paternalistic lawmakers must ease up and trust the maturity of otherwise legal adults. Given the greater maturity level afforded to young people today, the current drinking law seems to be an anachronism.
ó Michelle Nguyen
Salisbury
Dole complicit
Our failing energy, economic and foreign policy meltdowns are Senator Doles’ legacy.
If speculation in oil trading, not a supply shortage, is driving up oil prices, why are we talking about drilling off the N.C. coast to alleviate high costs? If massive tax breaks to the rich were the answer, why are we in such economic peril? If al-qaeda was responsible for 9/11 and was not present in Iraq before 9/11, why did we attack Iraq?
Republicans are working hard to distance themselves from President Bush’s failed policies, and Senator Dole is no exception. Be it our energy, economic or foreign policy, like a rock, Senator Dole defended and supported President Bush. And when conservatives questioned the patriotism of those who questioned our government’s policies, Senator Dole was silent. No doubt about it,?Senator Dole was complicit!
Senator Dole is ranked 93rd (out of 100) in effectiveness. We can’t change failed policies without a change of leadership.
Your support for Kay Hagan for U.S. Senate could put a period on Senator Dole’s two disastrous terms. Join in at: http://secure.actblue.com/ page/dolewas complicit/ recipient/172384.
ó Michael S. Young
Salisbury