Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
I would think it would work out better if that was reversed. The hard stuff is expensive and it would cost too much to throw a non-beer party. And I would hope most people know if you chug a fifth of vodka, you would be in big trouble.
There is also talk of eliminating the drinking age altogether and letting parents set the rules, but I have a feeling that 50% of the kids of strict 'no drink' parents would rebel and get trashed at college. Then the other idea is to raise the drinking age to 23 so that most college kids couldn't buy alcohol. Mexico tourism in March would go up a lot.
|
The good stuff is expensive, when it comes to hard liquor. There are plenty of cheap alternatives to choose from. And I live in a state with heavy vice taxes.
Here in Oregon it's legal to drink in one's own home with parental permission/supervision. That's fine. But why should a parent dictate what their child does once that child is over 18, in your scenario of parents being in charge? That's ridiculous.
And I don't think raising the drinking age would work, especially in states that tax the sale of liquor and beer heavily, or in places where they are many establishments that cater to younger drinkers, as they would lose revenue. Plus, it would be impossible to raise it across the board--the drinking age is only 21 across the United States because the federal government is blackmailing the states with highway funding. Given that that funding is drying up, I don't think that's a card the feds can afford to play anymore.