“Underage drinking” laws useless, absurd
September 12, 1988. September 13, 1988. They were seemingly innocuous consecutive dates in the late 1980s. Not much changed between them. Reagan was still president, “Sweet Child o’ Mine” was still the No. 1 single, and the Seoul Olympics were still next Saturday. All in all, it was one day pretty much like another. I guess one was a Monday and one was a Tuesday–that’s about it.However, last Saturday, a major difference between these two dates became readily apparent. Were you born on either, you were generally considered to be a competent adult. The latter date, however, meant that you were still a child incapable of making rational decisions in one regard: alcohol.According to Tuesday’s article, “Game day brings 13 MIPS,” thirteen individuals were cited on game day for this so-called crime of minor in possession. As quoted in the article, the LSU Police Department strictly enforces this unconscionable statute “because of the risks associated with [underage drinking].” This argument is farcical.Let us consider a hypothetical set of twins. The older twin is one minute older than the younger. Unfortunately for the second, this fateful minute is the one that transpires between 11:59 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. One got a driver’s license that says 9/12/1988, the other got one with the, for Saturday, sad date of 9/13/1988. They tailgate, and each quaffs a beer in celebration. One is apparently a danger to himself and others; a dangerous criminal who must be stopped at all costs. The other is no big deal. Any one of those thirteen could have been this exact scenario. How, exactly, does this make sense?The only risk present is that Louisiana will lose 10 percent of its federal highway funding if it does not dance to the tune called by overzealous legislators. So-called “underage drinking” is no more risky than just plain old drinking. I am offended on three fronts: one, that a group of anti-alcohol zealots parading as anti-drunk-driving crusaders persuaded Congress to pass the National Minimum Purchase Age Act of 1984 (23 USC § 158 for those keeping score at home); two, that the Louisiana Legislature kowtowed to the unconstitutional demands enshrined therein; and three, that people actually believe these laws are efficacious and should be enforced. It’s time not to lower, but to abolish the minimum drinking age and end this farce.Jon Froschlibrary and information science graduate studentDon’t support “Socialized Health Care”The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that the Obama health care plan will cost more than $1 trillion (that’s a 1 with 12 zero’s folks) over the next ten years and will still leave 34 million people uninsured. Other independent studies show 120 million, or 60 percent, of Americans who currently have health coverage, would lose it and would be forced onto the public plan. Also, the CBO Director stated that the proposed plan would hurt the already weakened American economy, creating an even greater national debt. This is not “free” health care. Those of us who pay federal taxes now, and in the future, will be paying for this “free” health care. This coverage will be for everyone, even those living here illegally.Like many of you, I understand that Washington-run health care would decrease access, quality, and choice in health care for Americans. Health care decisions are best made by patients and their doctors, not by bureaucrats and politicians in Washington. Important, life-saving surgeries and procedures are often delayed for people living in other nations that have government-run health care. If a health care plan is passed by Congress, then every member of Congress and their family should be required to participate in said plan.That’s $1 trillion dollars for the FIRST ten years for a plan that is far worse than the one I have now. It’s not perfect but I already have the best health care coverage in the world. I wonder if this is this the kind of “change” people had on their minds when they voted for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.? I seriously doubt it. $1 trillion dollars in change is a lot of “change”. I support and want health care reform, but cannot support a Washington takeover of health care that decreases access and choice and results in delayed and denied care. I want no part of “Socialized Health Care”.I like my change right where it should be, in my own pocket.Glenn Salard