MSN has a unique little article regarding the same debate that occurred back during the Vietnam era and then went away when the Baby Boomers started having kids of their own.
Personally, while responsibility and teaching it at a young age is good, that doesn’t mean that those teens need to be drinking the stuff to learn to be responsible. The data that once suggested this arbitrary ’21’ has quite a few statistical holes, to be sure, and there are often opportunities to get alcohol in other ways, but that doesn’t mean that learning about alcohol has to be done by drinking it.
Amusingly though, this means that RedFlare and I could have enjoyed a sip of champaign during our wedding, but only if we went to first her house and then mine? Sure it’s simply a little blurb on the law (at right) but it is a strange one.
Seems just as logical as Minnesota though.
I’m more amused by are the laws for Minnesota. I used it as the header picture.
Which means that upon moving up here, we could have both imbibed had we had the inclination to, though this would have made a sip of champaign at our wedding reception a heck of a lot easier…
“I now pronounce you husband and wife…”
“You may now drink with your bride…”
Just seems a little silly to me to worry so much about it. And yet there’s reasonable logic to combining the Missouri and Minnesota laws too…
How about banning smoking from those at the 18-21 bracket. The health risks are even greater with that practice, especially long term, and there’s less reason for those who can legally buy cigarettes to buy them for minors than for them to buy booze. (Tobacco21.org)
“Hey, let’s get these high school girls wasted…
Of course, this is also why once little A is in middle school (girls first kisses on average are 11 these days) I’ll be buying a shotgun… Though I’m sure both she and T will be more sensible than that, they’re already more mature than their age brackets… not sure why…