Drinking age to 18

[Kat Kanning]

You don't even drink 

[Dave Ridley]

The tinyurl.com direct link to this thread is tinyurl.com/4wdny

[Russell Kanning]

Most excellent...it works like a charm

[Dave Ridley]

Sent to the Keene State College paper via their submission form at
http://www.keeneequinox.com/main.cfm?include=submit

Dear folks at the Equinox:

In a free country, Keene State College students would be allowed to drink alcohol legally.  Yes drunk drivers should be locked up, and yes there are legitimate concerns when *minors* drink.  But if you're 18 you're an adult...old enough to be drafted.  If we can trust you with an assault rifle, we can trust you with a beer.  Legalization would also make it easier for 18 year olds to party in safe places rather than driving to and from hidden events.

Help us make this country free again (or at least this state).  Visit the New Hampshire Underground at NHunderground.com.  There you can help us organize protests and activities aimed at returning the drinking age to 18, where it belongs.  If nothing else, it will annoy the Feds! 

We can't get the law changed tomorrow.  But we can put seeds of doubt in the minds of the public regarding the current "Nanny Rules" that have driven you underground. And, successful or not, protests are a lot of fun!    

If you want to go directly to the thread where we are discussing this cause, head to tinyurl.com/4wdny

The nation's busybodies have stripped you of a liberty you never had the chance to lawfully enjoy.   It's time to regain that liberty and put the "Free" back in "Live Free or Die."

[Russell Kanning]

What can we do to help lower the drinking age in NH?

[Dave Ridley]

Russell wrote:

<<What can we do to help lower the drinking age in NH?>>

Maybe think of a visual publicity stunt.   But as I say, I'm tending to think we defer to the teenagers on this if practical.   If they show up here and are ready to fight for their freedom then this can move forward...if not it should go on the back burner.  That's my thinking.   

[Pat K]

Gee I just don't know anything about drinking.

[jcpliberty]

Gee I just don't know anything about drinking.

LOL

JP

[HardyMachia]

I've been working on the drinking age issue in Vermont for the last year. It was part of my gubernatorial campaign. I've done a lot of research on it. It is a great front burner issue. I have a few suggestions for outreach in NH.

What's happened in Vermont last year

A state representative introduced a bill to lower the drinking age last January. It generated a ton of media.
We canvassed about 20 of the 27 colleges in Vermont.
We collected 2000 postcards calling for the drinking age to be lowered.
We collect 500 online petitions signatures for the drinking age to be lowered.
We held a debate at the State House with two Reps, the Commissioner of Public Safety and the president of NYRA.
I polled the legislators on their position on the drinking age and what they would feel comfortable supporting. Most were very uncomfortable about losing federal highway dollars. In Vermont it would have been $10 million.
We set up an email system so people can email their legislators to support lowering the drinking age.

What's happening in Vermont this coming year

The representative who introduced the bill to lower the drinking age to 18, will be introducing a different bill to allow teens to drink with their parents when they are at home and in private establishments such as bars, clubs, and restaurants. The goal is to end the forbidden fruit affect, end the laws in Vermont that treat parents as criminals for being parents, and to allow parents to be the role models for their teens to teach responsible and moderate drinking.

There is a state senator who has also expressed interest in introducing a bill.

We are putting together a list of expert witnesses to testify in possible committee hearings.

We'll be doing more outreach.

Avoiding losing federal funds
By passing a law to allow teens to drink with their parents when they are at home and in private establishments such as bars, clubs, and restaurants you avoid any loss of federal highway funds.

I'll post my plan A and plan B in another message.

Benefits
This is a great outreach tool for college campuses. Some students get excited about it and want to help. Others don't care because they do it illegally anyway.

[HardyMachia]

Two Options to Avoid Losing Federal High way Funds

If you are philosophically supportive of lowering the drinking age because it is age discrimination, because you believe it will help reduce alcohol abuse, or for some other reason, but you are concerned about the state losing 10 million dollars in federal highway funds, then read on...

Vermont has at least two options where we will not lose any federal highway funds as long as we are in strict compliance with the National Minimum Drinking Age (NMDA) Act 1984.

Option 1: Parental Option
Option 2: Lawful Option

If you believe the drinking age should remain 21, but want to reduce the problems associated with underage drinking, then you might still be interested in option 1.


National Minimum Drinking Age Act

Before I explain the options, it is important to understand what the NMDA Act actually says. Here is a link to the law: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+23USC158

Federal highway funds are ONLY withheld when "...the purchase or public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful." There are two conditions "lawful purchase" and "lawful public possession" in this statement that are used to determine if a state loses 10 percent of their federal highway funds.


Public Possession

The definition of "public possession" in relation to NMDA is defined by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration in Appendix 7 of their "Community How To Guide Policy" http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/community%20guides%20html/Book6_PublicPolicy.html#App7

To quote the relevant section. The national law specifically requires states to prohibit purchase and public possession of alcoholic beverages [to avoid losing federal funds]. It does not require prohibition of persons under 21 (also called youth or minors) from drinking alcoholic beverages. The term ?public possession? is strictly defined and does not apply to possession for the following.
   * An established religious purpose, when accompanied by a  parent, spouse, or legal guardian age 21 or older;
   * Medical purposes when prescribed or administered by a  licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital,  or medical institution;
   * In private clubs or establishments; and
   * In the course of lawful employment by a duly licensed  manufacturer, wholesaler or retailer.


Option 1: Parental Option

Overview:
The Parental Option would allow persons under the age of 21 to drink at home and in private clubs or establishments when accompanied by their parent or legal guardian.

Current Situation:
Kids learn dangerous drinking habits from their peers in unsupervised settings in the woods, an empty house, or driving around in a car. Vermont's current law penalizes parents who know their kids are going to be drinking and want to give their kids a safe, supervised location to do it. The current law penalizes parents with up to two year in jail and a minimum fine of $500 and maximum of $2000 for supplying alcohol to their own child. Binge drinking and alcohol abuse among high school and college students is very high. Several states (CT is one example) allow consumption in homes, meaning parents are not penalized if they give alcohol to their children.

Benefits:
The Parental Option is similar to how most of the world treats alcohol, whether their drinking age is 16, 18, or 20.
* This option places a strong emphasis on supervised alcohol use. Parents can teach teens to respect alcohol, to drink responsibly and to drink in moderation.
* The "forbidden-fruit" effect is removed.
* This could also lower the alcohol related fatality rates in Vermont to rates similar to those of Canada and Australia, which have rates of 55% and 70% lower than the United States.

Legality:
NMDA prohibits purchase, but it does not prohibit consumption of alcohol in homes and private establishments (clubs, pubs, restaurants,...) by persons under 21 years of age. Vermont would lose no federal highway funds by taking this first step towards a more liberal and family-oriented alcohol policy in Vermont.

Implementation:
This should be implemented as soon as possible, to start the shift towards supervised, moderate, and responsible use of alcohol by teens in order to lower the amount of alcohol abuse among teens now, which will lead to less abuse among adults later in life.


Option 2: Lawful Option

Overview:
The Lawful Option would keep the purchase and consumption by persons under the age of 21 unlawful, but it would remove all penalties for purchase and consumption by adults 18 years and older. It would lower the priority of arresting those 18 or over for responsible drinking.

Current Situation:
Current law discriminates against 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old adults based on their age. At eighteen, you can vote, get married, enter into contracts, smoke cigarettes, defend and kill for our country in the armed services, and even own a bar, but the only thing you cannot legally do is take a sip of wine. Alcohol abuse with binge drinking increased among 18-20-year olds after the drinking age was raised to 21. Many college administrators support lowering the drinking age to 18 because it is easier to deal with drinking on campus when the administration can treat all college students as adults.

Benefits:
* Although we can't change federal law, we can stand up for the adult Vermonters who are facing age discrimination by the federal government.
* By removing penalties and shifting the focus of law enforcement and courts to higher priority issues, the State will save approximately 2.7 million dollars.

Legality:
NMDA only requires states to make the purchase or public possession unlawful. By keeping public consumption and purchase illegal, yet removing the penalties and setting law enforcement's priority to the lowest setting when it comes to adult alcohol purchase and responsible consumption in Vermont, then Vermont will still qualify for all 10 million in federal highway funds. This will allow law enforcement to focus on the true problems, like drunk driving.

We have other laws on the books that make actions unlawful, but are not enforced. For instance, Title 13, Ch 51, ? 2134, the possession of any instrument of gambling is unlawful, yet people own dice, cards, poker chips, roulette wheels...we rarely enforce this law.

Implementation:
Many are concerned about 18-year-olds going crazy if we remove the penalties on them. The large majority of them already drink regularly, so while there might be a week of partying it will quickly settle back down. One way to make the implementation smoother would be make the law take effect during July when most college students are not in school.

Another concern is that if it is easier for 18-year-olds to get alcohol, then younger people  will have greater access to it. Since the drinking age was raised in 1987, high school junior and senior alcohol use has only been reduced by a few percentage points, while at the same time drinking use among 8th graders has increased 17 percent. One solution to this might be to increase the penalties for supplying minors with alcohol.


Conclusion

I have heard from 35 legislators in support of lowering the drinking age to 18. I've only heard from six opposed to it. The Governor supports lowering the drinking age, if we don't lose federal funds. Senator Leahy opposed the passage of NMDA Act in 1984. The Secretary of State supports lowering the drinking age. I expect there are the votes in the legislature to pass option one or two.

Option 1 should be implemented before the end of this session so we can start reducing alcohol abuse in Vermont, the sooner we start the more lives we'll save.

Give Option 2 some consideration. It follows the strict definitions of NMDA, and we won't have the guilt of needing to support age discrimination in Vermont. Would we lower the drinking age if it weren't for the federal extortion of 10 million of our tax dollars?


Please contact me if I can answer any of your questions. hardy@freevermont.org or 802-372-9512.

Sincerely,
  Hardy Machia
  31 Town Line Road
  Grand Isle, VT 05458
  http://www.freevermont.org/

[tracysaboe]

But see, we don't want to recieve Federal highway funds.

Tracy

[SethCohn]

You can legally _serve_ alcohol as a bartender at 18 in NH, even though you cannot legally drink the stuff yourself.

[HardyMachia]

But see, we don't want to recieve Federal highway funds.

What you want to do and what you can politically do are two different things. Give it a shot in NH. Maybe the politicians won't mind losing $15-30 million or so in federal highway funds in NH. My postings were to educate people on this list about what we are doing in Vermont, what the current federal law says in case you want to repeal alcohol prohibition on 18, 19, 20 year olds and not lose any more of your tax money to the feds.

NH will lose 10% of whatever federal highway funds they receive. Note, that federal highway funds are generated by taxing people in NH at 19 cents per gallon. So, when you say you don't want to receive federal highway funds, you are saying that you don't want NH taxpayer to keep their tax money.

If you think you can pull off a straight repeal the 21-year-old drinking age in NH, then more power to you. Whatever folks decide,  reaching out to 17-23 year olds ought to be considered in all of this.

Hardy

[Pat McCotter]

Every time I've seen 18-20 year olds arrested for drinking or possesion I've thought that these folks should be out there in activism instead of breaking the law. They can vote, they can run for state office. Get out there and do it.
I would support here in NH.

[aworldnervelink]

I also think that something needs to be done about the exceptionally early time at which bars are forced to close. I just moved here a week ago and I'm shocked at how early the nightlife shuts down. I've lived in Panama for the past year, where the bars are open all night, and I've never seen a barfight or any major disturbance. I see at least two major points here:

1. It is extreme economic discrimination against bar/club owners when the best they can hope for is 3-4 hours of business on a good night. In addition, some clubs may never open simply because of the poor profit potential.
2. It actually causes greater problems for the police when a flood of people is forced onto the streets all at one time. If they were left alone to trickle home when they desired there would be no issue.