Another year, another well-worn debate looms over South Dakota politics. No, it’s not abortion (yet), but the ever-controversial drinking age.
State Representative Tim Rounds is drafting legislation proposing that the drinking age be lowered to 18, allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to drink low-alcohol beer in private establishments, but not to buy alcohol to drink elsewhere.
And, it could slip through a loophole in the federal law that ties the current drinking age to precious highway funds (the federal law does not put a restriction on the sale of alcohol in private establishments).
This presents the opportunity for this debate to be more than just a regurgitation of what we’ve already heard. It’s an opportunity to discuss legitimate, responsible ways to curb binge drinking and also to focus on the more immediate and dangerous threats like drunk driving.
Underage drinkers will push the defined boundaries and make the most of their drinking time, which can lead to binge drinking and a lack of acceptable habits.
It is also telling that 135 college presidents in the U.S. have already signed onto the widely-known Amethyst Initiative to lower the drinking age. They have their finger on the pulse of the issue, and recognize the value of repealing this prohibition.
Removing the stigma from drinking and allowing all “adults” to drink could be a step in the right direction. It’s a chance to stop throwing the book at the under-21 crowd and allowing them to be the voting, draft-eligible adults that they are.
Other states, such as Vermont and Missouri, have toyed with this as well, but with differing restrictions from the the proposal circulating here.
As it stands, the 18-20 crowd can already drink in “the immediate presence of a parent or guardian or spouse over twenty-one years of age” in South Dakota — showing wiggle room already exists in our state law.
But, questions do remain. Will there be more drunk drivers on the road because there would be more drinkers in the bars? Will this just extend the drinking time of young people? What about the 18-year-olds that are still in high school?
These are absolutely legitimate questions that deserve consideration, but consider first that our state fought tooth-and-nail to avoid mandating the 21 drinking age in the first place. If the state hadn’t lost its Supreme Court battle for the right to set its own drinking age, we might not be having this debate at all.
The upcoming legislative session gives us the chance to be on the forefront of an interesting trend that doesn’t involve the dragging debate over fetal rights.
This isn’t a moral debate — it’s one that can actually be won.
1 comments