Great Post!!

First, I want to say that Frank Lautenberg, that no good commie rat fink senator from New Jersey is entirely 100% responsible for this abysmal law.

Second, as I commented at my blog, if Vermont is only recieving $10 million in highway funds (very possible because they probably have the fewest miles of interstate highway in the country) than they would probably raised well over $10 million in the increased tax revenues that come out of Burlington's bars and from all the skiers and snowboarders who will insist on vacationing in Vermont. . . . .

Of course, Frank Lautenberg is so old that he probably voted for the Seventeenth Amendment as well.

Seriously, though, excellent point about 17.

I knew Lautenberg was like 112 years old, but I had no idea he was responsible for the 17th Amendment.

Ack! Roger beat me to the punch line.

Can you explain your reasoning behind the 17th amendment further? Presumably the people inside the state would elect people to represent the state's interest as well? Wikipedia's "criticism" paragraph doesn't explain it too well.

Sacha,

This is from a previous post on Seventeen:

First, the popular election of Senators created all sorts of campain finance problems. With the passing of Seventeen, senators were immediately beholden to special interests, and large campaign contributors. While this influence was recently addressed with the McCain-Feingold law, both Senators and special interests have been busy finding ways around it.

Seventeen also dealt a serious blow to state's rights. With states removed from the federal process, the checks and balances the states had over the federal government was limited. The federal government not only began to expand uncontrollably, but it was empowered to impose its will over the individual states. Over time, mandates were imposed on the states, and the fed took control over some state institutions.

With the removal of checks and balances over the legislative branch, states were also removed from the federal judicial process. With states no longer having an influence on the selection of federal judges, Seventeen also destroyed the checks and balances over the judicial branch.

You can read the rest of the post here, if you like.

Partially on topic. In my traffic management class our instructor,(an ex cop,) was going over the Kansas Department of Transportation Statistics.

Out of the top 5 contributors to accidents, alcohol never registers.

And if you look at the legal drinking age, 21 years old is the age that shows nearly the most alcohol to accident ratio. If you raised to anything short of thirty you'd probably get the same results.

http://www.ksdot.org/burTransPlan/prodinfo/2003factsbook/DriverCCs.pdf page 5 (alcohol responsible for only 4 percent of accidents.)

http://www.ksdot.org/burTransPlan/prodinfo/2003factsbook/Alcohol.pdf (21 years old = higher accidents related to alcohol, not highest but very close.)

Here is where this information and more can be found.

I bet money the statistics for all states are similar.

Oops, my link messed up. (haven't done html in a while.)

Here: http://www.ksdot.org/burTransPlan/prodinfo/accista.asp

Rhett,

I would be willing to bet that those statistics are padded to make DUI look worse than it is. If a person has a BAC of .10 and gets into an accident, they typically blame the alcohol no matter what. Even if it wasn't the cause or even a factor.

As for young people having more accidents, most of that comes from immaturity and inexperience. I know I had my fair share of bumps when I was younger.

Most of the actual drunks they bust are way over .10; the drop to .08 has little effect on actual highway safety, but it does make criminals of a few extra individuals, which, for those with a police-state mindset, is always a Good Thing.

There are lots of kids killed drinking and driving - and quite a few just driving. (And I'm remembering a neighbor kid who was 16 years old with the ink barely dry on his license when he borrowed dad's car, stole dad's liquor, and removed himself from the gene pool. Gee, drinking age laws didn't make much difference there.). Maybe the drinking age should be about 14, and the driving age 18. Let 'em learn how to handle their liquor before they can hit the roads...

As for adults, I suspect that the great majority of "drunk" drivers are no hazard to the public - if the ones that understand that they're impaired and are driving home slowly and carefully get into an accident, it's caused by someone else and the only way they might have contributed to it was by not seeing the idiot coming and getting out of the way as well as a sober driver might. But there's a minority that drive even more recklessly coming out of the bar then they did going there. I knew a guy that repeatedly got drunk and wrecked his car. Taking away his driver's license didn't stop that. But he quit drinking permanently after six months of sleeping in jail and spending his days picking up trash along the roadside.

So maybe rather than tossing people in prison solely for blood alcohol content, we should enhance the penalties for reckless and dangerous driving. That is, if the cop sees someone weaving on the road, driving more than 20 over a reasonable speed limit, etc., and discovers the driver is drunk when he stops him, that should get appreciable jail time. But don't turn a "failure to signal" stop into something else. Driving that poses a severe risk to others on the road (and is done when there actually are others on the road) should get jail time anyway, not just fines, but if the driver's drunk, increase the time. Wreck just your own car - I already covered that. Cause an accident that involves someone else while drunk should mean prison time.

My point and my instructor's point is that age has little to do with alcohol because why before someone turns legal age and during legal age they have accidents. If they raised the legal drinking age to 25 they would have the same result. And my instructor did point out that the alcohol factor for their statistics are misleading. It considers people who are legally drunk, drinking but sober, and in accidents that weren't their fault, so they are padded. (I just forgot to mention that) But alcohol not even being in the top five should be harped on. WHy is alcohol so focused on when the other five causes of accidents are ignored?

Drunk driving became a ``social problem'' in the 70s; before that it was a personal moral failure. An industry rose up around it.

It's very common, and not particularly dangerous, but serves the symbolic order.

Details in Joseph Gusfield ``The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order'' U Chicago 1981, which made MADD very angry with him. (``If it weren't for the drunks, a lot of them wouldn't be mothers,'' as my friend F.T.Grampp, world's quickest insult wit, put it).

Gusfield generalizes the social problem beyond DUI in the more recent ``Contested Meanings : The Construction of Alcohol Problems'' U Wisconsin 1996, which I have so far only skimmed.

A 21 yr old drinking age is age discrimination and nothing else.

You can change the law. But you need to have a court case go to the supreme court of the STATE.

This is the case I would envison:

A wealthy individual (18 years old) enters a bar and purchses a drink. He/She is denied the right to purchas the drink. They are arrested and charged - with underage drinking. They demand a jury trial.

The facts of the original drinking age laws are revealed - accidents, maturity, etc. .

The case is made - I do not have a drivers license, therefore I could not drive , and therefore the STATE has discriminated against me based on age and age alone (none of the reasons the law was passed would apply).

The jury could not only find this person innocent but determine that the law is invalid (Jury Nullification).

Of course this case would be appealed - eventually reacking the Supreme Court - where the question would be: Can the Federal Government foce States to discriminate based on age? Of course the answer cannot be yes - since this would open the door to take all 70 years old off the road since they are invvolved ina disproportionate amount of accidents based on poor eyesight and loss of hearing.

Of Course - picking the right state (Vermont or South Dakota seem likely).

I fear it will not ever become an issue - because 17-25 year olds are not active eneough to make it happen.