1026 - The Freedom to Drink Act

[Clark Kent]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Rep. ClarkKent (F-CT)

[Lincoln Republican]

Are you insane?

Minimum drinking age of 16?

What have you been drinking?

16 year olds are supposed to be working on finishing high school and graduating, going on to post secondary education, so they can make something useful out of their lives, not sitting in some sleazy dive getting sloshed out of their minds, turning into alcoholics, working at minimum wage jobs for the rest of their lives, falling into a gutter someplace, freezing to death or dying of alcohol poisoning.


 

[Clark Kent]

Are you insane?

Minimum drinking age of 16?

Mr. Winfield, before debate really begins, let me clarify: I do not necessarily support this bill. I am only sponsoring it because it passed in the Senate and lacked a House sponsor. I believe debate on any issue, even something we disagree with, is good for democracy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't drink and I don't plan to ever drink.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I agree. I will propose amendments in the morning. Like I said, the only reason I sponsored this bill was because it already passed in the Senate.

[Leinad]

Someone proving they don't understand what "Speaker" means.

[Clark Kent]

Someone proving they don't understand what "Speaker" means.

Um, Mr. President, I am technically also the House sponsor for this bill.

[Goldwater]

Really, I'm not that concerned with the details at this point, just as long as you guys get rid of the dumb federal minimum drinking age of 21.

[Clark Kent]

Proposed amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe section 3 is really necessary. You can't really subtract from federal laws, only add to them. Regions may still have higher minimum drinking ages, but they can't really have anything lower than 18.

[Goldwater]

Fair enough, but would it be possible to still somehow limit how high each region can make the drinking age?

[tmthforu94]

Can we make Clause 2 sound a little bit more formal? "The federal minimum wage shall be 18 years old, effective January 1st, 2017."

[NeverAgain]

I offer the following compromise amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am against the lowering of the minimum wage in its entirety, but I feel this should give most of the autonomy to the regions on the matter, while preserving an individual's right.

[Lincoln Republican]

Proposed amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe section 3 is really necessary. You can't really subtract from federal laws, only add to them. Regions may still have higher minimum drinking ages, but they can't really have anything lower than 18.

I support this amendment.

A legal drinking age of 16 is ridiculous for reasons I have already mentioned.

21 would be a good age, but I do not believe this would gain support in the legislative branches.

Personally, I believe alcohol consumption should be banned completely, but the legislatures would not likely support that either.

The regions should not be permitted to set their own legal drinking ages.  They might do something stupid like setting the age in their region at 16.

 

[Senator Cris]

Why are we speaking of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984? It's an US law, not an Atlasia one, and also there had been a legislative rebot.

[tmthforu94]

Current US laws are what we are operating off of. It's nice to be specific by repealing it, but I also don't think it is necessary. A hesitation I have to repealing US laws is that oftentimes there are a bunch of add-ons to them that would also go with a repeal. While I haven't read this specific bill, an example could be funding for MADD or funding for families who lost someone due to a drunk driver. I'd rather keep the overall bill in place and just overwrite the part on drinking age.

I also think it would be good to clarify if this means the age to purchase AND consume alcohol is 18, or if it is just to purchase, which is what the '84 act did.

[Leinad]

Someone proving they don't understand what "Speaker" means.

Um, Mr. President, I am technically also the House sponsor for this bill.

Ah, I see, sorry for that.

However, this:

sitting in some sleazy dive getting sloshed out of their minds, turning into alcoholics, working at minimum wage jobs for the rest of their lives, falling into a gutter someplace, freezing to death or dying of alcohol poisoning.

remains absurd. Drinking alcohol =/= becoming an alcoholic.

You guys realize that underage drinking exists already, correct? The government isn't a magic wand that allows you to keep bad things from happening.

Proposed amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe section 3 is really necessary. You can't really subtract from federal laws, only add to them. Regions may still have higher minimum drinking ages, but they can't really have anything lower than 18.

That's not the original idea of the bill, though. It was supposed to set an upper and lower limit, and section 2 was added as a fallback in case the regions didn't set the law themselves--of course it could've been worded better.

Lastly, make sure the final text says "minimum age" and you don't accidently set the minimum wage to $18

[Goldwater]

Look, I don't know how to words things. It would have been helpful if people would have pointed how I did it wrong and how to fix it back when this bill was being discussed in the Senate.

[Senator Cris]

I think the regions shall have the right to establish their own minimum drinking age and that's what I'll push for when this bill will be on the Senate floor.

[NeverAgain]

I think the regions shall have the right to establish their own minimum drinking age and that's what I'll push for when this bill will be on the Senate floor.

This is the bill from the Senate. It is now in the House for final draft before going to El Presidente.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

We need to be careful here since the 1984 bill didn't prohibit drinking or purchase for those under 21, but rather tied it to highway funding for the states so that they would be pushed into doing that.  So what we could do is to threaten to take away some of the regional highway funding - which is what the 1984 bill did.  Or, since I think we do not have a 21st amendment repealing prohibition, we could set a national minimum age.  I don't believe we can directly prohibit the regions from having a higher minimum age for purchasing alcohol - that seems like a pretty blatant violation of federalism.

This bill as written does not reflect the current legal reality of the situation. So what do we want to try to do? Repeal the 1984 and set just a drinking age for those areas under federal jurisdiction and leave the regions to do what they want?   Put forward a single minimum age for the whole country?  Or, modify the 1984 bill to a different age?  (I honestly don't get the idea that we would take away highway funding for a region having a drinking age of 24. What is the logic of that?  ) Or, come up with an entirely new policy?

[Goldwater]

This bill as written does not reflect the current legal reality of the situation. So what do we want to try to do? Repeal the 1984 and set just a drinking age for those areas under federal jurisdiction and leave the regions to do what they want?   Put forward a single minimum age for the whole country?  Or, modify the 1984 bill to a different age?  (I honestly don't get the idea that we would take away highway funding for a region having a drinking age of 24. What is the logic of that?  ) Or, come up with an entirely new policy?

Not that I have a say anymore, but this one was closest to my original intent. First of all, I anted to eliminate any connection to highway funding, and second of all I thought the minimum age should be 18 instead of 21. After bring up this idea to some people privately, they suggested that going for regional rights would be the better approach for gaining broad support, which is why the weirdly worded bill ended up the way it did.

[Goldwater]

I am no longer an office holder, haven't had internet for two weeks, and yet I am still somehow the last person to post in this thread? WTF, people?

[NeverAgain]

I am no longer an office holder, haven't had internet for two weeks, and yet I am still somehow the last person to post in this thread? WTF, people?

We have been focusing on electing a new speaker and trying to expell inactive Representatives.

I will open this up for a continued 48 hour debate period.

[LLR]

I think 21 is all fine and well, but I'd support allowing regions to lower it to 18 or raise it to 22/23 if they so desired.

[Goldwater]

I am no longer an office holder, haven't had internet for two weeks, and yet I am still somehow the last person to post in this thread? WTF, people?

We have been focusing on electing a new speaker and trying to expell inactive Representatives.

I will open this up for a continued 48 hour debate period.

Ah, fair enough. I just thought I would come see what happened to my bill while I was gone, and was disappointed when I found out the answer was "absolutly nothing".

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I think the federal minimum is fine at 21, but the options should be in place to decrease to 18.

[Clyde1998]

I believe that the minimum should be eighteen, but I think this should be a matter for the regions.