Why the drinking laws are unfair

I have a dream that my two children will not be judged by the date of their birth.

Let me respond to the Nov. 14 Daily column “Making underage drinking an issue,” in which Danielle Mabry thinks the victims of discrimination are too stupid to see the flaw in her reasoning, that “breaking the law is showing a huge lack of maturity and responsible drinking.”

It’s irresponsible and immature to drink underage because it’s illegal, as it well should be, because people under 21 are so immature and irresponsible. That writer cites a dollar figure pulled from thin air. You cannot put a dollar figure on suicides. Fetal alcohol syndrome is no excuse to forbid men under 21 to drink while women over 21 are not forbidden. It’s just easier to pick on people under 21.

In a free country, the citizens decide what to drink.

Convicted felons are forbidden to drink because of the crime they committed, but the drinking age is imposed on persons who did not commit crime.

As for violent crimes, punish the criminals, not innocent people.

If statistics go up, the hate-mongering Mothers Against Drunk Driving bigots will say this proves how irresponsible young people are, and if statistics go down, they’ll say this proves the drinking age is working. Statistics don’t drink and drive, individuals do, and they need to be punished for endangering the lives of innocent people.

On April 9, 2005, some high school students in Seminole County, Fla., reported a 49-year-old limo driver on prom night. It was her third time getting busted for drunken driving. She can still buy all the booze she wants, but they can’t legally buy any despite being far more responsible. When high school graduates gather at a kegger, they don’t stand around puzzling, “Gee, Sherlock, why do you suppose members of the Minnesota Legislature would rather impose the drinking age on us than impose tougher drunken driving laws upon themselves?”

“Duh, I dunno, Watson. I got accepted at a very demanding college, but I’m too stupid to figure that out. I suppose we could ask criminals like state Rep. Tom Rukavina.”

“You mean the guy who got busted July 31, 2004, and blew a 0.15?”

“Yeah. And why do you suppose the cops would rather go on party patrol and arrest us than go on DWI patrol and arrest each other?”

“Duh, that’s another toughie. I suppose we could ask the head of the St. Paul police union, who got arrested for DWI on June 16, 2000, or the Minneapolis cop who got arrested Dec. 11, 2002, for DWI, criminal threatening and other charges, who blew a 0.24. Or we could ask that Minneapolis cop who drove drunk and crashed Oct. 16, 2004, or the one who got arrested his second time for DWI on Aug. 19, 2005, and blew a 0.25.

“Or we could ask the Detroit cop who drove drunk and killed 19-year-old Marvin Shaina on Jan. 30, 2005, and only got probation, or the Chicago cop who drove drunk, ran a red light and killed two high school boys in Tinley Park, Ill., on Feb. 12, 2005, or the Sacramento, Calif., cop who allegedly drove drunk, and killed 13-year-old Michael Ramirez in Elk Grove, Calif., on May 31, 2005.”

Before reporting an underage drinking party, remember that the beer will fall into the hands of cops.

I have a dream that my two children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the date of their birth but by the content of their character

Tom Alciere is a resident of Nashua, N.H. Please send comments to [email protected].