I agree with you on giving minors the right to serve alcohol is a wise move. However, my experience with lowering the drinking age to 18 causes me to differ with you on this issue. I was in college in Massachusetts in 1973 where the same argument, that if a young man could be drafted and die for his country that he ought also be able to buy a beer, resulted in the State legislature lowering the drinking age. It didn't go well. Drunk driving in the age group in question spiked alarmingly, and the law changed back to 20 in 1979 and to 21 in 1984 due to pressure from federal highway funding.
1973 was a different time. Impairment from illegal hard drugs was not as rampant. More important, American children were not raised as Europeans are, with access to and respect for alcohol, particularly wine, such that coming of age in Europe is not such a big deal. Wisconson's law is a step in the right direction by exposing teens to responsible alcohol consumption as witnesses if not participants.
I agree with you on giving minors the right to serve alcohol is a wise move. However, my experience with lowering the drinking age to 18 causes me to differ with you on this issue. I was in college in Massachusetts in 1973 where the same argument, that if a young man could be drafted and die for his country that he ought also be able to buy a beer, resulted in the State legislature lowering the drinking age. It didn't go well. Drunk driving in the age group in question spiked alarmingly, and the law changed back to 20 in 1979 and to 21 in 1984 due to pressure from federal highway funding.
1973 was a different time. Impairment from illegal hard drugs was not as rampant. More important, American children were not raised as Europeans are, with access to and respect for alcohol, particularly wine, such that coming of age in Europe is not such a big deal. Wisconson's law is a step in the right direction by exposing teens to responsible alcohol consumption as witnesses if not participants.