Minor surprises only, here kids: I'm voting NO to 19 this November- but with a few qualifications:
First, I don't like the fines. Those should be cut in half at minimum as I doubt that $700+ for being in a bar after hours or whatever is now is going to really make all that much of a dent on the Bank of Mom and Dad, LLC (Naperville Branch)- it's certainly doesn't seem to be deterring students from drinking. Though oddly enough, either the hangover from last season or students being more excited for basketball for once seems to be contributing to more adults misbehaving at games than students. Tickets are better than jail, I'll agree- but let's not be exorbitant about it.
Second, it's worth noting that the University achieved it's #1 Party School in the land ranking after the 21-only ordinance became law. If the idea was to change the University's reputation away from being a party school, then mission fail, people. Epic mission fail.
Thirdly (and finally) although it didn't get much play in the local media, for obvious reasons, the 21-only ordinance might run afoul of the City's own human rights ordinance which prevents discrimination on the basis of age. The City is now looking at changing that- which I'm not wild about. I mean, shouldn't they have thought about this before now? If we've got the right to bear arms, then by God, 19 year olds have the right to $2 jaeger bombs at the SpoCo and Scummit on Thursday night! 'MERICUH!
However, the more I thought about it (and I surprised myself by actually thinking about this somewhat. It was a short little trip on the struggle bus with this endorsement, kids, it really was) the more I decided that it just wasn't enough. Why?
Well for starters, this isn't the forum to make a point about the drinking age. Does it suck that people can vote, have sex, fight for their country, purchase pornography and cigarettes at 18 and yet can't have a beer? It does. Is repealing this ordinance going to do a damn thing about it? Nope. For that we'd need to talk to some folks down in Des Moines and see if a loss of some Federal Highway funding is worth lowering our drinking age. Monetarily, I'm betting not- but still, the point stands: if you want the drinking age in Iowa lowered, you need a law, and all our lawmakers are in Des Moines. This ordinance has zero effect on the issue and pretending like you're all swell and awesome by 'making a point' only serves to underline how small you think. Think big. Go for the brass ring and lower the damn age. Don't piss around on the local level to do it.
Secondly, the oldest rule in politics is cui buono? Who benefits. In this case, it'll be local bar owners more than anyone else. Which proves that this isn't about fairness or 'making a point' or whatever it is people want to pretend it is, it's about making money. And while I have nothing against making money, I think there's something fundamentally dishonest about not just saying that up front.
As usual, I remain irritated and unconvinced by this whole business. It's not like having a drinking age of 21 has prevented anyone from actually drinking, is it?
My Prediction: It all comes down to student turnout...I got a University-wide email encouraging students to participate in early voting but it's one of those mass spam emails that (at least when I was an undergrad) everybody just sort of blew past them so I'm not sure how effective it will be. The students have shown up in a big way for this once so far... and they didn't the last time. It feels a little different this time around- but it's the usual Town Versus Gown Battle Royale and I think if the students put up big numbers, it's going down. 50/50- but I could see it being repealed.
No comments:
Post a Comment