Drinking age should be lowered
By Keith Helsabeck
Student Columnist

The U.S. policy of limiting alcoholic purchase, possession and consumption to those over 21 but not over 18 is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws.” The state of North Carolina is guilty of violating this requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment because it does “make” and “enforce” several laws relating to a policy that abridge the “privileges and immunities” of certain U.S. citizens as compared to those enjoyed by members of other arbitrarily chosen demographics.

The 14th Amendment’s first section guarantees that no state can “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” and precedents such as Brown v. Board of Education have been set that show that the government can back this amendment up, even when it is not the popular thing to do.

The National Minimum Purchasing Age Act and National Drinking Age Act, as well as laws in this and other states, deny a sizable group of citizens of the United States their constitutionally guaranteed right to “equal protection of the laws,” and no one seems to mind. These laws deny some citizens, but not all, the right to purchase, consume and possess alcohol, and are therefore unconstitutional. Since laws related to driving while under the influence of alcohol are applicable to people of all ages, they are constitutional. Laws that limit alcoholic purchase, consumption or possession that distinguish between those that are over and those who are under the age 21 violate the “equal protection of the laws” that is guaranteed as a right by the Fourteenth Amendment are, as a result of this fact, not constitutional and must be reneged.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution may be interpreted to suggest that the age of citizenship’s attainment is 21. This is true because it says in Section 2 that “when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors … is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being 21 years of age, and citizens of the United States.”
This statement is contradicted, however, by the 26th Amendment which states in its first section that “The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

This establishes the right of those that are 18 years of age to be considered U.S. citizens when it says that the right of “citizens” that are “18 and over.” This therefore entitles 18-year-old citizens to their constitutionally protected rights, including that of “equal protection of the law.” Thus, the actual drinking age is 18, and the state laws that raise the drinking age have not the power of laws, as they are merely the anti-freedom and unconstitutional scribbling of un-American individuals.

The two demographics are given what some may wish to euphemize as separate but equal treatment, but in reality this is an unfair distinction to be made, and creates a dangerous precedent wherein a group of second-class citizens is deprived of some constitutional rights but entitled to others according to the whims of the governments. If we only enjoy some of our rights, then how can it warrant that we suffer all of the potential burdens of citizenship including, not only jury duty, but the draft, to which the vast majority of those over the drinking age would never conceivably be subject?
Some may also fear that highway deaths would rise sharply in the event of the elimination of said unconstitutional laws, but this is not necessarily so. It is, however, unfair to make laws based on such an assumption that deny 18-year-old citizens the same protection of the law that is currently given to 80-year-olds that have cirrhosis, diabetes and kidney problems in addition to more than 12 drunken driving convictions in various states. Until that day when equality may exist, we are subject to the unfair judgment by the dates of our births and not by the contents of our characters.

I know I’m preaching to the choir, but I have heard some people on my hall say that it is a silly idea to write promoting the lowering of the drinking age. This is untrue because it is how Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Elizabeth Dole passed the laws at the federal level in the first place. Stand up for your rights by writing your congressman, Richard Burr; your Senators, Jesse Helms and John Edwards; and also to your president.
You may believe that it is useless since no one else will. In this case, convince others to do so as well, or petition your hallmates. After all, representatives assume that for every letter they get, there were around 1,000 constituents too lazy to write that believed the same thing.

If you don’t show your opposition to a policy to the government, then by your apathy do you show your support for it. Remember anytime you wish to cause change that the torches that burned Troy were lit from but one single flame.