TO THE EDITOR:
Regarding the Aug. 20 letter, “Evidence supports drinking age of 21,” the suggestion was made that “health and well-being” is a primary defense of the drinking age.
This same logic could be used to justify the complete prohibition of alcohol because of its adverse health effects at any age.
If the government’s job is to arbitrarily set up rules to keep us safe from ourselves, then what limits it from banning all potentially harmful substances or activities?
Those in favor of a drinking age as a countermeasure to drunk driving seem to be unaware that drunk driving itself is in fact illegal. This redundancy of laws only serves to limit freedom.
Freedom comes with inherent risk and the encouragement of personal responsibility.
Does it not seem odd that the government prohibits an 18-year-old from having a beer as a means to protect his “health and well-being” but has no problem sending the same person to the front lines in wartime?
John Onderdonk
Freshman
