On the drinking age thing. Back when I was in college, there was an article written by Ed Koch that I found fascinating: he argued that prohibition lowered crime rather than raised it. He argued that while mob crime went up, domestic violence, drunk driving deaths, etc. went down–and those more than balanced out the mob fights.

I’m not sure I agree with the argument, but it certainly provides an interesting point to ponder.

As we all know these transportation bills (ex. SAFETEA-LU) are loaded with “pork” or “earmarks” and until it is passed and published in the Congressional Record we on the outside don’t really know what is in there.

NOW - back to the topic. Speeding head-on into “old fogeydom” back when I was 18 I’m not sure if I’d been mature enough to handle alcohol, and several 18 year olds I’ve seen don’t seem to show any signs of maturity, of course it could be me getting old but I digress. Though you have the converse - at 18 you’re considered old enough to vote, and 18 year old men are old enough to be drafted into the military if needed.

The “Lindsay Lohan” effect? She drank like a fish until she turned 21, then apparently (if you believe the tabloids) she quit drinking after turning 21. 18-21 year olds drink because they know its illegal, and when its legal there won’t be the thrill of drinking and getting caught. Personally I don’t buy the argument but there it is.

It is that money for the roads that should have the 10th Amendment applied. States receive millions of dollars each year to build and maintain roads that are not part of the Interstate system. This, from my point of view, is unconstitutional Federal spending.

Without that funding, the Feds would not have the stick to “encourage” the States to raise their drinking age. The same stick was used for the speed limit under Carter and largely removed later.