Changing liquor laws is not a good
Christmas present for South Dakotans
By Gordon Garnos
AT ISSUE: As South Dakota goes
into its Christmas season, there are two proposals being made to
reduce the age limits of those allowed to consume alcohol. A young
Flandreau attorney is threatening the state with a petition drive to
return the old 3.2 beer law for 19 and 20-year-olds. Then, out Rapid
City way, state Sen. Bill Napoli wants Congress to change a 1984
federal law that penalizes states if they allow people younger than
21 to drink alcoholic beverages. If it doesn't he may attempt to
have the South Dakota Legislature pass a law that would override the
federal mandate. Wow!
WITH BLACK FRIDAY now out of the
way, South Dakotans can turn to the true spirit of the season
celebrating the birth of the Christ Child. Sure, there is more
shopping to be done, but the Christmas season also is about more
than presents for someone.
For example, it is the time for our
legislators to be planning their priorities for the upcoming
session. Apparently it is also time for us to start picking our
favorites in the presidential races. Also, it is a time for stupid
ideas to come out of the woodwork about writing new or changing
certain laws. A couple of them relate to lowering the drinking age
for South Dakotans.
For a little background for you younger
readers: South Dakota used to have some rather loose liquor laws.
For example, 18-19-and-20-year-olds could legally drink 3.2 point
beer (low percentage of alcohol). The state also allowed "bottle
clubs" where a customer would bring in his own booze and order a mix
of his choosing. Those were besides the regular bars as we have them
today.
IN AN ATTEMPT to reduce
alcohol-related traffic deaths, in 1984 Congress mandated all the
states to raise the drinking age to 21. If they didn't they could
lose out in receiving any federal highway money. South Dakota, the
last state to bow to the demand of Congress, finally changed its
liquor laws in 1988. Studies since then have proven that the higher
minimum age for consuming beer and liquor has significantly reduced
those traffic deaths.
Since then there have been various
attempts to lower the drinking age or change our liquor laws one way
or another, but they have been to no avail.
The latest calls for change came early
last month. The first from none other than state Sen. Bill Napoli of
Rapid City, known for swinging on a rope with other inane ideas. The
second came from N. Bob Pesall, a young Flandreau attorney.
NAPOLI'S PROPOSAL, frankly, just
doesn't make any sense for at least a couple of reasons. First, to
dispose of a federal law that would allow those 18 to 20 years old
will increase traffic deaths across the country. Studies have proven
this. Secondly, even if Congress refused to drop the law and Napoli
could somehow get it passed in the state, we would lose millions of
dollars every year for highway construction. South Dakota can't
begin to muster up enough money for our highway system, let alone
lose what is sent to the state from Washington.
Both the Flandreau attorney and the
Rapid City senator use the age-old, and I might add, decrepit
argument that if these kids can go off to war and be killed, pay
taxes and vote, etc., they certainly should be allowed to booze it
up once in a while. Napoli even suggested to Senator John Thune that
perhaps a waiver could be given to this age group in the armed
forces that would allow them to drink.
SENATOR THUNE'S response pretty
much put the whole issue in a nut shell when he said, "It would be
nice to make exceptions for those who serve this country and display
exceptional judgment, but current law appears to be the only
objective approach to continue to increase public safety and reduce
drinking-related traffic fatalities, especially when roughly
one-half of South Dakota highway fatalities involve alcohol."
Pesall, on the other hand, is proposing
to bypass both Congress and our Legislature and go straight to the
people to get the 3.2 beer law reestablished in South Dakota that
would allow 19 and 20-year-olds to so indulge. That stuff isn't so
dangerous, he thinks. Having lived in the 3.2 era I can assure
Pesall and his allies that the beer with a lower alcohol level can
get one just as wasted. It just takes a little more of it.
To accomplish his goal by the 2008
General Election, Pesall needs to get 16,776 signatures on a
petition by April 1 of next year. I wish him "Bad Luck!" on his
venture.
ONE DOES NOT NEED to be touched
by very many traffic deaths to know alcohol kills especially "when
roughly one-half of South Dakota highway traffic fatalities involve
alcohol." To even consider Sen. Napoli's proposal to lower the
liquor laws adds shame to his senselessness.....
Gordon Garnos was long-time editor of the Watertown Public Opinion and
recently retired after 39 years with that newspaper. Garnos, a
lifelong resident of South Dakota except for his military service in the
U.S. Air Force, was born and raised in Presho.
Leave a comment about this article
