The Deeth Blog has scaled back the 21 bar coverage lately; one can only bang one's head against the wall for so long before.... well, before metal health will drive you mad, I guess.
So now we'll do it all over again: the petitioning, registering, and turnout. (Last month's 18 petition is a non-starter, the new effort is to overturn the council and bring 19 back) Round 2 will be different in a couple ways: 21 will be a reality as of june, so the incoming class of freshmen will know nothing else.
At least it got through fast enough that it'll likely go on this fall's ballot. How does that big student turnout affect the top of the ballot races?
I don't know if it helps my people or not, but here's a rare chance. One of the problems with pursuing the larger issue, the drinking age itself, is the question of priority. As one official told me off the record, (s)/he agrees with me in principle on old enough to fight, old enough to vote, old enough to drink, but if (s)/he gets five minutes with a stae or federal official, that issue doesn't fit in the five minutes.
So young voters, ask the state and federal candidates this fall what they'd do with the drinking age. Their thoughts on the local issue itself may be less relevant, but their thoughts on the big issue are important enough to take the time in a debate or forum.
And in 2011 remember the one council member who called this for what it is:
Council member Regenia Bailey, who has been the lone no vote against 21-only, said the move was a potentially divisive by casting blame for a larger problem on 19 and 20-year-olds.
"It's not specific to this age group, and I think they're serving as scapegoats for some of the things we can't seem to address," Bailey said.
No comments:
Post a Comment