Michigan didn’t have a drinking age at all until about 1970 (at that point the age was 18 with an increase to 21 in late 1978). Literally a two year old could legally belly up to the bar and order/consume an alcoholic drink. Back then police and bar owners could and would prevent something that asinine from happening extra-judicially but technically there wasn’t a law making a two year old unable to legally order a drink. We didn’t have a general child endangerment law on the books back then either so that wasn’t an option.

I have to agree. Whatever the age of majority is, it should come with ALL rights and privileges extended to adults. I personally think we should accelerate K-12 education and graduate/emancipate people at 16 (graduation at 15-16 was somewhat common in the one room schoolhouse days where everyone worked at their own pace and many times teachers only had 2-3 students total in their grades 1-8 one room schoolhouse classes, students could easily complete eight years of primary school in 5-6 years, those people came out of school just as well as those in the city schools where accelerated completion wasn’t possible — the last township-run and funded one room schoolhouses were closed in my area in 1967 and 1968) but our government is a hypocrite telling people they can join the military or marry at 17 and not drink alcohol or work in a strip joint until 21.

@BT

Legally IF an establishment employs a dancer under age 21 they are liable for the consequences of breaking the law.

A few things not included in Mike’s posted source ….
The law isn’t statewide it was passed by the New Orleans City Council in January and went into effect Oct 1st. Consequences include suspending or even revoking city liquor licenses.
http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/politics/article_96f6c5de-3b24-58d0-8ea8-a5aeab6f4754.html

As I said this came off as someone’s pet peeve and looking into this further has only supported that view. The city might run into an issue because they didn’t phase effective dates to limit the impact on existing workers hired when it was legal to do so.

Imagine the legal defenses Larry Flynt’s lawyers would use in the event his city liquor permit were suspended over a dancer who turned 18 on 1/5/16 was hired 1/6/16 which is the day before the council vote. This hypothetical situation shows the city council didn’t realize the law could be overturned the first time they try to enforce consequences for not following rules intended to serve a pet-peeve.

Don’t disagree with whether states have an interest in raising the age to perform to 21 from 18; however, if the legal age is 18 (or 21) an establishment has to abide by the law. In individual establishment cannot decide on its own that it will only employ strippers who are 21 or older because they would be discriminating against those who are qualified for the job but under the age of 21. Just can’t legally do it.

This age restriction proposal isn’t a situation like preventing 12 year-olds from operating heavy machinery so it comes off as somebody’s pet-peeve and using the law to back their arbitrary preference.

I was able to drink leally at age 18. MADD was something no one had heard of and every argument they put forth led me to believe the driving age not the drinking age ought to be raised. Perhaps being a city girl who didn’t bother getting my license until I was 18 affected my ideas but I couldn’t imagine trying to incorporate drinking to driving when my experience with had already taught me too much drinking made walking difficult.

When the drinking age to 21 restaurants and bars were appeased with a change to allow anyone 18+ to serve booze. The fear was raising the age for serving to 21 would make it too hard to get eligible servers.

IM (not so) HO the State has no business raising the age to 21. It ought to left up to individual establishments who could pressure insurers to lower premiums for workers comp, liability and business coverage if they voluntarily raise their workers ages.

BT I am interested to see how this plays out for sure…..It could well have lasting effects potentially far beyond LA

And therein lis my point. It is currently arbitrary…you are an adult when it is convenient for you to be an adult as far as the government is concerned but not an adult when it comes to vice. I am with Alex here it has to be across the board you either are an adult with the responsibility that entails…all of it, or you are not. I do believe that this is in conflict with the Constitution and if it isn’t then it should be. and I think if you are old enough to risk your life for whatever reason the President wishes you to do so then you are old enough to strip, marry or anything else.

Most people don’t remember it but this is not the first time that this has come up, the drinking age was 21 in the 60s but the age of conscription was 18. It was one of many civil rights issues fought in the 60s and it resulted in an across the board recognition of 18 as the age of majority. That has since been whittled away by congress because it suits them for whatever reason.
I dont much care whether its 18 or 21 but whatever it is has to be absolute and include drinking, stripping, doing porn, signing contracts and serving in the military.

There is another part of me that says that when it comes to vice, the courts have had no issue setting a higher age limit than for other activities. You have to be 21 to drink; you have to be 21 to gamble; I don’t know the law state by state, but it used to be that you had to be 21 to go into a strip club (not saying I’m right on that). In that sense, I can see where the courts would allow it.

I guess personally, I’m sympathetic to raising the age to 21. When its a workplace issue, I’m not sure I think its not discriminatory.

If you are old enough to die for your country, you are old enough for EVERYTHING else. There is nothing else you can do.

18 is the correct age. It’s the age that many leave home to head to school (university) for the first time. It’s the time when the growing up under Mom and Dad is over and it’s time to learn for yourself. If you don’t choose (or can’t) go to school, you choose working, the military, or I guess living in the trailer park or hood or whatever it is you do. It’s a turning point.

The military depends on being a “choice”. Wait until 21, and those children who moved out at 18 are working and don’t need to military as much. They offer a solid alternative to newly minted adults who aren’t really sure what they want from life. Wait 3 more years, and people may have a better idea what they want to be, and the military may not be it anymore.

Old enough to die for your country should mean old enough to drink, old enough to drive, and yes, old enough to make a fuck film.