On Feb 18, 9:32*pm, "J. Clarke" > wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
> > J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >>>> I have a theory that we'd have better government
> >>>> if random members of the public were drafted into
> >>>> public service, sort of like the jury system.
> >>> Sorry, but I can't agree with that. There are too many incompetent
> >>> people out there for that to work. We only have to look at some of
> >>> the jury decisions that have come out over the years to see how
> >>> nuts some people are.
>
> >> And how are those worse than all the "sending a signal" laws that
> >> have been enacted?
>
> > OK I'll bite. * What is a "sending a signal" law?
>
> Sixteen year olds are driving drunk, so to "send a signal" the drinking age
> is raised from 18 to 21 is one example. *Laws that have nothing to do with
> the offense at which they are directed and instead punish somebody else to
> "send a signal" to some group whose actions are already illegal.

A person between the ages of 18 and 20 is considered to have the
judgement capacity to volunteer to get killed, maimed or be
psychologically traumatized for the rest of his/her life by joining
the military, but cannot legally buy a bottle of beer. That instills
a contempt for the law, as well it should. A better message would be
that no one is going to get away with driving drunk, whatever their
age. A middle path would increase penalties for *inexperienced*
drivers--ones who have had their license for less than a specified
number of years--who are caught driving drunk. The 21 YO drinking age
is stupid.

--Bryan