South Dakota state representative Tim Rounds (R-Pierre) says he wants to lower the state's drinking age to 18, provided the drinking occurs in controlled settings

According to an article from KOTA, such "controlled settings" would include clubs or in the presence of adults. Another stipulation Rounds cited would be that the alcohol not include hard liquor.

Rounds is quoted in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader:

"Young adults are drinking. That's a fact. They're binge drinking. Go to any college community. It goes on. There's no control. It's not a safe environment," he said. With a law change, "you're not going to stop house parties and drinking and driving, but you will lessen the numbers that are doing that."

A primary reason cited by Rounds is highway safety, ostensibly on the logic that somehow allowing legal drinking for 18-year olds would somehow keep more drunk 18 year olds off the road.

As a former law enforcement official and as a former drinker, that just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

It is true that underage people are currently drinking.  But legalizing it will do little if anything to reduce it or make the highways safer. When you legalize a risky behavior, you usually get more of that risky behavior...and more of the unfortunate consequences that come with said risky behavior.

Plenty of people 21 and over are drinking and driving; why would be expect a less mature 18 year old to do better than a 21 year old?  We can hope that a person might mature in those extra three years (they often don't), but we're asking for more trouble by lowering the drinking age.

Having spent 10 years in the military right out of high school, I also understand the argument that if a person is old enough to fight and die for their country, they should be old enough to drink.  Because there is compelling logic to that statement, I could grudgingly go along with an exception for 18-20 year old military members, but only grudgingly.

I started drinking when I went overseas at  19, and frankly that was too young.  I don't know if I would have handled it more responsibly at 21, but I know I didn't do a good job of handling it at 19.   Fortunately, as a law enforcement official, I couldn't lower myself to the hypocrisy of drinking and driving, then arresting people for it, so I always made sure I had a ride or was parked for the night for my drinking.  But I can attest from the behavior of many drinking friends, that restraint is not common among drinkers.

The issue involves not only drunk driving, but other behavior as well.  Excessive drinking brings bar fights, assaults, drunk and disorderly behavior, and domestic disturbances.  A large number of the domestic violence cases I responded to involved alcohol use.  Alcohol impairs judgment even after only a few beers, and anger that might be restrained under normal circumstances can get out of hand quickly when under the influence of an intoxicant.  I really don't think we want to see more women and children (and men, for that matter) assaulted by drunken 18-20 year olds in the home.

My friend and former state senator Bill Napoli supported lowering the drinking age when he was in the legislature, and still does.  I like Bill, I respect him greatly and think he was an outstanding legislator, but I disagree with him on this one.

I support freedom wherever possible like any good conservative or Republican should.  But when the issue involves a moral component like drinking to excess (which doesn't take much), involves public safety both in the home and on the streets, and can ruin a person in so many ways, I consider this one of these few areas where it is reasonable to curtail some freedom until a person is (hopefully) a little older and a little wiser.