Happy Friday and welcome to today’s edition of RantCrush Top 5!

Taco Trucks On Every Corner? Clinton Responds

A couple weeks ago, mortgage broker and founder of Latinos for Trump, Marco Gutierrez, warned  MSNBC viewers of the armageddon that is taco trucks. Skip to 6:04 for Gutierrez’s crazy claim.

Wow. Just wow on so many levels.

Last night, at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Hillary Clinton cleaned up in support, when she addressed the backwards remarks that Gutierrez made: “You’ve stayed focused no matter what kind of outlandish and offensive comments we’ve heard from my opponent and his supporters,” she told the crowd. “By the way, I personally think a taco truck on every corner sounds absolutely delicious.”

That it does, Hillary, that it does.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Spring break is a college rite of passage synonymous with beaches, bikini-clad babes, and binge drinking. However, it’s no secret that excessive alcohol consumption can lend itself to a dangerous environment for these vacationers, including reckless behavior, violence, and sexual assault. No one knows these kinds of dangers better than the residents of the spring break capital of the world, Panama City Beach, which is why their city council members have voted to make a change next year by banning beach drinking during spring break.

Panama City Beach bans #springbreak drinking. Should others follow? http://t.co/DLZCjfJ6BR pic.twitter.com/D9lHTh9ONn

— The News-Press (@TheNewsPress) May 14, 2015

According to the News Herald, the Panama City Beach City Council voted last week to ban drinking all together on the beach next March despite its expected negative effect on business owners. The measure has been deemed a much-needed crackdown on out of control spring break partying that has negatively impacted the city.

Case in point, this year seven people were shot and wounded at house party. Then in April, police released a censored video of girl passed out on the Florida beach getting gang raped in broad daylight while crowds of bystanders watched. Even though most of the girl’s body had been blurred, a young woman watching the video recognized her tattoos and contacted authorities. The girl in the video was believed to have been drugged before the assault occurred. What’s even more disturbing is this isn’t the first time something like that incident has happened there. Bay County Sheriff Frank McKeithen said they’ve recovered a number of videos similar in nature. Ruth Corley, spokeswoman for the sheriff’s office, commented on the incident via social media saying,

We have been able to find video of girls, incoherent and passed out, and almost like they are drugged, being assaulted on the beaches of Panama City in front of a bunch of people standing around.

This move is in addition to 17 other measures approved last year to tone down the city’s Spring Break celebrations. These changes are expected to cause a dramatic drop in revenue for the $200 million-plus economy that the tourism provides, but owners see it as worth the risk while hoping for an increase in more family-friendly tourists.

As someone who’s personally made the 800-something mile pilgrimage there from my college town of Athens, Ohio, with a group of my best friends, I can tell you that I’m not at all surprised by how out of control it has gotten there. Much of what I thought were spring break myths were proved realities during my short stay there. Even though this initiative will likely anger prospective spring breakers, working to prevent occurrences of violence and sexual assault is much more important.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beach Drinking Banned at This Popular Spring Break Destination appeared first on Law Street.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act, passed in 1984, is turning 30 this year. The law, meant to curb teen drunk driving, has been the topic of debate since it was passed. Read on to learn more about what inspired the law, whether or not it works, and a few unintended consequences.

What is the National Minimum Drinking Age Act

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 set the drinking age of every state at 21.

Well, not exactly– congress is not allowed to tell states that they have to make their drinking age a certain number. However, Congress does have power to control spending, including the allocations of funds to states. That’s why this act threatened to cut ten percent of federal highway funding to any state that did not change their drinking age to 21. By 1988, every state had changed their drinking age to 21.

Critics of the law had two main arguments. Some complained that the law was was an intrusion on states’ rights. Others argued that it was not fair that the federal government could call 18 year olds adults when they fight for their country, but not when they want a beer.

Watch the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), author of the National Minimum Wage Drinking Age Act Late, respond to these criticisms on PBS NewsHour.

Why was it passed?

This bill was the end result of a massive campaign by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to lower the drinking age.

MADD was started in 1980 by Candy Lightner when her daughter was killed by a repeat drunk driver. The group aggressively lobbied President Reagan and Congress to combat the issue of drunk driving, in part by increasing the drinking age to 21. The problem, in MADD’s eyes, had started a decade earlier. In the 1970s, as a result of the Vietnam War drafting 18-year-olds, some states decided to lower their drinking ages to 18. It only seemed fair; if you could be forced to fight, you should be allowed to drink. However, this led to a sharp spike in drunk driving fatalities.

One major cause was the phenomenon of “blood borders.” These were the borders between states with high drinking ages and states with low drinking ages. Historically, 18 years olds would drive to neighboring states to drink, then while driving back, crash and die. The hope was that raising the drinking age to 21 would lower drunk driving rates.

Has it worked?

Sort of — a Boston University study has shown that, since the drinking age was raised, there have been significantly fewer drunk driving accidents, and a strong majority, 89 percent, of drunk drivers today are between the ages of 21 and 44.

But, lower drunk driving rates are not just limited to those who are banned from drinking. Drunk driving in general has reduced across almost every age group.

Courtesy of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

As you can see, the most dramatic drop was in the 21-29 age group. The minimum drinking age did not impact them. Admittedly, there was also a notable drop in the 16-20 age group.

This decrease in drunk driving rates for all ages could still be the result of a lower drinking age if young people had stopped drinking. However, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), 39 percent of high school students still say they drink. The statistics from the National Institute of Health are even more eye-opening. It states 72 percent of 12 graders have tried alcohol and 85 percent of college students drink, even though they are not 21.

So, if young people are still drinking, why did drunk driving decrease so dramatically? Choose Responsibly, an organization that sparks debate about alcohol laws and supports lowering the drinking age, argues that a mix of seatbelt laws, a lower legal BAC, and public awareness all explain the drop in drunk driving fatalities. They also argue that the drop in alcohol-related fatalities actually started in the 1970s, well before the drinking age was raised to 21.

Have there been any unintended consequences?

Different sources have come to different conclusions. While some say that the higher drinking age has definitely saved lives, others argue that unintended consequences have led to a binge drinking crisis.

According to the earlier mentioned NIH report, “underage drinkers consume, on average, four to five drinks per occasion about five times a month. By comparison, drinkers age 26 and older consume two to three drinks per occasion, about nine times a month.” So, while an adult might have a couple glasses of wine a few times a week, a young person will instead have double that amount once a week. Young people are drinking more alcohol in a shorter timeframe.

Watch this clip to learn about why this trend is so dangerous:

Binge drinking can also indirectly cause dangerous behavior in college students. This includes violence, unprotected sex, and even sexual assault. Choose Responsibly argues that this is a consequence of a high drinking age. If these young people were allowed to drink with adult supervision, they would learn how to drink safely and responsibly. Since drinking is illegal, they have been pushed into the shadows. It’s a lot easier to get dangerously drunk in your friend’s basement than it is at a bar.

The binge drinking trend has led some to call for a repeal, or at least a discussion, of the minimum drinking age. A 137 college presidents are signatories on a statement from the Amethyst Initiative, a group dedicated to lowering the drinking age. The presidents argue that they have seen the negative impact of a high drinking age on their own campuses, including high amount of binge drinking amongst their students.

On this point, the presidents are wrong and right. For one, Americans are binge drinking less than they used to as a whole. However, college students are the only group of Americans that are binge drinking as much as they used to. With this in mind, it makes sense the college presidents would be so concerned about this issue. Their point of view is shaped by their experience with a group that represents an outlier in drinking attitudes nationwide. College students are still binge drinking at higher rates than the rest of the country, but raising the drinking age to 21 seems to have lowered the amount of binge drinking amongst young people who are not in college.

Still, Amethyst presidents are concerned about a culture where college drinkers move from bars, where someone can cut them off, to basements and pre-games that are unregulated and unchecked.

Signatories to the Amethyst Initiative have other reasons to lower the drinking age, mostly philosophical. For one, they believe that forcing young people to drink in secret and violate the law fosters a disrespect for all laws. They also believe that a person who can vote, smoke, marry, and fight for their country should be given all of the responsibilities of adulthood, including drinking.

Conclusion

It’s been 30 years since the National Minimum Drinking Age Act became a law, and it is still hard to measure the act’s impact. It’s difficult to tell how many lives it saved from drunk driving accidents because there are so many other factors. It’s also challenging to figure out if it has really curbed underage and binge drinking. More research needs to be done on the issue before the act can be defined as a success or failure.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984

Additional

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Impaired Driving: Get the Facts

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Epidemiology and Consequences of Drinking and Driving

Mothers Against Drunk Driving: No More Victims

Fox News: When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition

Mental Floss: Why is the Drinking Age 21?

CNN: Drinking Age of 21 Does Not Work

Amethyst Initative: Rethink the Drinking Age

Washington Post: Drinking Age Paradox

Washington University in St. Louis: Higher Drinking Age Linked to Less Binge Drinking…Except in College Students

Boston University: New Report on Minimum Drinking Age Makes Strong Case for Existing Laws

National Institutes of Health: Underage Drinking Fact Sheet

Choose Responibility: Those Who Choose to Drink Are Drinking More

Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Binge Drinking Fact Sheet

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turn Down for What: Does the Minimum Drinking Age Act Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Are you a frat bro who misses the days when Four Loko had all the fun stuff in it? Blame Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Are you a Brooklynite who can suddenly no longer get unlabeled alcoholic slushies delivered to your door, no questions asked? Blame Schumer. And, are you still waiting for your pre-order of powdered alcohol to come in the mail? Once again, blame Schumer.

Yes, Schumer is directly responsible for blocking every single innovation in the alcohol industry from coming to market over the past half-decade. That brings the obvious question to mind: why is Schumer such a buzzkill? He insists that it’s all in defense of America’s youth, and in most cases he is probably right.

For example, Phrosties, which Schumer was partly responsible for making disappear, was a delivery service in New York City whose primary product was unmarked opaque bottles of mystery alcoholic slushies in the same colors as the lights at an Avicii show.

Imagine this in alcohol form.

These were obviously marketed toward children. The only way to order them was through Instagram and they resembled Hawaiian Punch more than an adult drink. One reviewer even stated that they tasted “like teenage regret.”

We think that sounds gross, too.

Admittedly, Schumer also had a pretty good point when it came to Four Loko.  For those of you who don’t remember 2010 (maybe you drank too much Four Loko), Four Loko was a canned beverage that mixed alcohol and caffeine. College students colloquially referred to it as “blackout in a can.” The caffeine would prevent drinkers from knowing when they were drunk, tricking them into drinking even more until they got dangerously sick.

Like this, but with a trip to the hospital.

The craziest part? One Four Loko had the alcoholic equivalent of five beers. Chuck Schumer, along with attorney generals from multiple states, quickly pressured the FDA to ban the beverage. It is now sold in a much less lethal form.

But, Schumer is plain wrong when it comes to powdered alcohol. Calling it the “Kool-Aid of teenage binge drinking,” Schumer recently demanded that the FDA halt the approval process for Palcohol, the company that makes powdered alcohol. Schumer claims that powdered alcohol can be easily concealed by kids at school dances, mixed in someone’s drink without his or her knowledge, and even snorted.

This video from Mark Phillips, founder of Palcohol, succinctly rebuts all of Schumer’s claims.

As you can see, the packaging for powdered alcohol is as big as four travel-sized bottles of vodka, so it is not any easier to conceal. It takes at least a minute to dissolve, so it is not a good way to spike somebody’s drink. And, unless you’re using your own homemade formula like this idiot at Vice.com, it would take an hour to snort one shot’s worth of powdered vodka. It would be painful and it wouldn’t get you drunk.

Regardless, powdered alcohol appears to be dead. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) rescinded its approval of the product and the New York State Senate just passed a bill banning powdered alcohol from being sold.

The faces of fans of weird alcohol everywhere.

Schumer’s crusade against powdered alcohol has ruined what could have been a world changing invention. For consumers and businesses alike, the beverage and industrial formulations of powdered alcohol could have improved the way we live. Since powdered alcohol is lighter than liquid alcohol, shipping costs would be lowered, and the price would be cheaper. Airplanes could serve it instead of liquid alcohol, and maybe pass the weight savings on to the consumer in the form of lower ticket prices. It would also make it easier for law-abiding drinkers to travel with a refreshing drink. All of this adds up to fewer carbon emissions used to transport this product.

But, it’s the industrial formula that would really change the world. Phillips claims that multiple companies have requested information about powdered alcohol being used as a lightweight source of fuel, an essential ingredient in windshield wiper fluid, and as an antiseptic in a medical setting. Imagine how easy it would be to ship powdered alcohol to a disaster zone as opposed to having to ship heavy liquid. This invention could save lives.

Politicians are always saying that they want to pass laws that allow Americans to be innovative and entrepreneurial, so why is Schumer blocking Phillips from doing just that? Does Schumer really think the downsides of this product outweigh all of the positives?

I have another theory. You see, while Schumer claims to be leading the charge against the alcohol industry’s assault on our nation’s youth, he’s been taking a lot of donations from the industry’s leading names. According to OpenSecrets.org, Schumer received $155,000 from PACs and individuals associated with alcohol in 2010. That’s the same year he started his fight against Four Loko. Is it really a coincidence that Schumer received so much money from the industry right as he started fighting against a product that threatened to dip into its profits?

The two companies that gave Schumer the most money were SABMiller and Anheuser-Busch InBev. These are the companies that make Miller and Budweiser. They bowed out of the caffeinated alcohol game in 2008, so they had the most market share to lose from Four Loko’s success, and the most to gain from its demise. So, instead of competing fairly, they decided to buy influence in Washington.

Pictured: The CEO of SABMiller

Every mass producer of alcoholic beverages had something to lose from the emergence of powdered alcohol. It threatened to be a cheaper and more convenient option than the products they sold. I’m sure they breathed a sigh of relief when Schumer’s press release shut the product down, and I’m even more sure they will pay Schumer handsomely for his services.

Cha-ching!

So kids, remember, Chuck Schumer does not want you drinking scary kinds of alcohol. He and his campaign account would prefer if you drank a Bud Light instead.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Senate Democrats via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Schumer’s Crusades Against Weird Alcohol Help Build His War Chest appeared first on Law Street.