In response to the Oct. 4 column by Marianne Renner, I would like to start off by saying that she has an acidic tongue and an arrogance equal to that of Dan Rather. Furthermore, judging by this tone, I only can assume that Ms. Renner, having reached the matronly age of 21, has taken it upon herself to put the rest of us underage peons in our place.

She would do well to consider the fact that an 18-year-old idiot does not always become a wise and responsible drinker at 21. More often, they simply become more experienced idiots, or dead. As far as I go, I have been drinking for four or five years and after getting sick once, have learned when to say when, as have most of my friends.

I concede that under the present laws, underage admittance is impractical. However, we would do well to consider changing these laws. More than a few of us resent the fact that we can vote, marry, go to war or serve time as adults, but can’t legally have a beer. The fact that DUIs decrease after 21 says little about maturity but, rather, the fact that many of these idiots are dead by then.

Finally, since underage drinking cannot be halted by anything short of martial law or capital punishment, shouldn’t we do something to encourage the social aspects and responsibilities of drinking?

Ken Goze

Freshman

Undecided