The full schedule for the event is offered here.

“It’s outrageous that a member of our military can be subjected to the horrors of war, but can’t legally have a beer or smoke a cigarette,” he wrote on his blog last week.

As Aliyah Shahid reported in the New York Daily News, “Defense Department rules mandate that all U.S. military facilities follow the 21 drinking age, but U.S. bases abroad can drop their drinking age as low as 18 based on the host country’s laws.” Lynn’s proposal would change the drinking age for service members in his state.

Read the full report here.

Update: The full text of Rep. Lynn’s press release is below.

Rep. Bob Lynn (R-Anchorage) has sponsored HB 210, a bill that would enable all active duty warriors in our U.S. Armed Forces to be treated as adults.  HB 210 permits active duty service members under age 21 to consume alcoholic beverages and use tobacco products in Alaska.

“Alaska has more residents in the military per capita than any other state, and we have the second highest number of veterans,” Lynn said.  “We should be leading the way when it comes to military and veteran-friendly policies, but once again federal overreach precludes us from pursuing common sense solutions at the state level.”  The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to govern state alcohol policies, but has managed to enforce a nationwide legal drinking age of 21 by threatening to withhold federal highway funds.

According to Rep. Lynn, “Alaska cannot be a ‘laboratory for democracy’ if we allow ourselves to be bought off by federal dollars every time our policy preferences conflict with the busy bodies in D.C.”

“I’ve decided to draw the line at treating our brave servicemen and women as adults.  I think they deserve it, and I hope Alaskans will stand with me against the heavy hand of Washington.”

You can download a copy in PDF here.

Defenders of the status quo claim that highway deaths have fallen because the drinking age was raised to 21 from 18, but those claims obscure the fact that this decline merely continued a trend that was already present prior to the drinking age changed—and 1 that involved each age group, not merely those 18-21. Analysis by economist Jeffrey A. Miron and lawyer Elina Tetelbaum indicates that a drinking age of 21 doesn’t save lives but does promote binge drinking and contempt for the law.

Safety is the excuse, but what is genuinely going on here is one thing a lot more like prohibition. A nation that cares about freedom—and that has already learned that prohibition was a failure—should know much better.

Reynolds then goes on to make the political argument for Legal Age 18:

Republicans are supposed to stand for limited government, freedom and federalism, but it was below a Republican administration—and a Republican transportation secretary, Elizabeth Dole—that states had been forced to raise their age limits or face financial penalties. That was prior to the tea party, though. Possibly nowadays, when Republican leaders across the board are singing the praises of limited government, it is time for them to put their cash exactly where their mouths are and support an finish to the federal drinking-age mandate.

Read the rest of his commentary here.

A petition to compel arbitration is reviewed de novo. The standard is the exact same as that which would be applicable to a motion for summary judgment, and the trial court’s decision is reviewed using the identical regular employed by the trial court and based upon the exact same evidentiary supplies as were prior to it in determination of the motion.

Douglass v. Pflueger Haw., Inc., 110 Hawai’i 520, 524-25, 135 P.3d 129, 133-34 (2006) (internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted) (quoting Brown v. KFC Nat’l Mgmt. Co., 82 Hawai’i 226, 231, 921 P.2d 146, 151 (1996)). “[W]hen presented with a motion to compel arbitration, the court is limited to answering two questions: 1) whether or not an arbitration agreement exists between the parties and 2) if so, no matter whether the subject matter of the dispute is arbitrable under such agreement.” Hawaii Med. Ass’n v. Hawaii Med. Serv. Ass’n, 113 Hawai’i 77, 91, 148 P.3d 1179, 1193 (2006) (quoting Ko’olau Radiology, Inc. v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 73 Haw. 433, 445, 834 P.2d 1294, 1300 (1992)). In this case, we are presented with the former question: whether an arbitration agreement exists which mandates arbitration.

“Arbitration is a matter of contract so a party can not be needed to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.” Sher v. Cella, 114 Hawai’i 263, 267, 160 P.3d 1250, 1254 (App. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[A]n agreement really should be construed as a whole and its meaning determined from the entire context and not from any certain word, phrase or clause.” Leeward Bus Co. v. City and County of Honolulu, 58 Haw. 64, 68-69, 564 P.2d 445, 448 (1977) (quoting Ching v. Hawaiian Rests. Ltd., 50 Haw. 563, 565, 445 P.2d 370, 372 (1968)). “Absent an ambiguity, contract terms need to be interpreted according to their plain, ordinary, and accepted sense in widespread speech.” Hi Kai Inv., Ltd. v. Aloha Futons Beds &amp Waterbeds, Inc., 84 Hawai’i 75, 78, 929 P.2d 88, 91 (1996) (quoting Cho Mark Oriental Food v. K.K. Int’l, 73 Haw. 509, 520, 836 P.2d 1057, 1064 (1992)).

Noncompliance with the speed limit in violation of HRS § 291C-102 (2007) is punishable by only a fine pursuant to HRS § 291C-161 (2007), and, thus, it constitutes a “‘[t]raffic infraction’… for which the prescribed penalties do not include imprisonment[.]” HRS § 291D-2 (2007). “No Traffic infraction shall be classified as a criminal offense.” HRS § 291D-3(a) (2007). Under HRS Chapter 291D, contested traffic citations are adjudicated at a hearing before a district court. An adjudication in favor of the State of Hawai#i may be followed by a trial de novo before the district court conducted “pursuant to the Hawaii rules of evidence and the rules of the district court[.]” HRS § 291D-13(a) (2007). Rule 19(d) of the Hawai`i Civil Traffic Rules (HCTR) provides that “[a]ppeals from judgments entered after a trial may be taken in the manner provided for appeals from district court civil judgments.” HCTR Rule 19(d). Appeals from district court civil judgments are authorized by HRS § 641-1(a) (1993 & Supp. 2009) and, pursuant to HRAP Rule 4(a)(1), an appellant must file a notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the judgment.

“Binge drinking prevalence decreased with growing age, from 25.6% among respondents aged 18–24 years to three.8% among respondents aged ≥65 years…The average largest number of drinks consumed by binge drinkers decreased with increasing age, from 9.1 among adults aged 18–24 years to 5.5 among those aged ≥65 years.”

Donald McNeil provided a summary of the report’s findings for the New York Times:

“Binge drinking — defined as five drinks at a sitting for men and four for women — is growing. In a switch from the norm for health difficulties, it is much more widespread among the far better-educated and much more affluent, which includes college students. But poor individuals, and specially American Indians, drink a lot much more heavily when on binges.”

The new report’s findings come from an analysis of the 2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. The full CDC report is readily available here.

The news comes on the heels of our recent blog item outlining similar problems at Central Washington University. At Kansas State University, the Collegian reported a spike in sales of caffeinated alcoholic drinks.

For an in-depth take on the issue, check out Peter Schworm’s story in the Boston Globe on November 2. Check out both reports and let us know what you think in the comments.

“The choice of responsibility works both ways,” said Barrett Seaman, President of Choose Responsibility. “We hope and expect young people to handle alcohol responsibly, but we also expect the alcohol beverage industry to police itself—both in its advertising and promotional materials and in its choice of products. Mixing caffeine and alcohol is a poor choice.”

The FDA’s action follows a November 2009 request to manufacturers of caffeinated alcoholic beverages to provide data on the safety of their products. After conducting an independent analysis of peer-reviewed literature, the FDA found that caffeinated alcoholic beverages do not meet the generally accepted standard of safety. Instead, caffeine is an “unsafe food additive” associated with “risky behaviors that may lead to hazardous and life-threatening situations” when mixed with alcohol.

The FTC letters warned that the makers of caffeinated alcoholic beverages may be violating industry standards of truth in their advertising campaigns. Both organizations have instructed the makers of these beverages to outline the steps they have taken to comply within 15 days.

Choose Responsibility applauds these warnings, and looks forward to more opportunities to collaborate with legislators and public health officials to promote a culture of responsible and safe alcohol consumption.

Choose Responsibility is a nonprofit organization founded to stimulate informed and dispassionate public discussion about the presence of alcohol in American culture and to consider policies that will effectively empower young adults age 18 to 20 to make mature decisions about the place of alcohol in their own lives. To learn more, visit www.chooseresponsibility.org.