Letters to the Editor

BY DI READERS | OCTOBER 08, 2013 5:00 AM

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Removing the 21-ordinance sends a mixed message

A common argument against the Iowa City 21-ordinance is that it forces underage students to go to house parties rather than the bars if they want to go out. I respectfully disagree based on the simple fact that it’s a choice to go to house parties, a choice that the city does not officially endorse with a law granting access.

Should the ordinance pass, it symbolizes an open invitation for students under the age of 21 to enter establishments whose primary revenue source is the sale of alcohol. Why would we want to recreate an environment that endorses underage access to bars? Since the ordinance went into effect, the downtown area is safer, more vibrant, and becoming increasingly diverse in terms of the businesses available to consumers. 

Removing the 21-ordinance would be a step in the wrong direction for the Iowa City community. With your vote of “No” on Nov. 5, you recognize that it would be irresponsible for the city to send mixed messages to students under the age of 21 by granting them access to drinking establishments.

Jonathan Sexton

Protect the 21-ordinance

We have lived in this great city for 34 years. We have watched as the city and the university struggled to address the problem of underage drinking. Contrary to the dire warnings of its opponents, the 21-ordinance has markedly reduced the negative effects of underage drinking and improved the vibrancy of downtown Iowa City. The statistics are striking: Substantially fewer students engage in high-risk drinking — both in the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. The number of alternative venues for non-drinking young adults has also increased. There is no good reason to go backwards. Therefore, we support the 21-ordinance and the positive effect it has had on our city. Vote “No” on Nov. 5 to protect the 21-ordinance.

Dave & Sherry Lohman

Republican dislikes

The House Republicans who have shut down the government of the United States of America were among those who tried to do-in Obama’s presidency by branding the Affordable Care Act as “Obamacare”; in the official poll that counts, the American people voted for Mr. Obamacare himself.

If a shutdown were to work for this most fanatical dirty-30 subset of Republicans in the House who do not like and will not accept the will of we the people, what next will they get rid of they do not like? Social Security, Medicare, married gay people, and anyone or anything else they just don’t like?

Sam Osborne

In today's issue:

Privacy Policy (8/15/07) | Terms of Use (4/28/08) | Content Submission Agreement (8/23/07) | Copyright Compliance Policy (8/25/07) | RSS Terms of Use

Copyright © The Daily Iowan, All Rights Reserved.