.......how is it that any citizen of this country who has reached the age of majority can be denied rights, based on age, that all other citizens have. For example, if absolutely accurate statistics proved that women, aged 43 to 57, were more likely to be binge drinkers and more likely to be involved in a drinking/driving accident, could a law be enacted to deny women age 43 to 57 the right to drink? Surely not! Regardless of any statistics, regardless of any health issues, I do not believe law prohibiting any one segment of adult citizens a right which is granted all other adults is Constitutional. For years I have wondered why this un-Constitutional law has not been contested in court.

Well, consuming alcohol isn't a "right." And, frankly, if you're going to talk about statistics and drunk driving accidents, you're advocating raising the drinking age to 25 or so.

"Amendment 18 - After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. "

"Amendment 21 - Section 1 - The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

So, essentially, we do have the right to buy, sell, transport, and import as much intoxicating liquors that we want; but the consumption of such intoxicating liquors is not addressed. But isn't it implied "for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited"? And this has been repealed-meaning that "for beverage puposes is [allowed]"! How does someone know it is intoxicating unless it is consumed? So, with this deduction, the consumption of such intoxicating liquors is a right.

So, it is a right. But more to the point, since the constitution does not set an age limit on such right, should their even be an age set? Or does such age, not being addressed in the consitition, means that this issue should be determined by state's rights?

That logic doesn't make sense. Repealing a restriction doesn't automatically make something a "right" - which is something that cannot be taken away from you by law. There are still areas where the sale of liquor is illegal, which underscores that point.

In other words, citing the 21st Amendment doesn't make the opposite of the 18th Amendment true; it effectively makes it so that the 18th Amendment didn't exist at all. The 21st Amendment doesn't have anything along the lines of "And further, the right of the people to drink intoxicating liquors shall not be infringed upon" (nor any Court rulings that imply as much) which would make your argument hold water.