L.A. Press Archives – Part 2 [Lindsay Lohan Gets Away With More Today Than Past Iraqi Leaders]
[post by Justin Levine]
From page 1, section 1 of the L.A. Examiner dated September 1, 1952:
Las Vegas Rules Faisal Too Young to Gamble, Drink
LAS VEGAS, Nev., Aug. 31, – (INS) – Monarch or no monarch, King Faisal II of Iraq is only 17 years old and, under Nevada law, will not be able to drink or gamble while in Las Vegas.
King Faisal is due in the Nevada city Tuesday for a tour of Hoover Dam.
In connection with his stay, a Las Vegas hotel owner asked Dist. Atty. Roger B. Foley whether the young ruler, traveling under diplomatic immunity, would not be bound by Nevada law.
Foley gave a short and conclusive answer: “King or no King, he can’t gamble or get a drink because he’s under age!“
My…how the times have changed.
[Though admittedly, Vegas casino clubs have generally been stricter in enforcing drinking laws than the Hollywood club scene today.]
I don’t endorse separate rules for the rich and famous. But your comparison doesn’t just show a difference in respect for the law between the 1950s and today. Enforcing a drinking (or gambling) age of 18 against a 17-year-old (Faisal) is quite different than enforcing a drinking age of 21 against a 20, or even an 18-year-old. The latter are adults, subject to almost all adult responsibilities and privileges. There is something unseemly about a state charging someone as an adult for underage drinking.
DWPittelli (2e1b8e) — 11/6/2007 @ 3:39 amI think it’s a great idea to selectively enforce laws. Rather than change the law, let’s just pretend it doesn’t exist!
Really, if you think adult==able to drink, then work to change the law. “Underage” simply means “not old enough to drink.”
Why aren’t you bothered by the nonsense of age restrictions on running for office? Why is a soldier who can die for his country at age 18 forbidden to run for president? That’s also an age-restricted right.
steve miller (76040f) — 11/6/2007 @ 3:54 amMillions of people under 21 drink alcohol every week. Society hasn’t collapsed last I checked.
chaos (9c54c6) — 11/6/2007 @ 6:41 amTime keeps on slippin, slippin, slippin…
Also Steve Miller (4890ef) — 11/6/2007 @ 6:44 amsteve, does it really bother you that an 18 year old solider cannot run for office until he has experience partly shown through age?
Isn’t that argument idiotic? We need soldiers and presidents, but we need lots of soldiers and not many presidents. We need our soldiers to be obedient and healthy and young, and we need our presidents to be wise. Thus, there are different qualifications. It’s not bothersome that an immigrant can be a soldier and not president. It’s not bothersome that a person who would never win an election (like Audie Murphy) can be a soldier.
It’s just good sense.
Age restrictions give us bright line boundaries, so that we can actually use our laws. Without bright lines, everything is too murky and expensive. I cannot give a maturity battery exam to each bar patron, but generally 21 year olds are more culpable for their lives than 17 year olds.
Dustin (9e390b) — 11/6/2007 @ 9:31 amLohan, and the likes of her, should be encouraged to spend more time in casinos. The sooner the fools are parted with their money, the better.
JD (49efd3) — 11/6/2007 @ 11:31 amConsidering he would die horribly along with Prime
narciso (c36902) — 11/6/2007 @ 1:48 pmMinister Nuri Al Said; six years later. Maybe there was a point to hisp partying.
An 18 year old is mature enough to die for his country but not mature enough to legally drink a beer? I say raise the legal enlistment age to 21!
tmac (0c909a) — 11/6/2007 @ 1:53 pmUsed to be, in Illinois, that the drinking age for girls was 18 while the drinking age for guys was 21 (back when my parents were youngsters). Then the drinking age was 18 for beer and wine and 21 for “hard likker”. Just before my uncle (3-1/2 years older than I am) turned 21 (about 3 weeks or so) the law changed to 21 for everything. There was no grandfather clause, so he couldn’t drink (legally) for a few weeks.
BTW: Wouldn’t a Muslim not drink anyway?
kimsch (2ce939) — 11/6/2007 @ 2:14 pmConsidering that the Mob was firmly in control of Vegas in those days, I suspect that the young King got whatever he wanted while he was there–with the authorities knowing that they’d better look the other way if they knew what was good for them.
M. Scott Eiland (c3969b) — 11/6/2007 @ 3:26 pmi thought muslims couldn’t drink. drinking, gambling, undoubtedly whoring too. hope he didn’t want 72 virgins, las vegas isn’t that big. buffy here’s a virgin, aren’t you buffy?
assistant devil's advocate (312d75) — 11/6/2007 @ 10:06 pmOh, Thanks! Really interesting. Greets.
BigBan (c2cef7) — 8/17/2008 @ 8:04 am