<p>Maybe it’s me, thrill, but I interpreted sryrstress’s comment differently. I did not understood it to mean that what was best for the 2 boys should become federal law because it is what is best for those 2 boys.
I think stress meant if the age were changed to 21 for all alcohol, though one of the sons would instantly qualify and one wouldn’t, it is the age sryrstress thinks is appropriate. I am guessing the mention of their ages is to show sryrstress is not biased toward helping or stopping alcohol purchases for these 2 based solely on what might be convenient for the 2 boys. Note that sysrstress’ opinion would aid one of the boys but block the other.</p>