New Illinois bill would lower legal drinking age to 18
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WTVO) — Illinois lawmakers are proposing to lower the legal drinking age to 18, provided that 18 to 20-year-olds are accompanied by a parent or guardian.
State Rep. John Cabello (R-Machesney Park) introduced the bill in hopes of amending the Liquor Control Act of 1934 to allow 18 to 20-year-olds to drink alcohol at bars and restaurants in Illinois, so long as a parent or guardian is present.
Wisconsin has had the same rules when it comes to alcohol consumption since 1986.
The was first read in the State House of Representatives on January 9th.
The change to the Liquor Control Act is now being considered by a House Committee.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans, some Democrats and even ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich weigh in on ex-Speaker Michael Madigan's sentence
In what's become somewhat customary once an Illinois political titan falls, leaders throughout the state responded with condemnation and called for reforms upon hearing Friday that ex-Speaker Michael Madigan was sentenced to seven and a half years in federal prison and fined $2.5 million on federal corruption charges. House Republican leader Tony McCombie of Savanna and Senate Republican leader John Curran of Downers Grove called for bipartisan ethics reforms in the wake of the sentencing, with Curran specifically requesting committee hearings and votes on potential changes — something that didn't happen this session. Madigan's sentencing was 'a stark and shameful reminder of the corruption that has plagued Illinois government for far too long,' McCombie said in a statement. 'Justice was served — but the damage to public trust runs deep.' But Illinois' last prominent statewide politician who went to federal prison, former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, held back on the chance to take a swipe at a bitter nemesis when Madigan was sentenced. Though the two were Democrats, they feuded for nearly all six years Blagojevich was in office between 2003 and 2009. 'When that guy, Madigan, was on the top of the mountain, they were all kissing his ass,' Blagojevich said. 'Now they're going to be stomping all over his grave. And it's really, it's really sort of an unappealing side of human nature.' Blagojevich said Madigan's conviction underscores the systemic problems in politics and government in the state Capitol. 'Is the system in Springfield corrupt, in many ways, absolutely,' Blagojevich said in an interview with the Tribune while insisting he didn't break the law. 'It's a system, I've been saying this from the beginning, it all too often works for itself on the backs of the people.' Blagojevich — whose 14-year federal prison sentence for corruption was commuted by President Donald Trump, who ultimately also pardoned Blagojevich — didn't want to celebrate Madigan's prison sentence despite the two's often-tense relationship. 'I just don't think it's right for me to kick a man when he's down,' Blagojevich said. 'What's happening now to him, I know what it's like. And it's really easy for these politicians to get on their high horses and start kicking someone, stomping on someone.' Senate President Don Harmon, a Democrat from Oak Park who is facing a potential fine of nearly $10 million from the Illinois State Board of Elections for improper political fundraising, said Friday's sentence represented 'a solemn reminder' that the duty of public office holders is to serve 'and that there is accountability for those who do not.'
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
SNAP user's testimony causes backlash, cruel feedback
After President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed the House, it introduced new fears for millions of Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to survive. The bill proposed an estimated $300 billion in cuts to SNAP over the next decade. If that portion of the bill passes the Senate as it is currently written, it would leave 12.6% of Americans potentially unable to afford shelter and food. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter The way it currently works is that states would begin to pay at least 5% of food benefit costs, and up to 25% if they have higher error rates, forcing states to choose between raising taxes, cutting other programs, or limiting SNAP access, per the Food Research & Access Center. Related: Scott Galloway sends bold statement on Social Security, US economy Republican senators pushed back hard on the cuts, leading to June 10 reports that the SNAP changes were being scaled down. The reworked plan cuts the state penalty for error from 25% to 15%, but Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) told Politico that they are "still negotiating." Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota took to social media on June 11 to share a video she surely thought would be of help to advocate for keeping SNAP intact. But her efforts have backfired. The video Klobuchar shared is of a SNAP recipient named Felecia talking about her experience as a mother of four living on SNAP benefits. Klobuchar said, "Today, we heard from Felecia, a single mom of four who works up to three jobs at a time to make ends meet. She counts on SNAP to help put food on the table. This is who Republicans in Congress are trying to take food away from. Listen to her story." In the video, Felecia says, "I would like to tell you my story on how SNAP benefit has helped me," becoming visibly emotional. "When I had my oldest daughter 21 years ago, I was working three jobs," Felecia said. "One job alone, I had to pay childcare. Another one to pay food, which wasn't enough. And one to pay the bills, and I still struggled alive." Related: Social Security income tax deduction hits major roadblock Felecia went on to say that she now has a full-time job as a bus monitor, but she only gets paid once a month, which is why she still needs SNAP. "By the time I get my bills paid, I have nothing left to pay for food and other basic needs. If it wasn't for SNAP benefits, I wouldn't be able to feed my children," she said. The comments on the video exploded, causing it to rake in 75,000 views and make the terms "SNAP" and "Felecia" go viral on X. But instead of garnering empathy, it achieved the opposite effect. People in the thread savagely attacked the mother of four, mostly with comments about her weight. "I'm not saying take her SNAP benefits, but what I'm saying is she doesn't need as much as she's getting," X user currermell said. "Either she's eating it all and her kids are already going hungry, or the handouts meant to sustain her life are having the opposite effect." Related: Walmart issues urgent message about the alarming cost of food "Do you know how many calories it takes to look like her? She's doing fine," X user Rafester said. Some opted to attack Felecia's relationship choices instead of her weight, saying, "Why does she have 4 children and no husband? Life choices matter. Sorry but 4 unplanned pregnancies and no partner present is absolute nonsense," X user fictitiousfruit said. A few rare voices in the thread abstained from insults. "Not a single person wants SNAP taken away from Felecia. Every single person wants SNAP revoked for people who aren't trying or aren't contributing to the country they take advantage of," user Zac DiSalvo said. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
an hour ago
Why thousands of NCAA athletes might wait over a year for share of $2.8 billion settlement
The attorney who negotiated the $2.8 billion legal settlement for the NCAA said Friday that thousands of former athletes due to receive damages could have to wait months or maybe more than a year to get paid while appeals play out. Rakesh Kilaru, who served as the NCAA's lead counsel for the House settlement that was approved last week, told The Associated Press an appeal on Title IX grounds filed this week will hold up payments due to around 390,000 athletes who signed on to the class-action settlement. He said he has seen appeals take up to 18 months in the California-based federal court where this case is playing out, though that isn't necessarily what he expects. 'I will say that we, and I'm sure the plaintiffs, are going to push,' Kilaru said. A schedule filed this week calls for briefs related to the appeal to be filed by Oct. 3. Kilaru doesn't expect anyone on the defendant or plaintiff side to file for extensions in the case 'because every day the appeal goes on is a day damages don't go to the student-athletes.' He said while the appeal is ongoing, the NCAA will pay the money into a fund that will be ready to go when needed. The other critical parts of the settlement -- the part that allows each school to share up to $20.5 million in revenue with current players and set up an enforcement arm to regulate it -- are in effect regardless of appeals. 'I think everyone thought it was important and good for this new structure to start working because it does have a lot of benefits for students,' Kilaru said. 'But it's very common for damages to be delayed in this way for the simple reason that you don't want to make payments to people that you can't recover' if the appeal is successful. A group of eight female athletes filed the appeal. Their attorney, Ashlyn Hare, said they supported settlement of the case 'but not an inaccurate one that violates federal law.' "The calculation of past damages is based on an error that ignores Title IX and deprives female athletes of $1.1 billion,' Hare said. Kilaru agreed with plaintiff attorneys who have argued that Title IX violations are outside the scope of the lawsuit. Other objections to the settlement came from athletes who said they were damaged by roster limits set by the terms. One attorney representing a group of those objectors, Steven Molo, said they were reviewing Wilken's decision and exploring options.
