In Defense of "Underage" Drinking

Mercurial Times ^ | March 1, 2002 | Aaron Armitage

[A.J.Armitage]

The situation is already bad enough. Every state in the union has already been forced by federal blackmail to raise the drinking age to 21. Now a group called the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse is trying to whip up hysteria about the evils of people drinking a few years before they get government permission. They came out with attention getting claims that 25 percent of alcohol consumption is by "children", which to them apparently includes a number of potential voters. It turns out the real number is 11 percent, including, it should be noted, people over 18. The headlines ought to be shouting the shocking news that college students account for less than 25 percent of the drinking in America. My generation is a bunch of slackers.

The 25 percent figure was what Thomas Sowell calls an "Aha! statistic". Like the bogus statistic that domestic abuse increased on Super Bowl Sunday, it existed to boost a particular political agenda; whether it happens to be true is fundamentally beside the point. In this case, the political agenda is more warfare on substances (as if the war on drugs wasn't insane enough). The organization's web site, which greets visitors with an alternating graphic of someone smoking the devil-weed, a middle aged corporate manager type having what, by the looks of him, is a well deserved drink to relax after a hard day at the office (they're evidently so inhumane as to begrudge him this), and a girl smoking a cigarette, quotes their head control freak as saying, "This report is a clarion call for a national mobilization to curb underage drinking," while calling for various authoritarian measures such as holding parents legally responsible, "stepping up" enforcement, and, of course, higher taxes on alcohol. What fun.

One of the arguments advanced by opponents of the 21 year old drinking age is that you can't expect people to learn to drink responsibly by not letting them drink at all and then one day letting them drink all they want. Instead, children should learn to drink wine or beer with meals, as they do in Europe. There's a lot to this argument. You wouldn't expect a 16 year old to drive perfectly without practicing in parking lots first. But it's not my reason. These are my two main reasons for opposing the drinking age.

First, the government has no business telling anyone, whatever his age, what substances he can consume. Yes, that includes crack cocaine. Yes, that means no drinking age whatsoever. I got drunk on champaign on New Year's Eve when I was one year old with no ill effects. Restrictions on what a peaceful person can own, consume, sell, or produce are simply outside the proper sphere of government. Government necessarily operates by force, so the proper sphere of government is the proper sphere of force. Drinking before a certain age is not a reason to use force against someone, but if it is, which age? What sets drinking at the age of 20 apart to a degree that requires force, which is to say violence or the threat of violence, to stop it? Does it apply to 20 year olds in Canada? Did it apply to 20 year olds before the federal government imposed the 21 year drinking age? The truth is, nothing whatsoever except the law itself sets drinking by 20 year olds apart. That law is groundless; it exists as arbitrary will and nothing more. If it had pleased the makers of the law, the age would be set at 30.

Second, drinking is fun. Here, I suspect, my reason for supporting it is the very reason they oppose it. There's a significant proportion of the population that instinctively regards anything enjoyable as a sin and something the government ought to do something about, at which point they resemble the "Islamo-fascists" we've been at war against, who also hate drinking. H.L. Mencken defined Puritanism as "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." Now, this is grossly unfair to the Puritans, and the Reformed tradition as a whole, but that type of person existed in Mencken's time, and exists now. Far from being theological Puritans, they tend to be social gospellers or non-Christians altogether. In place of a Christian zeal for salvation, they have a zeal for social perfection.

Unfortunately, a zeal for coercively achieved social perfection always ends badly.

[A.J.Armitage]

.

[Texaggie79]

"The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

I support lowering the age to 18 but do you seriously believe this line?

I personally believe that it is that belief that truely hurts Libertarians efforts.

[Lokibob]

It just proves that 47.3% of all statistics people quote are made up on the spot.

I think that the drinking age should be lowered to 16, and the driving age raised to 25.

[drjimmy]

I got drunk on champaign on New Year's Eve when I was one year old with no ill effects.
Except for affecting your ability to spell.

[maxwell]

I personally believe that it is that belief that truely hurts Libertarians efforts.

That and the whole drug legalization thing... Which I support in bits and pieces but as a straight-ticket Republican, am not about to go out and do any nude picketing for it...

[independentmind]

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that this subject primarily interests college students?

[truenospinzone]

How else explain the logic that at 18 one is a legal adult and may own property, enter the workforce without the gubmint's permission, and "die for one's country", but may not buy beer on a Friday night? I'm not exactly saying that the "fear of happiness" argument is absolutely correct, but what other argument is there? How does the three year gap between adulthood and legal drinking make sense?

[mamelukesabre]

I feel they could ease up a bit on teens drinking beer. Maybe there would be fewer drug users if teens knew that it was legal to drink beer.

[Texaggie79]

How does the three year gap between adulthood and legal drinking make sense?

Same reason you can buy a shotgun at 18 but must wait till 21 to buy a hand gun. Some states just believe that they are not equipped to safely and responsibly handle it. Fun, has nothing to do with it. Why do you have to be 25 to rent a car? I know it's not a law, but it is a standard.

[WIMom]

I don't feel like contributing today. ~~~ Wait until you see "Unable to locate server"
I don't have money. ~~~ Help with the fundraiser. Bump the threads, ping your FRiends.
There's plenty of time to donate. ~~~ Bill collectors don't see it that way.
I don't know where to contribute. ~~~ Credit card, mail: FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 , Paypal: JimRob@psnw.com
I've got too many other things to do first. ~~~ Don't we all?
I can't contribute much, what's five dollars. ~~~ If everyone contributed one dollar a month, we'd never have a fundraiser again.
The dog ate my credit card. ~~~ Shoot the dog.
Just let me finish freeping. ~~~ BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Don't wait until it's too late. Do it today. Do it now! Free Republic is funded solely by us. It's up to us to keep it running. Do your part, contribute if you can. Bump the fundraising threads. Help keep this place alive!

[philosofy123]

I'll drink to that

[A.J.Armitage]

"The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

I support lowering the age to 18 but do you seriously believe this line?

I personally believe that it is that belief that truely hurts Libertarians efforts.

I don't believe it about the actual Puritans, but the line's stayed around for a reason. There really are people who instinctively oppose pleasure. Look at the health nazis, who are closely connected with the people I talk about above.

[1L]

I got drunk on champaign on New Year's Eve when I was one year old with no ill effects.

Wanna bet?

[MudPuppy]

I think those in the military should be able to drink.

If they're old enough to fight and die they should be old enough to have a drink.

[Texaggie79]

There really are people who instinctively oppose pleasure.

Other than, perhaps, a few obsessed Nuns in some dungeon somewhere, I don't see it. The health people are idiots, but still they do it, because they don't want people to be hurt. Not saying it's a good enough reason, but it's not because they can't stand the thought of you enjoying a cheeseburger.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!

[mamelukesabre]

How else explain the logic that at 18 one is a legal adult and may own property, enter the workforce without the gubmint's permission, and "die for one's country", but may not buy beer on a Friday night? I'm not exactly saying that the "fear of happiness" argument is absolutely correct, but what other argument is there? How does the three year gap between adulthood and legal drinking make sense?

~~~~~~~~~

It doesn't make any sense. That's why so many teens drink beer and so many adults buy it for them. The law should be changed. When I was 18, you could stand at the entrance to a grocery store and ask people at random to buy beer for you. I never had to ask more than 3 people. To me that means approx one in three adults was willing to break the law and buy beer for a minor they don't even know.

I think that says alot about the drinking law, don't you?

[truenospinzone]

Same reason you can buy a shotgun at 18 but must wait till 21 to buy a hand gun.

Ah, so it doesn't make sense, then. Gotcha.

Seriously, this is another matter for the states to decide. I have no problem with some states/counties/cities choosing to disallow the purchase of alcohol on Sundays because it's not a federal law, and those who live in areas that have such laws know that they can move elsewhere if the option of drinking on Sunday is that important to them. I'd feel the same about some states not allowing the purchase of alcohol by a legal adult until the age of 21. It's the fact that the law is federal that makes no sense.

[Texaggie79]

So would you extend this argument to all drugs. No age minimum to purchase any drug whatsoever?

What of parents who do not wish for their minors to do them? How do they control a convenient stor from selling crack to their 16 year old if it is all legal at any age?