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.

[NittanyLion]

The situation is really quite clear: by consenting to government power enforcing some people's morality, you have opened the door for other people to use the same power to different ends. Simply put, you feel everything is fine so long as government is regulating activities in which you're not engaged. But sooner or later, the folks in power will get around to telling YOU what you cannot do, for YOUR OWN good.

When that day comes, hopefully you will understand who enabled it.

[southern rock]

I can always tell who are the girls that drink and party non-stop, because they look like hell.

So naturally, there ought to be a law, right?

[Texaggie79]

No one's rights depend on whether the government thinks he can "handle" it.

No, it depends on whether the people of the community/city/state he chooses to live in feel safe with allowing such young people to have access to such dangerous things.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

How dare you bring logic into this argument! Personally, I think the drinking age should be lowered to 18. I think the age one can serve on a military tribunal to try and hang a peaceful Islamist terrorist should be lowered to 18, too.

[LibertyGirl77]

That's no reason to limit drinking. Drinking and driving, yes, because it affects other people and takes place in the public realm. But simply drinking is not going to hurt anyone (except MAYBE the drinker, and that's really not preventable by the government no matter how many laws they pass), even if the drinker is (GASP) 'underage.'

[NittanyLion]

No, it depends on whether the people of the community/city/state he chooses to live in feel safe with allowing such young people to have access to such dangerous things.

One could make the same claim about firearms and people of all ages. Are you making that claim?

[A.J.Armitage]

I'm not talking of the past. I speak of modern times.

The past is still with us.

[truenospinzone]

So how does this wonderful "WE THE PEOPLE" theory of yours work in cities/states that have passed by majority initiatives allowing, for example, for the use of medical marijuana, only to have the federal government initiate force against those complying with their communities' own standards? Does the majority only count when it's in your favor? Silly me, I must have missed the public vote on the Constitutionality of the WOsD and legal drinking age.

[LibertyGirl77]

I agree with legalizing for 18-and-up. Actually, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to legalizing it for younger people in the context of adult supervision. I'm talkig about alcohol, not drugs, mind you.

[Texaggie79]

Are you making that claim?

No. Two reasons. I believe the right to self defense is inalienable. 2) The second amendment backs me up on that.

[southern rock]

No, it depends on whether the people of the community/city/state he chooses to live in feel safe with allowing such young people to have access to such dangerous things.

No. The individual has inalienable rights. Communities/cities/states only have rights in their relationship with the Fed. Gov. The Communities/cities/states do not have that kind of power over a sovreign individual. This is not a democracy. Rights are not open to discussion at any level.

[Texaggie79]

Right. I agree. However, I do see some problems that could arise. I have no prob with parents allowing their 15 year old son have a beer with dinner, but what of the parents, the likes of which we have read about in the news, where they have booze parties for their kids and all their friends?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

In fact, "the government" is us. It is WE THE PEOPLE who have decided these things, and at the state level.

That isn't true---at least when it comes to state drinking ages. In the early-to-mid 1980s, the federal government declared it would stop spending federal highway money in states that refused to raise their drinking ages to 21. Sure enough, each state changed its legal drinking age to 21. I was a college freshman in one of the last states to raise its drinking age---Vermont---and I could drink legally at 18 in '86.

[Texaggie79]

The individual has inalienable rights.

True, however many rights are not inalienable and are up for discussion. Such as the right to smoke crack.

[shellylet]

I don't agree! Just because you lower the drinking age doesn't mean the "lightbulb" is going to come on and all of a sudden a young person is going to drink responsibly. Statistics will show the younger you start to drink the more likely you are to become an alcoholic. Also, I'm afraid I don't have that kind of faith in a young person to go to their friends house and drink "responsibly" or vice versa. Your opening doors that don't need to be opened!

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Suppose you view human nature as being totally depraved. What form of government would this lead to?

Whether you like it or not, our Puritan ancestors, who believed that human nature is totally depraved, are very much responsible for our system of government now. The Puritians believed strongly in covenant theology, which meant that they rejected the divine right of kings, and believed rather, that the people had the responsibility to govern themselves. We owe our system of checks and balances to the belief that human nature is flawed. Even the most well-intentioned government can become corrupt and demoagogic at times, the Puritains and the Founding Fathers knew this. That is why no branch of government is supposed to have a monopoly on power.

It is when people believe that humans are innately good, when Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and wacky Utopian governments come about and fail. Because we are not innately good inside, we were born with original sin and should not delude ourselves of anything otherwise.

[NittanyLion]

Statistics will show the younger you start to drink the more likely you are to become an alcoholic.

Could you cite those stats? I'd like to check them out. Thanks.

[NittanyLion]

No. Two reasons. I believe the right to self defense is inalienable. 2) The second amendment backs me up on that.

It would seem the 10th Amendment backs me up on my claim. Right?

[Phantom Lord]

Didnt NC Senate candidate Elizabeth Dole, while in the Reagan admin. propose raising the drinking age to 25? I have heard this to be the case for a long long time but have never seen any evidence that she made the suggestion. Could someone please set me straight on this.

[A.J.Armitage]

I must have missed something in this article. Nothing said about the thousands of innocent people murdered at the hands of drunk drivers.

No, you didn't miss anything at all. Do you know why? Because it's not about drunk drivers. It's about the drinking age.

Your "argument", such as it is, ought to make you ashamed of yourself. You see something you disagree with, and then drag in an emotionally charged issue only peripherally related and try to carry the argument on gruesome "have you ever seen people burned to death" type demagoguery, instead of actually using reason.