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.

[Texaggie79]

But say that you didn't want your minor child eating Snicker Bars, whose responsibility is it to prevent him from doing such?

Yes. But once the child was old enough to get out on his own. I would not have control. Worst case scenario, he get's a snickers. That's not all too bad. Change that worst case scenario to, he gets all the booze he wants, that's not acceptable.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Thanks for the link anyway. I don't know why it's blocked. But I bet I can find the information from my law professor, I was just being lazy.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Winthrop's speech was most definitely about communal living. Perhaps you should try not to filter every single word through modern experience. Here it is again if you care to read it.

[Texaggie79]

Well, be more clear in your proclamations. You said normal people aren't control freaks. We agree.

[LibertyGirl77]

Here, try this one.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"I'll waste nither breath nor wit on you henceforth."

Don't you think you could be a little bit more benevolent? You know, we pretty much are all conservatives here, even though we may diagree on some issues...

[E Rocc]

Ha. That's funny. Sure, they 'decided' to enact more restrictive drinking laws--because they'd been BLACKMAILED by the federal government.

That's the thing that really ought to P.O. conservatives, the fact that the federales stuck their noses into what is at most a state issue at the behest of a well organized pressure group. How is this bad when it's some liberal group, or the safety nazis, yet OK when it's a right-PC group like the MADD mothers (who ceased to be about drinking and driving, focusing almost solely on the former, years ago)?

This offense was particularly egregious in Ohio. Before the federal blackmail began, Ohio allowed 19 and 20 year olds to buy beer. The religious right and its allies sponsored a referendum in 1983 to raise the beer age to 21. This proposal got absolutely crushed at the polls, by a 2-1 margin.

Thwarted in Ohio, the MADD lobbyists went running to Washington with their blackmail proposal. Unsuprisingly, despite the referendum Ohio's Democratic Senators (Glenn and Metzenbum) voted for it.

Fortunately, we don't have Democratic Senators any more, but we're still living with their handiwork. Conservative principles pretty much demand that decisions about drinking ages (and for that matter BAC limits) be left to the states.

-Eric

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Thanks for the link...I will read it again. But I already read it when I was a junior in high school for my American Lit. Class.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I wouldn't say that Communal living is wrong. It just doesn't work and is not practical.

[southern rock]

Ok, I don't want my 16 year old to have access to alcohol. Under your law, I would have to follow him around all day to make sure he does not purchase it.

Yep. Sorry, but the state is not here to do your parenting for you.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Thanks, that one worked. I will read up on that.

[Liberal Classic]

Your university blocks search engines? This is from

The document is a PDF file available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/Community%20Guides%20HTML/PDFs/Public_App7.pdf which is found at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

From the document:

What is the national age 21 drinking law?

The National Minimum Drinking Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. States that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act. The U.S. Department of Transportation has determined that all states are in compliance with this act.

[E Rocc]

I completely agree. I just am saying that the people of a state/city/community have the constitutional ability to prohibit 18-20 year olds access to alcohol. They have the constitutional ability to prohibit alcohol completely even. The Constitution does not prevent stupid state laws.

To a degree it does, through the Fourteenth Amendment. I'd like to see someone challenge the Sunday beer sales laws that all to many places have, as the only justification for making Sunday special is religious.

-Eric

[Texaggie79]

You call it parenting, I call it common sense.

Join the LP, the party without it.......

[LibertyGirl77]

Just PLEASE take all the statist bull-poo on that site with a grain of salt--really, everything past the first two sections is just pro-nanny state propaganda.

[headsonpikes]

"Don't you think you could be a little bit more benevolent?"

HA! My heart is hardened to those who need to have my humorous ripostes explained!

We(imperial we) take no prisoners! ;^)

[E Rocc]

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

That's because the law we are discussing has precisely zero to do with driving while drunk, which is illegal regardless of one's age.

-Eric

[shellylet]

Your response is most likely the difference in maturity levels. Why do you have a problem waiting until the legal age to drink? And before you say it's not fair, don't. I don't think I should have to pay the taxes I do either.

Just my opinion but I think the reasons for keeping the drinking age as it is are far better than any argument I've read here for lowering it.

Unfortunately, innocent people are affected by alcohol. You may be able to sit in your dorm and have a drink and it's no big deal, but there are many teens who would not be able to handle that responsibility and other people end up paying the consequences.

[Texaggie79]

There have always been religious laws. Our own founders created states whos own Constitutions said that all those that run for office must be of the Protestant religion.

[E Rocc]

There have always been religious laws. Our own founders created states whos own Constitutions said that all those that run for office must be of the Protestant religion.

The First Amendment did not apply to the states until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

-Eric