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.

[mrustow]

Your argument would also require that a three-year-old who accidentally kills his baby brother be arrested and charged with manslaughter or murder.

And why's that?

Because your essay suggested that there is no reason for a statutory age of majority, without which children and adults would be the same in the eyes of the law.

[Phantom Lord]

No one is seriously suggesting to reduce the drinking age to 16 so your fears are unfounded.

As far as I know, there are only 2 things that an 18 year old can not do and that is buy alcohol and buy a handgun. All other privileges and responsibilities of adulthood are bestowed on them at 18.

[E Rocc]

The First Amendment did not apply to the states until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. I believe it did, and I believe the founders agree with me. Why make a BoR that only applies to the Fed gov, which is supposed to be a very small faction with little function. The states are where criminal laws are tried. Why address cruel and unusual punishment, when the STATES are the majority of the prosecutors? The BoR have always applied to the States. The 14th just solidified that.

It's debatable whether it did or not before the 14th Amendment. For example the Congregational Church was not disestablished in Connecticut until 1818.

Once the Fourteenth was ratified, it was no longer debatable.

-Eric

[E Rocc]

Well call me a smart-a$$, but I think you're a dumb-a$$ if you believe young people are going to sit in their homes and drink and never end up getting into a car to drive it! You're not so old that you shouldn't remember doing stupid things when you were younger!

I'm just saying I'd rather err on the side of protecting innocent victims from immature, irresponsible people

By your logic we should ban alcohol, since even older people might drink and then get into a car.

Perhaps then we should ban skydiving, because these "immature, irresponsible people" might land on someone.

-Eric

[Texaggie79]

All other privileges and responsibilities of adulthood are bestowed on them at 18.

Rent a car, some counties, you have to be 21 to purchase XXX material. Some states you must be 19 to buy cigarettes. Gotta be 35 to run for president......

[bassmaner]

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has led Congress down this stupid path. A pox on MADD!

See post #229.

[EBUCK]

They are able to drink at 18 on base just not hard liquor. The Marine Corps (at least while I was in) seems to even encourage it.

EBUCK

[MudPuppy]

"They are able to drink at 18 on base just not hard liquor."

that is INCORRECT.
As a former Marine and a current govt contractor that works on a Marine base I can tell you that Bases follow the state & Federal laws.
Back in the day you could drink beer & wine in NC if you were over 18 and hard liquor if you were over 21.
That rule no longer applies. Everyone has gone to a 21 yr old age limit for any alcohol.

Many Enlisted Clubs are closed and the whole Club system is shot because of this and the crackdown on drinking in the military.

[EBUCK]

I didn't know that it had changed. I haven't been on a base since '95. Seems that the nanny trickle down effect has finally trickled down our boys' way. Seriously out of wack.

EBUCK

[A.J.Armitage]

Ouch.

[A.J.Armitage]

Because your essay suggested that there is no reason for a statutory age of majority, without which children and adults would be the same in the eyes of the law.

Just for this one area, not for everything. I certainly wouldn't say a three year old can consent to have sex, for example.

[LibertyGirl77]

Hmmm...interesting perspective--why sex but not drinking?

[A.J.Armitage]

There's a difference between child molestation and drinking. If a little kids drinks, it's no different from anything else under parental authority, since it's just a matter of discipline, presuming it's without permission in the first place. If a child is molested, however, that's a crime, since there's a victim and a victimizer. If there's no guilty party because both are underage, it's back to being a parental matter.

[LibertyGirl77]

Oh, okay. I thought you meant you thought it should be illegal for 15 year olds to have sex but not to drink. That was strange to me.

[Countyline]

Arguments usually hypes the extremes, exceptions are aberrations. It does not make the legislation created have force. Parents that want to give a child a watered down glass of wine on special occasions will continue to do so. It is teaching a proper way to relate to alcohol.

It is not drinking at 18 or 20 that is the problem. It is the indiscriminate use (over indulging) that is the danger. Many young people have insufficient development to be cognizant of the risks. Common sense, please.

"Abuse" is the entry to 'micro managing' the people. We are willingly giving away our freedom. On one hand the government is giving us medical care and we welcome it and receive it: the other hand comes with all sorts of rules and regulations tied to the medical care. Just like schools ... or any other program you want to look at thoroughly.

Haven't we figured out how this game is played. Evidently not. We keep thinking we are getting more than we are giving away. WRONG!

It is about POWER and MONEY. The government's ... and ours. They get more and more ... we give more and more. ... they win ... we lose. We are aiding and abetting our own loss of freedom and liberty.

[freebilly]

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

Why not just tape a sign on the seat of your pants that says "KICK ME"?

[freebilly]

Yes, that means no drinking age whatsoever.

When my 15 year old son gets your 11 year old daughter drunk and has "consensual" sex with her, come tell me about "coercively achieved social perfection" and let me laugh at you.

The lawyers will love a society like the one you envision.

[A.J.Armitage]

That sort of thing happens now.

[freebilly]

That sort of thing happens now.

Let me know when it happens to your daughter.

[A.J.Armitage]

And if it does, would you have me blame a policy preference of mine that isn't in place, or the policy that is in place now?