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]

I'm not talking of the past. I speak of modern times. Of people that have been born and raised under generations of those who were bred in freedom.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"I think your tune would change pretty darn fast if there were bible-reading laws passed."

I don't know if that was some kind of lame joke or not. But your whole scenerio is ridiculous, it is called the 1rst Amendment.

[techcor]

am not about to go out and do any nude picketing for it..

And don't think we aren't grateful for that fact. Nyuck,nyuck,nyuck.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Well, it does affect me in that I am not 21 yet. But I could really care less about drinking laws.

[shaggy eel]

,,, you're quite right. There should be less government in the lives of people. I'd support that sentiment 100%. In this case though, where I am the minimum drinking and voting ages are both 18. The minimum age for entering into a contract is also 18. All three of these things require a level of understanding and responsibility on the encumbant. However, the downstream reality is that we're now having increased problems with kids around the age of 13 being admitted to emergency rooms in hospitals with acute alcohol poisoning. What to do in such circumstances?

[Texaggie79]

Control freaks want control; this is no mystery.

Control freaks run for office. Normal people do not wish to ban others from activities simply because they don't like to do the activity themselves. Why aren't they out there trying to ban surfing, or playing golf?

[FreeTally]

I don't know if that was some kind of lame joke or not. But your whole scenerio is ridiculous, it is called the 1rst Amendment.

And I assure you that 100 years ago the concept of "gun control" would have been called ridiculous, you know, because of the 2nd Amendment.

The point being..... you are all for laws that you do not perceieve harm YOU, or stop you from doing something you want. 99% of federal laws are unconstitutional. Its just a matter of time before you are imprisoned for owning a Bible.

[Texaggie79]

You still haven't answered whether or not you think all drugs should be legal for ANY age.

[A.J.Armitage]

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

By gum, you've got it!

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?

What if a parent doesn't mind Junior having a spliff now and then? Should it still be illegal?

Your argument undermines itself. You're trying to argue from parental authority to a policy that takes authority away from parents and gives it to the government.

[freeeee]

Like I said before, are underage drinking laws really that bad?

On their face, a lot of people would say no, but let's look a little deeper:

Treating legal adults (18-20 year olds) like children.

And far, far worse, the fed blackmailing, yes blackmailing the states. This part is a huge deal. It showcases the fed's willingness to disregard its constitutional charter, and to rule in ways more accustomed to an organized crime racquet. Blackmail deserves and should earn no respect for legitimacy, and I will give it none even if it has happened for a long time, and even if its done for some altruistic reason.

I think you people are over-reacting and getting all mad about something that isn't even a big deal.

I'm not over-reacting or getting angry. I'm merely voicing objection to the law, in a calm rational manner. That's all.

[shellylet]

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

Ever seen or heard a husband, wife and their baby burned to death in their vehicle after being rear ended by a drunk driver? Ever seen several of your friends wrapped around a tree (all killed) because they thought they were just having a little fun drinking and than thought they would all go for a drive?

Personally if you want to drink yourself silly I don't care, but when you put innocent lives in danger after making the choice to get in your car and drive while drinking, you should be charged with murder if you cause a wreck and kill someone.

[A.J.Armitage]

If this is the result of a 'family story' keep in mind it's probably been overblown - allowing you a sip just to see the expression on your face is hardly allowing you to get drunk.

Yeah, it probably was overblown. Deal with it.

[LibertyGirl77]

Bump for an article I wholly agree with (well, except for that WOD stuff...)

[Texaggie79]

By gum, you've got it!

So if parents are cool with littel 10 year old jimmy snort'in a few lines, you think there should be no gov. intervention? This is rich...

BTW, pot, used by prepubecents causes major stunting of sexual maturity. Can even cause permanent sterility if used by a boy who is going through puberty.

[theophilusscribe]

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to:
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

[Texaggie79]

You agree with legalizing for ALL ages?

[southern rock]

I don't know if that was some kind of lame joke or not. But your whole scenerio is ridiculous, it is called the 1rst Amendment.

Ah! So your hobbies are O.K. and untouchable, yet you can sit back and decide if other people's passtimes are "worthy". Gotcha!

[TADSLOS]

Just make it one age or the other as a determination of adulthood. Be consistent. It's become damned difficult to look my 19 year old son in the eye and re-explain to him that it's illegal for him to drink alcohol but it is legal for the same government who dictates that law to claim he is of age to be drafted and be allowed to vote. Make either every right available at 18 or 21 but not a mixture of both. Frankly, I don't see a dimes worth of difference between the two ages in terms of maturity.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I am 100% against gun-control. But I find it hard to compare underage drinking laws with gun-control. Underage drinking laws are just a temporary moratoriuem on drinking. So what do you think about DUI laws? Shouldn't people be able to drive intoxicated with their own car if they wish? My point is, is that I don't have any problem with common-sense safety laws.

[freeeee]

But your whole scenerio is ridiculous, it is called the 1rst Amendment.

I wouldn't start feeling too safe if that's your sole protection.

The rest of the Bill of Rights hasn't done too well you know.