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.

[maxwell]

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

Bwahaha... You and the rest of FR, dude/dudette...

[southern rock]

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?

Umm... Let their PARENTS deal with it.

[A.J.Armitage]

Beer at age 18 is fine for me, but no hard liquor.

What makes you think it's any of your business to decide what someone else can drink in the first place?

Plus drinking a lot isn't good for one's health. It makes people fat and ruins their liver. Plus, it is a waste of money that could go elsewhere.

And these don't apply to 22 year olds?

[truenospinzone]

All states have specific statutes defining the age of adulthood, or "age of majority". It isn't just an "accepted standard". At the age of 18, the federal government no longer places on parents the obligation of support. At that point, "adulthood" is an established fact, by law. The driver's licence issue you bring up even supports this - at sixteen, you are allowed to drive, but your parents are obligated to provide insurance for you. You are still considered a "minor".

[FreedominJesusChrist]

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

No you didn't "get" me, but you did get me to laugh a little while sitting at my computer. Bible reading by myself, along in my room, is my constitutional right and does not have an affect on anyone else's lives whatsoever. Over the age of 21, I have no problem with people drinking their lives away. But the underage drinking laws are there for a reason. In this case, state government is the moral restraint that stops a lot of drunk driving accidents from happening.

[LibertyGirl77]

I think your screen name is pretty ironic.

"Freedom for me but not for thee?"

[headsonpikes]

"Control freaks run for office. Normal people do not wish to ban people from activities..."

I read your reply and laughed out loud.

I agree with your apparently unintended dichotomy. ;^)

Control freaks are not normal people.

They are the new, improved uber-citizens.

Lead pensions for all, I say. ;^)

[FreedominJesusChrist]

That part of my statement was my own personal treatise on why I don't drink. #1, I like being and looking healthy, #2, I have better things to do than to dedicate my life to closing down the bar, #3 I would rather spend my money on other stuff, like an education, clothes, etc.

[A.J.Armitage]

The main problem that I have with Libertarians, is that they are way too optimistic of human nature.

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

drinking is such a bad habit, and young people can spend their money and time doing something more profitable and worthwhile.

Smoking is a bad habit. Playing the lottery is a bad habit (oh, wait, the government's behind that one, guess it must be okay). Should these be illegal?

And if you ban those, how can you be sure that the extra time will be spent on something worthwhile? Won't they just watch TV instead?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Freedom in Jesus Christ, spiritual freedom, means freedom from the slavery of sin. I am not referring to political freedom here.

[southern rock]

Bible readingBinge drinking by myself, alone in my room, is my constitutional right and does not have an affect on anyone else's lives whatsoever.

[Illbay]

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

The Libertines wish to gloss over this fact, so they can keep pitching their manure about the J.B.T.s.

The drinking age will NOT be raised, no matter how they cry and whine. The drug laws won't be relaxed no matter how the scream and shout.

And why?

Because WE THE PEOPLE don't want those changes.

They will moan, b**** and continually complain, but that's all they have.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

If you recall, one has to be a certain age before they can buy cigarettes and lottery tickets.

[Illbay]

But by that logic, why aren't we clamoring to raise the drinking age to 25?

Because we have reasoned, debated, discussed and deliberated, and we have decided that 21 is a reasonable age.

Of course, I'm not the one to talk to. I wish they'd never repealed prohibition.

[LibertyGirl77]

So, you have no problem with your freedoms, and the freedoms of other 18-20 year olds, being unconstitutionally violated by the federal government as long as it's a violation of a freedom you don't exercise regularly?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Binge drinking by myself, alone in my room, is my constitutional right and does not have an affect on anyone else's lives whatsoever" Hah, maybe in your wildest dreams, besides, alcholics are the type that like to drink alone. Ladies that have a drinking habit end up paying for it. I can always tell who are the girls that drink and party non-stop, because they look like hell.

[LibertyGirl77]

1st amendment? I think you need to reread the part of the constitution that talks about states' rights.

[southern rock]

Because WE THE PEOPLE don't want those changes.

In case you failed to notice, we DO NOT live in a democracy. What the majority of the people "want" is irrelevant. The majority cannot ban any one single person from peacefully minding his own buisness and excercising his rights.

[RnMomof7]

Interesting post AA..I have never approved of the 21 law....

[A.J.Armitage]

And he has the right to purchase beer, if the state he chooses to reside in views 18 year olds as mature enough to handle it.

No, he has the right to purchase beer, if he can find a willing seller. No one's rights depend on whether the government thinks he can "handle" it.