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.

[southern rock]

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

That is your opinion. From where do you derive this?

Please keep in mind that the BOR was never intended to be a finite list of rights.

[Texaggie79]

What, exactly, is you claim?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I was talking about a simple observation I had made. The states should have the right to decide those things. That is how a democratic republic works. In the case of all 50 states, the people have decided to enact underage drinking laws.

[A.J.Armitage]

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...

There may be an issue of neglect. Or may not.

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.

Which isn't an argument for making it illegal.

[Phantom Lord]

You had to ask strangers? I just had my dad buy it for me.

"I'm not sending him to Buffalo a rookie." Thats what my dad said to someone at a party who asked him about my drinking beer at the party. I was 17 at the time, and was leaving for college in Buffalo in 2 months.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

It is not inalienable. It is unalienable.

[Ward Smythe]

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

Does this mean you're buying? ;-)

Bump to read tonite.

[southern rock]

In the case of all 50 states, the people have decided to enact underage drinking laws.

And how many of those 50 states have a democracy as a state government?

[Liberal Classic]

Sure, but some states wanted 21 and other states were satisfied with 18. Why should the federal government threaten to withold highway funds if state law was not changed? That doesn't sounds like constitutional republicanism to me.

[Texaggie79]

From where do you derive this?

Common sense (no offense meant by that)

Do you have the right to own a nuke? Or to declare that your land is a separate nation? Some rights can be volunteered away.

You have the natural right to seek personal justice from someone that wrongs you. However, when you live in a large society, you sacrifice that right over to the gov, to punish the offender in your place. If you attempted to seek retribution, you, yourself would be arrested.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Look I know that we do not have a pure democracy, but we have a representative one, same with the states.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Why should the federal government threaten to withold highway funds if state law was not changed?"

I was not aware that they had.

[truenospinzone]

In the case of all 50 states, the people have decided to enact underage drinking laws.

Only after coercion and blackmail by the federal government, i.e "We will no longer spend federal money on highways in your state unless you raise the legal drinking age to 21". That's not exactly the same as an overwhelming moral decree from "the people", is it?

[headsonpikes]

"In fact, the government is us."

I have every reason to believe you; it's certainly not the REST of us!

[NittanyLion]

What, exactly, is your claim?

Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Unless you can cite the passage in the Constitution where the federal government is tasked to set drinking ages, the issue belongs at the state level. So states set up their own laws regarding drinking, and the fedgov's response is to blackmail individual states into doing what it wants.

[LibertyGirl77]

No, it depends on whether the people of the community/city/state he chooses to live in feel safe with allowing such young people adults between the ages of 18-20 to have access to such dangerous things legal (and I daresay enjoyable) substances.

I would hardly call a glass of wine with dinner 'dangerous.' Yet it is illegal for a 19-year-old wife and mom to comsume. It's illegal for an 18-year-old serviceman to relax with a beer. I realize some younger adults will abuse this right. But a lot of 35-, 45-, and even 65-year-olds abuse this right as well. It doesn't make it any better or worse when it's a young person doing it.

[Texaggie79]

Which isn't an argument for making it illegal.

It is for young and pre-teens. Even if a parent allowed their young child to smoke pot, it would be reckless endangerment. I agree that pot is no more harmful than cigarettes (actually less, since is it not addictive) to adults, but it is quite harmfull to developing kids.

[southern rock]

Common sense (no offense meant by that)

So basically just subjective opinion. O.K.

[A.J.Armitage]

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.

Suppose a 20 year old drinks in his own house, and doesn't cause any effect on anyone else. The same argument applies. Although, it's a little odd to see the same argument about Bible reading people usually use for vices.

And you keep using reasons for the 21 age that apply to people over 21. Why don't we stop a 22 year old from driving drunk?