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.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"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."

Using situation ethics to frame an argument is not a solid course of action.

[LibertyGirl77]

So there are some messed up parents out there who throw booze parties for teenagers. That's for the parents of the other kids to deal with if they have a problem with it. NOT the federal government.

[Texaggie79]

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.

[LibertyGirl77]

I know--how about you raise your kids, and I'll raise mine, and if we both do a good job, we shouldn't need the government to step in and do it for us.

[Texaggie79]

NOT the federal government.

The Fed has no business in ANY of this. These are all STATES' issues.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Whether you like it or not, our Puritan ancestors, who believed that human nature is totally depraved, are very much responsible for our system of government now.

Really. So you completely agree with Winthrop's "City on a Hill" commune speech?

[tomakaze]

RE:Trying to ban Bon Jovi cause they think he has no more talent.......

That's not an opinion, that's public record.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"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?"

I was replying to southern rock. I never said that drinking laws do stop 22 year olds from driving drunk, that is illogical. What I was saying, however, is that underage drinking laws stop a lot of irresponsible teenagers from driving drunk.

[shellylet]

If you believe young people are going to sit in their homes and drink and never leave or get inside of a car and drive it, your not being realistic! Getting into a car and driving isn't the only stupid thing young people do after they've had a few...how about unsafe sex? Ashamed? I don't think so! If NOT lowering the drinking age prevents one innocent person from being killed by an immature doof that thinks he or she has to drink to prove themselves I'll bring up driving while drinking anytime lowering the age for drinking is discussed!

[headsonpikes]

Please respond to my #87 response to your #66, if you can. ;^)

[Texaggie79]

WHOA WHOA WHOA, wait a min. Where have I EVER said that the FED should have a say?

[LibertyGirl77]

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

[southern rock]

They have the constitutional ability to prohibit alcohol completely even. The Constitution does not prevent stupid state laws.

But the sovriegnity of the individual does!

[1L]

All states have specific statutes defining the age of adulthood

Agreed -- as to age of majority. That's my point: statutes define the ages for certain things. They can't determine the age for voting (constitutionally set at 18). Simply because the statutes use a term of art like age of majority and then place many things in there doesn't draw any distinction between the age of majority and drinking age. In other words, you can't say that simply because they are defined as an adult, they should be drinking. The same statutes that define them as of majority also say the drinking age is 21. My point is simply that we have decided as a society that certain ages are right for certain things. Now, if things like loss of parental support, the ability to write contracts, etc., were constitutionally set at 18, your point would be valid. Since it's set by statute, it takes more than just to say "if he can sign a contract, he should be able to drink."

[FreedominJesusChrist]

John Winthrop's 'City on a Hill' sermon was not about communes. That is the wackiest interpretation that I have ever heard. It was a sermon about America being the shining city on the hill through strong morals and living the life of a Christian. He was envisioning a more moral and God-fearing society, not a commune 70's style.

[Texaggie79]

Please respond to my #87 response to your #66, if you can. ;^)

I didn't see anything to respond to. Just some statements. You apparently aggree that pretty much all people don't go around trying to keep people from doing things that they don't personally find appealing.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I had never heard of that happening before. Could you give me some links to sources, so I could read up more on that?

[Texaggie79]

But the sovriegnity of the individual does!

Not living under the protection of a government.

To understand this the better, it is fit to consider that every man when he at first incorporates himself into any commonwealth, he, by his uniting himself thereunto, annexes also, and submits to the community those possessions which he has, or shall acquire, that do not already belong to any other government. For it would be a direct contradiction for any one to enter into society with others for the securing and regulating of property, and yet to suppose his land, whose property is to be regulated by the laws of the society, should be exempt from the jurisdiction of that government to which he himself, and the property of the land, is a subject. -- John Locke

[balrog666]

Hey A.J,

I just wanted to say I'm impressed with the way you keep your head cool when faced with invincible ignorance. Keep up the good work!

balrog

[LibertyGirl77]

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.

And THAT I absolutely agree with.