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.

[A.J.Armitage]

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. The Puritians believed strongly in covenant theology, which meant that they rejected the divine right of kings, and believed rather, that the people had the responsibility to govern themselves. We owe our system of checks and balances to the belief that human nature is flawed. Even the most well-intentioned government can become corrupt and demoagogic at times, the Puritains and the Founding Fathers knew this. That is why no branch of government is supposed to have a monopoly on power. It is when people believe that humans are innately good, when Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and wacky Utopian governments come about and fail. Because we are not innately good inside, we were born with original sin and should not delude ourselves of anything otherwise.

In fact, I do like it. You seem to have missed the key factor in checks and balances, ect. The power of the government is limited, because the government is run by people under the effects of the Fall.

[Phantom Lord]

Parents don't want their minor children doing a lot of things. If it is a legal product that they are legally allowed to purchase it is the PARENTS responsibility to see that their children do not do it/them, not the store clerks.

[tacticalogic]

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".

Ironically, our newly minted domestic terrorism laws include among the definitions of acts of domestic terrorism "using threats of force or coercion to influence public policy".

[Texaggie79]

BTW, I totally missed your appearence on P.I. the other night. I am so ticked at myself. Do they have a list somewhere when they will run certain re-runs?

[NittanyLion]

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!

If a ban on all handguns prevents one innocent person from being killed, I'll bring up deaths anytime gun rights are discussed!

[Texaggie79]

If it is a legal product that they are legally allowed to purchase it is the PARENTS responsibility to see that their children do not do it/them, not the store clerks.

Ok, I don't want my 16 year old to have access to alcohol. Under your law, I would have to follow him around all day to make sure he does not purchase it. It would be similar to me trying to prevent my minor child from buying a snickers bar. If he wants a snickers bar, he will get it.

[StriperSniper]

the fact that the law is federal

Is it? I thought it was by federal coersion by withholding highway money?

A small point, since it amounts to the same thing.

[NittanyLion]

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

You haven't, and indeed have repeatedly stated just the opposite more than once. My mistake...we're definitely in agreement on that issue.

[LibertyGirl77]

Fact Sheet: National Minimum Drinking Age Law

[JediGirl]

I think that the drinking age should be lowered to 16, and the driving age raised to 25.

Agreed. I trust my peers drunk in their homes more than I do sober behind the wheel.

[headsonpikes]

Re your #156.

I can only assume you read neither my post nor your own.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

No, I do understand that...I thought it was you who was missing the point. Sorry about that one.

[A.J.Armitage]

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!

I no more believe that that I believe people who are 22 will just sit at home drinking, or, for that matterm that people who haven't had enough sleep will sit at home and not drive.

The fact that someone might do something risky after drinking is no argument at all. If they do, it's the driving that's the problem.

[Phantom Lord]

Alcohol isnt legal to purchase at 16 and it never will be in this country, so you don't have to worry.

But say that you didn't want your minor child eating Snicker Bars, whose responsibility is it to prevent him from doing such?

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Thanks for the link. This sounds really bad, but for some reason the link was blocked. You see, I attend a private conservative Christian University and we have a filtering system on the internet. For some reason, I couldn't get in.

[Texaggie79]

I agree with your apparently unintended dichotomy. ;^)

Ok thats nice.

Control freaks are not normal people.

Agreed

They are the new, improved uber-citizens

Whatever.

[LibertyGirl77]

ROFL. That's a link to a government website!

[JediGirl]

I'm all for lowering the drinking age to 18. However, if you have a wreck and injure someone you get an an aggravated assault charge with no less than two years in the can. If you kill someone, you're looking at 20 years per body. I'd make the brewers and distillers pay for TV ads publicizing the penalties.

Agreed. A price has to be paid when you kill somebody in this situation. This reminds me of a story...there's a guy where I live who was an assistant coach (my dad was head coach) of little league baseball...well, when he was 15 he got drunk and killed the teenage girl who was in the car with him. His license was suspended till he was 18. Then a year ago (he was about 19 or 20) he gets drunk, goes speeding headed south in the northbound side of the interstate and knocks off another person and seriously injures another. Quite a shame.

[headsonpikes]

Okay, Mary Poppins!

I'll waste nither breath nor wit on you henceforth.