Does the Minimum Legal Drinking Age Save Lives?

I was an impressionable little kid and have turned into a dorky, old-womanlike adult (if you ask my kids). Back in the Dark Ages when I was growing up, they had these really gory Ohio State Highway Patrol movies from the 50's in my Driver Ed class. They were enough to convince me to be a safer driver. My father's dad was a captain in the Merchant Marine. He showed us pictures of the results of getting an STD. That made me careful about that kind of thing. At almost 55 years of age, I still have my draft card and original social security card. Talk about being dull!!

When it came to drinking, however, all we were told was that it was illegal and it was bad and that we'd go to jail or even hell if we were caught at it! That didn't stop even me. I wasn't a big drinker, but I refused to be intimidated about something like wine which I had grown up imbibing. I think the drinking age back then was 18-ish in New York and we thought nothing of hopping a tube over to the East Village, stocking up and coming home to play basketball along the Hudson in Bayonne. And I wonder if anyone remembers the concentration of clubs in upstate NY along the NJ border? (Oh, and please don't ask me about Texas, marijuana, the 70's, proximity to Mexico, and $90.00 a kilo).

As much I can respect and understand many of the (religious, thus metaphysical, and hence completely speculative) premises of the arguments behind Blue Laws, I've never seen one that was effective. Drinking age, monogamy, drug use, Sunday closings, homosexuality etc. and so on ... you can regulate them, but you can't control them because they are not necessarily detrimental to our society as a whole, just sometimes to the individual, and really only cause societal problems when society forbids them. Instead of sinking all this money into interdiction, enforcement, prosecution and punishment, thereby creating a beautiful environment in which crime and abuse can thrive, governments should illustrate and educate ... both kids and parents.

What's that old chestnut? You can't regulate morality.

Gary,

Thanks for an interesting and excellently-worded post.

All the best,
Alex

Drinking age, monogamy, drug use, Sunday closings, homosexuality etc. and so on ... you can regulate them, but you can't control them because they are not necessarily detrimental to our society as a whole, just sometimes to the individual, and really only cause societal problems when society forbids them.
What's that old chestnut? You can't regulate morality.

Hmmm. Drug use not detrimental to society as a whole.....
OK. I'll give you that efforts to legislate against immoral behavior that has no affect on society as a whole is probably not going to be terribly successful, but I guess the real question is whether drug use and/or underage drinking legitimately fall into that category.
I tend to think there is a societal cost to underage drinking, and certainly for drug use. And that efforts to curtail both, even if not entirely successful, are not only legitimate but necessary.

I tend to think there is a societal cost to underage drinking, and certainly for drug use. And that efforts to curtail both, even if not entirely successful, are not only legitimate but necessary.

The very phrase "underage drinking" does not exist in nature. It's an arbitrary concept invented by a small section within society with, oftentimes, questionable motivation. If there were no stigma and forbidden pleasure attached to alcohol, the dangerous, clandestine, and criminal behavior they engender would most likely wither up and blow away. Alcohol could be integrated into our lives as is water. Without this governmental machine and its opposing criminal structures, these abortions born of criminalization (think Prohibition), we could perhaps apply the resources fed to this machine to helping those who need help to escape alcoholism instead of creating juvenile alcoholics. Ditto with drugs.

Criminalization of drinking and drug use, to my mind, does little to curtail them. It just encourages a complex machine which feeds on this arbitrary illegality.

The very phrase "underage drinking" does not exist in nature. It's an arbitrary concept invented by a small section society with, oftentimes, questionable motivation.

Of course, the same could be said for a great many of our laws. Speeding. Cruelty to animals. Rackateering. Even statutory rape. Each of these, and most other, offenses are separated from legal conduct by a line that some will call arbitrary. But they represent society's view that conduct on one side of the line will be permitted and on the other, prohibited.
As to whether the laws curtail unlawful activity, I would be interested in any studies, but my guess is that they do curtail some activity. Does it curtail 50%, or only 10%? I don't know, but if it stops only a few drunk teenagers from fatal accidents, or a few adults from losing job, family and friends because of a drug addiction, I say it is a worthwhile effort. [/quote]

But they represent society's view that conduct on one side of the line will be permitted and on the other, prohibited.

No, they represent the ephemeral will of a temporary quorum in an elected body which only represents a portion of society and this portion is not necessarily a majority of the people but rather just a well-heeled or very loud interest group or lobby.

But they represent society's view that conduct on one side of the line will be permitted and on the other, prohibited.

No, they represent the ephemeral will of a temporary quorum in an elected body which only represents a portion of society and this portion is not necessarily a majority of the people but rather just a well-heeled or very loud interest group or lobby.

That is unfortunately true, but it is, I suspect, a flaw in any form of representative government.
But what is the "well-healed or very loud interest group or lobby" that is served by the laws forbidding drinking while under 21 years of age, or laws forbidding the sale of heroin? Maybe me, though I am neither well-healed, nor "very" loud.

OW: I would disagree with your analogies in the sense that animal abuse and rape involve victimizing other sentient (or at least semi-sentient) beings. Arguably, drug use and even drinking, when in moderation, involve self-"victimization." Note I am not saying drug abuse or alcohol abuse-if there is a crime of violence or abuse or neglect committed, then throw the book at 'em! Millions of people are social marijuana smokers or social drinkers.

The main reason I question your argument though is the establishment of a vast state apparatus to control the eternal human desire to self-medicate or relax through chemistry. The 83 year old woman shot down in cold blood because the storm troopers busted through her door to "fight drug dealers," the 25% of the population with a criminal record; the elderly leukemia patient busted for growing pot to relieve nausea, the family who had all their property confiscated because one member, although never convicted of any crime, was suspected of involvement in drug trade, the Andean peasants burned by aerial spraying of herbicides to wipe out a millenia-old crop. The litany of abuses by our Holy Warriors on Drugs is endless. And, of course, very, very profitable as support by prison guard unions for ever stricter and lengthier sentences shows.

There will always be a certain percentage of the population prone to addictions. Help them through the various programs. don't tolerate their bullshit excuses. All that. don't criminalize everyone else who wants to smoke a doobie to relax after work.

(Note: I hate the smell of marijuana, it gives me nothing but a headache, and I am asthmatic. So-I am not advocating decriminalization for my own benefit).

I would also note that the history of prohibitionism is tied directly to racist propaganda (stop the evil weed that dirty Mexicans and corrupt black jazz musicians use. We need to protect our pure white flower of civillization). real conspiracy nuts would note that artifical fibre manufacturers were not too interested in the chemical cornucopia of hemp.

[Robin Garr]

I was an impressionable little kid and have turned into a dorky, old-womanlike adult (if you ask my kids). Back in the Dark Ages when I was growing up, they had these really gory Ohio State Highway Patrol movies from the 50's in my Driver Ed class. They were enough to convince me to be a safer driver. My father's dad was a captain in the Merchant Marine. He showed us pictures of the results of getting an STD. That made me careful about that kind of thing. At almost 55 years of age, I still have my draft card and original social security card. Talk about being dull!!

When it came to drinking, however, all we were told was that it was illegal and it was bad and that we'd go to jail or even hell if we were caught at it! That didn't stop even me. I wasn't a big drinker, but I refused to be intimidated about something like wine which I had grown up imbibing. I think the drinking age back then was 18-ish in New York and we thought nothing of hopping a tube over to the East Village, stocking up and coming home to play basketball along the Hudson in Bayonne. And I wonder if anyone remembers the concentration of clubs in upstate NY along the NJ border? (Oh, and please don't ask me about Texas, marijuana, the 70's, proximity to Mexico, and $90.00 a kilo).

As much I can respect and understand many of the (religious, thus metaphysical, and hence completely speculative) premises of the arguments behind Blue Laws, I've never seen one that was effective. Drinking age, monogamy, drug use, Sunday closings, homosexuality etc. and so on ... you can regulate them, but you can't control them because they are not necessarily detrimental to our society as a whole, just sometimes to the individual, and really only cause societal problems when society forbids them. Instead of sinking all this money into interdiction, enforcement, prosecution and punishment, thereby creating a beautiful environment in which crime and abuse can thrive, governments should illustrate and educate ... both kids and parents.

What's that old chestnut? You can't regulate morality.

[Robin Garr]

Oops, sorry, I accidentally broke off part of this thread while testing, and there's no easy facility for putting it back. My bad!

But what is the "well-healed or very loud interest group or lobby" that is served by the laws forbidding drinking while under 21 years of age, or laws forbidding the sale of heroin? Maybe me, though I am neither well-healed, nor "very" loud.

We discuss one such group almost every day here, the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, Inc. They encourage the enforcement of and creation of new Blue Laws so they can make hedonistic gobs of money.

Many religious groups feel the need to proselytize and many politicians and lobbies play into this proselytism. How many of those religious leaders are just in the game to pass the basket? How many of those politicians get religion just to get elected?

What I say, think, or do to myself should not be the bailiwick of someone who chooses to say, think or do other than I. If I choose to kill myself on crack, then so be it. Yes, please try to convince me not to and please train my parents to guide me away from this self-destructive habit, but do not make me a criminal for it. All that the laws which forbid the sale of alcohol and drugs do is to create business opportunities, both legal and not, which would not be there absent those legal prohibitions. And business, both legal and not, has no conscience. It will create addicts to support itself. If heroin were legal, there would be no pushers out there turning kids onto it. If heroin were legal, the government could monitor its use, guarantee its purity, and even collect taxes instead of expending money on prohibition, interdiction, enforcement and punishment. If heroin were legal, maybe addicts, and there will always be addicts, might seek and receive help from a society unbiased by arbitrary moral decisions.

Oops, sorry, I accidentally broke off part of this thread while testing, and there's no easy facility for putting it back. My bad!

Clumsiness? Too much WINE, Robin?

If heroin were legal, there would be no pushers out there turning kids onto it. If heroin were legal, the government could monitor its use, guarantee its purity, and even collect taxes instead of expending money on prohibition, interdiction, enforcement and punishment. If heroin were legal, maybe addicts, and there will always be addicts, might seek and receive help from a society unbiased by arbitrary moral decisions.

I guess we can agree to disagree Gary. I think the social cost of legalizing an addictive drug like heroin would be very high, and I would bet that is one area that, if put to a national referendum uninfluenced by
any "well-heeled or very loud interest group or lobby", a large majority of Americans - and not just their elected representatives - would agree with me.

I guess we can agree to disagree Gary. I think the social cost of legalizing an addictive drug like heroin would be very high, and I would bet that is one area that, if put to a national referendum uninfluenced by any "well-heeled or very loud interest group or lobby", a large majority of Americans - and not just their elected representatives - would agree with me.

Done! Thanks for the discussion.

If heroin were legal, there would be no pushers out there turning kids onto it. If heroin were legal, the government could monitor its use, guarantee its purity, and even collect taxes instead of expending money on prohibition, interdiction, enforcement and punishment. If heroin were legal, maybe addicts, and there will always be addicts, might seek and receive help from a society unbiased by arbitrary moral decisions.

I guess we can agree to disagree Gary. I think the social cost of legalizing an addictive drug like heroin would be very high, and I would bet that is one area that, if put to a national referendum uninfluenced by
any "well-heeled or very loud interest group or lobby", a large majority of Americans - and not just their elected representatives - would agree with me.

I am not entering the debate, but just want to point out that heroin was developed to fight opium addiction then, opium was made illegal. Heroin became a problem because it is more potent than opium, so it was made illegal and methadone was made legal to fight heroin addiction. Now, methadone has both a legal and an illicit market, and it is equally addictive as either opium or heroin.

Some who study such things have said that the cost of Prohibition was not worth the elusive benefits, not to mention that the law created criminals where none existed.

Robin, the first three posts in this thread appear at

http://www.wineloverspage.com/forum/vil ... highlight=

[Hate to lose any priceless prose, especially Dale's and Paul Winalski's contribution. ]

I think it is interesting that people who are full citizens at age 18 can't drink until they're 21; they can join the army, vote, and do everything other adults can do, but they can't have a beer. I don't understand it.

...And I wonder if anyone remembers the concentration of clubs in upstate NY along the NJ border? ....

Since when is anything along the NJ border considered "Upstate"? Being a few years older than you and living along the Ontario border, I recall avoiding clubs in Buffalo and Niagara Falls, NY when half the under 21 population of Toronto would take over the places. It has since reversed, as NY is now 21 and Ontario is 19. Apparently a rite of passage these days for the locals is to visit the Strip Clubs in Fort Erie and Niagara Falls, Ont. for their 19th birthday - male and female.

I think it is interesting that people who are full citizens at age 18 can't drink until they're 21; they can join the army, vote, and do everything other adults can do, but they can't have a beer. I don't understand it.

The ethics of the United States of America have a clear Judaeo-Christian underpinning. This allows for the "just war" and basically killing people whenever we feel we are "in the right" morally. It also lets the state kill people it has decided are criminals. A stronger influence in this nation's founding philosophy is, however, a thread of that Judaeo-Christian tradition called Protestantism in some of its more interesting and eccentric permutations. A lot of these folks thought that alcohol was the work of the Devil and not only wanted to ban it from the face of the earth but also punish those who drank it. And this was kind of the state of things back in 1776 and, gasp, still pretty much the state of things today.

In other words, our moral and ethical history informs us that it's OK to kill, but not to drink. Lobbies, interest groups, and politicians take advantage of this befuddled line of thought and cash in on it.

What I find ironic is that commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," in the Ten Commandments and all that showing of the other cheek in the New Testament. Gee, that seems pretty clear to me. On the other hand, there ain't no "Thou shalt not drink," just a call for moderation. And, in fact, wine is an essential part of the Christian liturgy ... or do we send Jesus and all His Apostles to hell for drinking it?

To recall Barbara Streisand, it's people who knead people just to make a little dough.

I agree, Oliver. The drinking age, the voting age, and the age for military service are all arbitrary - simply a judgment call by those who make that decision, and I find it odd too. But I think there should be a minimum age for each of those. And since I have grandchildren in or approaching their teenage years, I vote to make two of the three as high as possible.

"Upstate New York"

Ah, Howie, what an elusive term that is. For my money, if it isn't New York City and maybe a couple of northern burbs, it's "Upstate New York". [Anything north of the Tappen Zee basically.]

All of Upstate New York adjoins New Jersey, unless you want to give the lower Hudson River to "DownState".

Wikipedia has a very good discussion of the term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upstate_New_York

Regards, Bob

Thanks for the link Bob. Interesting reading. I am always amazed when I visit other parts of the country and people somehow seem to think Buffalo is a suburb of NYC. In fact, I've only been to NYC 3 times in my life and all I ever did there was change planes. I almost went to an offline there last year, but it didn't work out. Maybe one of these days....

A stronger influence in this nation's founding philosophy is, however, a thread of that Judaeo-Christian tradition called Protestantism in some of its more interesting and eccentric permutations. A lot of these folks thought that alcohol was the work of the Devil and not only wanted to ban it from the face of the earth but also punish those who drank it. And this was kind of the state of things back in 1776 and, gasp, still pretty much the state of things today.

In other words, our moral and ethical history informs us that it's OK to kill, but not to drink. Lobbies, interest groups, and politicians take advantage of this befuddled line of thought and cash in on it.

What I find ironic is that commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," in the Ten Commandments and all that showing of the other cheek in the New Testament. Gee, that seems pretty clear to me. On the other hand, there ain't no "Thou shalt not drink," just a call for moderation. And, in fact, wine is an essential part of the Christian liturgy ... or do we send Jesus and all His Apostles to hell for drinking it?

Gary, that is extremely well said and I agree with you completely.

Many of the same underpinnings are here in Canada as well, and although I have always refrained from discussing matters of religion here, I will say that yes, I do think that many of the very subtle anti-alcohol aspects of North American history and current-day legislative culture are very "Protestant" in origin. Your point about the liturgy, especially at the time of Jesus, is most poignant: it shows just how some people have tried to rewrite history to suit their personal agendas.

The sad thing is that these puritanical nanny rules continue to this day, even though it should be perfectly clear just what their failures have been. It is my hope that as wine gets more mainstream in the North American culture (even if predominantly as a consumer/lifestyle thing), the prohibitionist nanny mindset will evolve away in favour of a more holistic wine-as-food mindset. I think that life will be better overall for it!