Tuesday, October 24, 2017
The 21 Drinking Age Is An Inherently Violent Law
Let's put this as bluntly as possible. The 21 drinking age is an inherently violent law, at least the way it is typically implemented. And insofar as it is violent, it its also therefore a hate crime against young people.
Except perhaps for those shrinkingly few jurisdictions in this country where it is not vigorously enforced or only enforced on vendors, enforcing such an illiberal law against a victimless crime is inherently violent. In fact, it is literally impossible for police to enforce against young people themselves without violence or the threat of violence. And if you resist such efforts, that is "resisting arrest". Try to imagine a non-violent version of such an abomination--you literally can't!
One yardstick we like to compare it to is the smoking age for tobacco in still many parts of the country. New York State, for example, has a legal minimum sale age of 18 for all tobacco products and e-cigarettes. NYC and Suffolk County set it at 21, and a few other counties such as Nassau set it at 19. But in all of the state, the age limit only pertains to who can buy it, and only vendors are penalized for it. Purchase, use, and possession (PUP) under the legal age are not actually illegal in NY. I believe that even furnishing cigarettes to people under the legal age in private is not a punishable offense either. That is an example of a (relatively) non-violent smoking age, if one can argue that there is such a thing.
Yet we can't seem to recall anywhere in the country, except maybe Louisiana, that has a 21 drinking age that follows such a model in theory or practice. And unfortunately many parts of the country are increasingly following the typical drinking age model (or worse) for cigarettes and now cannabis as well.
That said, we would still vehemently oppose the age limit for alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis set any higher than the general age of majority regardless, as it is still an unduly paternalistic violation of civil rights and liberties. That means no higher than 18, period. As for people under 18, ideally there should be no penalties for simple possession or private consumption per se, but if there must be, they should be no worse than a traffic ticket and there should be no jail time or criminal record involved. We would grudgingly support such a thing only to avoid making the perfect the enemy of the good (and thus ending up with neither). But otherwise, any age limit should be enforced only on vendors (with violations punishable by liquor licence suspensions/revocations) and perhaps people over 18 who otherwise knowingly furnish such substances to people under 18 (for example, by fining and "blacklisting" such scofflaws from buying alcohol for a period of time). The criminal law is far too harsh a tool to apply to such things per se, except perhaps in truly egregious cases.
But as for drunk driving, drunk violence, and other alcohol-related crimes with victims, we say, NO MERCY! Do the crime, do the time.
Oh, and by the way, during Prohibition (1920-1933) when alcohol was banned for all ages, it was actually NOT illegal to possess or consume alcohol per se. It was of course illegal to sell, manufacture, transport, or give away such beverages, but drinking itself was not a crime. Thus, the current ignoble experiment that is the 21 drinking age is in fact more violent than 1920s Prohibition for people under 21.
Let America be America again, and lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.
Except perhaps for those shrinkingly few jurisdictions in this country where it is not vigorously enforced or only enforced on vendors, enforcing such an illiberal law against a victimless crime is inherently violent. In fact, it is literally impossible for police to enforce against young people themselves without violence or the threat of violence. And if you resist such efforts, that is "resisting arrest". Try to imagine a non-violent version of such an abomination--you literally can't!
One yardstick we like to compare it to is the smoking age for tobacco in still many parts of the country. New York State, for example, has a legal minimum sale age of 18 for all tobacco products and e-cigarettes. NYC and Suffolk County set it at 21, and a few other counties such as Nassau set it at 19. But in all of the state, the age limit only pertains to who can buy it, and only vendors are penalized for it. Purchase, use, and possession (PUP) under the legal age are not actually illegal in NY. I believe that even furnishing cigarettes to people under the legal age in private is not a punishable offense either. That is an example of a (relatively) non-violent smoking age, if one can argue that there is such a thing.
Yet we can't seem to recall anywhere in the country, except maybe Louisiana, that has a 21 drinking age that follows such a model in theory or practice. And unfortunately many parts of the country are increasingly following the typical drinking age model (or worse) for cigarettes and now cannabis as well.
That said, we would still vehemently oppose the age limit for alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis set any higher than the general age of majority regardless, as it is still an unduly paternalistic violation of civil rights and liberties. That means no higher than 18, period. As for people under 18, ideally there should be no penalties for simple possession or private consumption per se, but if there must be, they should be no worse than a traffic ticket and there should be no jail time or criminal record involved. We would grudgingly support such a thing only to avoid making the perfect the enemy of the good (and thus ending up with neither). But otherwise, any age limit should be enforced only on vendors (with violations punishable by liquor licence suspensions/revocations) and perhaps people over 18 who otherwise knowingly furnish such substances to people under 18 (for example, by fining and "blacklisting" such scofflaws from buying alcohol for a period of time). The criminal law is far too harsh a tool to apply to such things per se, except perhaps in truly egregious cases.
But as for drunk driving, drunk violence, and other alcohol-related crimes with victims, we say, NO MERCY! Do the crime, do the time.
Oh, and by the way, during Prohibition (1920-1933) when alcohol was banned for all ages, it was actually NOT illegal to possess or consume alcohol per se. It was of course illegal to sell, manufacture, transport, or give away such beverages, but drinking itself was not a crime. Thus, the current ignoble experiment that is the 21 drinking age is in fact more violent than 1920s Prohibition for people under 21.
Let America be America again, and lower the drinking age to 18. If you're old enough to go to war, you're old enough to go to the bar. 'Nuff said.
Sunday, October 15, 2017
Kudos to Puerto Rico (and the U.S. Virgin Islands)!
With all the monumental and unprecedented devastation to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands due to Hurricane Maria, we at Twenty-One Debunked have been thinking about just how much integrity they have shown over the past three decades. As you probably already know, since 1988 they have continually chosen to keep their drinking ages at 18 instead of raise it to 21, even at the cost of 10% of their federal highway funding being withheld from them. Even Guam eventually sold out in 2010, yet Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands still show no signs whatsoever of selling out anytime soon, despite how battered they are by the hurricane. Now that REALLY says something! So thank you, and kudos to both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. You are excellent role models for the sort of integrity that one can only wish that the mainland states had shown.
Of course, there have repeatedly been fleeting movements to raise the drinking age to 21 in Puerto Rico over the years, but every single one of them failed due to lack of public support. But keeping the drinking age at 18 did not stop them from harm reduction. In fact, even the temperance-oriented Robert Wood Johnson Foundation concedes that Puerto Rico was able to reduce both alcohol-related traffic fatalities and underage (under 18) drinking since the 1990s without raising the drinking age at all. Rather, they simply started enforcing the existing drinking age of 18, passed tougher DUI laws (and enforced them), and also raised the excise tax on alcoholic beverages. From 1982 to 2009, Puerto Rico saw a whopping 84% decline in teenage (16-20) drunk driving fatalities, while the nation as a whole saw a 74% drop, in both cases to record-low levels. Now that's a great American success story!
In other words, it appears that Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) were spot on when they said that the drinking age appears to have "only a minor impact on teen drinking," just like they were right about its lack of a lifesaving effect on the highways.
Of course, there have repeatedly been fleeting movements to raise the drinking age to 21 in Puerto Rico over the years, but every single one of them failed due to lack of public support. But keeping the drinking age at 18 did not stop them from harm reduction. In fact, even the temperance-oriented Robert Wood Johnson Foundation concedes that Puerto Rico was able to reduce both alcohol-related traffic fatalities and underage (under 18) drinking since the 1990s without raising the drinking age at all. Rather, they simply started enforcing the existing drinking age of 18, passed tougher DUI laws (and enforced them), and also raised the excise tax on alcoholic beverages. From 1982 to 2009, Puerto Rico saw a whopping 84% decline in teenage (16-20) drunk driving fatalities, while the nation as a whole saw a 74% drop, in both cases to record-low levels. Now that's a great American success story!
In other words, it appears that Miron and Tetelbaum (2009) were spot on when they said that the drinking age appears to have "only a minor impact on teen drinking," just like they were right about its lack of a lifesaving effect on the highways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)