America always seems to want to do the “right” thing, even when the methodology of doing that seems to obviously clash with the basic freedoms and liberties which we cherish. Possibly the most dramatic example of such governance is our experiment with prohibition of alcoholic beverages, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution. Certainly the freedom of adult Americans was infringed by governmental fiat. Yet, the emotional argument of ending drunkenness and preserving families was compelling. So, freedom be damned.
The repeal through the 21st Amendment had to be done by an alternative method of ratification. The 21st is the only amendment ratified, not by voting in the state legislatures, but by convening of state conventions for the purpose of voting on repeal of the 18th. That was the only time the option was used out of 27 amendments. The reason is that elected legislators who expected to be re-elected wouldn’t do what was reasonable based on the evidence, but could only vote for the emotional protection that the 18th was supposed to provide. Get some single purpose delegates together who won’t seek re-election after getting the repeal ratified was the route to necessary results.
“Blue laws” in the Bible Belt long attempted to fill the abolitionist void locally. The result was private clubs, brown-bagging in restaurants, locker facilities at the VFW and a need to finish up the last of that bottle before driving home at night. Unintended, but certainly predictable outcomes.
Now we’ve got this:
Let Them Drink
Drunk driving causes accidents, but responsible drinking leads to maturity and moderation, at least in the view of a coalition of college presidents. Of course the hysterical Mothers Against Drunk Driving (who have some justification for their hysteria), don’t see it that way at all. Raising the drinking age to 21 made sense to the moms. And lowering the threshold of what constitutes DUI makes sense as well. Pandering to similar hysteria as the Volstead Act did, the feds caved to MADD and now will be very reluctant to listen to the college presidents who are grappling with how to deal with reality.
Does it make sense to have the same federal government supporting voting at 18? How can they be mature enough to vote if they aren’t mature enough to have a beer? The same federal government lets the tots enlist in the military and defend their country with controlled violence at the age of 18, but no glass of wine with dinner until you’re older. Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to note that dropping the BAI from 0.1 to 0.08 by fiat rather than some scientific rationale doesn’t make sense either. You should also note that the lower number is going to inevitably get you more, not fewer legally incapacitated drives. They might not be physically impaired, but the state gets to raise a lot more revenue.
Here’s a reasonable discussion of the debate:
Dangerously Logical
If anyone can make a rational argument to me with examples of actual successes of prohibition or restriction of drinking resulting in less drunkenness, less binge drinking, less rowdiness and fewer accidents, I’ll rethink the issue.
So far, whether it is college frats, Spring Break in Mexico, “Time, Gentlemen” in London pubs, or soccer hooligans in Wales, the only thing that I’ve seen limitations and restrictions gain is more inebriation. Conversely, when I lived in Spain (under a fascist dictator, Franco) there were no minimum age requirements, no limits to serving hours, and remarkably few examples of public drunkenness.
Moralistic restrictions on behavior enacted into law are futile. Abstinence from sex? Good but unlikely. War on drugs? About as effective as Prohibition. Eliminating vile language from hip-hop? Ain’t gonna happen. Stopping porn on the Internet? How’s that gonna work? As in almost all arenas of life, the less the government intervenes, the better the outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment