Don't legislate my alcohol

The card says...
    By Dave Oppenheim

There are a number of things that really anger people. Few things, however, consistently cause the average person to break things and reach for the blood-pressure pills more than being forced to endure overt condescension. Having someone decide that we aren't capable of making our own decisions about our own lives is about as galling as it gets. So it's a mystery why there has been no mass uprising against Connecticut's "Blue Laws."

These laws decree that no establishment can sell alcoholic beverages to consenting adults past 8 p.m., and not at all on Sundays, except in eateries and places of entertainment. In New Haven, students with cards proclaiming them, or someone who vaguely resembles them, to be of age can't buy these products past what is, for them, lunchtime.

It's bad enough that the federal government has decided that alcohol and drugs such as marijuana warrant stringent restrictions while firearms are a constitutionally protected right. But the fact that Connecticut sees fit to draw upon its Puritan roots to limit consumers' rights to one particular type of beverage indicates that the state's lawmakers feel that they are not only policymakers, but parents and spiritual guides as well.

By and large, alcohol is something that only poses health risks to the user, kind of like eggs, red meat, and Twinkies. Consumption of alcoholic beverages eventually leads to liver damage, as the other food items lead to heart attacks and various other problems. The main concern with alcohol, though, is drunk driving. But as long as that unsafe action carries stiff penalties, the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer for the mistakes of a few stupid people.

The argument that making alcohol difficult to obtain leads to less consumption and thus improves society is flawed on two levels. First is the basic freedom argument: the ability to make personal choices in America without government intrusion should necessarily outweigh any minor improvements to society. Secondly, the idea that the demand for alcohol can be diminished through cumbersome legislation has been debunked time and again. Prohibition was one of the greatest national policy failures in this country in the 1920s and in the Soviet Union in the mid-1980s because people always found a way around the restrictions. The countries involved became nations of outlaws. Organized crime syndicates took up the distribution business.

In the case of partial restrictions like the Connecticut Blue Laws, citizens are merely inconvenienced. Liquor store owners are deprived of an opportunity to make the best living they can. Buyers are forced to adapt their own schedules in order to comply with the law. They are forced either to buy their alcohol earlier and wait to consume it, rendering the law moot, or to drink at a bar or restaurant rather than in the privacy of their own homes. Though bar owners undoubtedly have no complaints about this situation, it only increases the likelihood of drunk driving, since people must go out to drink.

One can argue the merits of the state adopting a paternalistic attitude toward restricting college students' access to alcohol. One can even debate the merits of preventing the same group of Americans, aged 18-21, from allowing them to drink legally, despite being able to vote, inherit property, be sued, serve in the armed forces, and receive junk mail from Visa. Statutory bullying of legal drinkers through laws like Connecticut's, however, has few virtues worth arguing.

Back to Opinion...