Prior to arriving in America I imagined this country as being the land of the free. But somehow, it turned out this was a wrongly held reputation. Social restrictions and legal pressures have transformed the free Wild West into a regulated state. It seems like good things are banned. How can limiting alcohol consumption to those at least 21 years old protect teenagers when we know that in Europe alcohol related accidents are far more frequent in countries where the drinking age limit is high and strictly enforced? Where does this American rule come from?
Everyone has heard of bootleggers Al Capone and Lucky Luciano — big faces during the Prohibition period. Both built their empires on the prohibition of alcohol. Prohibition lasted for 13 years, bringing an era of gangsters and mob wars, underground activities and crime. It is widely acknowledged that alcohol is a part of Western societies, and that societies’ efforts to regulate its consumption are futile and disastrous.
Coming out of the Prohibition America’s mechanism of “laboratory states” was alcohol regulation. The concept of laboratory states is fundamental to the good functioning of the United States. It implies that every state can test-run a regulation in its own way (e.g., taxes, speed limits, etc.) in order to see what works best. In 1984, this privilege was restrained through the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. The law put restrictions on highway funding set up under the Federal Aid Highway Act (which created the Interstate system in 1956). The states could enjoy these funds if they adopted specific laws on alcohol sale and consumption.
I still wonder whether the 21-year restriction is a simple act of Puritanism or misplaced good intentions. I can understand the point made that adults want to prevent teenagers from falling for the “vices” of alcohol. We all know that there are many problems linked to abusive alcohol consumption, such as binge drinking, alcoholism, accidents, violence, and many others. But having the minimum drinking age set at 21 will not solve them. On the contrary, it will push youngsters into illegal paths.
A person that has broken a law and enjoyed it is very likely to do it again. Now, if a teenager buys alcohol with a fake ID or gets someone of age to buy it for him, what stops him from taking any further illegal action? Simply: laws of this type essentially condition people from a young age to disrespect the law. Isn’t prevention or limitation a way to awaken curiosity? Being told not to do something can in fact drive teenagers, an already high-risk demographic, to engage in more risky behavior. Positioning alcohol as a social “forbidden fruit” will merely get more minors to drink in secret – without the benefit of having parents around to monitor behavior.
The global-warming industry would probably still be solely owned by assoted cranks and romantics (and the odd vice president) if it weren’t for a bunch of CEOs taking a leaf from Enron’s playbook and attempting to monetize the issue. Playing the bootleggers in a classic bootleggers and baptists alliance, these businessmen have realized that they can get the government to increase their profits by means of “cap and trade” and similar regulatory interventions, at the expense of other businesses and the paying public. Ordinarily, such shenanigans would have the corporate watchdog groups in arms, but by getting the “baptists” of the green movement on their side, they have shielded themselves from public disgust.
This has to stop, and the good folks at Junkscience.com are at the forefront of calling foul. They are releasing a series of “Wanted” posters for six corporate fat cats who want to grow fatter by means of the Waxman-Markey Bill. Junkscience describes the six and their crimes as:
* Exelon CEO John Roe, the “carbon bandit,” who stands to make billions of dollars at taxpayer expense from Waxman-Markey’s free carbon allowances;
* General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt, the “carbon schemer,” who would rather profit from lobbying for Waxman-Markey than innovating products that consumers actually want;
* Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers, the “carbon betrayer,” who is lobbying for higher energy prices and against his own customers and shareholders;
* Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris, the “carbon extortionist,” who threatens to send American jobs overseas unless Congress pays him off with free carbon allowances;
* Caterpillar CEO James Owens, who can only be considered as “carbon clueless” since he is lobbying against the coal industry, one of his biggest customers; and
* John Deer & Co. Chairman Robert Lane, the “carbon crapshooter,” who seems to be betting that he can wreck the economy and profit simultaneously.
Form that posse and go get ‘em, guys.
Interesting lectures are a great thing. Good cocktails are a very good thing. But when the two are combined into a single presentation, the effect is just plain fun, which is how I describe the event I attended last night.
Garrett Peck, author of The Prohibition Hangover: Alcohol in America from Demon Rum to Cult Cabernet, walked an audience through the history of Americans’ conflicted relationship with alcoholic beverages (at Jackie’s Restaurant in Silver Spring, Maryland). Moving along in time, the lecture was augmented with drinks that were popular at different times in the nation’s history — including the infamous “coffin varnish,” about which H.L. Mencken wrote.
The “hangover” of prohibition, noted Peck, is the broad — often byzantine — regulatory framework under which alcoholic beverages are now produced, marketed, and sold in the United States. I’ve begun reading the book, which I’m finding enjoyable. And it’s got the best jacket blurb I’ve ever seen (from my friend Edward Stringham): “[T]his book will be of interest to anyone interested in alcohol.”
Peck also lead a Temperance Tour, in which he takes visitors along the historical landmarks that mark the road to the insanity that was prohibition. Here’s a toast to drug prohibition passing into history some day, as well.
The news that the Federal Government has forced UBS to give up the details of 4000 of its customers’ transactions has other financial institutions finding new ways to protect their clients. This has been greeted with dismay by one community. The following letter to the New York Times was intercepted and we provide it here in the interests of transparency.
Dear Sir,
As an international bank robber, may I say how much I deplore the underhanded way in which financial institutions are able to keep private details of how much money each of their clients has deposited. This makes my job so much harder. Indeed, we in the bank robbing community are working to improve our image after decades of negative coverage from conservative media and this could be enhanced by increased transparency, which would enable us to target only those banks and clients who have, for example, profited from the subprime mortgage market. We are also environmentally conscious. In our efforts to reduce greenhouse gases not only do we now use smokeless explosives, but transparency would enable us to leave alone the accounts and deposit boxes of carbon offset traders and Al Gore’s Hollywood friends.
Sincerely,
Machine Gun Kelly, Ma Baker, Bonnie Parker and Clyde Darrow
See also: Baptists and Bootleggers
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 