The Federal Temperance Commission
In response to Manuel Lora’s post below, commenter Nick Bradley writes:
Perhaps the draconian laws that ban underage drinking foster irresponsible drinking!Anticipating Mr. Bradley’s decision to question the wisdom of the state, the Federal Trade Commission recently launched a website called “We Don’t Serve Teens” (dontserveteens.gov). Although the FTC bills itself as being “for the consumer,” in this case the Commission’s propaganda is geared towards rationalizing the denial of consumer choice.I'm only 25 myself, but I was allowed to have a few beers in the house when my parents were around at a teenager. It introduces teenagers to drinking (which is part of Western culture) in a safe enviornment. Much better than getting drunk at the park with friends...
Texas had a law until recently (revoked unfornunately) that allowed minors to drink as long as they were with their parents. It was a pretty good law that gave parents the choice on how to teach their kids about alcohol.
The website’s Q&A section opens with a direct refutation of Mr. Bradley’s argument:
Q. Wouldn't a lower drinking age allow parents to teach their kids to drink responsibly?This answer is evasive, but a later question clarifies the FTC’s position:A. Parents don't have to drink with their children to teach them responsible drinking. Additionally, letting teens drink at home sends the wrong message about appropriate conduct away from home.
Q. Kids are going to drink anyway. They always have. Isn't it better to hold the party at my house, so my kids and their friends aren't out driving?“It’s not your decision to make” means that it’s the state’s decision to make. The second sentence is a clever manipulation—allowing teens to drink undermines other parents authority, but the government’s outright prohibition undermines the authority of parents who, in their own judgment, feels their child can handle modest alcohol consumption. Ultimately, every parent’s judgment is irrelevant when it conflicts with the state.A. It's not your decision to make. Letting other teens drink in your house undermines other parents, and in many states, violates the law. Drunk driving isn't the only danger associated with teen drinking, and you can't guarantee that your teen guests won't drive after they leave your house. Offer non-alcoholic choices rather than another drinking venue. (Emphasis added)
There’s also a misappropriation of the term “teen” here, since every state forbids the consumption of alcohol by adults between the ages of 18 and 21. Here’s the FTC’s non-responsive answer to that issue:
Q. If kids can vote and join the military at 18, why do they have to wait until they're 21 to drink legally?The assumption in this paragraph is that all rights are granted by the state and can be revoked simply by invoking “the law” or, more ominously, random uncredited “research” that suggests a public benefit. Indeed, other articles on the website cite anonymous public opinion polls as justifying the drinking age: “In one recent national survey, 79 percent of parents said the drinking age should stay the same or be raised.” Does this mean, then, that Congress could forbid anyone from over the age of 65 from working if a majority supported such a law? After all, the drinking age is a form of government-mandated age discrimination, which is generally frowned upon by regulators in private contexts.A. It's the law. In addition, ages of "initiation" vary. You can work at 14, vote at 18 and drink at 21, but you can't run for Congress until you're 25. Researchers who have evaluated the data say the minimum legal drinking age delays the onset of alcohol use. As a result, it reduces drinking-related injuries among teens and the risk of alcohol abuse and dependence later in life.
(Incidentally, in response to the argument that the higher drinking age reduces risk of injury or death--doesn't allowing "teens" to enlist in the armed forces greatly expand their risk of injury or death? Those risks easily dwarf those from alcohol consumption.)
The website contains many invocations of anecdotal evidence and “research,” none of which are sourced or attributed to facilitate public scrutiny. But the point of propaganda isn’t to engage in reasoned debate—the point is to demand public acceptance of authority. I suspect the website’s development was motivated by fear that some state government may someday consider moving the drinking age back to 18, thus recognizing all adults as—gasp—equal in the eyes of the law.
And why is the FTC even involved in this issue? The Commission’s function is to enforce antitrust and “consumer protection” laws. Teenage drinking doesn’t fit into either of these categories. This obvious case of mission creep is actually rooted in the FTC’s jurisdiction over advertising—in this case, advertising of alcohol that may be directed at impressionable teens.
Curiously, the FTC is concerned that peer pressure may lead teens to drink, so in response the Commission advocates its own brand of peer pressure. In a lengthy list for how we can “take steps in our community” to prohibit teens from drinking, the FTC offers these suggestions:
Again, it must be reiterated that the definitions of “teens” and “adults” are misleading. “Teens” between the ages of 18 and 21 are legal adults. The FTC is openly promoting age discrimination. And it’s only defense is that said discrimination is popular in unattributed government surveys.
- Talk to adults who host teen parties. Let them know that 86 percent of parents support the legal drinking age and a whopping 96 percent of adults agree that it is not okay to serve alcohol to someone else's teen—and not okay to turn a blind eye to teens' alcohol consumption.
- Let local law enforcement know that you don't oppose active policing of noisy teen parties. A noisy party may signal alcohol use; you will ask them to check it out.
Unverified anecdotes, vague statistics, and evasive arguments would normally lead the FTC to file charges of “false and misleading” advertising against private businesses. But when the “public interest” demands it, there are no limits to what can be said and no consequences for those who say it.
Comments (12)
Many laws, especially those regarding young people, exist only to imprint on individuals their position in relation to the state. If the state can make its presence known throughout a person's development into adulthood the person will simply accept the state as a given, a fact of nature. This explains the plans to step up prekindergarten programs in many cities-- these enable the state to get its tentacles on children even younger than 5. Increased homework loads allow the state to insert its presence into the home as children are forced to spend even more of their free time toiling away on state issued assignments (that usually have no educational merit.) The drinking age laws are simply a continuance of this project, by the time one is 21 the state has trained him to be docile and unquestioning. He understands social organization only in the context of modern nation state. Sorry for the lack of coherence,it is late and I am sleepy.
Published: October 27, 2006 2:44 AM
"Many laws, especially those regarding young people, exist only to imprint on individuals their position in relation to the state." !
Published: October 27, 2006 7:51 AM
I think the same applies to driving laws. In most states, it is illegal for parents to teach their kids how to drive until they are 15 (or one year before the legal driving age in other states) and have a "permit to learn how to drive". However, many good parents teach their kids how to drive at a much younger age, like 12 or 13. Driving mom or dad to the grocery store and the gas station for three or four years allows kids to get comfortable behind the wheel before actually getting a license.
But for some reason, the state says that it is ILLEGAL for kids to have MORE THAN one year of driving experience before getting a license, ensuring teenage drivers are as inexperienced as possible.
I cannot think of any possible explanation for this, other than that the state is wholly incompetent and has no idea what it is doing. If I were a kook conspiracy theorist, I would say that the state has mandated inexperienced drivers to ensure higher numbers of traffic tickets, thereby boosting revenue. Too bad they're killing kids as a result.
Another issue that irks me is that military members under the age of 21 are not allowed to drink! So an 18-year old is responsible enough to sign an indentured servitude contract and risk his life for the government, but is not allowed to have a drink? How insane is that? Military posts used to let 18 - 20 year olds drink on post ("wet bases"), but that has been done away with. 17 year-olds that join the military are not even allowed to smoke!
Published: October 27, 2006 7:57 AM
Word 2 Nick on this!
the E-1 through E-4 ranks are indeed America's only legal second-class citizens
Heh, even war is suposedly more holsom, at least since General Ord #1 in CENTCOM is no booze or jollies (though that's often not the case, depending on which FOB your at)
Published: October 27, 2006 2:53 PM
CAITM,
I feel ya. I'm in the military too. I'm glad that when I was a 20-year old E-3 a couple of years back, I was stationed in Hawaii in a unit that didn't care about underage drinking. Heck, under my first commander, I drank with my superiors (including my OIC) because it built camaraderie.
And I'm deployed to Iraq too right now. G.O. #1 is ridiculous, especially when the Brits and Aussies get to drink whenever they want. The Booze and porn Gestapo tactics (raids, shake-downs, etc.) grew out of Saudi's insistence that alcohol and porn not be brought into their country. That's fine, it's their call, but it's clearly not the case in Iraq where members of coalition countries get to drink. And it ain't much different at the FOBs; do you really want to risk your career over a couple of beers? The safety police, with their insistence that we all wear safety belts when going everywhere (including daylight!) is pretty absurd too.
Speaking of second-class citizens, I told someone the other day that they didn't really sign a "contract" when they entered the military or re-enlisted. A legal contract is one that is open to interpretation by both sides and can be broken by one of the parties (with potential punitive damage, of course). Instead, a military contract is a 4-year letter of indentured servitude and a violation of the 13th Amendment. Officers can resign whenever they want, but they must give 30 days notice and the military HAS to accept their resignation and release them within 12 months of submitting a letter of resignation. There is no discernable reason why the enlisted shouldn’t be able to resign either, especially with the strange new relationship between younger NCOs and officers. Officers used to use their college education to put themselves above the enlisted. But now, many NCOs have more education, training, AND experience than their officers. I have my bachelors' and half of a master's degree from a pretty good school, but I have to listen to a fresh-out-of-ROTC O-1 or O-2 with a liberal arts degree from Florida State. What gives?
Published: October 27, 2006 7:20 PM
Nick,tru that.
tru all of that. as you've probably speculated, I'm from those "useful idiots" known collectively as the officer corps. Lest I mislead everyone, let me first say, I don't deploy for a few months and am still in tha CONUS. a few things, though:
As one of thoes bastards with an BA and a ROTC Commisson, I have to say that the enlisted/commissioned dicotomy is a vestigal institution of feudalism. However, there is an economic draft, it seems to me sometimes that ensures that disadvantaged kids have to enlist (one of my best 2T3s was actually homeless before he joined!) But anyway. Nick assumes that competense makes one worthy of leadership and seniority. The military establishment does not see it as such. Willingness to swallow and then puke back out the official line, while maintaining convincingly is what gets one the butter bar...that and manageble degree of sociopathy.
Published: October 28, 2006 10:59 AM
Indeed, the Officer corps, as it has morphed today, reminds me of the Soviet Commissiars from Stalin's pre-WWII Russia.
Published: October 28, 2006 11:09 AM
CAITM,
I planned on getting a commission after I got my degree, but the Air Force's Arcane Central Planning system proved otherwise. From 1999 - 2003, any enlisted member (or college student, for that matter) with a Bachelors' Degree and a pulse was given an OTS slot. So many LTs were let in that the commissioning rate has essentially dropped to ZERO in the Air Force. Hell, they "force-shaped" out hundreds of LTs in the past year! So, a marginal troops who scraped together enough free time together (and avoided deployments) to get a bachelors' degree was given a commission. Today, when we ARE deploying constantly, even a Master's degree isn't good enough. In his infinite wisdom before leaving office, Gen. Jumper removed the section in the OTS package that mentioned Graduate education. Now graduate education can only go in the misc. section.
So three years ago, the Air Force was pumping out poor officers. Today, even stellar troops find it nearly impossible to get a commission. The Air Force has also eliminated "non-technical degrees", like economics, political science, history, international affairs, and strategic intelligence. Instead, they want engineers. Why the hell do you want oficers with engineering backgrounds? It is the enlisted corps that do most of the hands-on work. The Soviets did the same thing in their day.
Published: October 28, 2006 5:14 PM
In a previous comment it was stated that the 21 year drinking age trained a populace to be "docile and unquestioning". In my experience at college a few years back, it trained the under 21 year old populace to distrust and avoid authority, and become comfortable with flouting stupid laws.
Published: October 29, 2006 7:53 AM
I really enjoyed the analysis of German hyperinflation post WW1. My question is; so yo think it likely that draconian taxation and confiscation of gold and silver are in the future of US citizens?
Published: October 29, 2006 10:19 AM
My comment about the purpose of the law being to create a docile and unquestioning populace still applies. It is true that virtually every kid from the age of 16 - 21 is going to do some drinking, but to do so they have to jump through a series of hoops (finding someone to buy, finding a place, paying way more for the alcohol than they would at the store) and they act with the knowledge that the jackbooted thugs could show up at any moment and put the kibosh on their fun. The mere fact that they are forced to drink "underground" makes them intimately aware of their place relative the state. They know if they are caught and forced to perform hours of useless community service and pay ridiculous fines, no one will stand up for them and explain how stupid the law is. They know that they are helpless. This is docility, this is what it is to be unquestioning.
Published: October 29, 2006 6:51 PM
Nick,
This is all tru, actually, I could write a book on all this. my first two captains were from the 99-03 era, fit the profile and are both out now. I'm currently on the force-shaping chopping block and don't really care. the Air Force missallocates and wasts recources/and people just like the rest on the Fed-Gov.
It's goo to hear that somewhere there are other officers in different branches who drink with their men. my partaking in the festivities of a recent retirment of my last NCOIC was frowned upon.
Published: October 29, 2006 7:41 PM