Locke Foundation leader: Repeal drunk driving laws, lower drinking age

If we say Hood’s position on this issue is a -10 … and that the current public policy is a +10 … I would come somewhere around -6.

I’d want regulations related to age, which should remain at 21. There is simply too much brain research on the books that shows the enduring and debilitating effects of alcohol on adolescent brains.

Beyond that, I say get out of the ABC business completely.

I also agree with your intimation that decriminalizing drugs would be a good thing as well.

Both of these areas reflect stunning failures at all levels of public policy.

I think our laws are both excessive AND insufficient. Thus I agree partly with John. I definitely think the drinking age should be lowered to 18. But total deregulation is not the answer.

Aside from those three laws that John wants, we still need additional ones:

1) Excise taxes–they reduce excessive consumption and the harm it causes, pay for social costs of alcohol, and raise revenue. Use the funds for education, treatment, and DUI enforcement. The burden falls on the heaviest drinkers, who generate the greatest social costs. A win-win situation IMO. But go easy on the microbrewers :)
2) Laws against DUI, including logical blood alcohol limits and very tough penalties. With no excuses! The best was to stop DUI, and the deaths and injuries it causes, is to deter it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
3) Anti-adulteration laws.
4) Selling moonshine (but not making it for personal use) should be illegal.
5) Advertising restrictions, similar to those on tobacco, would probably do a lot of good. Though they are not absolutely necessary.
6) Normal regulations that are applied to non-alcohol businesses as well.

Other than those, and John’s, most of the alcohol laws on the books today are unnecessary. By the way, I also believe in legalizing cannabis, and would want similar regulations for that as well.

As for James, I would come in around -2 or -3 on his scale. As for the age remaining 21 due to the effect on adolescent brains, that is not a valid reason. Heavy and excessive drinking is bad for the brain at ANY age. Age has very little (if anything) to do with it. It has never been proven that alcohol is MORE dangerous to an 18 year old brain than a 21 year old brain (though some studies suggest drinking heavily before 18 may be riskier).

Even if there was some apocalyptic difference between drinking at 18 versus 21, it does not follow that it should be illegal. 18 is the age of adulthood and thus the age of consent, so such individuals have sovereignty over their bodies and should be allowed to do whatever to them, as long as they do not harm others. At the very least, 18-20 year olds should have the same rights as those over 21. Unless, of course, we are willing to make the age limit 21 for going to war, being executed, being tried and punished as an adult, buying a gun, having custody of a child, etc.

The purpose of government is to protect individuals from violence and coercion from others, and to protect the people from foreign attack. Anything else is peripheral to the purpose of government, and must not be used as an excuse to violate individual rights. Protecting legal adults from themselves, against their will, is an illegitimate government function.

Before criticizing Hood, consider what a crashing failure the current system is.