April 18, 2000 We’ve often heard it argued — generally about such topics as seat-belt laws — that the role of government is not to protect a citizen from himself, and often that makes sense. When we heard that argument last week regarding the sale of beer to minors by local businesses, though, it begged for rebuttal. To begin with, intoxicated individuals, whether they are minors or adults, can be a threat to others as well as themselves. Alcohol-related crashes are a top cause of traffic injuries and fatalities, and those injuries and deaths often strike individuals whose only risk factor was unknowingly sharing the road with a drunk driver. Assuming that the parents of minors won’t allow them to drink at home, that means they’re traveling somewhere else to do it, and they’re probably not walking. Preventing kids from buying beer keeps us all safer. But even if that weren’t true, the privacy argument doesn’t carry much weight when used about minors. The reason they’re in a legal class by themselves is that they do need, and deserve, greater protection under the law. Until they’re old enough to take care of themselves, adults are responsible for their well-being, and that includes preventing them from engaging in self-destructive activities. Does that need for protection extend to ‘children’ who are 18, 19 or 20? Perhaps it shouldn’t. There’s some validity to the argument that individuals who are old enough to vote and serve in the military should be allowed the opportunity to consume alcohol responsibly. Nevertheless, that’s not what the law reads. It’s illegal to sell alcoholic beverages to anyone younger than 21. Anyone who wants to change that is free to lobby the legislature, but circumventing this law is not a sensible statement of civil disobedience. The problem isn’t limited to these quasi-adults. Younger teens buy beer too, and they’ll tell you it’s not all that difficult to do. Store clerks are aware of the law, and aware of the penalties for breaking it. Yes, they get busy, and yes, underage drinkers know that. It’s no big secret; anyone who’s ever been a teenager knows methods teens use to attempt to get away with illicit activities. Busy spells on weekend evenings are the times during which clerks should be most on guard for teens attempting to buy beer. Kids who look ‘old enough’ are the ones who most need to be carded. That’s only common sense. Underage drinking is a potential tragedy for all of us, not just the teens involved. We’d all benefit from making liquor much less accessible to kids. Stores where a strict identification policy is practiced deserve public support. The fact that a shopper may be obviously past retirement age and purchasing $100 worth of groceries is no excuse; let’s encourage clerks to develop a habit of carding every beer-buyer. It only takes a minute to show a driver’s license. We ought consider it one of the responsibilities of citizenship, just as one of the responsibilities of adulthood should be protecting young people from their own destructive impulses. |
Copyright © 2000 the Cortez Journal.
All rights reserved. |