Prohibition Logic

This blog exists to show prohibitionists (those who support laws against drug use and underage drinking) what they really support. The official position of this blog is that there should be no laws criminalizing drug use or underage drinking. If anything, only the person giving someone the alcohol or drugs should be punished, and the drug user or underage drinker should be treated as the victim. Even then it must be reasonable. For example, the law must not be something that people would do everything in their power to find a way around it or encourage people to get high off of something else. This blog supports Students for Sensible Drug Policy and National Youth Rights Association.

[prohibition-logic]

How can people honestly put underage drinking and drunk driving in the same category?

Drunk driving involves recklessly endangering everyone around you.

Underage drinking involves minding your own business and doing something that has no effect on anyone else.

There’s no similarity at all.

[prohibition-logic]

Ideally, people wouldn’t drive drunk, because they care about the safety of others. The fear of killing or seriously injuring someone should be enough of a deterrent.

But some people are scumbags who don’t care if they endanger other people’s lives because for some reason it’s too difficult for them to just call an Uber, sleep in their car, or drink at home. That is why laws against drunk driving exist. If the fear of killing someone is not enough of a deterrent, maybe the fear of getting arrested and losing their driver’s license will.

But if they can get arrested and lose their driver’s license whether or not they drive, then drunk driving laws are no longer a deterrent. If you support underage drinkers being arrested and losing their driver’s license, then you’re literally telling them that they might as well drive because they’re going to be arrested and lose their license anyway.

You may think “But maybe the drinking age will deter them from drinking.” But that doesn’t make any sense. If someone doesn’t obey a law telling them to not drink and drive, what makes you think they’ll obey a law telling them to not drink at all?

[prohibition-logic]

"We can't lower the drinking age because if we do, more young people will drive drunk." Translating: "People under 21 should be arrested and fined because I think they'll drive drunk. Yes, that's literally my argument. I have no idea what the words "innocent until proven guilty" mean. Also, I'm completely ignoring the fact that having public transportation that can get people anywhere at any time of day would practically eliminate drunk driving and also solve many other problems, and I'm hoping you're also ignoring that."

[prohibition-logic]

In this so-called “Land Of The Free”, how are people even capable of saying “You don’t have the right to break the law” with a straight face?

[prohibition-logic]

New rule. Anyone who openly supports a drinking age higher than 18 must also obey the same age of consent. You can’t treat people like adults only when it’s convenient for you. Support the 21 drinking age and date a 20-year-old? Statutory rape. Support raising the drinking age to 25 and watch a movie with a 24-year-old’s breasts showing? Child porn.

The drinking age would be lowered to 18 in a week. Watch how quickly people go from “Teens can’t make their own decisions because their brains aren’t done developing yet” to “AN 18-YEAR-OLD IS A FULL GROWN ADULT!!!!!!”

[prohibition-logic]

"Arrest them, take away their driver's license, and treat them like criminals whether or not they drive drunk. That will somehow deter them from driving drunk." - drinking age supporter logic

[prohibition-logic]

“You should be legally required to always make the absolute safest and healthiest choices about what to put in your own body. Anything else should be made as dangerous as possible.”

- prohibition logic

[prohibition-logic]

A lot of people’s response to someone opposing the drinking age is “Are you saying you want elementary school kids to drink?”

It makes sense to not want children drinking, so there has to be some kind of alcohol policy. Completely repealing the drinking age and treating everyone of any age exactly the same would not be a good idea. However, there are still many problems with the way the drinking age is currently enforced. Those who support or enforce the drinking age are not really motivated by a genuine concern for young people's safety.

If anything, the person supplying the alcohol should be charged with child abuse, and the underage drinker should be treated as a victim of child abuse. It makes no sense to punish people for their choice to break a law that exists solely because they’re unable to make choices.

How can a law protect people if the very people it’s supposed to be protecting are doing everything they can to find a way around it?

One of the reasons for the drinking age is that people under 21 are children whose brains are not done developing. Why are children whose brains are not done developing sentenced as adults when they commit crimes? Why are children whose brains are not done developing fighting our wars? Why is it legal to have sex with children whose brains are not done developing? If they’re children, you must treat them like children all the time. You can’t treat them like children as an excuse to take away their freedom then treat them like adults when it’s convenient for you.

If it’s important to stop underage drinking at all costs, why aren’t there more places for teenagers to hang out? With all the adults who would do anything to stop teenagers from drinking, you’d think that there’d be an overwhelming surplus of ways for teenagers to have fun without drinking.

If it’s important to stop underage drinking at all costs, why don’t adults set a good example by not drinking, or at least by drinking only behind closed doors?

Why do people unquestioningly trust scientific studies showing that alcohol is bad for teenagers, but ignore scientific studies showing that spanking is harmful or that children who talk back to their parents are more resistant to peer pressure?

Are teenagers safer if they look for other ways to get high, which could be much more dangerous than alcohol? People of all ages did that during Prohibition. It’s not evidence that teenagers are just stupid.

Are teenagers safer if they go out of their way to hang out with an older crowd in order to gain access to alcohol, and if that older crowd knows that teenagers will jump at the chance to drink?

The drinking age will most likely deter a parent who wants to chaperone a party to make sure that no one drinks too much or drives drunk. Meanwhile, a gang member who makes money through illegal means on a regular basis or a rapist who wants to get teenagers drunk and take advantage of them is not going to care that it’s illegal to give alcohol to teenagers. Prohibiting something only makes it so only the most dangerous people will be supplying it.

Underage drinkers are often afraid to report emergencies (like alcohol poisoning or rape) because they’re afraid of getting arrested for underage drinking. Does that make them safer?

If you have to use “it’s illegal” as a reason to believe that an action is a crime, it shouldn’t be illegal. For any real crime, someone who doesn’t do it only because it’s illegal would be a dangerous person who would most likely look for legal ways to hurt people. Meanwhile, “it’s illegal” is the go-to response on why not to drink underage, and not drinking underage because it’s illegal is what’s expected, proving that there’s nothing inherently criminal about drinking underage.

If you support the drinking age to prevent drunk driving, you’re literally saying that people under 21 should be arrested because you think they’ll drive drunk. How does that not violate the presumption of innocence?

If someone ignores a law telling them not to drive drunk, what makes you think they won’t also ignore a law telling them not to drink at all?

Why is underage drinking punishable by a license suspension? The only possible message that could send is that if you drink underage, you might as well drive, because you’re still going to be treated like a criminal and lose your license whether or not you drive. And remember, that message is being sent to people who supporters of the drinking age believe to be irresponsible, dangerous, and too stupid to make good decisions.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving is against people under 21 using safe ride programs. That’s more proof of the message being that if you drink underage, you might as well drive.

The vast majority of drunk drivers are men. The vast majority of people who start fights while drunk are men. Should men be prohibited from drinking? I bet a lot of lives would be saved.

You could practically eliminate drunk driving by having public transportation that can get people anywhere, removing the dependence on cars. Besides almost eliminating drunk driving, that would also help poor people who can’t afford a car and disabled people who are unable to drive. Of course, car dealers wouldn’t like that, and corporate interests always take top priority.

Why is giving alcohol to someone who’s underage considered worse than driving drunk? I have an idea. It’s because driving drunk is one thing, but if you give alcohol to someone who’s underage, they could do anything! They could even drive drunk!

If drunk driving is so horrible that people under 21 need to be arrested before they drive drunk, why do police officers who drive drunk keep their jobs, and why do politicians who drive drunk get reelected? 

[prohibition-logic]

If you believe that the drinking age saves lives, then you believe that someone who completely ignores the law when you tell them to not drive drunk would obey the law when you tell them to not drink at all.

[prohibition-logic]

Mothers Against Drunk Driving opposes underage drinkers using safe ride programs and supports driver’s license suspension for underage drinking.

The only logical conclusion is that Mothers Against Drunk Driving is telling underage drinkers that they might as well drive drunk because they’re going to lose their driver’s license anyway.

[prohibition-logic]

There are police officers who have been convicted of drunk driving and did not lose their jobs.

In other words, there are convicted drunk drivers arresting people under 21 for drinking and not driving. 

[prohibition-logic]

The drinking age in the United States is 21. Meanwhile:

The military enlistment age is 18. This means that an 18-year-old can go to war, get blown up by a bomb, become permanently disabled, and be told that they’re too young to drink when they come home. They’re old enough to risk their lives for our freedom but they’re not old enough to have freedom themselves.

The age of criminal responsibility is 18 (sometimes lower). This means that an 18-year-old can be sentenced as an adult for possession of alcohol by a minor or for giving alcohol to a minor who is the same age as them. 

The age of sexual consent is 18. This means that it’s legal to have sex with someone who can’t make decisions about their own body because their brain is supposedly not done developing yet. Someone who supports the drinking age but dates an 18-year-old or jacks off to teen porn is somehow not considered a pedophile.

Clearly the reason for the drinking age is not to protect young people. People under 21 are treated like children when it’s a reason to take away their rights and freedoms, but treated like adults when it’s convenient.

[prohibition-logic]

For some reason, it’s considered socially acceptable to call your politicians and tell them that you support the drinking age because people under 21 have under-developed brains and can’t make their own decisions ...

... while dating an 18-year-old or while jacking off to teen porn.

[prohibition-logic]

People insist that the drinking age must be 21 to prevent drunk driving. In other words, drunk driving is so horrible that we must violate the presumption of innocence by imposing legal penalties on people who may not be guilty of it.

Meanwhile, police officers who drive drunk can still keep their jobs, and politicians who drive drunk can still get reelected. In other words, most people don’t really think drunk driving is that bad.

Where’s the logic?

[prohibition-logic]

"If you drink before age 21, you might as well drive, because you're going to be assumed guilty and treated like a criminal anyway."

- prohibitionists who support license suspension as a punishment for underage drinking and who oppose the use of safe ride programs by underage drinkers

[prohibition-logic]

When the criminal justice system is deciding how to punish you for a crime, you’re an adult, no questions asked.

When politicians want to endanger your life by making you fight a pointless war, you’re an adult, no questions asked.

When middle-aged perverts want to have sex with you, you’re an adult, no questions asked.

When you want to decide which beverages to put in your own body, your brain is not done developing yet and you’re too immature to make your own decisions. But when you’re caught breaking the law that exists solely because you’re not considered an adult, you’ll be punished like an adult.

- prohibition logic

[doallbluelivesmatter]

What’s the response from the “Blue Lives Matter” crowd? Do they demand that this good cop get his job back? Do they demand that laws against victimless acts be repealed so other good cops aren’t put in the same situation?

No, they don’t, because they don’t care about the good cops.

[prohibition-logic]

“The drinking age exists to protect you. So if you call for help in a medical emergency, we’ll arrest you and fire any police officer who refuses to arrest you. We don’t care if anyone is actually protected.”

- prohibition logic