Drinking! At 20!

Every once in a while along comes a reminder that the United States labors under an absolutely insane alcohol-regulation regime. For example, via Sommer comes an article about how San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome has a twenty year-old girlfriend. Except that's not actually what the article is about. Instead, it's about whether or not his twenty year-old girlfriend has . . . consumed alcohol.

Photo by Chris J

It's not about whether she's been on drunken binges. It's not about whether she's driving drunk. It's not about whether she's an alcoholic. It's about whether she -- a twenty year-old, old enough to drive, to vote, to join the military, to have a full-time job, to be dating the mayor of major American city -- sometimes drinks alcohol. As in "Photos of Mountz holding a wine glass during the opening of the new Westfield San Francisco Shopping Center, where Newsom also made an appearance, raised some eyebrows." Seriously? That raised an eyebrow. An adult woman holding a wine glass at a celebratory event? I know, I know, maybe she was just holding it for a friend. Otherwise she's a hardened criminal. Just like me and, well, everyone I know.

UPDATE: Mark Kleiman's American Interest article on drug regulation is chock full 'o ideas, but has one proposal that's particularly on point:

If someone is convicted of drunken driving, or drunken assault, or drunken vandalism, or repeatedly of drunk and disorderly conduct—if, that is, someone demonstrates that he is either a menace or a major public nuisance when drunk—then why not revoke his (or, much more rarely, her) drinking license? [...] A ban on drinking by bad drinkers (unlike the current ban on drinking by those under 21) would have an obvious moral basis. Evading it, for example by buying liquor for someone on the “Do Not Drink” list, would be clearly wrong and worth punishing.

That would make much more sense, wouldn't it?

Comments

I was at a bar with my dad on my 21st birthday, and he offered to buy me my first drink

"What'll you have," asked the bartender

"A Dewar's and Soda," I responded

"Yeah, you've never done this before," said my dad.

Posted by Nick | January 30, 2007 8:57 AM

IIRC, we have Nancy "Just Say No" Reagan to thank for this.

And yes, it's insane, but there's nothing to be done about it. There's no long-term constituency for lowering the drinking age: if you're 18 and upset about not being able to drink legally, all you have to do is wait a few years.

At the time, one of the arguments for boosting the drinking age was that, at any time, a fair number of 18 year olds were still in high school, and they would buy booze and share it with their younger friends. So the drinking age should be raised to keep that from happening.

Without commenting on the validity of the argument itself, that would have been a good argument for raising the drinking age to 19, but apparently that was too sensible for the anti-fun lobby.

Posted by RT | January 30, 2007 9:02 AM

Sorry, her name is "Brittanie Mountz"? What is she, a Bond girl?

Also: yes, US drinking laws are insane. Especially since some states let you drive at 12, own firearms at 13 and marry at 14.

Posted by ajay | January 30, 2007 9:13 AM

If anything should "raise eyebrows," it's the fact that she's 20 and he's 39!

Posted by jbeam | January 30, 2007 9:24 AM

Revoking someone's "drinking license" is an astonishly stupid idea. Expanded drug war, anyone? Prohibition light? Once the MADD fascists got hold of it ...

Posted by ostap | January 30, 2007 9:26 AM

"then why not revoke his (or, much more rarely, her) drinking license?"

Because it's a repellent, un-American idea?

Posted by Petey | January 30, 2007 9:27 AM

According to the linked article Mountz is a graduate of Sonoma State University. As it is a 4-year institution, it would be quite unlikely for Mountz to have graduated if she just recently turned 20. She actually might be older, as indeed her MySpace profile had said.

Posted by Peter | January 30, 2007 9:34 AM

Evading it, for example by buying liquor for someone on the “Do Not Drink” list, would be clearly wrong and worth punishing.

Imagine inviting your friends over to watch the Superbowl and asking to see each one's drinking license before you allow them near the beer. Yeah, that'll work.

Posted by RSA | January 30, 2007 9:35 AM

Ajay, that's actually perfectly sensible. Would you offer booze to a 14-year old married couple driving around in a car full of guns?

Posted by Alex | January 30, 2007 9:38 AM

Alex - Not only would I offer them booze, but then I would follow them around with a film crew and sell the rights to Fox. "More Smores Schnapps, junior?"

Posted by Mike | January 30, 2007 9:47 AM

If anything should "raise eyebrows," it's the fact that she's 20 and he's 39!

If anything should "raise eyebrows," it's that she's a "she". Mayor of San Francisco. Bah.

Posted by Al | January 30, 2007 9:55 AM

A ban on drinking by bad drinkers (unlike the current ban on drinking by those under 21) would have an obvious moral basis. Evading it, for example by buying liquor for someone on the “Do Not Drink” list, would be clearly wrong and worth punishing.

Ah yes, what we need: more government licensing.

Of course, the more interesting aspect of this post is how the press feels the need to pretend to be all hot and bothered by a 20 year old drinking when, in the private realm, NOBODY actually cares. Why can't we all just acknowledge that underage drinking is like jaywalking?

Except when politician's kids are involved, of course.

Posted by right | January 30, 2007 9:57 AM

If someone is convicted of drunken driving, or drunken assault, or drunken vandalism, or repeatedly of drunk and disorderly conduct—if, that is, someone demonstrates that he is either a menace or a major public nuisance when drunk—then why not revoke his (or, much more rarely, her) drinking license?

then why not let everybody drive as soon as they can reach the pedals, wait until they demonstrate their incompetence, perhaps by killing your aunt martha, then take away their driving privileges?

or we could continue sanely denying privileges to whole groups based on relatively blunt qualifiers like age and height. the statistics for drunk driving deaths make a good argument for raising the drinking age up to 25 for males rather than dropping it to 18 as suggested earlier in the thread.

Posted by supersaurus | January 30, 2007 10:42 AM

It seems all wrong to me that the drinking age is higher than the driving age. You really should learn the effects of alchohol long before you ever drive. Also, having young teens start drinking alcohol while they are living at home with their parents means they will develop drinking habits that are shaped by their parents. They will also be much more likely to display signs of alcoholism while they are routinely in the presence of people who are willing to confront them about it, rather than in the company of people who don't think it is any of their business.

Posted by Njorl | January 30, 2007 10:57 AM

I know this is obvious and needn't be said, but Jesus, Al, do you have to be such a predictable idiot?

As for the article mentioning that she's a graduate of SSU and therefore she's probably older, why would you assume that that piece of info is correct but that her age is incorrect?

Posted by truthy | January 30, 2007 11:16 AM

As for the article mentioning that she's a graduate of SSU and therefore she's probably older, why would you assume that that piece of info is correct but that her age is incorrect?

It's probably easier to lie about one's age (not always simple to verify) than about one's college graduate status (very easy to verify).

Posted by Peter | January 30, 2007 11:36 AM

You know why American kids binge drink themselves to death? Because they don't know how to handle it. Kids in other countries have a glass of wine with dinner, but so much has been denied to other kids that they overdo once they get to college. Us prep school kids had drunk a lot in high school and knew how to handle ourselves, but many of the Catholic school kids and a bunch of the religious rural red-state kids had to go to the hopsital the first few weeks I was in college. Now binge drinking has been exported to other countries where kids have been smarter through American film. What a great system we have here; we export our crap onto others.

The argument against lowering the drinking age due to drunk driving just underscores how shitty our public transportation system is outside of New York, Boston, San Francisco and DC. In Spain, a bunch of people can drink anywhere, hop on a train and go just about anywhere in the country. In the US, if you're like in Nebraska or whatever, you're fucked. Everybody had to buy a Ford or a Chevy to be a "real American" while good public transportation was socialist like Europeans, but in the end we just fucked ourselves over.

Posted by Reality Man | January 30, 2007 11:38 AM

I know this is obvious and needn't be said, but Jesus, Al, do you have to be such a predictable idiot?

Idiot, fine. But predictable idiot? Now that's going to far. What was wrong with my little attempt at humor?

Posted by Al | January 30, 2007 11:45 AM

Yeah, actually, I thought Al's joke was funny. So sue me.

I had a relatively tame social life in high school, unfortunately, but I spent a year in France as an exchange student before college, so I developed an odd attitude towards drinking. Basically, I almost never had to be sneaky about it in the first place, so when I should have been I was either unprepared (before I turned 21), amused (after), or annoyed (when my underage sister hit me up to buy for her). I was probably the only guy on my floor at college one year who would nonchalantly carry a case into my dorm room in full view of my RA — I was 21, so why not?

Posted by Cyrus | January 30, 2007 12:01 PM

Re: IIRC, we have Nancy "Just Say No" Reagan to thank for this.

No, the move to re-raise the drnking age back to 21 started in the 70s. Unless Mrs Reagan was behidn it even then? I'm too young to remember the details. I do recall Michigan raising its drinking age back to 21 in 1979 and my brother, who had been drinking legally for almost three months, having to wait two months until he was legal again. (Not that he or any of hsi similarly affecetd friends actually did wait. This law has to be the most widely flouted law since the old 55 mph speed limit).

Posted by Jonf | January 30, 2007 12:28 PM

It's interesting that Kleiman's proposal seems to be basically what J. S. Mill proposed in On Liberty 150 years ago: "Drunkenness, for example, in ordinary cases, is not a fit subject for legislative interference; but I should deem it perfectly legitimate that a person, who had once been convicted of any act of violence to others under the influence of drink, should be placed under a special legal restriction, personal to himself."

Posted by Julian Elson | January 30, 2007 12:40 PM

Sorry, her name is "Brittanie Mountz"? What is she, a Bond girl?

She sure could pass for one.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 30, 2007 12:49 PM

You're forgeting that the alcohol lobby would never allow a "do not drink" list. 10% of drinkers make up 90% of all alcohol sales and 10% of those high intake drinkers (i.e.1% of the total number of drinkers) make up a whopping 60% of all alcohol sales. Therefore, the people MOST likely to end up on that list are also responsible for well over half of all the profits to the industry. Good luck getting that one passed!

Posted by Marc | January 30, 2007 1:13 PM

Since most 20 year olds in San Francisco are either dating the mayor or - you know - friends with benefits, and therefore don't have to especially worry about where they're going to find living wage work or affordable housing in the City you have to understand that it's perfectly reasonable for the press to ask this question of the mayor, and not others.

Posted by Linus | January 30, 2007 1:27 PM

"If someone is convicted of drunken driving, or drunken assault, or drunken vandalism, or repeatedly of drunk and disorderly conduct—if, that is, someone demonstrates that he is either a menace or a major public nuisance when drunk—then why not revoke his (or, much more rarely, her) drinking license?"

This is actually extremely common--not drinking, and sometimes rehab, is a normal condition of probation for alcohol-related offenses.

Posted by rea | January 30, 2007 1:36 PM

Our hottie Mayor has moved on to sweeter (and older) ass, yo! His latest squeeze is Jennifer Siebel. Too bad they didn't stop by your place when they were last in your neck of the woods.

Posted by Straight Schmoe in San Francisco | January 30, 2007 2:19 PM

In relation to the next post up, it's Newsom. The trailing "e" is invisible.

Posted by Jake | January 30, 2007 2:22 PM

I hope you got paid for the Budweiser product placement.

Posted by live | January 30, 2007 2:49 PM

Hey, I was in the bracket back when it was legal and I never drank, or so rarely I cannot remember. Kids, just say no to booze!

By the time of the late 70s, the pot industry might have been strong enough to influence legislation. I certainly helped start many young entrepeneurs with product research.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 30, 2007 3:32 PM

I've long had the idea that we should hand out the ability to drink legally with a high school diploma. Kids drink like crazy on Graduation night anyway, so why not rent a bar (or put one up in the gym, hehe) and corral them as best one can. And plus, it is an incentive to graduate. Of course when you hit 21 it doesn't matter if you have the degree, anyone should be able to drink.

Either that or let them drink when they turn 12. That seems to work the best with much of europe as an example.

Posted by SimulatedOutrage | January 30, 2007 3:55 PM

Petey asks: "And remind me again, why is the drinking age at 21 instead of 18?"

Because Congress blackmailed the states into making it 21, in what seems pretty clearly to be a violation of the Constitution?

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | January 30, 2007 5:04 PM

A "No Drink" list seems at least moderately difficult. You'd have to put some kind of tamper-proof black mark on the driver's licenses of offenders. Then you'd need to require that everybody get carded all the time, not just people who look under age. I don't think average people over 30 would really appreciate this.

Posted by Mavis Beacon | January 30, 2007 6:32 PM

Presumably, there's a constituency of voters (18-y-os) who will still be voters-who-can't-drink after an election cycle. But since one has to be 21 to run for Congress, the prospect of a Legalise Booze For Teens party is slim.

Reality Man's points aren't unfamiliar, but the relationship between alcohol and driving for American teenagers approaching adulthood. To obtain or consume alcohol, most Americans outside a few cities need to drive. That's stupid. Frankly, I can't think of a better environment to get boozed up than a college campus, especially one with a dedicated bus service.

(I also think it's atrocious that some states will take away one's driving licence for low grades at school. How about making adults' capacity to drive dependent upon bi-annual work reviews, eh?)

Anyway, the 21 age limit just ensures that American students are more likely to be stoned than drunk.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 30, 2007 7:08 PM

A drinking license for people under the age of 21 would make a *lot* of sense. Getting a drinking license could require serious alcohol-eduction or good stuff like that. For people who had not graduated high school, it would be like a learner's permit . . . so that kids could have a champagne toast at weddings, ect. Upon high school graduation, provided there were no alcohol related incidents, folks could drink. If you drop out of high school, or don't graduate, you'd have to wait till you were 21.

Where's the support for this going to come from? The 21 year old drinking age is just bad policy. It has led to less moderate drinking among young people. It fuels the demand for fake IDs. Our least responsible drinkers are largely put into unsupervised situations cut off by definition from responsible adults. It forces Universities to have unrealistic alcohol policies.

Anyway, for folks who are interested, "binge drinking" is kind of meaningless because it doesn't measure things like time, BAC, ect, only whether a man has 5 drinks or a woman has 4 drinks over any period of time. If you have 5 beers Sunday afternoon and evening watching the entire Superbowl festivities, congratulations, you are a binge drinker. I'm convinced that "binge drinking" is basically an excuse for college deans or town councilmen to institute draconian anti-drinker policies on their campuses and in their communities. Obviously they don't have much to say to "binge drinkers" since by their standard someone might be marginally damaging their liver, but not ever approaching BAC high enough to get drunk.

Posted by William | January 31, 2007 6:59 AM

I'm 48 years old. If I had a 20-year-old girlfriend, I'd letter her do whatever she wanted.

Posted by Brian C.B. | January 31, 2007 7:44 AM

Why should there be a drinking age at all? Seriously. If someone wants to BUY alcohol, we could and should limit that. But the idea of banning what an individual consumes, even a young individual, is repugnant. Kids shouldn't drink bleach, either, or inhale empty whipped cream cans, but we don't BAN these things. Instead, we try to use the persuasive power of common sense.

To pretend minors don't drink is idiotic. To profess shock that a woman of 20 would have a drink in her hand is hypocritical to the point of lunacy. Is there a person in the US who DIDN'T have a drink before they were of legal age?

When I was in college, Texas raised the drinking age from 19 to 21 when I was a few months short of my twenty-first birthday. So I spent four months pretending I didn't drink. It was absurd.

Posted by Crumit | January 31, 2007 12:20 PM

Zero tolerance is zero tolerance. There can be no exceptions. There can be no limits. Zero tolerance is absolute intolerance. America has lived under decades of absolute intolerance indoctrination. It is far too late to try and regulate limits on zero tolerance aggression in American culture.

By very natural extention, the moralistic zero tolerance toward drug intoxication has morphed into intolerance for tobacco addiction and now an emerging intolerance toward all intoxication. Fat too. Sugar? Absolutely!

Prohibition is easy. Just intimidate a majority of the 535 in the U.S. congress. That is all it takes to lose any and all American freedom.

The insurance companies don't want to pay out for the medical outcomes of an intoxication of personal freedom.

Posted by Pat | January 31, 2007 3:07 PM

"Our hottie Mayor has moved on to sweeter (and older) ass, yo! His latest squeeze is Jennifer Siebel. Too bad they didn't stop by your place when they were last in your neck of the woods."

Well, at least it's better than the whispering campaign about Newsom's sexuality that SF journos were indulging in around the time of his divorce. [His ex-wife was also a heck of a hottie, too.]

Personally, if Newsom's willing to put up with the ungodly P-in-the-A that being in charge of an ostensibly progressive but in fact dysfunctionally opposed to change city like SF, he can bonk whoever he likes while indulging in whatever intoxicants they like.

Posted by Uber Tuber | January 31, 2007 4:31 PM

i think the article is really about the fact that Gavin Newsom has a **20-year old girlfriend**, and journalists want to satisfy the public's puerile interests in that fact with whatever story-lines they can conceive...

Posted by eli | January 31, 2007 7:01 PM

Well, given the latest revelations re. Newsom, looks like he's moved onto older squeezes, albeit those of his staffers.

Posted by Uber Tuber | February 1, 2007 5:49 PM

Start up companies attempt to hop on coattails all the time. And your comment on Sams Club is a perfect example. Sam Walton could have named his stores Sams Mart or Walton Mart but he chose Wal Mart. Of the three, which appears closest to Walgreens? WBR LeoP

Posted by John Medicine | March 9, 2007 7:02 PM

> Our hottie Mayor has moved on to sweeter (and older) ass, yo! His latest squeeze is Jennifer Siebel. Too bad they didn't stop by your place when they were last in your neck of the woods.

Aged 32? A bit old in the tooth, wouldn't you say?

Posted by John Derbyshire | March 15, 2007 8:14 PM