War

The civil libertarian in me has a solution to the perceived problems of under-age and binge drinking: Give the stuff away. Give as much away as is necessary to dispose of the problem makers.

Take away the mystique and the thrill. Serve it up with School Dinners. Rope brewers and drink makers into Back To School promotions : have Free Four-Pack with every Pencil Case offers strategically positioned at the check-outs. Place theBaccardi Breezer/WKD stand right next to the Rimmel make-up/Lynx presentations.

And while we're at it make condoms Free for fifteen and unders.

Abolish the age restriction on purchase of tobacco and related products. Similarly, remove constraints on gambling.

Why?

Well, yes, there is an elaborate libertarian and economic argument for free trade and individual choice. The statist left-of-centre politician won't listen to it, on principle, and the conventional right of centre politician won't buy it because lurking somewhere in the recesses is his terrible fear of unleashing the proletariat, if they're just like me and their kids are just like mine how do I justify myself?

Blunt pragmatism on the other hand leads us down one of two paths and one of them is to lock the little fuckers (and their irresponsible parents) away and melt down the key. The other is to give in, yes give in. But why can 18 year olds drink and 17 year olds not. The party of government is considering lowering the voting age to 16. Capable of voting but not deciding whether to drink? Entitled to marry, have responsibility for children but not to choose whether to drink. Old enough to go to the middle east, to kill and be killed by iraqis and afghanis, but not old enough to decide whether to drink?

Now the 'smoking age' in this country is to be raised to 18. The change is appealing in that it has the slender merit of edging towards an internally consistent stance on the sale of harmful consumables. But as with anything this government does it moves us towards a better approach and manages to undermine that advantageous development simultaneously.

At least the law almost cuts both ways when it comes to alcohol. It is a criminal offence to sell alcohol to someone under age, but the underage consumer is also committing an offence in purchasing the alcohol. Before the end of the year it will be a criminal offence to sell tobacco to someone under the age of 18.

This is where the civil libertarian in me really begins to come unstuck. Mummies and daddies who find precious slumped on the doorstep clutching one of our bags containing an empty will march down to the police in a fit of righteous indignation; but to lodge a complaint about the careless retailer mis-selling, not to hand over the criminal consumer or careless parent allowing a child out unsupervised and in circumstances such as would expose it to alcohol.

There is a paradox here. The younger they are, the less capable they are (broadly) of making an informed decision whether it be about sex or alcohol or tobacco or which party to vote for, and on the other hand the more easily spotted by us they are as underage consumers. The closer they are to the age at which they can legally purchase and consume, the better able they are to make the right decision, the harder they are for us to identify.

The poor kid or old boot at the till is being paid minimum wage to uphold and enforce the law and that job is impossible, because there isn't a kid in the land who is scared of being caught attempting to purchase alcohol. The worst that can happen is the old boot will say no, and perhaps laugh at you while doing so.

There are two viable options: one is to make it much, much more difficult to obtain alcohol (or whatever) and much, much more painful if caught out. The other is to hand whatever over on a plate.

Why does this matter? Personally speaking the only reason it matters is because all my staff are increasingly shit-scared of working anywhere requiring them to sell age-restricted products I'm having difficulty covering the opening hours.

Thanks!