Because of the drinking age, people who attend underage drinking parties are sometimes afraid to report any emergencies. In some cases, this results in death. What do you call this? Is it a tragic accident? Is it his/her own fault for overdosing?
The real question is this. What do you call it when someone needs medical attention and someone else stops them from receiving it? Imagine that someone has an asthma attack and dies because someone else stole his/her inhaler, or that someone gets bit by a snake and dies because someone else stole his/her anti-venom. Most people would call that murder. Now, let’s go back to the original scenario. Someone has too much to drink and dies because the government, by enforcing the drinking age, stole his/her access to medical attention. The scenario is no different. Every time someone dies because the drinking age stopped an emergency from being reported, the government gets away with murder, or at the very least, gross manslaughter.
Normally, murder requires some form of premeditation. Are these murders premeditated? Are supporters of the drinking age aware of these murders? Arguments against prohibition have been around since the passing of the 18th Amendment, which was over 90 years ago. They may have even been around before then. The most common argument was the one about unreported emergencies. Prohibitionists have always been well aware of the deaths caused by unreported emergencies because of prohibition. They just selfishly ignored those arguments to maintain their power. They even added insult to injury by adding those deaths to their statistics. So, the answer to that question is yes. The deaths are premeditated. There’s no possible way that they can be considered accidents.
Good Samaritan policies, which allow partygoers to report emergencies without fear of arrest, are an attempt to stop these murders. However, they still aren’t 100% guaranteed. Even in places that have Good Samaritan policies, most people don’t know about them, which makes them useless. If they do know about them, they are still not 100% effective, because many people are afraid to admit to illegal activity even if they won’t face any penalties. The only guaranteed way to stop these murders is to repeal the drinking age.
Also, the vast majority of supporters of Good Samaritan policies are opponents of prohibition. Supporters of prohibition only go along with the Good Samaritan policies because, although they are okay with innocent people dying, they can’t be too open about it.
But what about the deaths caused by youths drinking if the drinking age is repealed? Why aren’t the opponents of the drinking age to blame? It’s simple. If there is no drinking age and someone overdoses, he/she freely chose to drink that much. Since he/she is better educated about harm reduction, it is the fault of that person’s own stupidity. If someone drives drunk and kills someone, he/she goes to jail, meaning that he/she does not get away with it. Either way, no one gets away with endangering the lives of others. The same cannot be said about the deaths caused by the prohibition.