PERSPECTIVErn”Wasted Away Again in Margaritaville”rnby Thomas FlemingrnThe arrest of the 19-year-old Bush twins for drinking liquorrnin an Austin restaurant gave the news-starved (and starvedbrained)rnpress something to cackle over. The girls, clearly in arnstate of arrested adolescent rebellion, checked their Secret Servicernagents at the door and, even after the restaurant rejectedrnJenna’s fake ID, succeeded in getting their (what else?) margaritas.rnCompounding the “irony” is the fact that their father, asrngovernor of Texas, had signed into law the zero-tolerance standardrnon underage drinking. “A chip off the old block,” the bolderrnpundits were saying on talk shows, and a telling refutation ofrnthe fine parental principle, “Do as 1 say, not as I do.”rnIrony aside, the girls’ legal and moral problems raise a deeperrnconcern. Americans are apparentiy horrified to discover thatrnmany college girls drink and that some of them occasionallyrndrink too much. I, too, am disgusted to see young women orderingrndrinks and making fools of themselves as if they werernyoung men. A long time ago in Lanterns on the Levee, Will Percyrncorrectly predicted the fall of American civilization, based onrnhis observation of nice young women drinking away their inhibitionsrnin public places.rnAlcohol per se is not the problem. Because of certain wellknownrndifferences between the sexes, young women have a dutyrnnever to fall under the control of young men, whether as a resultrnof drinking too much or merely from infatuation. Mostrnwomen should not drink cocktails (except for the occasionalrndrink to keep their husbands company); they lack the talent andrnstamina for the work, and if they acquire the skill, they lose arngreat deal more than they gain.rnBut there is absolutely nothing wrong in a young womanrndrinking wine with her family, and the very foolish campaignrnagainst drinking that puritans have inflicted on this poor savagernland for a hundred years has done a great deal of damage. Italianrnchildren grow up drinking wine with their families, and (byrnand large) Italian college students display better discretion thanrnJenna and Barbara Bush have demonstrated. I frequently obser’rne Italian families in restaurants, especially on Sunday afternoons,rnserving a little wine (often mixed with water) even to fairlyrnyoung children, who appear to suffer no ill effects. Wliererndid people ever get the idea that it was government’s business torntell parents what they could give their children to drink? Theyrngot it, of course, from the same New Englanders who liberatedrnall slaves (including wives and children), excommunicated thernTrinity from American soil, and, in the name of individual liberty,rnextinguished both individualism and liberty. The Bushrngirls are Cotton Mather’s revenge on their father’s Yankee ancestors.rnI am not at all sure that we need the government to imposernany regulation of alcohol—apart from setting standards of purit)’,rnstrength, and enforcing laws on correct labeling. “Oh, butrnhow are we going to control drunk driving?” Another bugbear.rnThe law is supposed to punish criminal behavior and evenrncriminal intent. Since when is the law supposed to punish yournfor a physiological condition? Suppose, for example, that we repealedrnever}’ law limiting blood-alcohol content and replacedrnthem with appropriate laws against people whose reckless behaviorrnhas caused destruction of property, injury, and death?rnSuppose, for example, that a man over 21 gets drunk and drivesrninto a parked car. The damage is, say, $5,000. Of course, he orrnhis insurance company pay for the repair; in addition, however,rnhe is treated as if he had, stone sober in the cold light of day, takenrna sledgehammer and smashed up the vehicle. He shouldrncertainly do time for such wanton destruction, and if, sixrnmonths after his release from the county work farm, he gotrndrunk again and killed somebody, then a charge of first-degreernmurder would settle accounts nicely. A few well-publicized jailrnsentences—and executions—would, I suspect, do more thanrnall the laws, driver-safety courses, and 12-step programs in thernworld.rnWe modern Americans, by contrast, are completely irrational:rnWe no longer believe in justice, and while we refuse tornexecute murderers and child-molesters, we demonize conditionsrnlike alcohol in the blood or prejudice in the mind. Sincernwe have eliminated manners from our public life (and sincernsmokers are boorish enough to inflict their smoke on others),rnwe cannot politely ask someone sitting next to us in a restaurantrnnot to smoke, and so we have instituted elaborate legal codesrnthat demonize even the politest of smokers. In our favorite localrnrestaurant (the Irish Rose), my wife and I —confirmed nonsmokersrn(except for my occasional cigar) —always sit in thernsmoking section because the smokers are having more fim. Irndon’t like smoke —it is annoying and causes my eyelids to swellrnup—but I positively hate the anti-smokers. I certainly wouldrnnot drink with them.rnDrinking is a social art, circumscribed by rituals and codes ofrnmanners. Wine and beer are not drugs, whose sole purpose isrnto destroy our capacit)’ for civilized life. They are a vital part ofrncivilization itself, and the widespread acceptance of the equationrn”alcohol = heroin” (or cocaine or even marijuana) revealsrnhow few civilized people are left. Blue laws are often blamedrnon religion, but—and I am putting this as delicately as I can —rnprohibitionism is inconsistent with authentic Christianity: OurrnLord not only set the example, in changing water to wine, butrnHe sanctified wine as a means of summoning His presence. Besides,rnthe whole moral bias of Christianity is against the kill-joyrnmeddling of pharisees, scribes, and puritans. It was notrnCatholic New Orleans or Protestant Illinois but the post-Puritan,rnex-Christian state of Maine that blazed the trail by prohibitingrnalcohol before the War Between tiie States.rnlO/CHRONICLESrnrnrn