No License for Alcohol

The history of drinking alcohol beverage could be traced back to six thousand BC. Since the winemaker discovered this inebriated drink from fermenting grapes, the drink has become part of our dietary, and is tighten to our cultures and customs. Aside from the cultural values, drinking excess alcohol could be intoxicated and causing trouble to others. However, there is no need to require people to have drinking license because the requirement is ineffective and violates the freedom of people.
The act to require a drinking license is ineffective. The idea behind the license is good in a way that it constrains the access and filters the alcohol buyers, and thus trouble makers would never get to drink and society could rest in peace. However, it is just an unrealistic utopia. The legal drinking age in the US is twenty-one; and everyone drinks underage. The drinking age barrier does not offset the number of alcohol drinkers, but promotes college kids to make fake IDs or get alcohol from black markets. Making fake IDs is a serious federal felony, and people who run black markets often relate to gangs. In addition, the more constrains, the more eager people drinks. Therefore, Issuing drinking license causes the same effect as the US drinking age barrier because people could always think of a way to get around. Over time, the alternative way causes more crimes and violence and eventually brought more chaos than peace to the society.
Secondly, the irresponsible conducts of alcohol drinker comes not from the alcohol itself but from their own irresponsible lifestyle. The frequent incidents of drunk driving tell it all. If one is responsible, before he drinks, he already makes the decision of not driving. People who are not responsible to themselves and others would not care the consequences of drunk driving. As the result, instead of taking a cab, they drive and crash to a pole or other misfortune vehicles, risking the lives of their own along with others. Therefore, the drinking license becomes superfluous because it does not help preventing drunk driving. In addition, the law punishes drunk drivers better by taking away their driving license for at least a year, or sends the drunk drivers to jail for years.
Lastly, to set a drinking license is just wrong for a free country because it violets people’s right to drink whatever they want. It is true that drinking alcohol brings harm to health and causes trouble to others; however, the drinking license represents a government control which is an over exercise of government power. Not everyone would cause trouble after drinking alcohol, and the amount varies, too. Also, the standard to define a good behavior alcohol drinker is hard to evaluate. At what ground should the drinking license be issued? All of these matters violate the rights of citizen and the fairness of law.
There should be no requirement of license for alcohol because it causes more crimes, discriminates and violates people’s right. The cost of ineffective restriction might be greater than what was originally unintended. Instead of setting up a barrier, the government should focus more on alcohol education. The real image of alcohol should be taught, and the result of drinking alcohol should be educated to people. The government should send the right message to people that excess drinking is not good, and people should value their lives. Requiring a license just cause opposite effects; therefore, there should be no requirement of license for alcohol.