St. Paul quasi-prohibitionists consider unorthodox approach to quell underage drinking

The thing about laws and ordinances, especially those pertaining to bodily pleasure, is that they tend, over time, to become more stringent, and not less. It's safer, generally speaking, for a politician/official to introduce to the books a new law, however silly its intent, than it is to call for the retraction of another. People love them some crusaders-- there's a tendency to regard their opponents as heathens not to be taken seriously.

This helps explain why a group of otherwise intelligent humans could seriously consider anything as preposterous as an ordinance the St. Paul City Council is presently mulling over. In an effort to combat the perceived threat of underage drinking, the council is taking aim not at the illegal imbibers themselves or those that supplied them the means to that end, but at the hosts of parties/shindigs at which minors are present-- regardless of whether said hosts were aware of the shenanigans. Acceptable evidence would include Twitter tweets and Facebook messages. It would carry with it a max $1,000 fine or 90 days in jail.

It's impossible, at least for us, to imagine any reasonable person who, after having honestly pondered the facts and circumstances, would perceive this ordinance to be necessary, or even sane. Disregarding, as too obvious, both privacy issues and the disproportionately heavy penalty (it's equal to Fifth Degree Assault, for chrissakes), we thought we'd instead address the underlying fallacy behind this and similar nonsense.