P. Ami — I hope you don’t mind that I won’t continue on the subject of race-mixing. I recognize that I brought it up. To answer your question: Sexual mixing is not the only sort I oppose.

Probably the main reason my comments did not focus on the drinking age is that my involvement with alcohol is so slight that, in a sense, I didn’t realize that that’s what Mr. Kimball’s article was about. Evidently, there is, effectively, a nationwide 21 drinking age, around which the lives of countless persons under the age of 21 are largely organized. I had no idea.

That’s not to say I think my comments have had no place here. In his closing, Mr. Kimball glibly ridicules those who would provide us with a “perfect prophylactic existence.” He elaborates: they would protect us from alcohol, tobacco, trans-fats, fast food, playground equipment. I personally don’t want to be protected from any of those things; I hope I shall handle all of them with care. Among the things that, on the other hand, I would like me and everyone else to be protected from are drunk drivers; and Mr. Kimball certainly knows that, wisely or unwisely, the concerns of those who advocate a 21 drinking age include drunk driving. He simply lacks the courage to address it.

Being unfamiliar with the body of law about public drunkenness, I can’t remark or opine on questions of the nature of public spaces, private spaces, and so on. I’ve advocated a specific punishment.

Have I seen any significant cases of drunks falling from buildings? I don’t know. What would an insignificant case look like? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen significant cases of drunken mobs tearing whole neighborhoods apart to let the world know that their local team of sub-moronic professional athletes has won a championship game or some similar triumph. They should be discouraged.