Alcohol consumption has a direct and often negative impact on the lives of so many people that its regulation, while infringing on certain freedoms, is morally justified. When we consider the realm of mind-altering substances, we typically think of illicit drugs ingested by people of questionable moral integrity. However, alcohol, legally consumed by up to seventy percent of the population, today represents the number one drug problem in the United States.6 Despite government regulations and guidelines, the destructive impact of Alcohol abuse affects many people. Without restrictions, the consequences of alcohol consumption would likely be exponentially worse than they are today. The practice of "pure" paternalism involves interfering with people's autonomy solely for their own good, for example by banning the sale of alcohol. “Impure” paternalism interferes with a person's autonomy in part for the benefit of others, for example drunk driving laws. Some philosophers argue that paternalism can never be justified and that the moral imperative will guide people, and ultimately societies, toward the good. In this essay, I will argue that paternalistic intervention aimed at moderating alcohol consumption is morally acceptable. Unlike other drugs, with alcohol we have the opportunity to contrast levels of intervention as they affect diverse groups, illicit use by those under the age of consent; legitimate but regulated use among those over twenty-one; and use, as it is affected by softer “guidelines,” such as those that encourage pregnant women to abstain from alcohol. While there is nothing immoral or wrong about drinking alcohol in moderation, excessive drinking has long been associated with physical health problems, including heart problems. , liver disease, several types of cancer, impaired motorcycling... middle of paper ...... force consumption levels, with few exceptions, would be difficult to control. Government campaigns to make smoking antisocial have succeeded in significantly reducing tobacco consumption. Perhaps we could use these lessons to raise awareness about the harms of alcohol. If attitudes around the current social acceptance of alcohol change, there may be a time in the future when legislation is no longer necessary to mitigate its harms. We simply cannot ignore the human suffering caused by alcohol, especially the suffering inflicted on non-drinkers. To defend the right of victims of alcohol abuse not to be harmed, we must allow paternalistic intervention at a minimum at the current level, but ideally with an increased focus on those not already regulated by the legislation that covers alcohol abuse. minors and drivers. while innocent people are hurt, it is immoral.