Alcohol consumption has a direct and often negative impact on the lives of so many people that regulating it, violating some freedoms, is morally justified. When we consider the sphere of mind-altering substances, we typically think of illicit drugs ingested by people of questionable moral integrity. Alcohol, however, consumed legally by approximately 70 percent of the population, is now the number one drug problem in the United States.6 Despite government regulations and guidelines, the destructive impact of alcohol abuse affects many. 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 to benefit 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, towards the good. In this essay I will argue that paternalistic intervention to moderate alcohol consumption is morally acceptable. Unlike other drugs, with alcohol we have the opportunity to counteract levels of intervention as they impact various groups, illicit use by those under the age of consent; legitimate, but regulated, use in those over twenty-one; and use as it is influenced by softer "guidelines" such as those encouraging pregnant women to abstain from alcohol consumption. While there is nothing unethical or wrong about consuming alcohol in moderation, excessive alcohol consumption has long been associated with physical health problems, including heart disease. , liver disease, several types of cancer, mobility problems... middle of paper... military consumption levels, with a few exceptions, would be difficult to control. Government campaigns to make cigarette smoking antisocial have been successful in substantially reducing tobacco consumption. Perhaps we could draw on these lessons to raise awareness of the harms of alcohol. If attitudes about the current social acceptance of alcohol change, there may be a time in the future when legislation is not needed to mitigate its harms. We simply cannot ignore the human suffering caused by alcohol, especially the suffering inflicted on non-drinkers. To support the right of victims of alcohol abusers not to be hurt, we must allow paternalistic intervention at least at the level we currently have, but ideally with greater attention to those not already regulated by legislation covering minors and motorists. while innocent people are being hurt it is immoral.