Is It Ever Okay For A Minor To Consume Alcohol?

[ardillacid]

I support drinking age laws. The stupid kids get caught and punished. The smart ones don't. Its nature's way of weeding out the weak.

edit for grammar.

Edited October 16, 2007 by notardillacid

[RandomProddy]

Yes. At least in the UK under certain circumstances (legally, that is. In reality.... erm.... it's a little different)

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1403554' date='Oct 16 2007, 10:07 AM']It's a ban on people under 21 drinking, to those people, it is effective puritanism. As I said, we are asking our children to grow up following a puritanical view of alcohol, which breeds the paganism that they so often fall into in secret.

The fact that we have cars only means that we should have regulations to prevent drunk driving, not all out bans on children drinking alcohol. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater based upon sociological statistics is simply contrary to right reason, we should have policies which deal specifically with bad behaviors, we should not ban overarching behaviors; why? because the more we make them taboo in a puritanical fashion (rather than a dynamic fashion based on the possibility of moderation or abstinence based upon what is best for the individual) the more we cause the opposite extreme.

C.S. Lewis did not have alcohol in mind when talking about people who dismiss morality as being puritanical, because he clearly did not consider alcohol drunk in moderation a moral evil. I am not dismissing morality as being puritanical, I am dismissing arbitrary bans for certain ages of people as being puritanical.

I am simply following that passage in its context; Jesus is there asking for non-resistance and generosity in the form of hyperbole, the soldier in that example is no different, necessarily, than the thief. It's a matter of when someone comes up to you and wants to do something unjust to you, the perfect response is one of generosity and submission, turning the other cheek to those who would strike you. The case of the modern state making overarching laws into your private lives has no relevance to that. I would obey a police officer who was in my presence so long as he did not require me to do something immoral; but when it comes to the far-away state, I have more leeway, I am only obliged to follow, in my private life, those things which the state justly exercises its authority over. It does not have authority over my drinking habits. It certainly would have authority to tell me not to drive drunk, that is within right reason; it certainly would have the authority to tell me to drive safely on its roads, I have no problem obeying those laws.

this is not regulations, this is a ban on people under 21 consuming or possessing alcohol. on legal regulations on the sale of alcohol, I may be more willing to acquiesce, but on outright bans on the CONSUMPTION of alcohol by minors, that is outside of the state's authority.[/quote]
I think the problem comes in with things like a party where a bunch of young, underaged kids are served alcohol, get drunk and engage in destructive behaviors, maybe even resulting in death. Who is to be held responsible?
It's not such a cut-and-dry case of "good Catholic culture" vs. "Evil Puritanism."
And again, alchohol being responsibly served to minors at a family meal will generally not be affected by such laws. It's not like cops regularly stake out to monitor the family dinner table (presuming nothing else illegal is going on).

[XIX]

You could claim that alcohol in family cases is theoretically legal, as an unwritten law so to speak. We have basically rendered it legal for a kid to have a bit of alcohol with the family by never really nailing anyone for doing so.

I make a similar case for going 5 MPH over the speed limit--if a cop can catch me doing something and I can safely assume he won't do anything, then the law essentially does not exist.

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='XIX' post='1404073' date='Oct 16 2007, 10:07 PM']I make a similar case for going 5 MPH over the speed limit--if a cop can catch me doing something and I can safely assume he won't do anything, then the law essentially does not exist.[/quote]

Fyi, it actually [i]is[/i] legal to go within 5 MPH of the speed limit. Penalties do not start until after 5 MPH in either direction (you could actually get a ticket for going too slow if it was deemed a hazard to other drivers).

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='XIX' post='1404073' date='Oct 17 2007, 01:07 AM']I make a similar case for going 5 MPH over the speed limit--if a cop can catch me doing something and I can safely assume he won't do anything, then the law essentially does not exist.[/quote]
Actually, it depends on the time of the month. If you're in New Jersey and it's the end of the month, the cops are trying to fulfill their ticket quotas and you may still get pulled over. NJ cops are very zealous about enforcing traffic laws.

[Aloysius]

Should the law be in place? Maybe. I don't know, I understand the reasoning for having it in place to catch the kids who do it irresponsibly.

Are we obligated to follow it in our private lives? Not necessarily, because it becomes an overreaching of the government's authority when applied there.

I agree with treating situations in which you would not get caught, but are doing it responsibly, as being "legal", like in a family setting, or with parental permission, or in private, so long as it is done responsibly.

but the fact is that in many states, such as PA, even the family setting is technically illegal. You justify disregarding that law on the basis that it is not enforced or enforceable, I justify it on the basis that it is not within the authority of the government to forbid such practices.

But the government may go and protect public safety by stopping minors from running around drunk. I think if it were possible for minors to purchase and/or drink in plain sight, it'd be easier to regulate that and treat them for crimes of public drunkenness or attempting to drive drunk rather than just villainize the drinking in and of itself.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1403546' date='Oct 16 2007, 11:44 AM']PLUS, you can drink when you're 21. It's a regulation [u]not a ban[/u]. There is no oppression here. You can't vote till you're 18. You can't drive till you're 16 or 18 (depending on the state). You can't rent a car until you're 21-25. You can't buy a firearm when you're underage.[/quote]

Never heard that some states don't let you drive until 18... is that true? It's as low as 14 is some agricultural states.

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1403553' date='Oct 16 2007, 12:06 PM']Don't know if this has been listed yet, but [url="http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/StateAndLocalLaws/20070914111947.html"]this link[/url] shows a list of states that do allow underage drinking in certain circumstances (ie: under parental supervision) Even so, there are stipulations that said parents cannot give alcohol to underage friends of their children, even with those parents' permission (at least in KY, don't know about in all states).[/quote]

Now, that is interesting. It says underage drinking is permitted in Kentucky and a number of other states, so that stipulation you're talking about must be in the fine print.

Let's say one were to buy a drink for an underage person... from the way that link reads, in Kentucky there is nothing illegal about that.