Alcohol

[aalpha1989]

Slight spin off from the marijuana thread.

I think almost all Catholics would agree that having a drink socially is not sinful. Most would agree that for a teenager in Europe, it would also be ok (as long as it is not done in excess), because the laws are more lenient there... I don't know the laws for every country, but let's assume they are the same as in Germany. The drinking age (for public drinking) in Germany is 16. So once a person reaches the age of 16, most of us would agree that it would in Germany be perfectly ok for someone to have a drink.

Here, however, the law is 21. It's a "magic" number, and as soon as a person reaches that age it is socially and legally acceptable. It is also legal to have a drink before you reach the age of 21 if it is given to you by your parent or guardian on private property.

My question is this: is this a just law? Most of the youth with whom I have spoken have quoted Christ. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's." It seems to me, however, that what we ingest is not Caesar's at all. Is it really fit for the government to set a drinking age? There is already a legal limit (.08? I think it varies from state to state). Would it not be better to change the blood alcohol content limit from age to age than to ban it altogether? I found in high school that a lot of people drank just because it was dangerous, because it was against the law. I definitely don't think that the Caesar verse applies here... I know that we are to obey legitimate authority, but is the authority given to the state to determine what exactly you drink? The answer in some cases (poison) would be "yes", but alcohol is not exactly poison, and when used with care is not exactly dangerous.

I have never drunk illegally (I had a glass of wine my Mom gave me once, and some champagne at New Year's Eve, also given to me by my parents), but I honestly cannot see why one should be obliged to follow this law.

I have also found, by the way, that just by questioning this law I am seen as a crazy teenager who probably goes out to get drunk every weekend and will understand in time. *shrug*. I've thought my position through, and I can't see it as a just law. What do you all think?


P.S. That bible verse quoted in the marijuana thread applies here, too. I could see how drinking alcohol could lead others into temptation, but it is a temptation that should not be regulated by the government, and it is not regulated after the age of 21, anyway. It's more a personal choice not to drink around certain people.

Another legitimate concern I have heard is that when someone under the age is seen with alcohol in his hand, it is assumed that he is getting drunk, which means the possibility of scandal. If one is drinking socially (not to get drunk), however, and with the right friends, I don't see how it is a serious issue.

[CatherineM]

When I was 18, the drinking age for beer for girls was 18, and 21 for boys. I guess they viewed girls as more mature, go figure. The year I turned 21, they upped it to 21. So I've lived over half my life now with 21 as the drinking age, then I moved to Canada where it is 18. I don't know if it is just the old fogie in my coming out, but I did a lot of irresponsible drinking between the ages of 18 and 21, including taking my shirt off in the middle of the street in front of Greek row in college, and driving while impaired more than once, although I never got caught.

I rarely drink now. When you hit middle age, the doctor starts loading you up on meds that you aren't supposed to mix with alcohol. I drank enough in college to last a lifetime, including going so drunk to my first Statistics exam that I misspelled my name. I see kids having real trouble with alcohol here, and have to wonder if a higher drinking age would help or not. Of course at my age, everyone under the age of 30 looks like they are 16 years old so I may be mistaking older kids for teenagers.

Funny thing is the most fun I had in college rarely included alcohol. Of course I might have had more fun while drunk, but just can't remember it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

when he said give to caesar what is ceasar's he was trying to avoid a direct answer, that could be bad to him whatever he said.

i think one could even take that verse, to be anarchy or at least anti tax. ie, they have to right to tax so much, so it's not really caesar's, is how the argument goes etc.

so my point is that... that verse is pretty volatile in its application and wasn't meant to be very directing.

you have things that are clearly decent laws to be followed in a good subserviant way... and then you have the caesar arguments, and the no authority on me arguments,,,, and then you have everything in between, gray area, such is life.

is it just me... or is phatmass becoming more openminded about these things? the reactions seem a lot more so, maybe it's just a fluke and not indicative of the norm.

Edited July 24, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah, wihle i'm pretty open minded about this stuff, i'd sy they should't be able to drink.
way too immature.

maybe with their parents, but i think that's what the law is anyway already.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1607390' date='Jul 24 2008, 11:26 AM']when he said give to caesar what is ceasar's he was trying to avoid a direct answer, that could be bad to him whatever he said.

i think one could even take that verse, to be anarchy or at least anti tax. ie, they have to right to tax so much, so it's not really caesar's, is how the argument goes etc.

so my point is that... that verse is pretty volatile in its application and wasn't meant to be very directing.

you have things that are clearly decent laws to be followed in a good subserviant way... and then you have the caesar arguments, and the no authority on me arguments,,,, and then you have everything in between, gray area, such is life.

is it just me... or is phatmass becoming more openminded about these things? the reactions seem a lot more so, maybe it's just a fluke and not indicative of the norm.[/quote]

I've always taken the Caesar comment in relation to this as obey the law, because it it the law the government laid down. Give to Caesar what is his, or in this case, don't drink till 21 because that is what Caesar, or the government asks.
I've been in a debate about this, and it generally broke down to if the law is just or not. Personally, I don't see any harm in putting a drinking age, and I don't think it can be reduced in the United States without causing harm to a generation, so I go with don't drink until you're 21 (or just not at all).

I also think that, with most provisions put into place, a lot of states allow minors to consume alcohol with parental supervision, and I think that is a good law. It would make sense for all states to have it. That way, minors can drink, but they must have parental supervision.

The question, again, boils down to if it's a just law. Calling it unjust would, I believe, be on the basis that the government shouldn't be able to control our diet. Since the government is only putting an age limit, not prohibition entirelty, I can't see how it's unjust.

Edited July 24, 2008 by CatholicCid

[Winchester]

The age limit on drinking is not Caesar's. The money had his face on it--it was his. Taxation is a right of the state.

Age limits are set to reduce alcohol abuse. If you are under the age and drink responsibly, you have fulfilled the spirit of the law. But you might suffer at the letter of it.

[goldenchild17]

I don't know. I can't say that it is an unjust law. Maybe one that doesn't make complete sense, but that doesn't release me from an obligation to follow it (I'm over 21 so I'm speaking in generalities). I do believe that the age limit for being able to drink (if there has to be one at all) should probably be at or shortly before the age you are able to get a driver's license. But other than that I can't say that it's an unfair law. Just something they decided. I wouldn't recommend disobeying it.

[Balthazor]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1607923' date='Jul 24 2008, 10:07 PM']The age limit on drinking is not Caesar's. The money had his face on it--it was his. Taxation is a right of the state.

Age limits are set to reduce alcohol abuse. If you are under the age and drink responsibly, you have fulfilled the spirit of the law. But you might suffer at the letter of it.[/quote]

Well said Winchester.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1607923' date='Jul 24 2008, 09:07 PM']The age limit on drinking is not Caesar's. The money had his face on it--it was his. Taxation is a right of the state.

Age limits are set to reduce alcohol abuse. If you are under the age and drink responsibly, you have fulfilled the spirit of the law. But you might suffer at the letter of it.[/quote]
[quote name='Balthazor' post='1608118' date='Jul 25 2008, 05:37 AM']Well said Winchester.[/quote]
Indeed. Props, Winchester.

[Barbarus]

St. Thomas says there are three kinds of human law:
1) those that are derived logically from natural law and have the same level of authority as natural law, so we are bound by obligation to follow
2) those that take natural law precepts and apply them to a specific community situation; these have the authority only of human law, but we are still bound by obligation to obey
3) those that deflect from or contravene natural law, which are really not law at all in a proper sense but that we may still follow prudentially.

Civil authorities have the right to regulate vice (including alcohol) as they see fit in a given community or country; the reason these laws do not have the force of natural law is that they are not universal precepts, but rather precepts tailored to fit a specific community.

[Lisieux Flower]

[quote name='Barbarus' post='1608162' date='Jul 25 2008, 08:46 AM']2) those that take natural law precepts and apply them to a specific community situation; these have the authority only of human law, but we are still bound by obligation to obey[/quote]
What is the "specific community situation" in this case? That 18-20 year olds in America aren't able to responsibly regulate their alcohol consumption?

[Barbarus]

[quote name='Lisieux Flower' post='1608964' date='Jul 26 2008, 01:19 AM']What is the "specific community situation" in this case? That 18-20 year olds in America aren't able to responsibly regulate their alcohol consumption?[/quote]
In this case, the "community" is the United States as a whole. The feds mandated that states raise their drinking ages to 21 in the 1980s under threat of losing highway funding. The feds make this rule under the commerce clause I think ... something to do with federal highways or something. And yes those under 21 are more likely to be irresponsible with drinking, and to be injured and/or injure others as a result. [url="http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13246.html"]Here is a link to the American Medical Association's page on this. [/url]

Notable stats:
# A higher minimum legal drinking age is effective in preventing alcohol-related deaths and injuries among youth. When the MLDA has been lowered, injury and death rates increase, and when the MLDA is increased, death and injury rates decline (Wagenaar, 1993).
# A higher MLDA results in fewer alcohol-related problems among youth, and the 21-year-old MLDA saves the lives of well over 1,000 youth each year (Jones et al, 1992; NHTSA, 1989). Conversely, when the MLDA is lowered, motor vehicle crashes and deaths among youth increase. At least 50 studies have evaluated this correlation (Wagenaar, 1993).

[Justin86]

I'm not sure what to think about drinking laws. I can see both sides of the issue, which is rare for me.

However, whatever age the government sets, it should allow an exception for parents on their private property. California doesn't allow for that, and as usual I think the state is full of BS for telling parents how to raise their children on their own land.

Edited July 26, 2008 by Justin86

[Justin86]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1607385' date='Jul 25 2008, 01:17 AM']When I was 18, the drinking age for beer for girls was 18, and 21 for boys. I guess they viewed girls as more mature, go figure.[/quote]
That's interesting. My mother always told me it was 18 when she was younger, and she has always said very strongly it should be 18 now. She never told me it was 21 for boys, but knowing what my mother said about her lack of interest in boys when she was that young she may not have known. I'll ask her about that the next time I talk to her.

Were you raised in FL, Catherine?

[friendofJPII]

Right now, I think the law is just. The intention of the law is to protect the youth. Whether it is actually successful in doing that, is another question. But the purpose and intent of the law is good and should be respected for the time being. If you don't like it, however, and think the law should be changed, work to change it.

It would be nice to see our society drink alcohol in moderation (the young as well as the old). But I doubt such cultural changes will be affected by laws.

Personally, I don't drink because I don't like the taste beer or wine, and I don't like mixed drinks enough to pay $7.00 a glass for them.

Edited July 26, 2008 by friendofJPII