Go to Why can't I sue the whole country?
- Add a comment
- Go to THERE IS A REAL EASY WAY TO REDUCE UNDER AGED DRINKING
it was a teetotaller that taught it
societies where alcohol is more accepted have fewer problem drinkers
French, Italians,, Jews -- all have an acceptance of drinking alcohol greater than the moralistics of the U.S.
The U.S. is a strange brew anyway -- a broad spectum, from the prohibitionists to those to whom life is a continual party -- and beyond.
among the above socities, alcohol is virtually a part of life -- wine is drunk daily, even in the morning, children are given alcohol (oh the sinfulness!!!), life is a continual party -- but not like those you know around you.
reminds me of a joke though that my high ;school english teacher told
there was this woman from the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) making a presentation at the local shelter. She had a table set up in the from of the room with two glasses and a worm on it (happily crawling around his box of dirt until the woman picked him (figured it's a him -- men get picked on the most) up.
She held the worm up for all to see.
"I have here two glasses," she said, "a glass of water and a glass of whiskey."
"First I'll drop the worm in the glass of water."
So the worm was happy again -- splashing abouitn and wrigglling like crazy, until the woman picked him out of the water (they keep picking on us don't they?).
"Now," she said, "I'll drop him in this glass of whiskey."
The worm was terror-stricken.
She dropped him in, he wriggled a few times and then dropped dead -- lifeless.
"What does this tell us?" the woman asked.
A gentleman in the frobnt row, with a scraggly beard and a slurre voice piped up.
"It goesh ta showe," he said, "If ya drinks whishkey, ya won't git wormsh."
So in senior class, this guy from the WCTU comes in to lecture all of us high schoolers on the evils of drinking.
"A potential alcoholic," he said, "is someone who takes at least one drink a day."
"Jews and Italians have the highest number of potential alcoholics," he said, "but the lowest percentage of actual alcoholics."
I really do believe it has to with cultural acceptance -- and under-age drinking in one's own home wouild have a healthier effect -- woule the child develop a healthier attitude toward drinking than if that child did it "on the sly", because the chiild was not allowed to otherwise.
it's like smoking or sex -- something that is considered :"sinful" -- a forbidden fruit -- is more desired than what is allowed.
and about DUI's -- there are quite a few laws on the books -- which is good -- but what happens is that politicians lovt to get votes by putting more laws on the books.
but there are these sly ways of getting around the laws -- attorneys on the side that you pay a few hundred to and that will get the problem "fixed" -- that doesn't help anybody -- keeps the DUI's DUIing.
and then there are those whose license has been revoked and still are driving. whose car has been taken and who drive someone else's car. multiple arrests.
locally a police officer was killed by a man with a long record who was driving without a license.
it's not lack of laws, then. It's just that yuou can't watch everybody all the time.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 9, 2006 at 3:09 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome
I agree with you, but that can be said about most anything. Drinking, drug use, sex, pornography, bad language, abortion, crime and so on are all aspects of societies attitude towards them and if the problems around such things are ever to be truly fixed changing the laws is not the most important part. In fact the laws themselves are often causing some of the problems. The attitudes are what needs to be changed as a whole. To reduced teenage sex, the parents should be more open about talking with the kids about sex and saying 'it's your choice' and suddenly the kids will bee less likely to go off and sleep around.
It is the conservative attitude towards such things that seems to be the true cause of a lot of the problems. We as a society need to change directions in how we approach all of this if we want things to be better. But that would take work and most people would rather pass useless laws that really are going to do nothing.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 9, 2006 at 2:33 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka_lives - I can speak directly to this issue
When I was 16 years old, our province lowered the drinking age from 21 to 18. All that was really accomplished is that the underage drinking moved from the colleges to the high schools. In later years the drinking age was raised to 19 where it stands today. All of the factors influencing underage drinking are as you say, it is a form of juvenile rebellion that is coupled with enormous peer pressure. This pressure being further exacerbated by having the unrelated college age group straddling the legal drinking age. What will happen if the drinking age is lowered is likely what has happened in most jurisdictions where this has taken place. There is an immediate upspike in alcohol related social problems within the affected age group, including driving offences. The only way to avoid much of this is by a joint educational campaign orchestrated by schools, police, government and all other affected social aid groups. The goal becomes to change prevailing attitudes to that of countries and cultures where alcohol is not treated as such a novelty by it's young people. There are reasons why underage drinking is prevelant in some areas of North America while not in others and almost a non existant issue in most of Europe. Those reasons which are mostly derived from prevailing attitudes, must be addressed or the solution you propose brings with it far too much grief to be a real solution.
posted by
gomedome
on February 9, 2006 at 1:20 PM
| link to this | reply
Drunk Driving is not the issue in this one
although I fully agree with both of you that there should be tougher penalties for drunk driving, the laws that are being talked about are not happening because of an DUI problems. That seems more common at the high School level.
There is just a whole lot of partying going on and with recent events that have had students dying from over drinking, they are looking for ways to discourage it. Of course all they are doing is making it more illegal to do what is already very much illegal.
tbgroucho, the insurance thing shouldn't be a consideration. if anything it might help to encourage college students to not drive yet, which is not bad thing. If they save their money and wait until they are old enough for more affordable insurance then there is nothing wrong with that. I went years without a car of my own and somehow was able to get around just fine. So that will just have to be up to the insurance companies to deal with, and the government should not be involved.
M.P.O., for me and most of my friends the whole appeal to getting drunk was that we were not allowed to. It was a rebelliousness. None of us really enjoyed it that much without the thrill of breaking the rules, as became very clear once it was legal for us. We drink casually at times, but none of us are drinkers and we all go months, if not years at a time without a drink. If I have alcohol in my house, it will go a long time without getting touched and often seems to vanish when Xeno_x stays here for a visit. In my experience the true appeal to under aged drinking is about breaking the rules more than anything else.
posted by
kooka_lives
on February 9, 2006 at 12:12 PM
| link to this | reply
The penalties for drunk driving should be harsher, period.
Meanwhile, I had always assumed the #1 motivation behind underage drinking was ... getting drunk.
Btw, not to nitpick, but the correct spelling of the word is "college".
U is for Una, who slipped down a drain,
V is for Victor, squashed under a train.
posted by
Mademoiselle
on February 8, 2006 at 11:55 PM
| link to this | reply
i have always found these laws to be absurd
and i am in favor of changing them, provided:
that any state that lowers the drinking age must enact extremely stiff penalties for drunk driving (i don't think you need to make the penalties harsher for someone 19 in contrast to someone 40). In my view, we need zero tolerance for that. You want to drink? Fine. But don't get behind the wheel. First offense leads to suspension of license, second leads to jail time. Make the penalties mandatory.
The states that lower these ages are also likely to face problems with automobile insurance companies, who will likely try to charge higher premiums because of the perceived (it might be real, but it is surely perceived) risk. The states have to be prepared to respond to the potential for rising insurance costs. I imagine that's part of the reason why the drinking age is what it is now.
posted by
tbgroucho
on February 8, 2006 at 8:39 PM
| link to this | reply