NationStates Jolt Archive

The charity Alcohol Concern (recommended by the BBC) wants to prosecute parents who let children under 15 have a drink in the house with a meal because they think it leads to binge drinking sprees. This is dumb for a couple of reasons:

1) Someone who is, say, 10-14 being allowed a glass of champagne or wine with Christmas dinner, on an older relative's birthday or at a wedding anniversary or something is a million miles away from letting a five-year-old knock back a six-pack of hooch. Alcohol Concern's proposed law would not discriminate between these scenarios.

2) How on Earth are the police supposed to enforce this law? How are they going to know you let junior drink that can of shandy? Cameras in the dining room? Children encouraged to turn their parents in a la 1984? No-one could be caught, investigations would be a waste of time and money.

"Binge drinking by children can have serious consequences for brain function, significantly raises the risk of alcohol dependency in later life and diminishes their life chances."

No, really? Alcoholism damages your brain, people who drink heavily are more likely to become alcoholics, and being an alcoholic can mean you have fewer "life chances"? Wow. I'm sure glad we've got these people to tell us these things and conduct important research with the money we donate to them. Maybe their next study could tell us how shooting up can be hazardous to your health.

Besides, talking about how binge drinking by children is bad is not an argument for banning drinks at mealtimes. In fact, it's a logically fallacious approach to the discussion.

Pretty ridiculous. If you ask for my (uninformed?) opinion, kids being taught that a glass of wine with dinner is okay would be less likely to binge drink… but whatever.

The charity Alcohol Concern (recommended by the BBC) wants to prosecute parents who let children under 15 have a drink in the house with a meal because they think it leads to binge drinking sprees. This is dumb for a couple of reasons:

1) Someone who is, say, 10-14 being allowed a glass of champagne or wine with Christmas dinner, on an older relative's birthday or at a wedding anniversary or something is a million miles away from letting a five-year-old knock back a six-pack of hooch. Alcohol Concern's proposed law would not discriminate between these scenarios.

2) How on Earth are the police supposed to enforce this law? How are they going to know you let junior drink that can of shandy? Cameras in the dining room? Children encouraged to turn their parents in a la 1984? No-one could be caught, investigations would be a waste of time and money.



No, really? Alcoholism damages your brain, people who drink heavily are more likely to become alcoholics, and being an alcoholic can mean you have fewer "life chances"? Wow. I'm sure glad we've got these people to tell us these things and conduct important research with the money we donate to them. Maybe their next study could tell us how shooting up can be hazardous to your health.

Besides, talking about how binge drinking by children is bad is not an argument for banning drinks at mealtimes. In fact, it's a logically fallacious approach to the discussion.

If the government became rational, over the river and through the woods would explode. So no one to Grandmother's house... can go.

If the government became rational, over the river and through the woods would explode. So no one to Grandmother's house... can go.

So you're saying we should blow up the ocean?

So you're saying we should blow up the ocean?

And make it snow at the beach!

There is a huge difference in a parent monitoring their child's (this is not referring to kids, but young teens) wine consumption and ignoring the child's behaviour when alcohol goes missing. If a parent allows for their child to drink while supervised, the child can learn to drink responsibly and the parent has some control over what and how much the child is drinking.

A glass of wine at mealtime is a far cry from the binge drinking that occurs.

This law is not only ignorant but entirely unenforceable. It simply won't work. If young adults wants to drink themselves stupid, no law is really going to stop it.

Pretty ridiculous. If you ask for my (uninformed?) opinion, kids being taught that a glass of wine with dinner is okay would be less likely to binge drink… but whatever.

I agree entirely. If something is taboo for 15, 19, 21, or whatever years, whenever it becomes allowable for you to consume it, you are probably more likely to go nuts.

Why do people even care about booze. There is no need for it. It creates far more problems than its worth. If parents didn't use and taught their children its wrong to use, we would have a lot less problems with it. And don't give me that its traditional for people to have wine with dinner or at a wedding. It was also traditional for people to hold slaves. It was wrong 200 years ago and is wrong now. Booze is the by far the most destructive drug.

I beg to differ! Alcohol is awshome, an I'll fig' evry oneofyouse who shays differe... *falls over&

Why do people even care about booze. There is no need for it. It creates far more problems than its worth. If parents didn't use and taught their children its wrong to use, we would have a lot less problems with it. And don't give me that its traditional for people to have wine with dinner or at a wedding. It was also traditional for people to hold slaves. It was wrong 200 years ago and is wrong now. Booze is the by far the most destructive drug.

The charity Alcohol Concern (recommended by the BBC) wants to prosecute parents who let children under 15 have a drink in the house with a meal because they think it leads to binge drinking sprees. This is dumb for a couple of reasons:

1) Someone who is, say, 10-14 being allowed a glass of champagne or wine with Christmas dinner, on an older relative's birthday or at a wedding anniversary or something is a million miles away from letting a five-year-old knock back a six-pack of hooch. Alcohol Concern's proposed law would not discriminate between these scenarios.

2) How on Earth are the police supposed to enforce this law? How are they going to know you let junior drink that can of shandy? Cameras in the dining room? Children encouraged to turn their parents in a la 1984? No-one could be caught, investigations would be a waste of time and money.



No, really? Alcoholism damages your brain, people who drink heavily are more likely to become alcoholics, and being an alcoholic can mean you have fewer "life chances"? Wow. I'm sure glad we've got these people to tell us these things and conduct important research with the money we donate to them. Maybe their next study could tell us how shooting up can be hazardous to your health.

Besides, talking about how binge drinking by children is bad is not an argument for banning drinks at mealtimes. In fact, it's a logically fallacious approach to the discussion.

I read this a while back.

CHARLOTTESVILLE -- Ryan Kenty, 20, and his brother Brandon, still a sophomore in high school, plan to drive their mother to jail Monday morning before heading back to her rented apartment to move the rest of her belongings into storage.

Their mom, Elisa Kelly, and her ex-husband, George Robinson, are paying the price for hosting Ryan's 16th birthday party -- more than two years in jail each. Ryan had asked his mother to buy his friends some beer and wine, as long as they all spent the night.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802795.html

Why do people even care about booze. There is no need for it. It creates far more problems than its worth. If parents didn't use and taught their children its wrong to use, we would have a lot less problems with it. And don't give me that its traditional for people to have wine with dinner or at a wedding. It was also traditional for people to hold slaves. It was wrong 200 years ago and is wrong now. Booze is the by far the most destructive drug.

Oh, please. Blame the booze? People will do what they want, with or without alcohol. If they weren't consuming alcohol, they'd find another substance to abuse. Furthermore, it's been shown that a glass of wine each day is actually HEALTHY for you.

I'm so sick of people who want to try banning everything because "it leads to BAD THINGS". It is not WRONG to drink alcohol, for medical OR recreational use. It is wrong to ABUSE alcohol, which is a FAR different matter entirely, though you don't quite seem able to tell the difference.

I read this a while back.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802795.html
Everyone in that case on the side of the "law" was an asshole.
The attorney was trying to get reelected.
The judge probably was too and was being a vindictive asshole.
The judges that didn't drop it back down the sentence recommended by the attorney trying to be a hardass to get reelected are assholes just for that.

Everyone in that case on the side of the "law" was an asshole.
The attorney was trying to get reelected.
The judge probably was too and was being a vindictive asshole.
The judges that didn't drop it back down the sentence recommended by the attorney trying to be a hardass to get reelected are assholes just for that.

Being young once, I used to have this vage notion that maybe a more democratically accountable legal structure would be better. Thankfully it was some place I don't live that has had the experiment which disabused me of my childish notions.

Being young once, I used to have this vage notion that maybe a more democratically accountable legal structure would be better. Thankfully it was some place I don't live that has had the experiment which disabused me of my childish notions.

Having the judicial system accountable to voters is a piss poor idea.

Oh, please. Blame the booze? People will do what they want, with or without alcohol. If they weren't consuming alcohol, they'd find another substance to abuse. Furthermore, it's been shown that a glass of wine each day is actually HEALTHY for you.

I'm so sick of people who want to try banning everything because "it leads to BAD THINGS". It is not WRONG to drink alcohol, for medical OR recreational use. It is wrong to ABUSE alcohol, which is a FAR different matter entirely, though you don't quite seem able to tell the difference.

I don't blame the booze, I blame the weak people. Most people don't know the difference between use and abuse of alcohol. So people will cause 16,000 deaths a year without drinking and driving? Its wrong to take any substances that alter your mental state. Why is it that weak people have to abuse something, wheather its drugs, alcohol, kids animals its always something. I guess people need to have something, so they can "loosen up" or have more fun.

I'm simply stating that alcohol use/abuse causes more problems then its worth. 4,000 some Americans die in 4 years of war and its horrid we have to leave ect..... but 16,000 people sometimes more die from drunk driving and no one wants to do anything about the drug that contrubites to all those deaths. Also not to mention the countless number of broken homes caused by weak people and alcohol. If you make alcohol use unexceptable to people, like what was done with smoking over the past 25 years you will have a much better society.

I'm simply stating that alcohol use/abuse causes more problems then its worth. 4,000 some Americans die in 4 years of war and its horrid we have to leave ect..... but 16,000 people sometimes more die from drunk driving and no one wants to do anything about the drug that contrubites to all those deaths.

Look up the 18th amendment will you?

Why do people even care about booze. There is no need for it. It creates far more problems than its worth. If parents didn't use and taught their children its wrong to use, we would have a lot less problems with it. And don't give me that its traditional for people to have wine with dinner or at a wedding. It was also traditional for people to hold slaves. It was wrong 200 years ago and is wrong now. Booze is the by far the most destructive drug.

But... but... You're denying yourself the joy of mead! and twenty year old amaretto! And mead! (all in moderation, of course...) mmmmm... had a wonderful blueberry mead at Border War.

The charity Alcohol Concern (recommended by the BBC) wants to prosecute parents who let children under 15 have a drink in the house with a meal because they think it leads to binge drinking sprees. This is dumb for a couple of reasons:

1) Someone who is, say, 10-14 being allowed a glass of champagne or wine with Christmas dinner, on an older relative's birthday or at a wedding anniversary or something is a million miles away from letting a five-year-old knock back a six-pack of hooch. Alcohol Concern's proposed law would not discriminate between these scenarios.well... providing alcohol to anyone underage is the problem. why should it be different if it's champagne, wine, wine cooler, or beer. you can binge drink any of those beverages.

however, that is not to say I support this proposal.

2) How on Earth are the police supposed to enforce this law? How are they going to know you let junior drink that can of shandy? Cameras in the dining room? Children encouraged to turn their parents in a la 1984? No-one could be caught, investigations would be a waste of time and money. more like comments made by the person that is overheard and reported.
"Yeah, I had that for dinner last night. tasted awful." or something.

No, really? Alcoholism damages your brain, people who drink heavily are more likely to become alcoholics, and being an alcoholic can mean you have fewer "life chances"? Wow. I'm sure glad we've got these people to tell us these things and conduct important research with the money we donate to them. Maybe their next study could tell us how shooting up can be hazardous to your health. but some people won't believe it unless thousands of pounds are spent to study it... :p

Besides, talking about how binge drinking by children is bad is not an argument for banning drinks at mealtimes. In fact, it's a logically fallacious approach to the discussion.I think they're more for banning Alcoholic Drinks served to minors. the parents drinking is ok as long as the child doesn't partake regularly.

However informed judgement cannot be made without a link to the law/proposal itself.

But... but... You're denying yourself the joy of mead! and twenty year old amaretto! And mead! (all in moderation, of course...) mmmmm... had a wonderful blueberry mead at Border War.

LOL!

One documented D&D Game.
DM: So you have all these dogs with you... what are you feeding them
Player: Mead.
DM: Mead... anything else?
Player: nope.
DM: do you know what mead is?
Player: it's listed under foods and it's cheap, so what else is there to know?
DM: Mead is an alcoholic beverage... like beer. so you've been feeding your dogs nothing but mead for the 3 week journey? sorry, they're dead by now...
Player: uh... I guess we not doing so good either... that's all we were eating also...

I read this a while back.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802795.html


My favorite part of that artical? The fact that the main thing the Judge held against them was that the kids could have been drinking and driving, while the parent's purpose of having the party was to avoid it as well. They even took the keys of the kids.

Oh, wow. Smart Judge to overlook such things.