Underage Drinking

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='BullnaChinaShop' date='Sep 29 2004, 01:31 PM'] I have a question. If the state you live in doesn't allow anyone under 21 to have alcohol even with their own parents supervision, and as a parent you believe the best way to teach your kids about alcohol is to introduce it in small quantities to teach them respect and responsibility, is it still wrong to introduce your kids alcohol as they grow up. Where do you cross the line between obeying the law and preparing your kids to be responsible adults? I understand that following the law is part of how you would tech your kids to be responsible but what about when the law inhibits teaching other forms of responsibility? [/quote]
Certainly no law inforcement agent in his right mind is going to object to teaching teens about alcohol in a responsible way (ie small doses to your own child in the home). I think they would object to you encouraging your teen to get plastered (even in your home) because of the danger.

There are exceptions to the "not giving minors alcohol" law... we even give it to them (albeit in small sips) in church.

[DominaNostra]

I agree that it is a sin to break civil law unless it is unjust (causes one to sin). With that being said, I follow the speed limit and all traffic laws, but pretty much no one I know does this. Do those of you who believe it is a sin to break civil law also follow the speed limit and other traffic laws?

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='DominaNostra' date='Sep 29 2004, 02:31 PM'] Do those of you who believe it is a sin to break civil law also follow the speed limit and other traffic laws? [/quote]
to the best of my ability... my neighbor thinks i'm the goodiest goody two shoes....

[DominaNostra]

homeschoolmom, that is good; I know few people who actually go 25 in a neighborhood even though that is the speed limit (I always have people right behind me).

Unas, "Alcohol should be banned." I do not know why you say this because Our Lord certainly did not teach it. In fact, He loved it so much He changed water into it! I say this to point out one of the most ridiculous beliefs of many Fundamentalists; Our Lord Himself supported the drinking of alcohol (in moderation, of course) and drank alcohol Himself presumably. Also, people will say "it is scandalous to drink alcohol or support it because you might cause a person who is a drunkard to get drunk" but this is ridiculous because we see that Our Lord changed water into wine. I hope you do not believe the Fundamentally wrong idea that alcohol in itself is evil (or, even, that it is not good).

[popestpiusx]

One of the criterion for a law to be binding under pain of sin is that it must lack arbitrariness. Someone mentioned the speed limit. That is a good example as well. If I go 36 in a 35 mph zone do I sin? No, of course not. 36 is no more dangerous than 35. The number is arbitrary. That is not to say that we can drive as fast as we want. 90 in a 35 would probably be sinful. But it would be sinful because it was dangerous. If I drink a beer at 20 am I sinning? How about 20yrs, 11 months, and 29 days? Is there some magical effect to turning 21 that makes me more responsible? No. The law is arbitrary, and worse, fueled by that ever-annoying puritanical hangover this country seems to have. I must say that it matters very little to me in the practical realm as I have been over the legal limit for some years now. But drinking is a good thing and I think much of our problem in this country stems from the puritan influence infecting many of our laws. We are not teaching our kids temperance if we try to act as though it is an evil thing to drink. We should not be prohibiting them from it, but instead, teaching them the right way to do it.

Ban alcohol altogether? Right. Since it worked so well the first time.

[DominaNostra]

Popesaintpiusx, thanks for the post. I could not agree with you more about the arbitrariness of the laws, but where is the source of your claim that arbitrariness plays a role in whether or not a law is binding? I would certainly like to believe this myself because I am 17 years old. I would love to be able to go the speed of traffic and have wine with my family at dinner, but this is not possible because I these are both against the civil law, at least where I live. I think the drinking law is outrageous and that the speed limit should be given a prudential basis rather than the current system, but I cannot break these laws without committing a sin (unless you can provide me a means by which to say that arbitrariness is a valid aspect which can make a law binding). Thanks. God bless.

[White Knight]

One thing I do agree with the Liberials on, is banning Alcohol, it promotes drunkeness (obviously); it kills people, it promotes uneccessary volience, it damages your body.


I do think Underage drinking is immoral, because ya basically disobeying your parents.

[DominaNostra]

White, it is not disobeying your parents if your parents allow it. Further, did you read my previous post referring to the actions of Our Lord Himself? At the Wedding Feast at Cana Our Lord turned water into wine. If alcohol should be banned why did Our Lord not condemn the practice and instead turn the wine into water? Wine is good for you if you have one or two glasses per day. This is now a medical fact. If alcohol is good enough for God Himself, I think it is good enough for us. Also, if we banned alcohol that would mean that it would be impossible to confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist because the wine used for the Consecration must be fruit of the vine and have some substantial alcohol content. Otherwise, the Mass is invalid. If alcohol were evil, why would Our Lord change water into wine and make it a necessary element to the Sacrament of Himself?

[BullnaChinaShop]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Sep 29 2004, 03:40 PM'] One thing I do agree with the Liberials on, is banning Alcohol, it promotes drunkeness (obviously); it kills people, it promotes uneccessary volience, it damages your body.


I do think Underage drinking is immoral, because ya basically disobeying your parents. [/quote]
I would have to disagree. Only an individual can get drunk. Only and individual can kill themselves with alcohol. Only an individual can be violent to others. That is an inresponsible individual. People who promote banning alcohol don't seem to believe that anyone can be responsible and have self control with it. My answer to this is it is a lot harder to be responsible and have self control if your parents don't teach you such things. By banning I believe you would actually increase drunkeness by making it illegal for good parents to teach their kids how to responsibly drink.

[DominaNostra]

White, the equivalent argument is: food causes people to commit gluttony; ergo, let us forbid food so that others do not sin...

[DominaNostra]

Also, popesaintpiusx, please see my previous comment asking where it is stated that arbitrariness is a criterion for judging whether or not a law is binding. Thanks.

[jasJis]

The simple fact that it isn't just an arbitrary law. Get the facts, don't use myths.
The drinking age was raised because of the great number of 18 to 21 year olds who could not drink responsibly. Add to it the fact that people who are close to drinking age (16 & 17) had friends that could get beer.

Fact: More deaths and injuries related to alcohol happened for the bottom 2 years of the drinking age when it was legal at 18 (18%19)than occurs to the bottom two years (21 & 22) with the legal age of 21. Having the drinking age 21 isn't just arbitrary. There is a greater percentage of people killing and harming themselves (and others in society) when the legal age was 18.

Fact: It's not the "puritanical" society of the US that contributes to the drinking problem. Russia doesn't have a high drinking age, but has a very high alcoholism rate. Why is that? They don't have a 'puritanical' attitude...

Fact: Drinking alcohol is a problem when it is abused. Russians drink to escape from the misery of their society. It is a cultural reality that their attitude is to drink to escape. Americans drink to escape the stress of life and for recreational "buzz". Americans do not have a clear cultural limit of how much drinking is too much compared to how much is beneficial. Underage drinking contributes to that. Most underage drinkers (18-21 yo) are binge drinkers. Especially females. Females are less likely to get help for problem drinking and thus, are more likely to suffer the worst consequences for problem drinking.

Underage drinking is immoral for the following reasons:
1.) It undermines the normal authority of the legal system by fostering "cafeteria" law abiding. [Sounds familiar to 'cafeterial catholics', doesn't it?]
2.) It reinforces and gives peer approval to drinking at a 18-20 when it's most likely that population of drinkers would develop bad drinking habits and harm themselves or others.
3.) It gives approval to drinking for excessive recreational purposes.

Is it worth it to have an 18 drinking age or you encourage drinking at 18 when only 10% of the drinkers at 18 develop a drinking problem, or harm themselves or others, when the drinking age at 21 results in only 2% of the drinkers developing a drinking problem or harming thems or others?
Just because YOU don't have a drinking problem at 19, doesn't mean that the majority of 19 year olds won't. That choice is where Catholics understand their responsibilty is to Society. As a whole, is our Society better off with a 21 drinking age and isn't that worth the minor sacrifice of not drinking at 18, 19, or 20? Isn't that what "offering it up" is all about?

[DominaNostra]

JasJis, I think the point that it is arbitrarily binding on the individual. In other words, if I can drink responsibly with parents in privacy at age 17 (or 20, 11 months, 30 days for that matter), then the law is arbitrary. The spirit of the law is safety, etc. I have already said that it is immoral if it breaks civil law, but I am waiting to hear popesaintpiusx's explanation of arbitrariness of a law being a criterion by which to judge whether or not it is binding. Further, the real fact is that the drinking age was increased in order to get federal funding for highways by the states. The federal government wanted to increase the age but could not because it did not have the authority to do so, so it threatened to take away funding if the states did not raise the age. If you are claiming that the federal government's reasoning is what you stated, that may very well be true, but I would be at least skeptical of this. In the past there had never been any kind of established law for drinking other than when the parents allowed it. The fact is that many parents are so irresponsible today that the age limit might be a good thing in a broad spectrum, but as the law applies to individuals, it is not good, i.e., it is not just that a given young man cannot drink at the age of 18, or 20, etc, if he is going to do it responsibly and is permitted to do so by his parents, but it could be a good idea for society in general.

[Guest JeffCR07]

DominaNostra, God Bless!

I am not sure whether or not you read my previous post on the issue, but I would just like to address the point brought up by popestpiusx on the "arbitrariness" of the speed limit.

Now, I agree with him that it is not a sin to go 56 in a 55 speed limit zone, however, I very much disagree with his reasoning behind it. In my view, it would not be permissible to say "the speed limit is an arbitrary law, and thus I can go 65 in a 55 zone as long as I am being safe."

The ultimately, the reason that 56 is permissible is because it is, in reality, nigh impossible to get one's speedometer directly on that little white line, and, moreover, who is to say that the speedometer is correctly calibrated. I maintain that we are obligated to obey the law [i]as much as we are able[/i]. Also, keep in mind that we are not able to obey a law at all if it causes us to sin. Thus, the catholic can always "come to the table" so to speak with the government saying confidently that "I have followed all of your laws as far as I am able."

It logically follows from this idea of obeying "as much as we are able" that we cannot drink underage, even at home.

I hope this helps offer an alternative theory to that of the "arbitrariness of law" offered by popestpiusx

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[qfnol31]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Sep 29 2004, 03:19 PM'] One of the criterion for a law to be binding under pain of sin is that it must lack arbitrariness. Someone mentioned the speed limit. That is a good example as well. If I go 36 in a 35 mph zone do I sin? No, of course not. 36 is no more dangerous than 35. The number is arbitrary. That is not to say that we can drive as fast as we want. 90 in a 35 would probably be sinful. But it would be sinful because it was dangerous. [/quote]
Actually, PSPX, the arbitrariness of the speed limit doesn't necessarily make it something that doesn't have to be followed. Sure it's arbitrary, but it was chosen with all fairness and to a good end. For that simple reason, you can't really argue that it's unjust based on arbitrariness.

That being said, following the speed limit isn't always necessary either (though most of the time it is). If common law (everyone that is) holds the speed limit to be greater than it is, then it is okay for you to go at that speed. Say the government says all of Minnesota must go 20mph on every road. Most likely the COPs and other people there will not uphold that speed limit, and by common law it will be increased. You are able to do what common law says in this case versus the actual letter of the law.

As long as a human law is just, we are bound to follow it.

[MagiDragon]

if i remember correctly from my days in drivers' training, you can actually challenge a ticket if your speed was safe, even if you were technically speeding. Also, you could be given a ticket for going the speed limit if the road conditions were bad.

So the law is really more accurately "Don't drive too fast to be safe." not "Don't drive over the speed limit." The speed limit is simply a rough idea used to determine if you are being safe or not. This is, in part, why you don't get pulled over for going 5 over the speed limit.

Peace,
Joe

[drewmeister2]

Well, I always try to follow the speed limit, as I know someone who got a ticket on a day with fair weather who was going five over, and it was regular traffic. -_-

[Guest Aluigi]

it's a matter of humility and obedience to follow the law even if u don't agree with it. u cannot decide it is arbitrary and thus not binding on you. now, if you're going 36 in a 35, don't sweat it. if you're goin 50 in a 35 zone, youre being disobedient and thus sinning (unless, say, to NOT go 50 would prevent you from getting a seriously injured person 2 the hospital).... just use common sense and try to obey the civil authority to the best of your ability.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Sep 29 2004, 06:27 PM'] it's a matter of humility and obedience to follow the law even if u don't agree with it. u cannot decide it is arbitrary and thus not binding on you. now, if you're going 36 in a 35, don't sweat it. if you're goin 50 in a 35 zone, youre being disobedient and thus sinning (unless, say, to NOT go 50 would prevent you from getting a seriously injured person 2 the hospital).... just use common sense and try to obey the civil authority to the best of your ability. [/quote]
That doesn't make sense: going one mile an hour over the speed limit is a sin, if the REASON is that it is breaking the law. The sin is in disobedience. Also, though, reckless driving (say 60 in a neighborhood when there is traffic) is also a sin because it is unsafe. Around where I live the norm is about 10 + over the speed limit. I drive the speed limit, anyway, because disobedience, no matter how small, is still disobedience. There are differing levels, but by speeding at all, one commits the sin of disobedience, period. If it is .1 mile over, it is disobedient. By that I do not mean if you are going 55.1 in a 55 you are being disobedient, insofar as your speedometer is not 100% accurate, but to go, say 56 according to your speedometer on purpose (that is not by accidentally speeding up a bit on a slight hill, etc.) is a sin of disobedience because as far as you can tell, you are going over the speed limit. Now, if your speedometer says 55 and you are actually going 58, then that is not a sin because your speedometer is not perfect, but if you know your speedometer is off, you have the obligation to either fix it, or go so slowly that you could not be possibly be going over the speed limit.

[Guest Aluigi]

well... perhaps i'm considering the fact that as of right now i am not so great of a driver, and it would distract me to concern myself with an exact mph rather than just follow the guideline as best i can.