Is It Ever Okay For A Minor To Consume Alcohol?

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1402965' date='Oct 15 2007, 11:22 AM']Other threads have dealt with this topic in depth, anyway, my position is that it is indeed an unjust law, because it is outside of the proper authority of the state. The State does not have the authority to regulate my diet (or the diets of minors) or what I drink or do not drink.

Re-read the catechism quotes: an unjust law is not just a law which makes you act contrary to the morality, it is a law which is not within the proper authority of the government.[/quote]

I agree, I think it's wrong for the government to impede my ability to pass on my culture to my [future] children.

Did you hear that Mayor Bloomberg of New York City passed a law that banned all restaurants in the 5 boroughs from using any ingredients that contain trans-fats? A lot of businesses suffered because they had a very short period of time to develop trans-fat free recipes. I mean, partially hydrogenated soybean oil tastes disgusting anyway and is horrible for you, but I still don't think it should be banned.

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1402965' date='Oct 15 2007, 08:22 AM']Other threads have dealt with this topic in depth, anyway, my position is that it is indeed an unjust law, because it is outside of the proper authority of the state. The State does not have the authority to regulate my diet (or the diets of minors) or what I drink or do not drink.[/quote]

[i]Unjust[/i] is permitting abortion. We may not like our alcohol laws, but they don't infringe on God-given rights of life. If we're going to start this argument, we might as well say you can't pass "just" laws about any drugs. Alcohol and illicit drugs are controlled substances, in that they have an immediate danger of abuse, hence why the regulations.

There would have been a much better case for the injustice of the Roman laws, such as forbidding the making of weapons, forced taxation (Matt 22), or even quartering and forced assistance to soldiers (Matt 5). But Jesus told us not to resist these laws, and Paul told us to submit to the governing authority (Rom 13), a message that greatly frustrated a prideful people - a people that would ultimately rebel anyway, only to disastrous results.

Unless we're saying that not being able to drink alcohol until 21 is a heavier burden than the cruel subjugation of the Romans that Jesus and Paul told us to accept, then this argument is rather thin.

PS - We live in a world where drunk-driving is a reality and irresponsible teenagers cause a higher percentage of accidents than the eldery, so others drinking is [i]certainly[/i] a communal issue.

[Aloysius]

The Catechism comes out very clear against drugs, so that point is moot.

Again, what a grim world it would be if we had to follow every whim of the government as long as it didn't directly make us do immoral things. This is not what Jesus commanded of us, this is not what the Catechism commands of us.

The catechism is very clear that the government does not have absolute jurisdiction over every aspect of our lives, and that we are only required to follow a just exercise of their authority over things which they have the authority to exercise authority over.

We only have to follow the government when it exercises its authority justly. Your absolutized view of government authority is outside of the tradition of Catholic obedience to authority, IMHO.

UNJUST is exercising authority over something that the state does not have authority over. Daily dietary habits: government doesn't have the authority. What food and drink I want to have or I want my children to grow up on, the state does not have authority over. God has not given them that authority, and there is no authority except from God.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1402976' date='Oct 15 2007, 11:56 AM'][i]Unjust[/i] is permitting abortion. We may not like our alcohol laws, but they don't infringe on God-given rights of life. If we're going to start this argument, we might as well say you can't pass "just" laws about any drugs. Alcohol and illicit drugs are controlled substances, in that they have an immediate danger of abuse, hence why the regulations.

There would have been a much better case for the injustice of the Roman laws, such as forbidding the making of weapons, forced taxation (Matt 22), or even quartering and forced assistance to soldiers (Matt 5). But Jesus told us not to resist these laws, and Paul told us to submit to the governing authority (Rom 13), a message that greatly frustrated a prideful people - a people that would ultimately rebel anyway, only to disastrous results.

Unless we're saying that not being able to drink alcohol until 21 is a heavier burden than the cruel subjugation of the Romans that Jesus and Paul told us to accept, then this argument is rather thin.

PS - We live in a world where drunk-driving is a reality and irresponsible teenagers cause a higher percentage of accidents than the eldery, so others drinking is [i]certainly[/i] a communal issue.[/quote]
I think the main cause of teenage drinking problems is the fact that their parents aren't as involved in their lives and don't exercise proper authority. Where I grew up, most teens were spoiled rotten and parents would allow their children to get into bad situations (like going to parties at friends' houses where parents are not present) and then are shocked when their children have car accidents and/or give themselves alcohol poisoning. I usually disagree with everything Hilary Clinton says, but it does take a village to raise a child, and most parents are too busy working for the Man to develop relationships with their children, know who their friends are and build rapport with other parents.

One of my good friends from college was raised Baptist and wasn't allowed to drink until she turned 21. When her parents sent her to La Sorbonne for a semester abroad, they allowed her to drink because it's legal. Unfortunately, she'd never even tasted alcohol and had no idea what her limits were. She ended up having her first glass of wine with a group of students and professors and had a really bad reaction. After making several outlandish statements and uncharitable remarks in front of her professors, she got sick. I'd rather let my child make those kind of mistakes after Uncle so-and-so's funeral than do something scandalous around a college professor in a fancy French restaurant.

It's a lot easier to teach your children good manners early in life than to correct bad habits once they get older. It's like putting the toothpaste back in the tube. When a person turns 21, their college years are over, or they've been working in the world for a few years and may either be married or preparing for it. If they have no foundation, they'll probably end up in the near occasion of sin quite often as they make new friends. Out of concern for my [future] children's souls, I'd rather teach them before they leave home so they know how to keep themselves out of the near occasion of sin. I don't think it makes sense for the government to impede my ability to do what is best for the souls of my children.

Edited October 15, 2007 by photosynthesis

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1403002' date='Oct 15 2007, 10:02 AM']The Catechism comes out very clear against drugs, so that point is moot.

Again, what a grim world it would be if we had to follow every whim of the government as long as it didn't directly make us do immoral things. This is not what Jesus commanded of us, this is not what the Catechism commands of us.

The catechism is very clear that the government does not have absolute jurisdiction over every aspect of our lives, and that we are only required to follow a just exercise of their authority over things which they have the authority to exercise authority over.

We only have to follow the government when it exercises its authority justly. Your absolutized view of government authority is outside of the tradition of Catholic obedience to authority, IMHO.

UNJUST is exercising authority over something that the state does not have authority over. Daily dietary habits: government doesn't have the authority. What food and drink I want to have or I want my children to grow up on, the state does not have authority over. God has not given them that authority, and there is no authority except from God.[/quote]

Well I will have to disagree with your humble opinion, my friend. As will the government and the Bible. You are still ignoring the very specific addresses that I mentioned which were objectively MUCH more serious...paying subjugation taxes and helping enemy soldiers carry equipment?? And we're saying not being able to drink until 21 is worse??? We're not even talking about an outright ban, but rather a mere [i]regulation[/i]! Sheesh. The Romans would have loved you.

As for the Catechism, you are mistaking the absence of a specific address for tolerance, which it is not. The government has authority to govern. We've already established that. This includes things like setting speed limits, taxes, safety regulations, environmental protection laws, etc.

[b]Just because my conscience doesn't have a problem with it, doesn't mean I can start driving my stockcar 200 mph down the highway![/b]

It's legalism to suggest that the Catechism must specifically list all the laws we [i]really[/i] have to follow. That's actually how the Jews in Matthew tried to trick Jesus.

...

So now that we've made this thread the typically ugly debate about trivial things, let's take this a different direction. I do understand where you are coming from with this. It can be a major source of frustration, and it was for me at times in my life before I was 21. It's certainly arguable, as well, that marijuana should be a regulatory category similar to alcohol. That's just the breaks, though. We still have a responsibility to be humble and submit to these laws, even if we don't like it. Ultimately, I think we find it's for our own good, as Christ (and Paul) taught us these lessons so that we find a deeper connection to the holiest of submission that is to God's Will.

[Aloysius]

I'm not being legalistic or suggesting that the Catechism has to list out every law: I'm saying that the Catechism does not say we are required to follow any law that doesn't make us do something immoral, it says we have to follow every law that the government has the authority to make. I went into this much more in the old thread, which I believe is closed due to the nastiness that ensued, but suffice it to say: the government has boundaries to its authority; those boundaries are not merely "no laws that are immoral"

As regards your examples from the Romans: these are things that the government has authority to do: protect its citizens, require its citizens to help in that protection. These things fall into the jurisdiction of the government. It is not comparable at all to the frivolous laws of modernity. I said a lot more on the subject in the other thread.

This is not about a frustrated youth, this is about a firm moral belief in my traditional culture, a firm moral belief in the positive good of alcohol consumption by minors under parental authority, about the proper role of government and the proper authority of government.

My reading of the Catechism is that the government must be obeyed when it makes laws about subjects which are within its competence. These laws overstep onto things which are the proper competence of the parents and as such, I do not obey them, and do not believe that the Church asks me to obey them. I do not obey any and all laws so long as they do not require me to do something immoral, I obey any and all laws which are justly binding upon me, frivolous laws like this are not within the proper competence of government authority and thus I do not follow them.

Let me ask you a question: if the government made it illegal for your children to eat bananas, would you follow that law and forbid your children from eating bananas?

[XIX]

Probably. I don't wanna get fined. I'd like to know what it's illegal to eat bananas. If it was to keep them from going extinct, then i'd definitely follow the law. Eat apples instead. Eat some flippin' grapes.

Photo has a good point about raising your kids the right way. I kinda agree with her.
[quote]UNJUST is exercising authority over something that the state does not have authority over. Daily dietary habits: government doesn't have the authority. What food and drink I want to have or I want my children to grow up on, the state does not have authority over. God has not given them that authority, and there is no authority except from God.[/quote]I don't think the government has the authority to set speed limits. I'm gonna do 110 on the highway.

Honestly, who gives you the authority to judge what within government authority?

Edited October 15, 2007 by XIX

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1403055' date='Oct 15 2007, 01:15 PM']I'm not being legalistic or suggesting that the Catechism has to list out every law: I'm saying that the Catechism does not say we are required to follow any law that doesn't make us do something immoral, it says we have to follow every law that the government has the authority to make. I went into this much more in the old thread, which I believe is closed due to the nastiness that ensued, but suffice it to say: the government has boundaries to its authority; those boundaries are not merely "no laws that are immoral"

As regards your examples from the Romans: these are things that the government has authority to do: protect its citizens, require its citizens to help in that protection. These things fall into the jurisdiction of the government. It is not comparable at all to the frivolous laws of modernity. I said a lot more on the subject in the other thread.

This is not about a frustrated youth, this is about a firm moral belief in my traditional culture, a firm moral belief in the positive good of alcohol consumption by minors under parental authority, about the proper role of government and the proper authority of government.

My reading of the Catechism is that the government must be obeyed when it makes laws about subjects which are within its competence. These laws overstep onto things which are the proper competence of the parents and as such, I do not obey them, and do not believe that the Church asks me to obey them. I do not obey any and all laws so long as they do not require me to do something immoral, I obey any and all laws which are justly binding upon me, frivolous laws like this are not within the proper competence of government authority and thus I do not follow them.

Let me ask you a question: if the government made it illegal for your children to eat bananas, would you follow that law and forbid your children from eating bananas?[/quote]

Here's two fundamental problems with what you're suggesting.

#1. [u]You are still trying to skirt over the examples from Scripture[/u]. Carrying a soldier's equipment for a mile is NOT for the good of the public in any way whatsoever. And yet Jesus said to to it for [b]two[/b]. We are to go the EXTRA mile.

If that means not eating bananas in your fun example , if that means not speeding, if that means paying taxes that seem unfair, then we have to do it. Jesus couldn't have said it more clearly or used examples that were more personal or repulsive to his audience.

#2. [u]You make a critical mistake by trying to suggest there is no protective element to kids not drinking until 21[/u]. That is PRECISELY the reason that the law exists, to keep a controlled substance out of the hands of those who are not yet mature enough to handle it.

I see what you are trying to say that it really should be the parents teaching the responsibility. Agreed 100%. But just because we don't [i]like[/i] the law, that alone does not give us the authority to break it.

Who in this forum could find the justice in carrying an occupying soldier's bag? Or his coat? Or anything? What if we were taken over by terrorists? The Romans were as much terrorists to the Jews as AlQuieda is to us. I can tell you it wouldn't be fun to carry Osama's bags. I would hate it more than anything.

But that is the hard path Christ calls us to.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1403038' date='Oct 15 2007, 02:35 PM']The government has authority to govern. We've already established that. This includes things like setting speed limits, taxes, safety regulations, environmental protection laws, etc.[/quote]
I tend to look at things from a more conservative/libertarian perspective, so I don't like the idea of government taking on roles that traditionally have been assigned to parents. In a sense, we give the government 'permission' to regulate us when we aren't doing what we're supposed to do. Maybe the American government wouldn't have to go to such great lengths to save us from ourselves if families were stronger and modern parents weren't such selfish slackers.

In my humble opinion, the breakdown of the family is largely caused by modernism, materialism and feminism. Women aren't finding fulfillment in their vocation as wives & mothers, men are working longer and harder to pay for more and more material things. They're both too busy to be there for their kids. And children who grow up with both a mother and father are incredibly blessed, because most youths don't have that privilege anymore. I didn't. Drunken debauchery is just a symptom of a bigger social disease and a high drinking age isn't the solution.

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1403060' date='Oct 15 2007, 02:03 PM']I tend to look at things from a more conservative/libertarian perspective, so I don't like the idea of government taking on roles that traditionally have been assigned to parents. In a sense, we give the government 'permission' to regulate us when we aren't doing what we're supposed to do. Maybe the American government wouldn't have to go to such great lengths to save us from ourselves if families were stronger and modern parents weren't such selfish slackers.

In my humble opinion, the breakdown of the family is largely caused by modernism, materialism and feminism. Women aren't finding fulfillment in their vocation as wives & mothers, men are working longer and harder to pay for more and more material things. They're both too busy to be there for their kids. And children who grow up with both a mother and father are incredibly blessed, because most youths don't have that privilege anymore. I didn't. Drunken debauchery is just a symptom of a bigger social disease and a high drinking age isn't the solution.[/quote]

Great analysis! I couldn't agree with you more.

However, as I already stated, our personal opinions about what would make society better do not negate Christ's words to go the extra mile when it comes to respecting authority. (Per my last post, etc., and so forth.)

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1403057' date='Oct 15 2007, 04:37 PM']Here's two fundamental problems with what you're suggesting.

#1. [u]You are still trying to skirt over the examples from Scripture[/u]. Carrying a soldier's equipment for a mile is NOT for the good of the public in any way whatsoever. And yet Jesus said to to it for [b]two[/b]. We are to go the EXTRA mile.

If that means not eating bananas in your fun example , if that means not speeding, if that means paying taxes that seem unfair, then we have to do it. Jesus couldn't have said it more clearly or used examples that were more personal or repulsive to his audience.[/quote]
Roman laws requiring Jews to pay taxes and carry a soldier's belongings were set up to protect the interests of the Roman government. As Roman citizens, they were required to serve the government in this way, even though the government was taking advantage of them in the process. Yes, Jesus does call to us to bear these burdens.

It is a little silly that an 18-year old

When I was younger, I thought drinking ages were unjust because they impeded my ability to do what I wanted. Now that I'm older and am thinking more and more about marriage and motherhood, I have a problem with the fact that the government isn't allowing parents to do what they think is right for their children's souls. If I were to follow the letter of the law, my children would not have even a sip of wine until their 21st birthday. That's not consistent with the kind of authentic Catholic upbringing I want for my kids.

This isn't about supporting the mission of our government in spite of disagreement. It's about a parent's right to pass on their culture.

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1403057' date='Oct 15 2007, 04:37 PM']#2. [u]You make a critical mistake by trying to suggest there is no protective element to kids not drinking until 21[/u]. That is PRECISELY the reason that the law exists, to keep a controlled substance out of the hands of those who are not yet mature enough to handle it.[/quote]
Sure, the government means well. The decision to raise the drinking age was largely brought on by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who obviously felt that it was the government's responsibility to solve this problem.

Every child is different. God gives mothers a special gift of knowing their child's needs better than [i]anyone [/i]else. It's part of our feminine genius. And who is more qualified to discipline unruly adolescents than a father? The government can certainly protect its own interests, and we should respect that. However, it's our responsibility to protect our children.

I'll admit that some adolescents under 21 don't have caring parents. But maybe the government should be holding those parents to a higher standard.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1403098' date='Oct 15 2007, 03:58 PM']This isn't about supporting the mission of our government in spite of disagreement. It's about a parent's right to pass on their culture.[/quote]
Actually, others seemed to have implied that some states in the US do allow parents serving alcohol to their children in their own homes. So, if this is legal, then it would be okay for a minor to consume alcohol in this way.
This would actually make some sense as well as it would <hopefully> encourage parents to teach kids responsibility and moderation in this area.

Would you agree with your <underaged> children consuming alcohol without your knowledge?

[quote]If I were to follow the letter of the law, my children would not have even a sip of wine until their 21st birthday. That's not consistent with the kind of authentic Catholic upbringing I want for my kids.[/quote]
I was wondering what you meant by "authentic Catholic upbringing"? My guess would be you are discussing your kids being able to recieve the Eucharist under the Species of the Precious Blood of our Lord. I do believe states do have laws that allow children to recieve <the accidents of> wine in religious ceremonies.
If not, why would the consumption of wine be necessary for an 'authentic Catholic' upbringing?

Edited October 15, 2007 by CatholicCid

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1403100' date='Oct 15 2007, 03:18 PM']Actually, others seemed to have implied that some states in the US do allow parents serving alcohol to their children in their own homes.[/quote]

I've heard this implied as well, and I'm all ears to someone documenting such a law. Perhaps it is true, but I've yet to hear anyone prove it, so until then, back to the original discussion...

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1403098' date='Oct 15 2007, 02:58 PM']Roman laws requiring Jews to pay taxes and carry a soldier's belongings were set up to protect the interests of the Roman government. As Roman citizens, they were required to serve the government in this way, even though the government was taking advantage of them in the process. Yes, Jesus does call to us to bear these burdens.[/quote]

Considering Christ's command is the whole basis of the Catholic understanding of this issue, I simply can't let you dismiss this so flippantly.

Carrying a soldier's bag is "protecting the interests" of Rome? Come now, seems a bit of a stretch. It was a purposefully demeaning law which is precisely why Christ used it as his example.

BUT even if such a law was drafted with the intent of protecting state interests, then you've defeated your own argument, because that is precisely what our drinking restrictions are about. Our government views controlled substances in our culture as a very serious issue and has taken upon itself to regulate it, for our own good.

So my question to you is [b]if you believe the drinking laws were passed with noble intentions, as you said, then how could you possibly defend disobeying this law and yet agree that we should follow Christ's words to follow laws about carrying the bags of our persecutors[/b]?

The latter is obviously the harshest task, and if that is our precedent, it tells us everything we need to know about the former.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1403112' date='Oct 15 2007, 04:27 PM']I've heard this implied as well, and I'm all ears to someone documenting such a law. Perhaps it is true, but I've yet to hear anyone prove it, so until then, back to the original discussion... [/quote]

This phamplet from New York seems to imply they do allow it:

Section 65-c Unlawful possession of an alcoholic beverage with the intent to consume by persons under the age of twenty-one years. This law is used when an underage person is i[u]n possession of an alcoholic beverage with intent to consume and the alcoholic beverage was not given to the underage person by his/her parent or legal guardian[/u].

[url="http://www.oasas.state.ny.us/ud/documents/AlcoholandYourChild.pdf"]http://www.oasas.state.ny.us/ud/documents/...ndYourChild.pdf[/url]

From Texas:

Sec.106.04. CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL BY A MINOR
(a) A minor commits an offense if he consumes an alcoholic beverage.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the alcoholic beverage was consumed in the visible presence of the minor's adult parent, guardian, or spouse

[url="http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/leginfo/minorcode.htm"]http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/leginfo/minorcode.htm[/url]

My legal-lese is weak, however, I believe that the Texas law is stating it is alright if the beverage was consumed in the visible presence of the parent, ect... (Not sure?)


Virginia, however, seems to be the opposite with:

It is illegal for anyone under 21 to possess any alcoholic beverage.

[url="http://www.abc.state.va.us/Education/parent2/Parent.pdf"]http://www.abc.state.va.us/Education/parent2/Parent.pdf[/url]


On the lighter side, is it ever okay for a moose to consume alcohol? In Alaska, that's a no.
In Fairbanks, AK, it is illegal to serve alcoholic beverages to moose.

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1403125' date='Oct 15 2007, 03:45 PM']This phamplet from New York seems to imply they do allow it:

Section 65-c Unlawful possession of an alcoholic beverage with the intent to consume by persons under the age of twenty-one years. This law is used when an underage person is i[u]n possession of an alcoholic beverage with intent to consume and the alcoholic beverage was not given to the underage person by his/her parent or legal guardian[/u].

[url="http://www.oasas.state.ny.us/ud/documents/AlcoholandYourChild.pdf"]http://www.oasas.state.ny.us/ud/documents/...ndYourChild.pdf[/url]

From Texas:

Sec.106.04. CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL BY A MINOR
(a) A minor commits an offense if he consumes an alcoholic beverage.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the alcoholic beverage was consumed in the visible presence of the minor's adult parent, guardian, or spouse

[url="http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/leginfo/minorcode.htm"]http://www.tabc.state.tx.us/leginfo/minorcode.htm[/url]

My legal-lese is weak, however, I believe that the Texas law is stating it is alright if the beverage was consumed in the visible presence of the parent, ect... (Not sure?)
Virginia, however, seems to be the opposite with:

It is illegal for anyone under 21 to possess any alcoholic beverage.

[url="http://www.abc.state.va.us/Education/parent2/Parent.pdf"]http://www.abc.state.va.us/Education/parent2/Parent.pdf[/url]
On the lighter side, is it ever okay for a moose to consume alcohol? In Alaska, that's a no.
In Fairbanks, AK, it is illegal to serve alcoholic beverages to moose.[/quote]

Oh, the moose. It needs its own smiley

Seems like there are indeed state's with stipulations, so the overall legality of it depends on the state. I'm fairly certainly these "in the presence of adults" rules are rather rare. There was no such thing where I grew up, that I know for sure.

It's always quite true that even with those clauses on the books, it is a very fine line. Parents have gone to jail for condoning parties in their own homes, even though they thought it was okay. But anyway, that's a bit besides the point...

All my comments have applied to situations when it is illegal in all non-religious circumstances for minors to consume alcohol.

[Dismas]

[quote name='XIX' post='1402524' date='Oct 14 2007, 09:17 PM']I tend to be opposed to underage drinking. It's not objectively immoral for a 20 year old to drink alcohol. But in the event that the drinking age is a stupid law, it is still not an unjust law. It doesn't prevent you from any moral obligations, as abstaining from drink is not immoral; ergo, I would argue that the law is not unjust.

We are still bound to Caesar. Any man-made law that does not directly conflict with divine law is to be obeyed.[/quote]

There are sometimes provisions regarding parent/guardian responsibility.

Of course, a parent has legal responsibility in this matter for his or her children/dependents, not their friends, so drinking parties are a no-no, unless it's a family reunion or similar circumstance.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Dismas

[friendofJPII]

I agree w/ photo's comments....and in the ideal Catholic/Christian family, children should be taught how to drink moderately if and when the parents feel it is appropriate. I'm not sure what I would do with my own children because I don't drink at all....not because I believe it is immoral....I just don't like the taste of alcohol. After the age of 14 or 15 I might allow them to have a sip of wine during Holiday dinner, but that's prob it, unless my husband felt they should be exposed more often. However, some children do not have responsible parents, therefore the laws should be kept on the book...I think the fact that it is illegal is a deterrent to some teenagers (maybe, I guess that's debatable

Edited October 15, 2007 by friendofJPII

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='friendofJPII' post='1403148' date='Oct 15 2007, 04:29 PM']However, some children do not have responsible parents, therefore the laws should be kept on the book...I think the fact that it is illegal is a deterrent to some teenagers (maybe, I guess that's debatable[/quote]


Hmmm So the laws should be kept on the books but we don't necessarily have to follow them if we're [i]responsible[/i]? Interesting, I thought keeping the law is part of what being a responsible adult is about. Silly me

Going the extra mile...Laws of the Romans...Jesus's commandments...Moose...etc. etc.

Edited October 15, 2007 by PapaHilarious

[friendofJPII]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1403161' date='Oct 15 2007, 05:40 PM']Hmmm So the laws should be kept by the [i]irresponsible[/i] parents? Interesting, I thought keeping the law is part of what being a responsible adult is about. Silly me

Going the extra mile...Laws of the Romans...Jesus's commandments...Moose...etc. etc.[/quote]

I really don't have a firm opinion on this topic, honestly, since alchohol is not a major part of my life. I'll have to think about it further...I'm not sure if the laws are helpful or not, or if parents are morally obligated to follow them, even if they have their child's best interests at heart. That being said, tho, I think it is a good thing that 13 year olds can't buy alchohol.

Edited October 15, 2007 by friendofJPII